What to read next

11 Comments

  1. 1

    Rohit

    Who the hell is this guy?
    He replied “Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to re manufacturing and alterations requirements.
    Does Livefest just ask random guys for approval?

    1. Tejas Project Defination stage started in 1988 and Phase 1 of Full fledged development started in 1993 with the induction date being IOC -2 that is Dec 2013. So the development time frame was 25 years or 20 years depending on from where you wanna start the count.

    2. Short range ? Tejas carries 2458 kgs of internal fuel giving it a range of 1700 kms. Gripen C in comparison carries 2270 kgs of fuel with a range of 1600 kms. However Gripen advertises its range with 3 x drop tanks , that is 3200 kms , roughly equivalent to Tejas’s 3000 kms with 3x Drop tanks.

    3. Poor Payload ? Tejas can carry upto 4 tons of external payload, as compared to 5 tons of a Gripen C

    4. High costs? Thats laughable! The Tejas mk1 unit costed just around 25-30mil$ a piece fly away , as against Gripen C’s 40-60 mil$. (This point is the most laughable among all)

    “licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.” I think it is fair to say that it is inferior in almost all metrics to the similar Saab Gripen.”

    Why? And pay more for what?
    An inferior flight control system?
    Lower Thrust to Weight Ratio?
    Lesser use of composites in the airframe?
    Higher Wing loading?
    Lesser Stealth?
    No Naval version?

    No Thank You! Tejas anyday above Gripen!

    Reply
    1. 1.1

      Chandra Shekhar Singh

      Perfect. Saab is just an assembler with every nut and bolt imported.

      Reply
    2. 1.2

      Hush Kit

      Hi Rohit, Thanks for the feedback. I will attempt to answer your questions & points.

      1. The quote is from Justin Bronk, he is a Research Fellow specialising in combat airpower and technology in the Military Sciences team at RUSI. He is also Editor of the RUSI Defence Systems online journal.

      2. The Indian Air Force disagrees with you on this point (https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/tejas-indian-air-force-f-16-mig-21-fighter-planes-ajit-doval-1083350-2017-11-10)

      3. According to the ADA, it can carry up 3500kg of external stores,
      only marginally more than a BAE Systems Hawk 128 (3085 kg)
      (https://web.archive.org/web/20150206093524/http://tejas.gov.in/IOC-Brochure.pdf) Even current Gripens can carry 5000kg. E/F will be 6000kg

      4. Depends how you arrive at your figures. Dividing the number of aircraft built by project costs to date. Fly away unit costs alone are a bit misleading for the producer nation of a system.

      “An inferior flight control system? ” In what sense?

      “Lower Thrust to Weight Ratio?” CAG reported decencies in both thrust and weight.

      Lesser use of composites in the airframe? I think you’re correct on this. A quick look puts Tejas at 45% of weight (which is very impressive) and Gripen at 25% https://ihsmarkit.com/pdf/Composites-Aerospace-Applications-whitepaper_264558110913046532.pdf http://csirturns75.in/light-weight-composites-future-of-aircraft-materials/ This is maybe to be expected as there were 13 years separating their first flights. Composites are a means to end though, I was speaking to a stress engineer the other day about how composites are often unnecessarily included (in civil designs anyway) in the name of modernity, but often the cons outweigh the pros.

      “Lesser Stealth?” There are no reliable public domain sources for this.

      “No Naval version?” Not currently, but Brazil takes the idea seriously.

      I’ve yet to speak to an analyst who would favourably compare Tejas to the Gripen.

      I hope this helps, and thanks again for your feedback. Sorry to inspire ire, I know military aircraft (and their relationship to feelings of national pride) are an emotive subject. I hope I have not caused offence.

      Thanks Hush-Kit

      Reply
      1. 1.2.1

        Rohit

        So my reply to this was deleted.

        I guess its pretty much known what paid media journalism is today.

        Reply
      2. 1.2.2

        akash

        Hi Hush-kit, reading comprehension seems to be lacking in your reply.

        1. Justin Bronk – and what makes him any sort of expert on India or Indian aviation? He has neither visited India nor does he have any significant technology experience. What you did was provide an appeal to authority, and a flawed one at that. IAF serving personnel rank the quality of systems in the Tejas, including many indigenous items as being above anything else they have in service and matching the best of imports. The high threshold established by the IAF SQRs is such that even so, the IAF wants continued improvements in the Tejas. Do google for Commander Maolankar interview Tejas to get an idea as versus relying on Bronks or beancounters.

        2. Your comment citing a Mail Today article misses the point that the IAF, in a disingenous move, compared the Tejas Mk1 to a Gripen E/F. Something which the MOD picked up on, and hence the Tejas Mk2 program was launched.
        Instead you might want to read up on Tejas from serving IAF pilots who compare it favorably avionics and flight control performance wise, to the upgraded Mirage 2000 in IAF service.

        3. Carrying weight is only one part of the answer. The bigger issue is to what range and with what overall airframe performance. Comparing the Tejas to the Hawk, hence is a joke. One is a pure fighter, the other a mostly subsonic platform whose only real transonic oriented platform was barely sold abroad and has not even been kept really current. Those 3.5 Tons on Tejas can be spread across BVR, WVR, LGBs and a host of other weapons. Good luck finding a Hawk which can do the same today. Your E/F brochure bashing is equally flawed. SAABs empty weight targets are yet to be met. Their paper specs remain that.

        4. The Tejas had a Quad FBW from day one. CAGs comments are meaningless without the context of how ambitious the IAF ASQRs are.
        As regards analysts and their opinions, who cares? These analysts have no access to IAF or ADA data and like Justin publish ridiculously inaccurate claims on programs they have literally no idea about.

        5. Its amazing how patronizing you are viz programs you are literally ignorant about. You run an aviation website and when corrected, bring in references to national pride. To what end?
        Do you seriously think the whole world revolves only around the west?

        Reply
        1. 1.2.2.1

          akash

          ” He replied “Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to re manufacturing and alterations requirements.

          One may well think this refers to the Eurofighter, a platform Bronk constantly plays up as the best thing since Sandwiches and Tea.
          Clearly, the chap has no idea of aerospace and real world efforts and how arduous they can be.

          Reply
        2. 1.2.2.2

          Rohit

          2. I would add to the fact, that the mail today article has purposely downplayed the capabilities of the Tejas mk1, whether it be the range or payload or maintenance.

          3. At 100% fuel, Tejas can carry 3.5 tons while Gripen C can carry round about 4.5 tons (exact figure is hard to know as Gripen is not publishing its loaded weight figure)
          However to make it look more rosey Gripen C advertises its payload at 5.3 tons which can be achieved by sacrificing fuel.
          According to Group Capt. Ranga, the Tejas can hit a 4 tons payload as well, most likely using the same means.

          Reply
  2. 2

    Vild

    So many factual inaccuracies in this that i stopped reading, lol. This guy works in a firm selling news and views on aerospace, seems to be know very little about Tejas though. 20 years dev time not 30. And its not inferior in all specs to Griphen.

    Reply
  3. 3

    Chandra Shekhar Singh

    He seems to be an expert of some other areas. He clearly lacs any substantial knowledge in aviation. Ya he is looking like a Saab agent.

    Reply
  4. 5

    Ram

    As long as foreign propaganda BS like this “opinion piece” continue to be peddled in Indian media websites, what can we say, pish-posh. If import lobby sections within IAF suffer from best of brochuritis to selectively target Indian programs, the brochure experts like these are most happy to oblige only.
    To my fellow Indians don’t worry have curry, SP-09 flew yesterday. Let’s move on.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . Livefist Defence | Managed by Host My Blog