ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[Kay]

I wonder what then use of BVR ? if jets can out maneuver CCM then it can easily dodge BVR with less maneuverability , and their RWR system would warn them about it when it's around 50/60 KM away .

Are these BVR kept only for heavy aircraft like AWACS , transport etc ?

For a modern A2A missile to effectively take out a modern 4-5 gen fighter aircraft, the missile should be able to pull about 5 times the g value the fighter can pull. So, if the fighter aircraft can pull 9g, a 45g missile can take it out.
In case of BVR, they are less maneuverable than CCM missiles, but the aircrafts themselves may not be always 4-4.5 gen aircrafts.Second, you can fire more than one missile at the aircraft and the aircraft has to dodge all of them. Greater the no-escape zone of the missile, more is the threat.
Also, a BVR missile can cause an aircraft to turn, lose energy or get in a worse position for dogfight. If you have steath aircrafts accompanying the enemy, BVR missiles can force them to turn and become more easily detectable.
As for CCMs, there are different types as well - some optimized for close to BVR killing (like Mica and Asraam) and others are optimized for highest maneuverability (Python-5, Iris-T, A-Darter)
The first category is to be fired as soon as enemy enters WVR zone to give a positional edge in dogfighting as the enemy has to start dodging that missile.
The later type is optimized for sure kills in the merge.

 

[Kay]

If my memory is right, just couple of month ago, American military decided to spend 260 million dollars on testing of the new generation engine. 260 million dollars for testing only. That tells us how costly an engine development is.



Don't you think you contradict yourselves? The whole Kaveri project didn't receive that much money but suddenly people just find 1 billion dollars to hire French to fix the problems Indian scientists already know how to fix? Either your scientists don't know where the problems are and how to fix them, or Kaveri got plenty budget to get foreign help.

You have to take into account conversation values and Indian salaries. Also, this much money was spent because their was a clear project plan with clear goals and minimum risk. Open ended RnD is risky and hence only surplus budget is allocated. I am all up for higher RnD budgets though.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

And yet it was an AIM-9X which failed to shoot down the Su-22. (That F-18 incident) The Aim-9X was defeated by Russian flares. The USN Super Hornet got the kill with an AIM-120.

http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/

With the arrival of AESA radar, stealth has been compromised to some extent. When we get GaN radar (as of now, USA has made a big GaN radar for patriot missile defence and are miniaturising it), planes like F22 will lose its stealth value.

The 5th generation will again be reduced to 4.5 generation. USA will be left with a fat, low performance F35!

BVR is will remain effective due to this reduction in stealth and 'CCM only' missiles are highly unlikely to be used

Real objective information about the Syrian Su-22 incident isn't really available, and even if it's out there there's no label on it which can prove it's authenticity. Depending on what agenda the reporting outlet has, the description of the events differ. We don't know details like what flare type was used, which generation the sidewinder belonged to, what was the threat library programming, what were the atmospheric condition, what were the pilot actions. Without these details we're not doing any analysis, but raising storms in teacups.

Actual concrete figures of stealth effectiveness or even BVR RF seeker performance are not in public domain. People in the know who have info about RCS data from different angles, or ECCM features of a seeker won't disclose that info.

In both these cases there is a substantial amount of speculation and opinion based information flying around. We shouldn't succumb to our own confirmation biases and help proliferate unreliable information.

The only thing we know for sure is that the overall approaches in stealth and counter stealth are more advanced and intelligent spoofing and jamming, and sensor data fusion. Structural design based stealth was never meant to make aircraft invisible, just low observable enough to degrade a track, or stay unidentified long enough until in standoff weapon range. In an ideal scenario of conflicting near peer adversaries, the defender will most likely try to collect and process active and passive data from rf, visible, uv, ir spectrums and every other kind of intelligence to detect and track the attacker, while on the other hand the attacker will try it's hardest to fool, overload and blind enemy sensors in all spectrums, while using low-observable platforms to stay hidden beneath the noise. In both cases electronics and software will play big roles.

Speaking from speculation only, this sensor-fusion approach could probably be applied to future A2A missiles too. Brimstone already uses MMW and Laser seeker, maybe we'll see something like that, maybe we won't. Just need to wait and watch.

 

[binayak95]

Real objective information about the Syrian Su-22 incident isn't really available, and even if it's out there there's no label on it which can prove it's authenticity. Depending on what agenda the reporting outlet has, the description of the events differ. We don't know details like what flare type was used, which generation the sidewinder belonged to, what was the threat library programming, what were the atmospheric condition, what were the pilot actions. Without these details we're not doing any analysis, but raising storms in teacups.

Actual concrete figures of stealth effectiveness or even BVR RF seeker performance are not in public domain. People in the know who have info about RCS data from different angles, or ECCM features of a seeker won't disclose that info.

In both these cases there is a substantial amount of speculation and opinion based information flying around. We shouldn't succumb to our own confirmation biases and help proliferate unreliable information.

The only thing we know for sure is that the overall approaches in stealth and counter stealth are more advanced and intelligent spoofing and jamming, and sensor data fusion. Structural design based stealth was never meant to make aircraft invisible, just low observable enough to degrade a track, or stay unidentified long enough until in standoff weapon range. In an ideal scenario of conflicting near peer adversaries, the defender will most likely try to collect and process active and passive data from rf, visible, uv, ir spectrums and every other kind of intelligence to detect and track the attacker, while on the other hand the attacker will try it's hardest to fool, overload and blind enemy sensors in all spectrums, while using low-observable platforms to stay hidden beneath the noise. In both cases electronics and software will play big roles.

Speaking from speculation only, this sensor-fusion approach could probably be applied to future A2A missiles too. Brimstone already uses MMW and Laser seeker, maybe we'll see something like that, maybe we won't. Just need to wait and watch.

Completely in agreement with your viewpoints.

The simple point that I'm trying to make is that the most advanced of missiles may have a simple, yet fatal flaw.

Dozens of articles (mostly US sources) have come out post the Su-22 incident to say that the 4477th Test Evaluation Squadron (the guys who fly MiGs and SUs) have found that Russian flares burn hotter and longer than US/Western one, making it difficult for Short Range IR missiles to reject their signature.

Of course sensor-fusion approach to solving this issue would work.

This is all a big evolving race, has been and will always be... best focus ourselves on defeating whatever Countermeasures are available to the PLAAF.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Completely in agreement with your viewpoints.

The simple point that I'm trying to make is that the most advanced of missiles may have a simple, yet fatal flaw.

Dozens of articles (mostly US sources) have come out post the Su-22 incident to say that the 4477th Test Evaluation Squadron (the guys who fly MiGs and SUs) have found that Russian flares burn hotter and longer than US/Western one, making it difficult for Short Range IR missiles to reject their signature.

Of course sensor-fusion approach to solving this issue would work.

This is all a big evolving race, has been and will always be... best focus ourselves on defeating whatever Countermeasures are available to the PLAAF.

Military technology history is littered with examples of too advanced to fail systems which were rendered useless in the field. F4 Phantoms with Sidewinders were deemed too fast to require guns, Khrushchev claimed tanks should abandon guns and use guided missiles only. Zumwalts were sold as something out of sci-fi. These have happened, are happening and will happen.

For us specifically one concern is that the strategic weapon systems we're working on haven't been really battle tested. Lab grown theories and doctrines have a tendency to evaporate when the bombs start dropping. How well does a successfully tested against electronic targets Akash perform, when the radar starts tracking a squadron of J-10/JF-17s ?

 

[Kshithij]

Military technology history is littered with examples of too advanced to fail systems which were rendered useless in the field. F4 Phantoms with Sidewinders were deemed too fast to require guns, Khrushchev claimed tanks should abandon guns and use guided missiles only. Zumwalts were sold as something out of sci-fi. These have happened, are happening and will happen.

For us specifically one concern is that the strategic weapon systems we're working on haven't been really battle tested. Lab grown theories and doctrines have a tendency to evaporate when the bombs start dropping. How well does a successfully tested against electronic targets Akash perform, when the radar starts tracking a squadron of J-10/JF-17s ?

Akash is not only tested against electronic target but also against real ones.

But, modern planes may evade this by high maneuvering. The targets used for testing is useless drones, not maneuverable fighter jets

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Akash is not only tested against electronic target but also against real ones.

But, modern planes may evade this by high maneuvering. The targets used for testing is useless drones, not maneuverable fighter jets

True, but target drones don't have jammer pods, or drop chaff or take evasive manuevers. France got to test it's Rafale in Libya and Syria, US has been at war at some corner of the world constantly. Israel has tested Trophy against Kornets and Iron Dome against Qassam. Britain has conducted airstrikes in Afghanistan with Brimstone. We haven't been able to do similar real life tests.

Although the same can be said of PLAAF I guess, but they have the quantity. If we want to counter quantity with quality, our systems need to be all-aspect effective.

 

[Kshithij]

True, but target drones don't have jammer pods, or drop chaff or take evasive manuevers. France got to test it's Rafale in Libya and Syria, US has been at war at some corner of the world constantly. Israel has tested Trophy against Kornets and Iron Dome against Qassam. Britain has conducted airstrikes in Afghanistan with Brimstone. We haven't been able to do similar real life tests.

Although the same can be said of PLAAF I guess, but they have the quantity. If we want to counter quantity with quality, our systems need to be all-aspect effective.

I think I have been repeating the same thing - we need huge quantities, not just quality. But, for that, we need to first test our stuff properly before mass manufacture.

Haven't you seen me saying that we need 2 lakh planes?

Why do you think India can't manufacture in quantities? What is wrong with it? If we can make 2.5 crore vehicles every year, we can make large numbers of defence equipment too

Second, Akash is not seeker based SAM. It is radar guided. Ground Radars don't get fooled with your chaff or counter measures. There is a reason why Akash weighs 720kg and has 60kg warhead. This is to give sufficient room for error by spreading fragments far and wide to damage aircrafts that don't get hit head on.

 

[ersakthivel]

Actually It was surfaced for UAE requirements.
Like Thales downsize their RBE2 for LCA without any firm order.

You are showing your ignorance here.
Rafale has lower radome dia than tejas.
So how could french ,"downsize" Rafale' s RBE2 for tejas?
Rationally they should upscale it, Isn't it?

 

[ersakthivel]

IAF don`t use Russian BVRs, Its use Ukranian BVRs which are about to get expired, The reason Astra program is in fast track ..

@binayak95, Tejas is a multirole light fighter and MK2 design was out only by ADA which includes dimention and specs, the design is freeze due to work on MK1A which is actually a stop gap measure and intend to run the production line untill MK2 comes out in prototype phsases, The MK2 design will change as per requirements of the near future ..

@ersakthivel, Is one of ours old and decorated member, he known more than most people about Tejas on net, His comments are highly creditable ..

Hi kunal, how R U?

its years since I replied to you,

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=102056

Anyway as usual tejas attracts so many uninformed people to write crap on it.

I don't know whether it is the design feature of tejas or the people who write about.

To clear the air I am posting PIB press release.

At IOC 2 #Tejas_LCA didn't hv a certified center line fuel tank.

In that config it got IOC2.

PIB officially says in IOC2 config tejas has a ferry range greater than 1700 km, of course without refuelling.

In the same config tejas has a combat radius of upto 500 km, ie without centerline tank.

We all know HAL given combat radius includes fuel for dogfight, time on station, a certain time of supersonic flight ,etc, etc , with decent combat loads.

With additional centerline fuel tank I hope it will come around 600 plus Km.

If we stretch it in MNC marketing terms, just with a few air to air missiles, & 3 fuel tanks, in ideal high altitude condition, with no fuel allocation for close combat, time on station, after burner , we too can say it has a combat range of close to 1500 kms.

It won't be far from truth.

But all SE fighters operate within 500 km combat radius most of the times in combat.

Will chat with you here every now & then.

Bye,

Take care.

 

[TPFscopes]

You are showing your ignorance here.
Rafale has lower radome dia than tejas.
So how could french ,"downsize" Rafale' s RBE2 for tejas?
Rationally they should upscale it, Isn't it?

Someone on this forum told me that you have very high knowledge in this sector, anyways leave that all.

Check out official sources:

In order to meet the needs of the Indian manufacturer HAL, Thales is offering a lightweight, compact active array radar. The latter is a result of Thales’ unmatched expertise as regards the development and mastery of active array technologies – as demonstrated by the RBE2 radar installed on Rafale – combined with the operational reliability of this combat-proven technology. The RBE2 radar has actually been operated by the armed forces since 2012.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/indi...y-radar-offered-thales-hal-its-tejas-mk1a-lca

This one from IDRW (I don't take it much seriously)

Thales proposed scaled down version of RBE2 AESA radar which is equipped on Dassault Rafale which India will start getting from 2019 on wards.

http://idrw.org/is-thales-offer-for...-a-threat-to-eltas-elm-2052-chances-in-india/

Yup, Rafale has roughly 30cm less cone dia than LCA but what about the rear end. Because LCA don't have enough space for liquid cooling and its electronic support systems where Rafale has almora more than 1.5 time the space than LCA.

Anyways Rafale has nearly 1000 TRMs on RBE2-AA AESA

The AESA has a field of regard of 70° on either side of the aircraft axis and between 800-1100 T/R modules.

https://hushkit.net/2016/04/24/top-ten-fighter-radars/
Whereas we can expect nearly 700 TRMs on the Thales aesa designed for LCA requirements. And if you want more quality with the same size and TRMs than you can replace these TRMs with GaN TRM modules (presently India also has under development GaN project)

Good Day mate..

 

[ersakthivel]

So its carrying over 4.5 tons of external payload?

Possible.

If the tejas takes off with internal fuel tanks half full & gets buddy refueling once after taking off, tejas can fly with 4.5 ton weapon load.

MTOW is maximum take off weight , reduce a ton of fuel, add a ton of weapon tejas can lift 4.5 tons.

It can fill its tanks after take off.
Because it can fly with higher weight, taking off is the toughest condition to carry weight.

 

[ersakthivel]

Someone on this forum told me that you have very high knowledge in this sector, anyways leave that all.

Check out official sources:
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/indi...y-radar-offered-thales-hal-its-tejas-mk1a-lca

This one from IDRW (I don't take it much seriously)

http://idrw.org/is-thales-offer-for...-a-threat-to-eltas-elm-2052-chances-in-india/

Yup, Rafale has roughly 30cm less cone dia than LCA but what about the rear end. Because LCA don't have enough space for liquid cooling and its electronic support systems where Rafale has almora more than 1.5 time the space than LCA.

Anyways Rafale has nearly 1000 TRMs on RBE2-AA AESA

https://hushkit.net/2016/04/24/top-ten-fighter-radars/
Whereas we can expect nearly 700 TRMs on the Thales aesa designed for LCA requirements. And if you want more quality with the same size and TRMs than you can replace these TRMs with GaN TRM modules (presently India also has under development GaN project)

Good Day mate..

Of course you are talking about stuff you don't know again.

Tejas carries close to 200 kg ballast weight behind radome.

I do hope that this occupies sonme space in fuselage.

Because I haven't seen the weight being carried by pilot in his lap,

So as usual you are making another not so credible claim ,
because of the unavailability of space , tejas can not have bigger or the same sized ASEA radar.

I normally don't make such claims.
Dassault rafale having 1.5 times space, means doesn't mean it can allot all to a cooling unit , for an ASEA , whose radius is way lesser than that of Tejas,,

To justify its 150 million dollar price tag & 1000s & 1000s of kilometer range dassault has to give that space to fuel tanks, I think.

Besides as I don't expect you to have any knowledge of geometry, you obviously don't know that space behind a radome 30 cm bigger dia will always be bigger than space behind radome which is 30 cm lower in radius.

 

[ersakthivel]

Someone on this forum told me that you have very high knowledge in this sector, anyways leave that all.

Check out official sources:
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/indi...y-radar-offered-thales-hal-its-tejas-mk1a-lca

This one from IDRW (I don't take it much seriously)

http://idrw.org/is-thales-offer-for...-a-threat-to-eltas-elm-2052-chances-in-india/

Yup, Rafale has roughly 30cm less cone dia than LCA but what about the rear end. Because LCA don't have enough space for liquid cooling and its electronic support systems where Rafale has almora more than 1.5 time the space than LCA.

Anyways Rafale has nearly 1000 TRMs on RBE2-AA AESA

https://hushkit.net/2016/04/24/top-ten-fighter-radars/
Whereas we can expect nearly 700 TRMs on the Thales aesa designed for LCA requirements. And if you want more quality with the same size and TRMs than you can replace these TRMs with GaN TRM modules (presently India also has under development GaN project)

Good Day mate..

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=102056

Anyway as usual tejas attracts so many uninformed people to write crap on it.

I don't know whether it is the design feature of tejas or the people who write about.

To clear the air I am posting PIB press release.

At IOC 2 #Tejas_LCA didn't hv a certified center line fuel tank.

In that config it got IOC2.

PIB officially says in IOC2 config tejas has a ferry range greater than 1700 km, of course without refuelling.

In the same config tejas has a combat radius of upto 500 km, ie without centerline tank.

We all know HAL given combat radius includes fuel for dogfight, time on station, a certain time of supersonic flight ,etc, etc , with decent combat loads.

With additional centerline fuel tank I hope it will come around 600 plus Km.

If we stretch it in MNC marketing terms, just with a few air to air missiles, & 3 fuel tanks, in ideal high altitude condition, with no fuel allocation for close combat, time on station, after burner , we too can say it has a combat range of close to 1500 kms.

It won't be far from truth.

Most of the times Single E engined fighters operate within 500 km radius in combat.

So whether you consider me knowledgeable or not,

Don't go on & on about tejas having a short range, so it can't hv a cruise missile or brahmos mini(even when DRDO says it is making one for tejas).

It wouldn't reflect favourably on your, "knowledge"

 

[TPFscopes]

Of course you are talking about stuff you don't know again.

Tejas carries close to 200 kg ballast weight behind radome.

I do hope that this occupies sonme space in fuselage.

Because I haven't seen the weight being carried by pilot in his lap,

So as usual you are making another not so credible claim ,
because of the unavailability of space , tejas can not have bigger or the same sized ASEA radar.

I normally don't make such claims.
Dassault rafale having 1.5 times space, means doesn't mean it can allot all to a cooling unit , for an ASEA , whose radius is way lesser than that of Tejas,,

To justify its 150 million dollar price tag & 1000s & 1000s of kilometer range dassault has to give that space to fuel tanks, I think.

Besides as I don't expect you to have any knowledge of geometry, you obviously don't know that space behind a radome 30 cm bigger dia will always be bigger than space behind radome which is 30 cm lower in radius.

@Kunal Biswas
Beg your efforts to tell him about the importance of "center of gravity" in the aviation design. If you can't than suggest someone who can share that...
Bcoz I'm an engineer by education but I'm very bad in teaching..


AFAIK, according to the design issued earlier have no issues with CG but with the extensive design changes and heavier landing gears shifts the CG of jets behind the expected place. So, to retain the CG at its expected place developers added a solid Ballast/Dead weight just infront of the cockpit.
To remove, the Ballast weight, Designer have to redesign the airframe extensively which will again required to have IOC and FOC for its own.

I don't know how to convince the guy one who has a already placed perception of not to get convinced.

This is also one of the reason behind the delay in UTTAM AESA delays.specially for cooling system development.

 

[TPFscopes]

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=102056

Anyway as usual tejas attracts so many uninformed people to write crap on it.

I don't know whether it is the design feature of tejas or the people who write about.

To clear the air I am posting PIB press release.

At IOC 2 #Tejas_LCA didn't hv a certified center line fuel tank.

In that config it got IOC2.

PIB officially says in IOC2 config tejas has a ferry range greater than 1700 km, of course without refuelling.

In the same config tejas has a combat radius of upto 500 km, ie without centerline tank.

We all know HAL given combat radius includes fuel for dogfight, time on station, a certain time of supersonic flight ,etc, etc , with decent combat loads.

With additional centerline fuel tank I hope it will come around 600 plus Km.

If we stretch it in MNC marketing terms, just with a few air to air missiles, & 3 fuel tanks, in ideal high altitude condition, with no fuel allocation for close combat, time on station, after burner , we too can say it has a combat range of close to 1500 kms.

It won't be far from truth.

Most of the times Single E engined fighters operate within 500 km radius in combat.

So whether you consider me knowledgeable or not,

Don't go on & on about tejas having a short range, so it can't hv a cruise missile or brahmos mini(even when DRDO says it is making one for tejas).

It wouldn't reflect favourably on your, "knowledge"

Stupidity at its height.

You quoted my post which has all information about aesa with not a single word about the fuel carry capacity/range and here you are talking about the ferry and combat ranges of LCA. I think you need to put some pressure on your mind before replying to any post.
If you want a debate than you need to stick with a single topic otherwise there no need to put BS here and there...

 

[Kshithij]

Here are the diameters of radomes of different planes:
F-20/T-50 => ~500mm (APG-67 family)
F-15 => ~950mm (APG-63, APG-70 families)
F-16 => ~660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80 families)
F-18 => ~700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79 families)
F-35 => ~700mm (APG-81)
F-22 => ~900mm (APG-77)

Gripen => ~500mm (PS/05 family)
M2000 => ~500mm (RDM, RDI, RDY families)
Rafale => ~600mm (RBE family)
Typhoon => ~700mm (ECR-90/CAPTOR family)

MIG-29 => ~624 mm (N019, N010 families)
SU-27/30 => ~1000 mm (N001, N010 [924mm antenna ver], N011 faimilies)
MIG-31 => ~1400mm (N007 family)


Tejas radome is about 650mm

Area wise, Tejas has 17% bigger Radome than Rafale

 

[ersakthivel]

@Kunal Biswas
Beg your efforts to tell him about the importance of "center of gravity" in the aviation design. If you can't than suggest someone who can share that...
Bcoz I'm an engineer by education but I'm very bad in teaching..


AFAIK, according to the design issued earlier have no issues with CG but with the extensive design changes and heavier landing gears shifts the CG of jets behind the expected place. So, to retain the CG at its expected place developers added a solid Ballast/Dead weight just infront of the cockpit.
To remove, the Ballast weight, Designer have to redesign the airframe extensively which will again required to have IOC and FOC for its own.

I don't know how to convince the guy one who has a already placed perception of not to get convinced.

This is also one of the reason behind the delay in UTTAM AESA delays.specially for cooling system development.

I too did Engineering in college.

Removing 150 kg ballast & adding a heavy cooling unit for ASEA radar(which could roughly weigh the same ) should hv no effect on CG.

I too studied Engineering only.

Have they changed the laws of physics?

 

[ersakthivel]

I noticed

Stupidity at its height.

You quoted my post which has all information about aesa with not a single word about the fuel carry capacity/range and here you are talking about the ferry and combat ranges of LCA. I think you need to put some pressure on your mind before replying to any post.
If you want a debate than you need to stick with a single topic otherwise there no need to put BS here and there...

O noticed that you hv been posting for eons that,.Being a ,"short ranged" ,"light" fighter tejas need not hv Sub sonic or super sonic cruise missiles,

That's why I quoted press information bureau ranges for you.

Please bear with me.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Kunal Biswas
Beg your efforts to tell him about the importance of "center of gravity" in the aviation design. If you can't than suggest someone who can share that...
Bcoz I'm an engineer by education but I'm very bad in teaching..


AFAIK, according to the design issued earlier have no issues with CG but with the extensive design changes and heavier landing gears shifts the CG of jets behind the expected place. So, to retain the CG at its expected place developers added a solid Ballast/Dead weight just infront of the cockpit.
To remove, the Ballast weight, Designer have to redesign the airframe extensively which will again required to have IOC and FOC for its own.

I don't know how to convince the guy one who has a already placed perception of not to get convinced.

This is also one of the reason behind the delay in UTTAM AESA delays.specially for cooling system development.

Ballast weight need not be ,"removed".

It just needs to be replaced with heavier ASEA cooling unit.

Replacing the ballast weight with ASEA heavier cooling unit , which also sits at the same place won't change CG.

For your info tejas is a relaxed static stability fly by wire fighter,
For minor variations in CG tweaking the control laws are good enough.

CG of tejas keep changing dynamically & computer calculates it every fraction of the second & flies it accordingly.

Add heavy fuel tanks, bombs, BVR missiles, fire them .

All will impact CG.

Fly by wire software of tejas good in dealing with it.

Besides ASEA cooling unit sits at the same place where ballast sits. So no big changes.

Besides naval tejas which has significant airframe modifications than tejas mk1 is flying with no issues with tweaked fly by wire software.

So do tejas trainers which have entirely different s cockpit, fuselage design.

I don't know how good or bad you are in teaching.

But I certainly don't need ,"this kind" of wisdom from you.

So in our long conversation we found out,

That Tejas has the second biggest radar in IAF(so much for the ,"light" fighter, ) with the lowest frontal clean config RCS , a deadly combination in air to air mode,

With most modern air to air BVR missiles & a validated R73E & Python close combat missiles available.

It has a state of the art DRFM based ASEA jammer.

Without centerline fuel tank in IOC 2 config

It has 500 km combat radius & more than 1700 km ferry range.

DRDO is developing a brahmos version for tejas.

With RBE2 availability Meteor BVR missile is a possible future edition as well.

It can deliver Laser guided bombs as good as any fighter in IAF.

Good day mate.