ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[ersakthivel]

All pylons can be made ti rack & SPJ won't eat into weapon stations.

 

[pmaitra]

I strongly disagree with this. There are plenty of examples that prove otherwise.

Responded below.

Mig-29 - Ordered before it entered Soviet service. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

Entered service in 1985/86 with USSR, India, and demoed in Finland. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

Su-30MKI - Russians ordered SM more than a decade after they were operational in India. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

It is a modification of Sukhoi-27. Sukhoi-27 was inducted into Soviet Air Force in 1985. Sukhoi-30MKI was inducted into IAF in 2004. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

Vijayant - Never saw service in British Army.

Prototype completed by UK in 1963 and entered service in India in 1965. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

T-90 - Limited service in Russian Army but India is the largest user.

It is a modification of T-72. T-72 entered service with the USSR in 1973, and with India after 1981. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

And cherry on top are the latest and comic attempts to induct Gripen E and Armata.

Not inducted. Not applicable.

Gripen E - First flight in 2017, 5/6 years away from induction in the primary air force let alone be a mature platform.

Not inducted. Not applicable.

Armata - Hasn't even finished the development but IA is restless to know it's weight so as to modify the weight requirements in the RFI.

Not inducted. Not applicable.

 

[Kshithij]

Ha, ha, ha,

I hv listed out the capability of various tejas mks & the Hillier than thou IAF ASR.

That is not rambling , but fact finding.

It is not small fuel or big fuel which determines the range, it is fuel fraction , which determines the range.

Tejas has comparable figures to all world fighters.

In combat no one sends their fighters with all external fuel tanks & just to 2 close combat missiles & bullets in pilots pistol ,

to use these ," stupid brochure ranges" of 1000s & 1000s of kms on & unending number of hours on station.

All fighters are sent with two external tanks & all other pylons occupied with weapons on a demanding low profile penetration mission.

Here tejas can hv at best 20%to 30 % range difference even if we compare it to rafael.

We can fly 4 tejas on place of one rafael & atleast 2 tejas in place of one Gripen for the same budget .

So all weapon load, range shortage thrust on tejas is only academic.

F16 can carry two 1.2 ton fuel tanks while still being able to carry 4.6 ton additional payload. Tejas can only carry two 1 ton fuel tank and additional 1.7 ton payload (1Bomb, 4BVR). Tejas is delta wing and aerodynamically unstable, thus decreasing its range (for equal ratio of fuel to weight) as more payload induced drag is added.

Tejas has 7 hardpoints with only 3 hardpoint capable of carrying large payloads in Tejas. If 2 of them are fuel tanks, the payload will be left with 4 BVR missiles and 1 bomb for a total of 1.7ton.

F16 has 11+2 hard points (2 hardpoint can be racked for BVR) with 5 being capable of carrying big bombs. Even if 2 are occupied by fuel, it can still carry either of the two -
1)3 bombs, 4 BVR and 2 WVR
2)1 bomb, 8 BVR and 2 WVR

BVR are replaceable with WVR in all cases

What is your expected range& explosive weight for brahmos mini,
Why it is too small?
Brahmos mini won't induce more drag than external fuel tank & it will increase the strike range of tejas by atleast 200 kms,

That too 2.8 Mach kinetic energy & almost no escape hits on targets.

No Gripen or f16 will give this capability to IAF

If Brahmos has weight of more than 1.2 ton, Tejas hardpoint won't be able to hold it without damage to airframe. If it is smaller, then its range will be 150km which will. Be too low to be meaningful.

Brahmos is not an intelligent maneuverable missile which makes it interceptable. It only maneuvers in the last phase. The drag caused by brahmos can make Tejas plane carrying it to be detectable and hence shot down before it fires. I don't see such heavy missiles as useful at all. USA also found supersonic cruise missile to be wasteful. Nirbhay missile will be more practical, even for Su30 or other planes. It is definitely desirable to have the ability to launch Brahmos from all platforms but one must not expect it to be practical.

All pylons can be made ti rack & SPJ won't eat into weapon stations.

Pods in Tejas are kept under left and right edge of fuselage, not by racking wepons. But this decreases range due to drag. Why use external racks instead of making as many things internally as possible?

Tejas is definitely better than import just because it can be mass produced at India's will, even in 10:1 ratio of F16. But it can definitely be improved further and help in better war time management in terms of maintenance, repairs and logistics by increasing the efficiency per plane. Why not wait for MK2 instead of going gaga over MK1A?

 

[TPFscopes]

why we r not criticising dassault ....we HV ordered in 2016 .....we will get First Rafael in 2019. after 3. yrs....and we will get last batch in 2022


I mean 36 Rafael in 3 years...12/year

The main reason behind the delay of almost 3 years because IAF asked for some specific modification in the Rafale and for these modification and testing, dassault need time. Its quite similar with the case that why we need more time for improved mk1 that is mk1a . Isn't it?
Anyways, peoples gets confused with Rafale and Rafael. Rafale is Dassault's fighter jet whereas Rafael is an Israeli company with its products like Python and derby Missiles..

 

[TPFscopes]

If mk1 has such serious shortfalls, it is impossible for mk1a SOP18 to give a new mk1A with ASEA, meteor possible combo ,

That too with no serious redesign of airframe.

HAL has over weight landing gear & some conservative design in mk1 ,which led to extra weight with a dead weight to balance .

These and some minor maintenance issues will be ironed out to an extent to give mk1a, which is thrive capable than the mig21s it it going to replace.

IAF ASR for tejas was not an exercise by Phd holders in aeronautical engineering.

It is a fluid moving goalpost ay best.

With mk1A there will be some shortfalls in G limits & many above ASR capability in ASEA, Meteor, Astra, Python combo.

So when we point out the few shortfalls of mk1a ,

We must remember it overshoots ASR in many significant areas vital to aircombat.

I don't know, why you are in love with the terms like Meteor, RBE AESA , Gripen etc etc.

I can assure you that there is no plan to get Meteor and BrahMos on a LCA platform.

Presently we will get Derby as BVRAAM and soon Astra BVRAAM will be integrated with it.
And if SFDR BVRAAM (Meteor counterpart) will get developed, you may get it integrated as LRU package.

For your kind information mk1 will be fully upgraded to MK1A as per plan.

You are getting overexcited with semi baked stuff and mostly hypothetical data..

In simple terms, it is IAF which is the end user to use the fighter jets in the combat scenario. That is why ADA and HAL always in touch with the IAF engineers and highly skilled pilots , just to made the fighter more potent.
It is also known to you that ASQR for mk1a is still pending, so you are requested to minimize your defamation attempts against armed forces which never asked for your beloved Meteor like stuffs.

Your love towards LCA is highly appreciated but excess of anything makes it toxic... Think about it...

 

[TPFscopes]

DRDO is saying brahmos mini is in the works for mig29s, tejas,

I tend to believe that, because they make tejas & brahmos.

Please share your source of information instead of injecting rumours...
Also, you have to understand that BrahMos is a special category missile because of its high potential and very high cost. It will never be a first choice among others for normal attacks. These Missiles will be only used to eliminate HVTs including Nuclear sites, Radar system (to take down SAM systems) etc etc and hence it can be carried by specialised fighter (not all jets)....

Nirbhay ALCM will also be very unlikely for LCA in future..

Where did you find LCA Tejas in the official stall..

@Kshithij

 

[ersakthivel]

F16 can carry two 1.2 ton fuel tanks while still being able to carry 4.6 ton additional payload. Tejas can only carry two 1 ton fuel tank and additional 1.7 ton payload (1Bomb, 4BVR). Tejas is delta wing and aerodynamically unstable, thus decreasing its range (for equal ratio of fuel to weight) as more payload induced drag is added.

Tata Safari may have petrol tank that is three times the size of Maruthi Alto. But that doesnt mean TATA Safari has thrice the range of Maruthi Alto.

Because F16 has to carry the close to 19 tons as max take off weight. with a far bigger engine which has a far bigger SFC , which will consume fuel at a faster rate .

But Tejas has a max take off weight of tons with an engine which consumes fuel at a lower SFC, so in reality twice the amount of fuel carried doesnt mean twice the range.

SO fuel fraction is the indication of real ranges.

Tejas has 7 hardpoints with only 3 hardpoint capable of carrying large payloads in Tejas. If 2 of them are fuel tanks, the payload will be left with 4 BVR missiles and 1 bomb for a total of 1.7ton.

F16 has 11+2 hard points (2 hardpoint can be racked for BVR) with 5 being capable of carrying big bombs. Even if 2 are occupied by fuel, it can still carry either of the two -
1)3 bombs, 4 BVR and 2 WVR
2)1 bomb, 8 BVR and 2 WVR

BVR are replaceable with WVR in all cases

Once again the cost of maintaining one F16 , with spares, support, training, costly MLUs is equal to the cost of maintaining at least two tejas .

SO you get
14 hard points, plud two AESA radars spaced afar for better coverage,, two pilots in air for better tactics, two EW suits spaced apart etc, etc,

One can switch on its ASEA radar and act as a spotter, one can fire its BVR missile in radar silent mode a huge benefit in air warfare,

Especially with much lower RCS of Tejas the silent shooter can fly far ahead undetected and fire its volley of BVR missiles , with the spotter switched on asea RADAR FLYING FAR BEHIND.

If Brahmos has weight of more than 1.2 ton, Tejas hardpoint won't be able to hold it without damage to airframe. If it is smaller, then its range will be 150km which will. Be too low to be meaningful.

Brahmos is not an intelligent maneuverable missile which makes it interceptable. It only maneuvers in the last phase. The drag caused by brahmos can make Tejas plane carrying it to be detectable and hence shot down before it fires. I don't see such heavy missiles as useful at all. USA also found supersonic cruise missile to be wasteful. Nirbhay missile will be more practical, even for Su30 or other planes. It is definitely desirable to have the ability to launch Brahmos from all platforms but one must not expect it to be practical.

It is DRDO which is designing brahmos minis for both mig29s, Tejas, They know their job well enough to give a ceter line pylon capable of holding it.

Pods in Tejas are kept under left and right edge of fuselage, not by racking wepons. But this decreases range due to drag. Why use external racks instead of making as many things internally as possible?

the 16 ton external store of F16 induces far bigger drag, dont worry

Tejas is definitely better than import just because it can be mass produced at India's will, even in 10:1 ratio of F16. But it can definitely be improved further and help in better war time management in terms of maintenance, repairs and logistics by increasing the efficiency per plane. Why not wait for MK2 instead of going gaga over MK1A?

On the whole , no need worry about the superiority of F16 fleet over tejas fleet

 

[ersakthivel]

Please share your source of information instead of injecting rumours...
Also, you have to understand that BrahMos is a special category missile because of its high potential and very high cost. It will never be a first choice among others for normal attacks. These Missiles will be only used to eliminate HVTs including Nuclear sites, Radar system (to take down SAM systems) etc etc and hence it can be carried by specialised fighter (not all jets)....

Nirbhay ALCM will also be very unlikely for LCA in future..

Where did you find LCA Tejas in the official stall..

@Kshithij

Please share your source of information instead of injecting rumours...
Also, you have to understand that BrahMos is a special category missile because of its high potential and very high cost. It will never be a first choice among others for normal attacks. These Missiles will be only used to eliminate HVTs including Nuclear sites, Radar system (to take down SAM systems) etc etc and hence it can be carried by specialised fighter (not all jets)....

Nirbhay ALCM will also be very unlikely for LCA in future..

Where did you find LCA Tejas in the official stall..

@Kshithij

http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/4744-government-open-making-brahmos-ng

There are many such links floating theses , rumours

 

[TPFscopes]

http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/4744-government-open-making-brahmos-ng

There are many such links floating theses , rumours

Anyways another unnamed sources..
Don't take them seriously...

If you want to believe on your sources..

The weight of the missile will be slashed from 3000 kg to around 1600 kg. The Brahmos NG will also be 3 metre shorter than the 9-metre long BrahMos. The NG variant will have advanced capabilities including electronic countermeasures and stealth.

Neither the weight nor the length fit in the LCA..
Longer length will be the obstacle in landing gear retraction.

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't know, why you are in love with the terms like Meteor, RBE AESA , Gripen etc etc.

I can assure you that there is no plan to get Meteor and BrahMos on a LCA platform.

Presently we will get Derby as BVRAAM and soon Astra BVRAAM will be integrated with it.
And if SFDR BVRAAM (Meteor counterpart) will get developed, you may get it integrated as LRU package.

For your kind information mk1 will be fully upgraded to MK1A as per plan.

You are getting overexcited with semi baked stuff and mostly hypothetical data..

In simple terms, it is IAF which is the end user to use the fighter jets in the combat scenario. That is why ADA and HAL always in touch with the IAF engineers and highly skilled pilots , just to made the fighter more potent.
It is also known to you that ASQR for mk1a is still pending, so you are requested to minimize your defamation attempts against armed forces which never asked for your beloved Meteor like stuffs.

Your love towards LCA is highly appreciated but excess of anything makes it toxic... Think about it...

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/07/a-bird-in-hand-induct-tejas-mark-i-into.html

It was ADA chief who said that Tejas mk2 will hv interface to fire Meteor, With RBE 2 radar in trial for tejas mk1A, I dont know what complex rocket science stops tejas mk1A from having meteor , while Gripen C is the first fighter to fire Meteor.

I dont understand from where you are getting info like no brahmos mini for tejas,
no meteor for tejas,
verify or atleast google before posting.

 

[patriots]

we will see sp5 soon ,got that update from tejas fb page ...
I feel tejas project will not die bcoz we HV 2 sister project s ....kaveri and uttam aesa
we have heavily invested in those projects ...so we will see more and more tejas

 

[TPFscopes]

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/07/a-bird-in-hand-induct-tejas-mark-i-into.html

It was ADA chief who said that Tejas mk2 will hv interface to fire Meteor, With RBE 2 radar in trial for tejas mk1A, I dont know what complex rocket science stops tejas mk1A from having meteor , while Gripen C is the first fighter to fire Meteor.

Already discussed about this..
You are contracting yourself by claiming that Tejas is LCA and OTOH you want all that shit on LCA.

Let me repeat my words..

Presently we will get Derby as BVRAAM and soon Astra BVRAAM will be integrated with it.
And if SFDR BVRAAM (Meteor counterpart) will get developed, you may get it integrated as LRU package.

I dont understand from where you are getting info like no brahmos mini for tejas,
no meteor for tejas,
verify or atleast google before posting.

=>

If you want to believe on your sources..

Neither the weight nor the length fit in the LCA..
Longer length will be the obstacle in landing gear retraction.

 

[Kshithij]

Please share your source of information instead of injecting rumours...
Also, you have to understand that BrahMos is a special category missile because of its high potential and very high cost. It will never be a first choice among others for normal attacks. These Missiles will be only used to eliminate HVTs including Nuclear sites, Radar system (to take down SAM systems) etc etc and hence it can be carried by specialised fighter (not all jets)....

Nirbhay ALCM will also be very unlikely for LCA in future..

Where did you find LCA Tejas in the official stall..

@Kshithij

Do understand that is there is a war, it will be full scale. There is nothing called bombing minor target. Only border skirmishes are minor targets.

Cruise missiles are not to be used for border skirmishes. Otherwise, if there is a bombing, then expect it to be full scale including all HVTs. No one will wait for the other to attack first. First strike is always better than second. So, the idea of bombing a few bases and hoping that there is no retaliation is not rational.

Tejas may be a LCA, but it can carry 1ton bombs. Also, it is bound to be the mainstream fighter of India along with AMCA and Su30 (if Su30 engine is indigenised). One can't simply reject Tejas or Indian fighters from firing important missile. It is only logical that some form of ALCM with shorter range will be used in Tejas MK2 at least.

The picture you posted is about brahmos. In that too, brahmos speaks of MiG29, Su30 and FGFA. Why not rafale? Rafale has as good payload as MiG29. Also, FGFA is not even started (unless it is same as AMCA). It is not a good source of information.

The compatibility of missiles can only be speculated, except for Su30. So, we have to go by the absolute possibility based on weight, length, payload etc. The only reason why I reject Brahmos with Tejas is due to the excess weight of Brahmos. But, the same can't be said for booster-less Nirbhay variant with shorter range.

 

[TPFscopes]

Do understand that is there is a war, it will be full scale. There is nothing called bombing minor target. Only border skirmishes are minor targets.

By your equation, there is no need to induct LCA,f-16 or Gripen. If you are too desperate for war, than you should buy plenty of heavy multi-role jets. Isn't it?

According to me, we spend a large fraction of amount for peace time missions than Wars.

I don't know why you guys are so much excited to have capabilities of heavy class fighters for a Light fighter.

The only reason why I reject Brahmos with Tejas is due to the excess weight of Brahmos. But, the same can't be said for booster-less Nirbhay variant with shorter range.

You may get your answer by answering my Question..
We already have R-27ER BVRAAM range of upto 130kms , R-27R/T with range up 70km , MICA missile etc in our inventory than why don't we integrate them with LCA or all Missiles with all fighters as it can enable all fighters to operate from anywhere, along with this it will also reduce inventory headache.. Answer it and get your answer.

Anyways I already about BrahMos-NG issue in my previous post. And as far I know, Nirbhay ALCM specification are still not officially available..

As far as Nirbhay ALCM is concerned, The total length of Nirbhay with booster is slighter more than 6m and booster is almost in 1:5 that is missile without booster is 5m. when you fix it on center pylon of LCA it will still affect landing gear retraction. other terms like flight profile, weight limit etc etc are further issues.. Others issues with LCA is that how will you get your target when you want to attack at longer ranges.

 

[Kay]

The roles of planes should be clear. If you want a bomb truck - you have the F16 - but then why does it need to be single engine?
If you have a deep penetration aircraft with loads of fuel like Gripen , why does that have to be single engine? Isn't having a single engine fighter in these roles a compromise on it's own?

 

[Kay]

Both F-16 and Gripen-E are higher tonnage aircrafts i.e.of a heavier class than Tejas. F-16 is an old metallic airframe design and Gripen-E has design compromises to accommodate more internal fuel.
There are no perfect aircrafts. So why criticize Tejas only. IAF has to specify which capabilities it wants - not choose which plane it wants.
Tejas is a light single weight aircraft with multi-role capabilities. IAF is getting what it wanted - but it seems the thinking is - "see there is something in the market that we like, let's buy" - no airforce in the world behaves like this.

 

[Kshithij]

By your equation, there is no need to induct LCA,f-16 or Gripen. If you are too desperate for war, than you should buy plenty of heavy multi-role jets. Isn't it?

According to me, we spend a large fraction of amount for peace time missions than Wars.

I don't know why you guys are so much excited to have capabilities of heavy class fighters for a Light fighter.


You may get your answer by answering my Question..
We already have R-27ER BVRAAM range of upto 130kms , R-27R/T with range up 70km , MICA missile etc in our inventory than why don't we integrate them with LCA or all Missiles with all fighters as it can enable all fighters to operate from anywhere, along with this it will also reduce inventory headache.. Answer it and get your answer.

Anyways I already about BrahMos-NG issue in my previous post. And as far I know, Nirbhay ALCM specification are still not officially available..

As far as Nirbhay ALCM is concerned, The total length of Nirbhay with booster is slighter more than 6m and booster is almost in 1:5 that is missile without booster is 5m. when you fix it on center pylon of LCA it will still affect landing gear retraction. other terms like flight profile, weight limit etc etc are further issues.. Others issues with LCA is that how will you get your target when you want to attack at longer ranges.

I believe that India is trying to fully indigenise weapons and doesn't see the need to fire such imported BVR missiles. These imported items also come in small quantities and hence not ideal for fitting in multiple planes. Also, since Astra and the Ramjet BVR is under development, there is little need to get foreign BVRs. However, for test purposes, Derby was fired from Tejas. So, fitting other missiles are also possible in a similar way if needed.

Launching cruise missiles from air is not based on direct target acquisition. It is GPS guided. USA's JASSM ALCM has 900km range at 1ton weight. No plane can acquire target that far away, not even big-ass AWACS plane.

Next, for war, it is better to have large number of planes with lower cost of manufacturing than small number of planes with high cost of manufacturing. Tejas is cost effective and requires less labour to manufacture. Tejas MK2 won't be too small. For mission roles within pakistan, bangladesh and Malacca straits and nearby areas require only small range. So, heavy fighters are not helpful. Larger number of planes will also help in increasing the chances of survival and gives better patrol ability. F16 is a single engine plane with bigger payload and size. But, it is more beneficial to make 2 Tejas Mk2 to carry same Payload but with better teamwork and agility.

The cruise missiles can also be carried under the wing if they are under 1 ton in weight. Nuclear warhead of 100kT can be made in 150kg weight and hence heavier warhead can be avoided to reduce weight of missile. It is wrong to portray all ALCM as exclusively for heavy or medium planes. Only overweight Brahmos is that way.

 

[sthf]

IAF and IA are both used to acquiring and operating off-the-shelf products. These products are typically those that have gone through the phases of maturity in their home countries and have received revisions and refinement from their respective mlitaries, mainly the USSR and France.

This is what you said. Key words, "off-the-shelf", "maturity" and "home countries".

Entered service in 1985/86 with USSR, India, and demoed in Finland. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

Entered Indian service before it achieved "maturity".

Sukhoi-30MKI was inducted into IAF in 2004. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

How did you come up to this conclusion? India was the only user for a decade. It was/is a multinational effort.

Prototype completed by UK in 1963 and entered service in India in 1965. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

Seller nation didn't induct the platform, further upgradtion and modification was carried by OFB.

It is a modification of T-72. T-72 entered service with the USSR in 1973, and with India after 1981. Maturity and refinement conducted by the seller nation.

India specific changes and refinement (armour, fcs, optics, air conditioning etc.) were done by OFB not OEM. Kunal Biswas has a detailed list.

Not inducted. Not applicable.

Not inducted. Not applicable.

Not inducted. Not

Never said they were/are. I talked about the clownish attempts of IA & IAF to induct them on similar lines as the aforementioned items.

 

[Kshithij]

Both F-16 and Gripen-E are higher tonnage aircrafts i.e.of a heavier class than Tejas. F-16 is an old metallic airframe design and Gripen-E has design compromises to accommodate more internal fuel.
There are no perfect aircrafts. So why criticize Tejas only. IAF has to specify which capabilities it wants - not choose which plane it wants.
Tejas is a light single weight aircraft with multi-role capabilities. IAF is getting what it wanted - but it seems the thinking is - "see there is something in the market that we like, let's buy" - no airforce in the world behaves like this.

Gripen E is like Tejas Mk2. It is just in design stage. It is even slower and has lower Swedish components compared to Indian content in Tejas MK2. Sweden isn't even planning to increase own content whereas India is even planning to get Kaveri engine.

Gripen E is not even comparable. F16 is the only plane in the single engine lower medium class.

Gripen doesn't even have high fuel to boast. They are bottom feeders giving false information. The internal fuel of Gripen E is 4000 litres (3.2 ton). But they say that their ferry range is 3400km. This is possible only with 3 external fuel tank of total 4500 litres (3.6ton). Gripen is probably the worst plane amongst its class of fighters. Even JF17 may be better than it

 

[Kay]

Gripen E is like Tejas Mk2. It is just in design stage. It is even slower and has lower Swedish components compared to Indian content in Tejas MK2. Sweden isn't even planning to increase own content whereas India is even planning to get Kaveri engine.

Gripen E is not even comparable. F16 is the only plane in the single engine lower medium class.

Gripen doesn't even have high fuel to boast. They are bottom feeders giving false information. The internal fuel of Gripen E is 4000 litres (3.2 ton). But they say that their ferry range is 3400km. This is possible only with 3 external fuel tank of total 4500 litres (3.6ton). Gripen is probably the worst plane amongst its class of fighters. Even JF17 may be better than it

1. "The aircraft’s internal fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 3.4t are approximately 40% larger than those of its former version. The increased volume is made possible by moving the landing gear from the fuselage of the aircraft out to the inner wings." - SAAB
The ferry range of 3400 Km/ 4000 Km (combat radius 1300 Km/ 1500 Km) is definitely quoted keeping use of external tanks in mind - for marketing.
The combat radius on internal fuel is about 800 Km (expected).
For Tejas, it ia definitely much less.
Whether moving the landing gear out has aerodynamic disadvantages and affects wing-loading, I am not sure.
2. Gripen is better maintanable through easily reachable panels and has low flying cost per hour than F-16 (don't know about Tejas)
So obviously it is a good plane.
JF 17 is an evolved Mig-21. Maybe someone can do a comparison between Gripen and JF17. Aerodynamically they can be comparable, but Gripen wins on range, weapon systems, avionics, fuel loading. Even in pure airframe comparison, Gripens can pull higher G-s. JF 17 may have better sustained maneuverability and smaller turning radius.

As for Brahmos- it is heavy as it is a kerosene fuelled liquid ramjet. Tejas can be loaded with plenty of other standoff missiles / glide bombs.