Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


by78

Brigadier
I could never understand why India did not use the Tejas MK1 as a booster for the local defense ecosystem and mandate everything but the engines be indigenous in the first block production, not unlike China with the first J-10s. Use a PD Radar and other systems that local industry could actually design and build themselves, and iterate/evolve from there...
Have you considered the possibility that India to this day still does not possess the capacity – skilled manpower, know-how, industrial base, project management expertise – to design and build even a third-generation fighter indigenously?
 

Brumby

Major
Have you considered the possibility that India to this day still does not possess the capacity – skilled manpower, know-how, industrial base, project management expertise – to design and build even a third-generation fighter indigenously?
Are you forgetting the Mk1 or are you suggesting that it is not even third generation when the PAF is claiming that the JF-17 is at least fourth generation? IMO, the problem with India is not the technological capacity but the bureaucracy.
 

by78

Brigadier
Are you forgetting the Mk1 or are you suggesting that it is not even third generation when the PAF is claiming that the JF-17 is at least fourth generation? IMO, the problem with India is not the technological capacity but the bureaucracy.
On the contrary, I remember Mk1 quite well, for it has been characterized as gen 3++, with 75.5% of its parts having been imported.
 

Xsizor

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Indian Tejas Mk1 started out as a replacement for Mig-21. It started out as a Gen 3 project. But the program has run so long that an argument for Gen 4 was made. Since it is the only fighter jet platform of indigenous development, the Tejas became the test-bed of sorts for migrating or indigenizing the Gen 4 technologies. So the MK1 Tejas is right now a Gen 4+ aircraft. But the thing is that as @by78 said... it hosts anywhere between 55 to 75% of imported content. The quarts radome is supplied by Britain, AESA radar is from Israel (Elta), Missiles are from Israel and Russia, The targeting pod is from Israel, the ejection seats are British (Martin Baker), Powerplants are from US ( GE 404 series), Avionics have Israeli inputs ( i read that French inputs were there too so...), FCS Actuators are from US (MOOG), the HMDS and Glass cockpit seems to have inputs from Israel ( and France ?).
 
Last edited:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Guys, could you please leave these childish addition of - IMO plain useless - generations??

There is nothing like a 3+, 3++ or shall we say 4- generation... these are just marketing plots of inventions from kids in order to have a higher rating in these endless quartets game like discussions.
 

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just as Deino said, the generations are just a way of conveying to people less learned with combat aircraft tech as to broadly what are the capabilities of that aircraft.
In technical assessment, it is much more useful to stick to parameters like range, payload, fuel, thrust etc. for primary understanding and secondary parameters like stealth, electronic aids, airframe peculiarities etc. for a more detailed understanding of nature of missions the aircraft can handle.
Tejas and Jf-17 are pretty much alike while comparing primary specs, with differences arising only in secondary specs (use of carbon composite, radar types etc)
Considering the roles they'll fill in the respective air forces (multirole, not lead fighters), neither need the cutting edge tech. What they do need is durability, affordability ( both in acquisition, maintenance costs) and fair bit of indigenous support.
Considering this, the jf -17 program has certainly achieved more than the tejas program, providing its air force with the numbers and without burning through the pockets while Teja program lost focus due to major scope creep.
 

Brumby

Major
but the ineffectiveness of the su30 was a eye-opener.
I somewhat agree that the recent border skirmish does suggest the SU-30MKI was rather ineffective. However I also think that such a conclusion should take into consideration whether it is due to poor tactical deployment rather than a capability issue.

IMO, the Indians are rather blinded by the often mentioned maneuverability of the SU-30 MKI and this may influence its tactical deployment in operations.

A recent security scan video on the SU-30MKI and note how often they mention its maneuverability.


The problem is in real exchanges, the other side also get a vote.
 

Zool

Junior Member
Have you considered the possibility that India to this day still does not possess the capacity – skilled manpower, know-how, industrial base, project management expertise – to design and build even a third-generation fighter indigenously?
For India to build a 3rd Gen Fighter, based on the research I've done on their history of systems developed and deployed and new systems currently in development (bar engines)? No.
 

Top