with such a small range how are they going to use it, can you see any usage of Tejas with such a short range?listen buddy . i went to the 'make in india' exhibition recently---just few days ago . there , besides a model of tejas aircraft were it's specifications . and the model and specifications were posted by HAL , for it was HAL's part of the exhibition . among the specifications was written tejas' combat radius---300 km .
now if HAL says the combat radius is 300km then you cant argue against it , can you....
Mk.1A will be 500kg lighter, so it will save fuel. Combat radius may increase to 500km. You have to consider it is light catagory. So do not compare it with medium fighters. How many light fighters are there beside it? Only Gripen and JF-17, isn't it? Compare with these.with such a small range how are they going to use it, can you see any usage of Tejas with such a short range?
Sure, I can argue, either you read 300 instead of 3000 else HAL mistakenly wrote 300 instead of 3000listen buddy . i went to the 'make in india' exhibition recently---just few days ago . there , besides a model of tejas aircraft were it's specifications . and the model and specifications were posted by HAL , for it was HAL's part of the exhibition . among the specifications was written tejas' combat radius---300 km .
now if HAL says the combat radius is 300km then you cant argue against it , can you....
wiki page says lca mk.1 got combat radius of 500 kms.Oh buddy, mk. 1 has 300km combat radius, not mk. 1A (which has 500km)! Mk. 1 had participated in BIAS, 2016.
copied from wiki page,@salute, read properly. It is written - Specification (HAL Tejas mk.1A)
In Air to Air role, maybe. But we will have to wait (long) to see Tejas fully developped and operational.That should actually be a learning advice for you, It means that INDIA CONSIDERS ISRAEL MORE RELIABLE SUPPLIER TO DELIVER THAN FRANCE. So if there is anything that Israel does not produce/offer, we shall source from other source. Radars, Missiles, Avionics etc etc. India selected ELTA for Tejas... we did not even think of going for Thales or selex product, Missiles, Derby and Python prefered over MICA.
BTW Tejas vs Mirage 2000 we already had that discussion, Tejas, better detection range than Mirage 2000, Tejas having long ranged R-77 misiles. so Mirage 2000 (any version) is inferior to Tejas. Seems no matter how much you explain the facts to French they are just indoctrinated to believe that everything French is the best. no matter how badly its over rated.
In Air to Air role, maybe. But we will have to wait (long) to see Tejas fully developped and operational.That should actually be a learning advice for you, It means that INDIA CONSIDERS ISRAEL MORE RELIABLE SUPPLIER TO DELIVER THAN FRANCE. So if there is anything that Israel does not produce/offer, we shall source from other source. Radars, Missiles, Avionics etc etc. India selected ELTA for Tejas... we did not even think of going for Thales or selex product, Missiles, Derby and Python prefered over MICA.
BTW Tejas vs Mirage 2000 we already had that discussion, Tejas, better detection range than Mirage 2000, Tejas having long ranged R-77 misiles. so Mirage 2000 (any version) is inferior to Tejas. Seems no matter how much you explain the facts to French they are just indoctrinated to believe that everything French is the best. no matter how badly its over rated.
Dassault engineers, a small compagny among beast like Lookeed, Boeing, Sukhoi.... are skilled enough, even if they are few (because small compagny, and they are french ! too handicaped...), to studied a top class fighter. So top that IAF, after a very strong field test, said it is the best with EF.You are born stupid or you just happen to fall on your head? There is ToT for Mirage 2000, but then we already have flying Tejas, By the way, let me do remind you that HAL had taken advisers from Dassault, for ensuring that Tejas would be ready soon, Unfortunately it just turned out to be an expense, as the Dassault consultants were incompetent and could not help in any development. That should give you the level of liars and incompetent the Dassault consultants were. In Fact they made HAL believe that Rafale is not a threat to Tejas as they are in different "weight class" unfortunately HAL seems to have believed them. But Dassault is very much threatened by Tejas for two reasons.
A) Tejas inducted by IAF means no French plane will be purchased by india for at least next two decades.
B) Tejas will also be competing with Rafale in many of the markets where Rafale is trying and in fact Tejas due to virtue of its low cost, top of the line avionics and easy maintenance will be the choice.
All the Rafale fans can then talk about is the over rated SPECTRA and also how it was "proven" in Libya
And JF17. Very cheap and flying not so bad. Enough to replace 40/50 years old Mig 21.Kick the A$$ of dassault. We can go for f16 or F18 or Su35. They are very inexpensive yet potent plane. Me may consider Mig 35 as well.
You forget PESA radar is not more produce. first serial AESA were delivered in 2012. In the force in 2013. ALl planes produced since are AESA equipped.Rafale has its own advantage in small RCS and PESA radar. It is unique in many way. In some qualities, MKI leads while in some rafale leads. Rafle is no doubt a great plane like Mirage 2000 which is loved by air force after so many years. They are highly reliable and cost effective to operate. The EW suit of rafale (Spectra) is best in the world. If we buy rafale, they are for sure will give us the best service upto 2050. Here the question is at what cost? Can the money be spent better? We have to make a choice.
YES, He CAN !listen buddy . i went to the 'make in india' exhibition recently---just few days ago . there , besides a model of tejas aircraft were it's specifications . and the model and specifications were posted by HAL , for it was HAL's part of the exhibition . among the specifications was written tejas' combat radius---300 km .
now if HAL says the combat radius is 300km then you cant argue against it , can you....
r u paki with disguise,And JF17. Very cheap and flying not so bad. Enough to replace 40/50 years old Mig 21.
I think 1700km ferry range and 300km combat radius may be correct WITHOUT EXTERNAL FUEL.Sure, I can argue, either you read 300 instead of 3000 else HAL mistakenly wrote 300 instead of 3000
These are the numbers which are widely accepted
Range: 3,000 km
Combat radius: 500 km[
Ferry range: 1,700 km[
So thats why am saying that tere was some error, no chance that IAF would accept a plane with just 300 kms range
What I had given was accepted data of 1AI think 1700km ferry range and 300km combat radius may be correct WITHOUT EXTERNAL FUEL.
This is the reason they are increasing internal fuel in Mark-2.
The combat radius increases to 500km with two external tanks.