ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[laughingbuddha]

Multi-role perhaps but it has no staying power and tiny weapons payload. At least the mk-1. Below 1 hr flying time?

 

[ersakthivel]

Multi-role perhaps but it has no staying power and tiny weapons payload. At least the mk-1. Below 1 hr flying time?

Cheers!,

Multi role means multi role, there are no perhaps,

Tejas does not need any magic potion to increase its tiny load and staying power.

It has more or less the same ball park figures for internal fuel, external weapon load, maximum take off weight among single engined fighters in proportion.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...8-combat-aircraft-technology-evolution-8.html

follow the discussion from page-8 to 12 in the above link.

There is no need to repeat the same here.

It clearly explains how to make sense of internal fuel capacity , empty weight and fuel fraction to get a rough idea about range.

Various makers use different altitude, loiter, and load out condition to give their combat range and ferry range.

After going through it add your informed comments about the tejas range in this thread.

 

[ersakthivel]

below is the image of LMs 6th gen concept, looks like tejas has the same wing form , a real beauty. blended wing lifting body design.

All we have to do for tejas mk-3 stealth is to add an engine , reshape the tail , provision for internal weapon storage, of course it becomes another different fighter after modification. Easy to say , tough to do.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What is the payload of Tejas MK-1 ? also how many fighter shows there endurance without fuel tanks ..

Tejas has a range of 3000kms with fuel tanks ..

Multi-role perhaps but it has no staying power and tiny weapons payload. At least the mk-1. Below 1 hr flying time?

 

[ersakthivel]

J-10 has, but not LCA. LCA's information has been quite consistent. Like I said, go back and start reading. You will also realize how my own opinion has changed since then. I was a LCA supporter too, in 2009, but at the time IOC was promised in 2010.

There is no more any LCA.It is officially tejas since 2001.


Stop using the word. LCA was a concept for replacing the short ranged interceptor Mig-21 with a Mirage-2000 type multi role fighter from the project definition stage , since 1984.

It's first authentic spec was given by Distinguished IAF Airmarshal WOOLON , also a HAL chairman ,

LCA Tejas - Featured Articles: The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)

The specs he gave out was ,

topspeed-mach 1.5 at stratosphere, (service ceiling, I suppose),

super sonic at seal level,

4 ton external stores,

empty weight -5.5 tons,

loaded weight -8.5 tons,

maximum take off weight -12.5 tons.


Max ITR -30 deg, Max STR-17 deg,(this STR was same the one achieved by F-16 A with much smaller wing area, hence much higher wing loading than tejas)

G loads not specified.


Range-http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/47398-combat-aircraft-technology-evolution-8.html
Everything about range is discussed here.


A naval variant was also planned.

So LCA (Now officially Tejas ) program was never about finding a plane to replace the role of Mig-21, It was about building a plane to replace legacy Mig-21s with modern 4.5th gen fighter with relaxed static stability, 4 channel all digital fly by wire , low RCS , composite air frame all glass cockit, low wing lading compound or cranked delta,along with a fully dedicated naval platform as well with High ITR for the missile age.None of this was present on Mig-21

Note all these imprints are present every other modern 4.5th gen or 5th gen fighter program initiated by any major power during the developmental time of tejas and after it

There can be no dispute on the above facts as there are official links to substantiate the spec in tejas governmental website, where a long nd detailed article was posted which listed out all the challenges that ADA -HAL combine is undertaking which is more than what any experienced fighter maker like SAAB did at that time for grippen.

Also the distinguished Air marshal has said that considering the tech challenges involved the realistic time line for finishing tejas is 2010. Even for that 2010 dead line , Air mashal Woolen did not take into account requirement creep by IAF like replacing the lesser weight lesser launch stress inducing R-60 with higher weight , higher launch stress inducing more deadly R-73 at the extreme wing tip pylon in 2004 and a whole lot of other new requirements which led to FSED phase-II in 2004, which added another couple of years to the delay.

Any one well versed in structural engineering on the stress loads and force couples of cantilever beam will understand , that to cater to the higher load requirement at the extreme edge of the wing a substantial amount of structural strengthening has to happen at the place where wing and fuselage meet.

According to scientific advisor to PM Parthasarathy and another distinguished expert who wrote a column of tejas this R-73 change and many other spec creep by IAF necessitated FSED phase -II in 2004 with entirely new redesigning of the wing structure.

The case to support the indigenous LCA programme

Ashok Parthasarathi and Raman Puri

The facts with regard to perceived cost and time overruns and performance shortfalls in perspective


There have been several articles in the press critical of projects of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in general, and specifically the programme relating to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), now named Tejas, and the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Indeed, whenever a significant event that involves indigenous R&D, particularly defence-related, occurs, or a crucial decision is set to be taken, articles originating from within the defence "system," or from vendors who see their business prospects threatened, appear. The real facts relating to the programme need to be put in context.

The two issues on which the LCA project is criticised are cost and time overruns, and performance shortfalls. As regards the so-called time overruns, when the zero/go date for the project is taken as 1983, the critics fail to mention that what was sanctioned in 1983 was an ad hoc 560 crore, pending full preparation of the Project Definition Document (PDD) — which is a fundamental step even to start the design and development process. The costs were to be finalised based on the PDD.

This required the setting up of infrastructure in a hundred academic institutions and R&D laboratories and building up expertise to undertake the fundamental and application-oriented R&D required, and harnessing the design and engineering effort available largely in the public sector units for such a complex, state-of-the-art aircraft. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) discussed with Air Headquarters the Air Staff Requirement (ASR). Air Headquarters had requirements added to what was originally to be a replacement for the MiG-21. As a result, the ASR that was finalised was practically that for a Mirage 2000. But in the public perception the LCA remained as a replacement for MiG 21.

It look seven years, till 1990, to formulate the PDD. Based on this the ADA, in a report to the Ministry of Defence in 1990, gave a time-frame of seven years to develop the LCA and projected a financial requirement of 4,000 crore. This included the building of four prototypes also. There had been a 25-year gap since the only fighter aircraft ever indigenously designed, developed and manufactured, namely the HF-24 Marut, had entered squadron service. So the period of seven years to set up a more advanced R&D infrastructure and build up even the core personnel needed to develop the technologies that the LCA's ASR and PDD called for, was modest.

After consideration, including by special committees, the Indian Air Force and the government gave the real operational go-ahead only in late-1993. Even that "go-ahead" covered the development of only two Technology Demonstrator Aircraft (TDA) without weaponisation. The funding approved was only of 2,000 crore — half the amount requested for full-scale development. The first TDA flew in 2001, eight years from the real operational 'go' date, despite much additional R&D work that had to be undertaken due to the U.S. sanctions imposed in 1998.

Comments appeared in the media in 2001 quoting IAF sources to the effect that what the ADA had achieved was just a flying machine that was yet to be weaponised. Considering the nature and scope of the approval accorded in 1993, what else was to be expected? Using the money sanctioned for two TDAs, the ADA built four. Full-scale development, for which another 2,000-plus crore was finally sanctioned, thus started only in late-2001. Some 1,200 hours of flight testing was to be undertaken to secure Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) from the IAF.

At that point, apart from the weaponisation requirements the project had to undergo extensive redesign to accommodate an air-to-air missile chosen by the IAF, which was considerably heavier and longer than what had been specified till 2000. The IAF had again changed its mind. This necessitated the complete redesign of the wing structure, using only composite materials in order to keep the weight within limits. The period of this redesign was also utilised to upgrade the avionics, to a completely open architecture.

Consequently, in "generational terms" the LCA is a fourth generation-plus aircraft with full networking capabilities. This made it more than comparable to anything the IAF had, and possibly would have, even after it acquires the 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) now on tender, with first deliveries due eight years hence.
On the engine

And by 2009 first Navy and then IAF asked for another set of incremental performance which necessitated mk-2 program.

Now by 2014 december we are racing towards FOC with first induction SP-1 doing ground run and the SP-2 in the final stages of production .

SO what are the specs of tejas (still LCA according to you) Now?

1. top speed at service ceiling ---mach 1.6(which is an increase over original requirement of mach 1.5)

2.Empty weight ----6.5 ton (original target 5.5 ton), the reason for increase is R-73 new requirement which led to entirely newer wing design,plus as decklander stated in one of his posts that stringent the rolling TO requirement which necessitated higher sink rate , to achieve this the undercarriage and fuselage needed to be extra strong(clarification needed on this aspect).

3.take off clean --9.8 tons(original target 8.5 tons , the 9.5 ton weight now include gun ammo, litening pod, all seven pylons, along with two r-73 missiles weighing 75 kg each.note all these stuffs were added to external stores category in grippen C/D , but in tejas these weights are added to take off clean or loaded weight which ever is proper )

4.max take off weight---13.2 tons(original 12. 5 tons, Max take off weight has only increased, not decreased . So you can not hold it as design flaw. )

5. Weapon load----3.5 tons(note this does not include--gun ammo, litening pod, all seven pylons, along with two r-73 missiles weighing 75 kg each, So a shortfall of 0.35 ton at the most. if we include the weight of the litening pod then it comes very close to original 4 ton weapon load. So where is the shortfall?. In grippen C/D this weapon load is shown as high because they have included gun ammo, litening pod, all seven pylons, along with two WVR missiles weighing all in weapon load. So in reality the tejas mk-1 and grippen C/D have equal internal fuel, equal weapon load, and almost the same range of internal fuel.)

So there is no reason for a 2009 LCA supporter to turn a critic in 2014!!!!

besides that now it can do in flight pressure refueling in three minute flat which significantly increases its endurance and range acting as a force multiplier in defending home skies,

A potent HMDS enabled R-73 deadly WVR combo,

A radar with capacity to track at 100 plus Km range,

A pilot praise worthy Fly by wire system(even SAAB crashed their first grippen prototype due to fly by wire software faults and abandoned their own effort and contracted a US firm for doing fly by wire )

capability to port any Russian long range air to air missile that is presently on Su-30 MKI.

On STR front- tejas did complete a vertical loop in Aero india-2013 in twenty seconds , the same time taken by RAFALE, it took 25 seconds to complete
a horizontal loop with 6G and 20 deg AOA restriction.

Now AOA is opened up till 24 deg in IOC-2, For FOC G limit will go to 8G, So its timings will only get better with FOC, Since it has class leading HMDS R-73 high off boresight Visually cued WVR missile , which is not present even in RAFALE now .

any shortfall in STR does not matter at all, I have posted excerpts from greek air force chief which clearly state that lesser STR is no handicap for Greek Mirage-2000 pilots as the high Instantaneous turn rate provided by low wing loading delta wing of Mirage always gives it a first look , first shoot ability in close combat

.Incidentally the greek airforce Mirage-2000 has way lower TWR and a bit higher wing loading than tejas . So with tejas mk-1 scoring over Mirage-2000 on these two critical counts it will be even deadly along with HMDS R-73 missile combo.

For Mk-2 IAF is going to get,

ASEA radar, fully retractable refueling probe,9G limit, and way better high thrust engine , 5 ton weapon load, increased internal fuel load, better aerodynamics via better Length /Diameter ratio with increased fuselage length, and way higher ITR and STR as well.

So why complain?

 

[ersakthivel]

When RAFALE came for evaluation for MMRCAin 2004 it had no ASEA, IRST, HMDS, high off boresight visually cued dedicated close combat WVR missile like R-73. But other platforms like Super Hornets and F-16 had functioning ASEA.

What I wanted to point out was IAF did not reject rafale on these counts, because rafale is at the start of product lifecycle and F-16 , F-18 are at the end of product lifecycle and no scope for further improvements.

RAFALE had a lower wing loading lay out than F-16s , F-18s,

All of these holds good for tejas. tejas too is at the start of its product lifecycle and asea, IRST, FLIR,Sensor Fusion, FSO, along with better powered engine can all be added on to both tejas mk-1 and mk-2 in MLUs.

In the same way dassault while negotiating for kavery JV with GTRE for 90 Kn engine for the old k-10 project they were claiming that these engines can be ported on to rafale as MLU. So implicit in it is the truth the changes in fuselage and air inlet can be made to rafale airframe to put this higher power engine and get better specs like higher service ceiling , higher top speeds, and better G onset rates along with better flying performance.

Same holds good for both tejas mk-1 and mk-2. The engine tech of AMCA can be modified to benefit both of them in future to get better specs

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

T
he Tejas employs CFC materials for up
to 45% of its airframe, including in the
fuselage (doors and skins), wings
(skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin,
rudder, air brakes and landing gear
doors. Composites are used to make an
aircraft both lighter and stronger at
the same time compared to an all-
metal design, and the LCA's
percentage employment of CFCs is one
of the highest among contemporary
aircraft of its class. Apart from making
the plane much lighter, there are also
fewer joints or rivets, which increases
the aircraft's reliability and lowers its
susceptibility to structural fatigue
cracks.
The use of composites in the LCA
resulted in a 40% reduction in the
total number of parts compared to
using a metallic frame. Furthermore,
the number of fasteners has been
reduced by half in the composite
structure from the 10,000 that would
have been required in a metallic frame
design. The composite design also
helped to avoid about 2,000 holes
being drilled into the airframe. Overall,
the aircraft's weight is lowered by 21%
. While each of these factors can
reduce production costs, an additional
benefit — and significant cost savings
— is realised in the shorter time
required to assemble the aircraft —
seven months for the LCA as opposed
to 11 months using an all-metal
airframe.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

The ambitiousness of the LCA
programme in terms of pursuing self-
reliance in aviation technologies is
illustrated by the fact that out of a
total of 35 major avionics components
and line-replaceable units (LRUs), only
three involve foreign systems. These
are the multi-function displays (MFDs)
by Sextant (France) and Elbit (Israel),
the helmet-mounted display and sight
(HMDS) cueing system by Elbit, and the
laser pod supplied by Rafael (Israel).

 

[ersakthivel]

some home truths about the contorted development of F-16 and spate of accidents in its early days all attributable to ambitious spec creep

the following article posted by
@nitesh
gives an enlightening read , when rational debate was the norm ,

The guys who are bluffing that tejas mk-1 does not have this or that and tejas mk-2 will not haul 9 tons to 4500 Km

Enabling Technologies: Mig-21 & F-16 | Frontier India

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological trajectory of the F-16 called the Fighting Falcon reveals the problems that surfaced during its transition from the production floor to its induction into the air squadrons. Two manufacturers, Northrop and General Dynamics produced the prototypes that embodied the virtues of the combat-aircraft criteria of the 50s. The GD design got the approval"¦it weighed about 20,000 pounds and carried only a simple aerial cannon, Sidewinder missiles, and their fire-control systems.

Immediately after the series production clearance was accorded by the US Congress, the aircraft came under the purview of US Air Force's development and procurement bureaucracies. The full scale engineering production blueprint of USAF introduced various military specifications which added roughly two tons of new electronic equipment and other modifications. During prototype development some 25 air force personnel were involved"¦once production was cleared it had grown to over 200 and the contractor's team went from 150 to about 1,500. Gradually the aircraft mission got redefined"¦.instead of being a 100 per cent pure fighter, as originally envisaged, it got converted into a multi-mission aircraft to be used for attacking ground targets and for dropping nuclear bombs.

The structural and electronic packages justified by new missions raised the cost and degraded its performance as a fighter. Originally it was designed to withstand forces of 7.33g"¦..but the Configuration Control Committee increased it to 9g, which led to structural reinforcements and additional weight along with a gamut of avionics viz. Radar, ECM, etc all adding weight to the aircraft and cost to the Exchequer.

Installing a complex radar demanded more power and more cooling, which made the fuselage grow. End result"¦wings and tail had to be enlarged — the tail was not enlarged enough which reduced the aircraft stability in flight. It weighed 24,000 pounds instead of 20,000 pounds with a proportional reduction in acceleration, and was loaded heavily with hard-to-maintain electronic gadgets.

The first operational model was delivered to the Air Force in January 1979. It was the first fighter that cost 75 per cent more than the basic version when modified to deliver nuclear weapons. Baseline Lifetime expectancy was set at 8,000 hrs based on:
— 55.5 per cent air-to-air missions
— 20 per cent air-to-ground missions
— 24.5 per cent general flying.


In 1990, twelve years after induction, a news item appeared that reported more than 100 crashes of F-16: USAF—80; NATO—17; PAK—13. The aircraft was labeled the WIDOW MAKER. It was reported that hasty induction of the aircraft had led to use of certain wirings which did not conform to MIL-STD requirements (fly-by-wire going haywire?).

Later another report placed restrictions on F-16 from indulging in high 'g' maneuvers and low level missions. These restrictions prevailed during the Gulf War"¦.even after two decades of combat flying. It came to be referred to as a 'clear weather' aircraft which did not meet the assigned tasks during the Gulf War"¦its performance was officially criticized by the US General Accounting Office.

In May 1991, US Senate Armed Services Committee found the stealth fighter F-117 to be eight times more effective than F-16. Plans were on to terminate production of F-16 but the commercial implications of the multi-nation development venture involving the USA, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Israel and a host of customers gave the aircraft a fresh lease of combat life.


Jane's Defense Weekly (August 10, 1991) quoted Pentagon, stating that the aircraft had been assigned to 60 per cent air-to-ground missions (as against 20 per cent). It was presumed that sorties with vintage iron bombs fitted with Laser Guidance adapters offered undesirable drag loads. Carriage of non-conformal bombs on external pylons take a heavy toll of the airframes integrity and engine performance.

Around this period, INTERVIA, came up with the news that 3,240 (pre-block 50) F-16s, required structural modifications and repairs after cracks were detected due to metal fatigue. According to the manufacturer's spokesman, the operational aircraft was being 'flown more aggressively, more often, than originally specified'. The details of the proposed structural modifications were also listed in INTERVIA.

The presence of non-conformal (mostly vintage) bombs, loaded externally appeared to have, in the words of an aerospace expert ""¦"¦convert the fast, sleek, maneuverable aerodynamic aircraft into slow, sluggish, bomb trucks""¦.with attendant problems to airframes and engines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do people want to dump such preposterous stupid development pain on tejas?

tejas mk1 and mk-2 are designed to do what the specs demand not what F-16 block does like carrying 9 tons or flying 4500 Km .

Important figures to watch out for ,

1. TWR,

2. Low wing loading,

3. Hight ITR cranked delta,

4. HMDS enabled R-73 high off bore sight missile for dog fighting,

5. With higher powered engine STR and ITR are set to go up even further.

6, high fuel fraction .


7. ASEA radar,

8. Higher level of sensor fusion,


nothing else.

Incidentally this article was posted by Nitesh Ji on 14-11-2010. But a few guys who are claiming to be here for 7 years and experts on all things under the Sun does not seem to know that the kind of extra large --- weapon load, range load, fuel load will actually worsen the tejas mk-2 and not improve it.

If all of the F-16 specs are added to tejas mk-2 according to some screw driver TOT believers here,Tejas too will meet the same fate referred to in the article---"Later another report placed restrictions on F-16 from indulging in high 'g' maneuvers and low level missions. These restrictions prevailed during the Gulf War"¦.even after two decades of combat flying. It came to be referred to as a 'clear weather' aircraft which did not meet the assigned tasks during the Gulf War"¦its performance was officially criticized by the US General Accounting Office.
"

So instead of repeatedly asking , "Your aircraft is inferior to F-16 block 60 as it does not lift 9 tons and flies 4500 Km , your fighter carries a weapon load that is half of F-16's pay load, your fighter does not have canards, your fighter does not have LREX, your fighter does not have proper air intake,Why the heck are you building such an inferior fighter?",

without knowing an iota of truth about the process of Research & Development , and the purpose for which IAF wants tejas ,

Of the 250 requests for action made by IAF after it joined the tejas effort all but 12 were cleared by ADA and these remaining 12 are to be cleared in tejas mk-2.


Surely ADA is not a saloon where you go and ask your hairdresser a what ever hair cut you fancy. It is more like a brain surgery team. Will you ever go to your surgeon and instruct him to do this and that during surgery?

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

@ersakthivel I agree with you ,tejas have lowest rcs among 4.5 gen, it have hmds with bvr like r73 and later astra and r77, payload need structural changes and if somehow we made those structural changes , the rcs will increase resulting in early detection

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

instead of wasting 18 billion on 126 rafael there can be a better plan
su 30mki costs 67 million therefore 100 will cost 6.7 billion, tejas mk1 costs 27 million(because of lesser number of order ) then 100 will cost 2.7 billion, tejas mk2 will cost 35 million (not confirmed) and 100 will cost 3.5 billion
so for 100 su30mki, tejas mk1 and mk2 we will have to pay nearly 13 billion(exact 12.9 billion) and 5 billion will be saved and we will have 300 fighters

 

[SajeevJino]

instead of wasting 18 billion on 126 rafael there can be a better plan
su 30mki costs 67 million therefore 100 will cost 6.7 billion, tejas mk1 costs 27 million(because of lesser number of order ) then 100 will cost 2.7 billion, tejas mk2 will cost 35 million (not confirmed) and 100 will cost 3.5 billion
so for 100 su30mki, tejas mk1 and mk2 we will have to pay nearly 13 billion(exact 12.9 billion) and 5 billion will be saved and we will have 300 fighters

You think like two engine a radar an some ordinance can control by Pilot called Fighter

In my classification

Air Dominance
MRCA
Air Interceptor or CAP
Light Attack or CAS

Do you ever heard of this Classification

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

You think like two engine a radar an some ordinance can control by Pilot called Fighter

In my classification

Air Dominance
MRCA
Air Interceptor or CAP
Light Attack or CAS

Do you ever heard of this Classification

isn't su30mki is air dominant fighter. And that's why I add 100 of them .Please don't use abusive language as every one have different perspective.

 

[SajeevJino]

isn't su30mki is air dominant fighter. And that's why I add 100 of them .Please don't use abusive language as every one have different perspective.

Pardon me if anything hurts You in the above Post

and India have Plans to Build more no.of MKI .as once I said Earlier somewhere in DFI ..HAL should keep the Production line of Su 30 MKI after the Initial order of 272


for the sake ..some reoptrts outs that HAL decided to Build more no .of Su 30 MKI breaking the Barrier number of 272

India May Expand Su-30MKI Order Beyond 272

Check the Su 30 MKI Thread for More info

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Pardon me if anything hurts You in the above Post

and India have Plans to Build more no.of MKI .as once I said Earlier somewhere in DFI ..HAL should keep the Production line of Su 30 MKI after the Initial order of 272


for the sake ..some reoptrts outs that HAL decided to Build more no .of Su 30 MKI breaking the Barrier number of 272

India May Expand Su-30MKI Order Beyond 272

Check the Su 30 MKI Thread for More info

i was saying to buy su30mki instead of rafael which costs too much

 

[SajeevJino]

i was saying to buy su30mki instead of rafael which costs too much

That's why I give Classification of Fighter to Understand

We have

Air Superiority/Dominance-Su 30 MKI
MRCA -Mirage 2000
CAS or deep Strike - JAGUAR
Interceptor - Mig 21 , MiG 29

in future

Air Superiority/Dominance- FGFA
MRCA -Rafale
CAS or deep Strike - AMCA
Interceptor - MiG 29 ,LCA MK 2

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

That's why I give Classification of Fighter to Understand

We have

Air Superiority/Dominance-Su 30 MKI
MRCA -Mirage 2000
CAS or deep Strike - JAGUAR
Interceptor - Mig 21 , MiG 29

in future

Air Superiority/Dominance- FGFA
MRCA -Rafale
CAS or deep Strike - AMCA
Interceptor - MiG 29 ,LCA MK 2

aren't you informed that tejas mk1 better than upgrade mirage 2000 that's why 100 mk1 and 100 mk2 in just 6.2 billion and the force will be multiplied with 200 fighters .

 

[SajeevJino]

aren't you informed that tejas mk1 better than upgrade mirage 2000 that's why 100 mk1 and 100 mk2 in just 6.2 billion and the force will be multiplied with 200 fighters .

I seen your Posts in Indian Air Force Thread ...!!

Post of The Day

tejas mk1 better than upgrade mirage 2000 mg:


Please check before Claiming

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/8625-mirage-upgrade-completed-within-10-years.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@SajeevJino, I am afraid he is right, This was posted here before and the words are from IAF personal ..

=============================

Though, Please keep this thread till Tejas ..

 

[SajeevJino]

@SajeevJino, I am afraid he is right, This was posted here before and the words are from IAF personal ..

Sir It's been already we Clashed with Jaguar ,Mirage and Rafale too ..so I think we don't want to repeat it

Though, Please keep this thread till Tejas ..

Sure Sir ..!!