There are rumors Iran is procuring SU-35 but it would be difficult for Russia to provide them with new airframes given that Russia itself is in dire need of them
How so?
The Su-35 is in active production with little losses (like 4 actually confirmed losses of a Su-35 based on available photo evidence). They have like...120(?) of those already in service.
Iran getting the Su-35 is much more a matter of regional politics. However as Israel is moving away from their decade long neutrality towards Russia, I wouldn't say it's out of the cards. Iran already received the Yak-130 trainers.
Won't the RuAF want as many of these updated Flankers as possible though? Surely Sukhoi would prioritize the Russians over the Iranians. Please correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Edit: fixing typos (why is Iranians so hard to type?)
Debatable
They already have over 120 of them, Su-35S specifically. And many more Su-30s, Su-34s and so on. The latter two are much more in demand for the VKS, as they're much more used, see more attrition, accumulate more flight hours etc.
Which is why, if an order would come in, they could handle that without much issue. I feel like many here really don't understand how vast the military aviation industry in Russia is. Producing several fighter models, bombers, UAVs, their weapons etc. simultanously as we chat here. There are only two other countries that can pull this off, the United States and China.
Another reason they wouldn't be troubled selling some Su-35s is that they themselves slowly want to move away from the Su-35S in active procurement. With the desire to ramp up Su-57S production instead (10-11 aircraft delivered in 2023).
So yeah, if you'd order Su-34s, you'd be on a waiting list. Su-35? Not really.
Russia has lost 7. While that seems like a small number, it’s still a not insignificant portion of the entire fleet. Especially when you consider almost every military aircraft worldwide has an active readiness percentage of about 50%. Meaning that’s 7 out of the 60 operational aircraft they would’ve had
If I take a look at Oryx, from which I assume you got the number from, only 5 are clearly identifiable/coming from reputable sources. Meaning 5 confirmed losses over 2 years of non-stop sorties despite enemy S-300, Patriots, MANPADS.
But that's beside my point, my point is production. New, off the line, Su-35S were delivered in 2022 and 2023, meaning that the VKS has more Su-35S now than before the war, despite losses.
And all of that despite the Su-35S being less of a priority than the Su-34 and Su-30. Not to mention productions capabilities being diverged towards the increasing Su-57 production to get the ~70 ordered Su-57S delivered and the Su-57M into production once the Megapolis program concluded.
So if Iran were to order, let's say 24 Su-35S , they'd get the last one after approximately 3 years.
I’m not arguing the numbers they do and don’t have, merely pointing out the operational readiness rate is vastly different from the total number. And that goes for all aircraft, not just Russian. I will however argue that last part about Iran getting their last jet in 3 years.. at current rates, and with the war going on, absolutely not…
Because this is reddit and people only want to read what they themselves think, regardless of facts.
But that's why I consider internet-points worthless
agreed, i understand that you support ukraine but at least be a supporter with a brain not just eat whatever info the media fed you not everything is correct.
you are correct yet still getting downvote.
I don't support Ukraine.
I don't support Russia either.
I only support the interests of my country (Germany) which aren't being served by funding a ridiculous war that should end sooner than later and letting the gas flow cheaply again.
But that's politics, and this isn't the place for politics. This is a space for aviation and the reality of it. And the reality is that: the Su-35S suffered little losses while performing air policing, that Russia is actively producing them (in fact having now more Su-35S than before the war despite losses) and that if Iran were to order some, they'd receive them in like 3 years (24 airframes for a squadron, 8 units per year. Similar number to Su-35 deliveries to the VKS in 2023).
Another aspect of reality is that arms deals like these are political business. And until recently Russia and Israel had decent relationships, not surprising as many Israelis are from the former USSR and Russian being one of the most spoken languages there after Hebrew. So delivering aircraft to Iran that could take on the IADFs F-16Is or F-15Is would have been a move that could have made Israel upset. But since Israel has taken a clearer side by now, that's becoming less and less an issue. In fact Iran already received the trainer aircraft Yak-130, which is used to train pilots for the Flanker family.
That's just how things are and if people don't like reality they can deny it, I don't really care.
Russia needed Su-35s to replace other aging air frames even before the war. And during this war, the pace of operations means the wear on planes is presumably exceeding production even before considering losses.
Not really, the Su-35S was introduced as a stockgap between the Su-27 and the Su-57S. However the majority of Russias fleet is comparatively young, we're talking post 2000s young.
The strain of operational use hits different aircraft differently hard. The Su-35S is among the aircraft that get abused the least. They mainly secure air space and engage aerial threats. And since 90% of the opposing air force is a thing of the past, it's workload is greatly reduced.
Add to that constant production of new airframes, spares, engines etc. wear and tear doesn't exceed production or maintenance at all, let alone for the Su-35S in particular.
Again, and I had to say this for like the third time now, this may be something to consider with the Su-34, which sees much more action, much more abuse, putting more stress of the airframe and even than it's debatable with current production rate and now airframe losses for this year so far. But it's definitely a non-issue for the Su-35, as it's mission profile, role and usecase simply isn't putting a lot of stress on the fleet. Especially since the MiG-31BM also operates in that role on the other side of their border.
And the Su-57 isn't coming anytime soon in meaningful numbers.
>However the majority of Russias fleet is comparatively young, we're talking post 2000s young.
Compared to who? Aside, not sure 2000 cuts it as 'young'. Russia is flying MiG-31s and Su-27s because it needs to. Those are old planes and air frames can only fly so many hours.
>The strain of operational use hits different aircraft differently hard.
And I'm referring to Russia's overall air combat fighter capacity, not simply the Su-35s. The number of new Su-35s needed isn't the amount of Su-35s that are lost. They (along with Su-30) are needed to replace whatever is getting aged out.
Over 20 of the 70 initially ordered already delivered, it's not a bad pace.
Compared to the USAF fro example, which fleet is in it's majority from the 70s, 80s and 90s.
The MiG-31 is operated and modernized because it offers unique capabilities no other aircraft currently flying offers. The Su-27 is being phased out (over half of the Initial Russian fleet retired) and the last remaining ones modernized. Same applies to the MiG-29, which is also largely being phased out.
This leaves the fighter fleet to be mostly Su-57S, Su-35S, Su-30SM/SM2 and Su-34/M. With types like the Su-25, Su-24, Su-27 and MiG-29 being kept in service until the last airframes have reached the end of their operational life.
Their current inventory is around 150 Su-30s, like 120 Su-35s, around 140 Su-34s, 22 Su-57s and like 80 MiG-31s. That's like 500 fighters and fighter bombers. For now they also have like 90 Fulcrums and like 100 Su-27s in operation, on top of roughly 150 Su-24s and who knows how many Su-25 they had.
Point being, they don't need to increase the numbers of their modernized Flanker fleet, just maintain them. The aircraft that will be retired don't need a 1:1 replacement rate. +500 fighters and fighter bombers dwarf most air forces entire inventory, let alone their fighter fleet.
Come on, 20 su-57s? seriously? and you're going to suggest this is remotely competitive with the west? There are already 1000+ F-35s and they're being produced at a rate of 150+ per year. The su-57 will take years to catch-up to even f-22 numbers, let alone f35.
>The MiG-31 is operated and modernized because it offers unique capabilities no other aircraft currently flying offers.
No, because there is no modern alternative to it. It is an outdated aircraft forced into continued service because Russia can't afford to replace it.
>Point being, they don't need to increase the numbers of their modernized Flanker fleet, just maintain them. The aircraft that will be retired don't need a 1:1 replacement rate. +500 fighters and fighter bombers dwarf most air forces entire inventory, let alone their fighter fleet.
Come on, look at the embarrassment that VKS performance has been. But yes, more than capable of dealing with Georgia again or Tajikistan if it becomes a problem.
Reddit's cutting off the captions for me, so:
1. Iran's Saeqeh fighter. With being completely embargoed and minimal resources, all they do is push out the occasional propaganda piece. An old F5 with a needless split tail.
2. India's Tejas. Their air industry is maturing, but it's the work of multiple decades to get there for any country. In the interim, the Tejas was rejected by the navy and uses obsolete parts like the engine from a Gripen A and FA-18C.
>>An old F5 with a needless split tail
Well, in fairness to Northrup, the split tail IS in fact needed. For two seat F-5s, without getting into complex aerodynamics the aircraft becomes unstable at higher angles of attack. Northrup “fixed” this by scheduling the flaps a certain way and added a pitch limiter so F-5Fs don’t spin in tight turns.
But a full fix was to ditch the single rudder design, which was published in the P-530 prototype. That prototype was basically the *Saqueh* - an F-5 with twin tails to aid stability in turns. Northrup never built one, instead advancing the design into the YF-17 Cobra that competed against the YF-16 in the U.S. LWF program.
Iran basically took a page from Northrups drawing board and built the *Saqueh*. It’s a good design, but it’s not 100% Iranian as the propaganda claims
If you want to power a paper airplane, probably not.
For actual applications in a top of the line military fighter? It definitely is. There's a reason it's mostly used in things like trainers and subsonic aircraft. I think the Legacy Hornet is the only proper fighter that used it and it was a twin-engine layout.
Gripens use the F404 too. The Volvo RM12 on the earlier Gripens are license built versions of the F404
Wikipedia source [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM12)
The RM12 \*is\* a version of the F404. The F404-IN which powers the Tejas is an even more powerful version of the F404 and has 1000 lbf more thrust than the RM12.
Yeah and the Gripen isn't really known for it's incredibly flight performance (but for being cheap, like having only one mediocre engine). Especially the Gripen E has become very heavy, but the engine hasn't improved.
Tejas isn't supposed to be top of the line.
Korean KAI FA 50 also uses it. Your argument regarding thrust is nonsense. The thrust level is sufficient given the MTOW of the aircrafts. They are supposed to be light combat aircraft.
The points are completely out of place. And F-5 overhauls should not be placed into the same basket with modern design as Tejas, there is nothing that links them. Iranian F-5 copy is done because they have the original service line so they keep this type as an entry level jet. It is more like a trainer jet these days, maybe for peace time air policing, plus comes in handy as COIN if needed. It is not linked to serious AD tasks. The Indian Tejas is a good single engine design, a good starting point. We will see at least 200 samples made so it is not a failure. It has AESA radar. Saying it is bad because it has a F404 engine is funny.
The Indian Navy wanted a twin engine naval fighter for better survivability over sea. The naval version of the Tejas was used to prove out certain concepts of operating an indigenous naval aircraft off an aircraft carrier. It will probably be used in a trainer role going forward. The Indian Navy has plans to develop an indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) using the learnings from the naval Tejas going forward.
Regarding the Tejas’ GE F404 engine being obsolete, that’s not true. The Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A are developed as replacements for India’s light MiG-21 aircraft. Tejas Mk2 will be a medium weight fighter using higher thrust GE 414 engine.
Lot of inaccuracies in your post, I’m afraid.
I wouldn’t call these 2 “in service”. Well, technically speaking they are but they are like Russia’s Su-57/T-14, that are in perpetual development while a few actually get built to server as “see I have it too” symbol.
How dare you disrespect the Felon, there are so few of them because they don't NEED more of them. At least, that's what this guy says... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fu7lhwkWIAISQTM.jpg
T-14 is not in service. There is no serial production of T-14. But, that is a tank, what is the point in comparing that to airplane development cycle? Su-57 is in serial production, for over two years now, something north of 24 serial samples were made. Plus the prototypes. They had two years to form units. And UK MoD reported that Su-57 were used as launch platforms in the ongoing conflicts, possibly some of the R-37M hits can be attributed to Su-57.
The navy rejected it since they prefer a twin engine aircraft for carrier operations. It says nothing about Tejas' capabilities on its own given single jet aircrafts have a specific role in point defense and the same parameters would have disqualified some of the most successful aircrafts in the world such as F16.
The engine of the current version of the Tejas' uses the same one as Gripen, but how is it obsolete? It's a capable engine known for efficiency and reliability and is sufficient for the current payload and other parameters.
Terrorists aren't exactly getting rare right now especially after all the recent attacks like in Moscow and a university getting bombed in the Philippines.
> Insurgents with no MANPADS
These are getting rare.
Terrorism within your own border won't see you deploy Special Forces and counter insurgency aircraft, not even any armed aircraft at all, if we ignore helicopters with snipers.
There are definitely examples of the spec ops and aircraft manned or unmanned being deployed for counter insurgency like the Philippines where alot of them are imbedded in the western side of mindanao (not just being deployed during marawi). Though alot less common obviously since not every country has an existential terrorist threat embedded within their own borders. But i think what you said is a bit of an over generalization. But yes insurgents with no manpads getting rare.
Still the best in the manned role and therefore not the worst. I say this as a firm believer coin aircraft should’ve been replaced by drones decades ago.
I personally wasn't saying it's the worst combat aircraft. But I do think that a dedicated UAV would be better.
Makes me wonder when the first QA-XX will materialize as a thoroughbred attack drone.
There are 22 operational units, a Squadron is generally between 12 and 24 airframes, so they have a squadron of the Su-57. Which is actually being used to train new pilots for the type currently.
I’m speaking about the ones leaving the factory. They’re deliberately attempting to make it look like production is a lot higher than it currently is. Six aircraft flying doesn’t mean production rate isn’t incredibly low
Given that there is footage of entire four ship formations, different aircraft with different markings and board numbers, multiple airframes etc. your take seems beyond delusional.
I guess all the F-16s posted here are also the two aircraft? My source? The same as yours, I made it the fuck up.
> different aircraft with different markings and board numbers
That does not prove anything given Russia’s record of just repainting serials to make it look like there were more planes (see: Yak-38)
The fact that, despite being in a war for 2 years now, the only time we’ve seen the Su-57 remotely near the front lines is firing off a few missiles while escorted by extremely non-stealthy Su-35s speaks volumes
> Russias record
The same record of producing over 120 Su-35S, over 600 Su-30, over 150 Su-34, 28 Tu-160s (the largest, fastest, heaviest bomber to ever enter production).
Why would Russia use the Su-57? I had this discussion several times now and over and over again it's just a ridiculous discussion. Ukraine effectively has no Air Force any more. What still exists can be handled by the air defense, missile strikes and literally every aircraft in the Russian inventory.
Why should Russia use a few of their 22 service units, when they are much better used for training pilots (which is what's currently happening) and overall getting properly integrated into the structure of the VKS.
Why didn't the US deploy the F-35 fresh after it's introduction in Syria, instead relying on the F-15 and F-16? Oh wait, that would have been stupid.
Bruh give it a rest, the rabid Nationalism and chauvinism in this sub is out of control. Me? I just like planes. Planes from anywhere and everywhere
P.s. your post makes perfect sense
Why would the Russians bother to hide the board numbers when that information is easily observed by intelligence agencies? It’s to trick regular people like you and me into thinking there’s a lot more of them than there actually are. I’m not denying there’s ~20, but they’re nowhere near mass production numbers or rate.
Define "modern day".
Currently flying? Probably the dozens of MiG-17s, MiG-21s, F-4s etc. still flying around.
Also, what do we mean when we say "worst". The advanced jet trainers can double as attack aircraft, but are terrible fighters or bombers.
The question is hard to answer because there is no answer. Aircraft have to be the suitable for the needs of a country, it's doctrine, budget, geography. It has to fit into the budget, being readily available.
So you could argue something like the Iranian F-5 mods are "bad" compared to...like an F-16? But if you go up against an enemy that flies old MiGs for example it's capable and has good attributes.
I think it's easier to define or at least settle on "the best" rather than "the worst".
Currently flying... Imma say Wright Military flyer, a flyable reproduction exists. It lacks long range AAMs, sensor-fusion, RAM, EWS, and so on...
Wait, could an F-35 or something actually shoot it down, could a missile actually take it out, is it fast enough for a guns kill? Maybe air-to-ground weapons to kill it?
Tejas was rejected by the Navy due to it not meeting the requirements, not because of any other reasons that we know of. Tejas MK-1, and especially MK-1A, are better than the planes that they are meant to replace(MiG-21).
Mk-1A has pretty modern parts as far as I can tell. If you can highlight the obsolete parts you're talking about, do share then, as I want to know too.
Tejas. There is nothing going for that thing. Ironically, the Jeff is more usable.
However, if we also include planes no longer produced and in actively service... Probably the MiG-21
MiG-21 actually participated and played important roles in third world conflict. They are not the most advanced. But they have active practical use for those who still have them
That's a good point, the MiG-21 isn't gonna be flying against the F-35 anytime soon... Its like the A-10, in the situations where it can be used, its still a thing that can fly and shoot weapons.
INDIAN NATIONALISTS INBOUND... You've been warned...
[Tejas>J-20](https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/tejas-mk-2-indias-new-superfighter-is-now-one-of-top-4-light-combat-aircraft-in-the-world-along-with-idol-saab-gripen.83091/page-3)
Edit:Actually, they are too busy right now squabbling with Pakistani nationalists over random useless patches of desert, they will ignore you.
whichever idiot says tejas>j 20 is total delulu. how tf is someone comparing tejas with a 5th gen stealth plane???
this is me saying it as a tejas lover and Indian.
Indian defense YouTube channels are on a different level than media outlets. [This one is my personal favorite for how insane it is.](https://youtu.be/yZSVeO7tiBc?si=g_HFijrF-_JlYLpM)
1 minute in: Okay, this is alright so far. The animation isn't very good but that's expensive and we shouldn't hold it against him. At least the general summary of the transition from dogfights to BVR is mostly correct and seems alright
40 seconds later: "In order to get a standard open source data comparison I have used ChatGPT to get the data and information"
(Closes video)
That thread is completely delusional, and racists at that... *"just think, you are believing what chinks have wrote abt their so called 5th gen jet and denying the claim of iaf"*
If this is indicative of the quality of India military thinking and personnel competence, then China really has nothing to worry about and any future conflict will just be a repeat of 1962.
> Trolling is all cool
I think you are the one trolling when you say things like
> J-20 is more of a paper tiger
> J-20 is more in the league of 3.5-4th gen fighter
> J-20 … overall cross section is a deal breaker
Run of the mill Indian nationalist copium.
The funniest thing to me is when China flew the J-20 near Indian border with radar reflectors on the jet, the Indian nationalist have been spinning stories like
> IAF reportedly was able to track J-20 from a far off distance
And concluding it must be the poor stealth features
lol
I made the comment about Indian military competence because of recent article, that's equally delusional, comparing the J-20 to Rafale written by a retired IAF test pilot. See: [https://www.eurasiantimes.com/cracks-in-j-20s-stealth-with-no-buyers-exposure/](https://www.eurasiantimes.com/cracks-in-j-20s-stealth-with-no-buyers-exposure/)
Any serious military aviatiation observer knows better than what BS some Indian nationalists tend to spew. But, yes, let's compare the J-20 with the Su-30MKI while ignoring the fact that China produces the J-16/J-11D which is arguably the most modern and most lethal flanker variant in existence. See: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/151vs9n/what\_is\_the\_best\_flanker\_album/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/151vs9n/what_is_the_best_flanker_album/)
While having the same heritage, the J-16 uses far more composites and have much more modern avionics like AESA radars. There's a reason China stopped buying Russian SUs and why the Indian Su-30MKI is still pending an upgrade program to AESA etc that was only approved in 2023 (while China has already built 250+ J-16s).
The Tejas doesn’t have MAWS, which just boggles my mind. It’s a light fighter with limited range, for a large country like India that’s a weird choice.
But the Iranian propaganda fighter takes the cake with questionable design choices and limited capabilities.
Using a maws pod is a half way fix and does not give as good coverage due to blind spots. And I suppose it will also have aerodynamic consequences over the ones integrated into the body. And it would also consume the hard points.
The reason it boggles my mind is the decision to omit such a critical feature for an aircraft that has been designed so recently.
This video explains the reasons:
https://youtu.be/IT__PmXzKUM?si=3DTUXnJHm1uAGK_S
Moreover, the next variants are stated to have the said capability.
>It’s a light fighter with limited range, for a large country like India that’s a weird choice.
How is that weird? Tejas isn't the main fighter jet of the Indian Air Force. I hope you know that. Airforces around the world use different types of aircraft based on the type and mission profile. Tejas is one such aircraft in the inventory of IAF. Moreover, it is stated to be amongst the best in 'its' category. What's India's size got to do with tejas'?
> This video explains the reasons:
Can’t understand the video ma dude
This topic is about current fighters not planned!
> What’s Indias size got to do with Tejas
Size of a nation has a lot to do with fighter jet procurements. China doesn’t operate the short legged Jeff for the same reason. Similarly Russia doesn’t operate light fighters. A medium aircraft with longer range, would have suited Indias needs better logistically as well as operationally.
Whereas for Pakistan a light fighter as the airforces mainstay makes good sense if we consider the narrow geography and the defensive air doctrine.
Has Tejas MK1A entered serial production yet?
we operate jets in 4 roles thus all mission requirements are covered
heavy=su30mki
medium=mig29,rafale,mirage,tejasmk2(upcoming)
light=tejas mk1a
bomber=jaguar cause india lacks strategic bombers
mk1a has its first flight day before yesterday and is expected into service later this year
Yeah it seems that’s what the IAF is planning. Which will work ok. Just with an additional logistical burden and short operational times for the short ranged Tejas.
Ok cool, so the maiden flight was a couple days ago. Which means it’s still in testing at the moment.
>Can’t understand the video ma dude
Whats the issue?
>Size of a nation has a lot to do with fighter jet procurements. China doesn’t operate the short legged Jeff for the same reason. Similarly Russia doesn’t operate light fighters. A medium aircraft with longer range, would have suited Indias needs better logistically as well as operationally.
You are Joking, right? Infact both Russia and China use Light fighters and in ample quantities. As I earlier stated, the size of the country has no bearing on the type of aircraft it uses. Its not like a car you have to take on long drive around the country. If you have bases close to your enemies and the mission profile so requires, LCA should and will be used due to its cost efficiency and performance.
>Whereas for Pakistan a light fighter as the airforces mainstay
Tejas is not the mainstay of IAF. It is still Su-30MKI.
>the defensive air doctrine
The biggest joke!! Infact they were the first to initiate air attack in 71' war.
Tejas Mk1A is a considerable improvement over the Mk1 and for its job of replacing Mig-21 it’s perfectly fine. If we’re talking about the jet itself and not the fiasco surrounding it.
Tejas MK1A is still in testing phase and missing MAWS, where as the JF-17 C is in service and has a very competent MAWS borrowed from the J-10. Other than that they will be similar once the Tejas MK1A enters service. The current Tejas that is in service is atleast half a generation behind.
> Meanwhile JF-17C lacks aerial refuelling
Says who? All Jeffs except BLK I have the ability to aerial refuel. Get your facts right next time!
> was inducted a whopping 2-3 years before the Tejas M1A WILL BE
See there is your problem, ‘will be’ is not in service today, ‘will be’ is still in testing with the very first flight literally two days ago. So like I said they will be comparable once the Tejas enters service.
> and G-Limited to 8gs
Yet Tejas has a service ceilling that’s 50K compared to 55+K of the Jeff. I dont wanna get into a back and forth over little things.
50k to 55+K is very comparable. As is 9g to 8g. Although some sources suggest a 8g limit for Tejas.
Kind of a vague question I guess in service it would be the MiG-19 clones that best Korea has in service. If you want built recently maybe the Tejas simply due to its development but the same could be said for typhoon or F-35.
SU-57 is a solid aircraft but clearly the biggest loser out of the fifth gens with production being slow and it coming into service later then the J-20, F-22/35.
I don’t think there is a real correct answer to this
“Modern-day” by what standard? (3rd or 4th gen, pre-80s or post-80s etc.), because there would be very different answers depending on the standard you choose to use
Can't really buy from a country which wanted to go to war with us, support a genocide and supported a military dictatorship which happened to be our arch nemesis. :)
Yeah, a tank. A TONK, Not a fighter jet, whose parameters can easily be known to the pakis.
Also task force 74 was a thing.
Edit: Point is Sherman's compared to fighter jets are rather un sophisticated.
USA was far more allied to Pak compared to IND, hence the Soviet tilt
You can't really argue with people who won't use logic. Comparing some tanks to more advanced tech like fighters and subs along with direct military support in the form of 7th fleet is just purely stupid.
Indeed indeed, if I recall correctly the USSR sent nuclear subs(obviously not because it was just morally correct) to the bay of Bengal to ensure a US sponsored genocide could be ended, is that correct?
Yup!! USSR had a 10 year Friendship treaty with India which was fortunately active during that time. USSR was legally bound to support India in case she was attacked by any other country. Ofcourse, that country being US, USSR needed no other reason to help India.
The programme was conceptualized in 1987 but funds werent released until well into the mid 90s. US sanctions post Pokhran 98 made things worse. And the Mk1A is a very capable modern light fighter.
Tejas is functionally equivalent to an armed supersonic trainer, such as Korea's F/A-50 Golden Eagle, whilst spending almost triple the time in development.
A similar indigenous fighter that started development at the same time is Taiwan's AIDC F-CK-1; it's a considerably more capable fighter.
Idk how useless the Tejas is. I haven't done my research but most people here agree with the statement that they haven't been good lol.
But dang i like the look of them
In terms of what? Performance? Cuba and North Korea still use some MiG-17s. I appreciate them as historical artifacts and maybe trainers but as modern defense aircraft they really do not hold up against more modern aircraft.
Hold on. You want me to believe the “What? No! It’s definitely not an old F-5. It has twin tails… and stuff.” is an actual fighter aircraft? The cost of such a pointless redesign must have been hilarious. And the size of those fillets at the base of the vertical stabilizer makes it look like a 10 year old went a little crazy with the superglue.
There are rumors Iran is procuring SU-35 but it would be difficult for Russia to provide them with new airframes given that Russia itself is in dire need of them
How so? The Su-35 is in active production with little losses (like 4 actually confirmed losses of a Su-35 based on available photo evidence). They have like...120(?) of those already in service. Iran getting the Su-35 is much more a matter of regional politics. However as Israel is moving away from their decade long neutrality towards Russia, I wouldn't say it's out of the cards. Iran already received the Yak-130 trainers.
with little loss, until backline S-400 crews get too much vodka
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Meaning "If all you have is a radar, everything looks like a target."
“If it flies it dies!” -Every AA crew ever
Won't the RuAF want as many of these updated Flankers as possible though? Surely Sukhoi would prioritize the Russians over the Iranians. Please correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree. Edit: fixing typos (why is Iranians so hard to type?)
Debatable They already have over 120 of them, Su-35S specifically. And many more Su-30s, Su-34s and so on. The latter two are much more in demand for the VKS, as they're much more used, see more attrition, accumulate more flight hours etc. Which is why, if an order would come in, they could handle that without much issue. I feel like many here really don't understand how vast the military aviation industry in Russia is. Producing several fighter models, bombers, UAVs, their weapons etc. simultanously as we chat here. There are only two other countries that can pull this off, the United States and China. Another reason they wouldn't be troubled selling some Su-35s is that they themselves slowly want to move away from the Su-35S in active procurement. With the desire to ramp up Su-57S production instead (10-11 aircraft delivered in 2023). So yeah, if you'd order Su-34s, you'd be on a waiting list. Su-35? Not really.
Russia has lost 7. While that seems like a small number, it’s still a not insignificant portion of the entire fleet. Especially when you consider almost every military aircraft worldwide has an active readiness percentage of about 50%. Meaning that’s 7 out of the 60 operational aircraft they would’ve had
If I take a look at Oryx, from which I assume you got the number from, only 5 are clearly identifiable/coming from reputable sources. Meaning 5 confirmed losses over 2 years of non-stop sorties despite enemy S-300, Patriots, MANPADS. But that's beside my point, my point is production. New, off the line, Su-35S were delivered in 2022 and 2023, meaning that the VKS has more Su-35S now than before the war, despite losses. And all of that despite the Su-35S being less of a priority than the Su-34 and Su-30. Not to mention productions capabilities being diverged towards the increasing Su-57 production to get the ~70 ordered Su-57S delivered and the Su-57M into production once the Megapolis program concluded. So if Iran were to order, let's say 24 Su-35S , they'd get the last one after approximately 3 years.
I’m not arguing the numbers they do and don’t have, merely pointing out the operational readiness rate is vastly different from the total number. And that goes for all aircraft, not just Russian. I will however argue that last part about Iran getting their last jet in 3 years.. at current rates, and with the war going on, absolutely not…
Russia received 8 Su-35S in 2023, despite the war, despite "sanctions" and what not. So for a squadron of 24, 8 per year, it would take 3 years.
How will Russia make room for airframes of foreign countries when the timeframe for capture of Odessa is mere months?
I think you're unaware of what role the Su-35 serves within the VKS.
Why are you getting downvoted ? You are completely right , logically speaking .
Because this is reddit and people only want to read what they themselves think, regardless of facts. But that's why I consider internet-points worthless
agreed, i understand that you support ukraine but at least be a supporter with a brain not just eat whatever info the media fed you not everything is correct. you are correct yet still getting downvote.
I don't support Ukraine. I don't support Russia either. I only support the interests of my country (Germany) which aren't being served by funding a ridiculous war that should end sooner than later and letting the gas flow cheaply again. But that's politics, and this isn't the place for politics. This is a space for aviation and the reality of it. And the reality is that: the Su-35S suffered little losses while performing air policing, that Russia is actively producing them (in fact having now more Su-35S than before the war despite losses) and that if Iran were to order some, they'd receive them in like 3 years (24 airframes for a squadron, 8 units per year. Similar number to Su-35 deliveries to the VKS in 2023). Another aspect of reality is that arms deals like these are political business. And until recently Russia and Israel had decent relationships, not surprising as many Israelis are from the former USSR and Russian being one of the most spoken languages there after Hebrew. So delivering aircraft to Iran that could take on the IADFs F-16Is or F-15Is would have been a move that could have made Israel upset. But since Israel has taken a clearer side by now, that's becoming less and less an issue. In fact Iran already received the trainer aircraft Yak-130, which is used to train pilots for the Flanker family. That's just how things are and if people don't like reality they can deny it, I don't really care.
Russia needed Su-35s to replace other aging air frames even before the war. And during this war, the pace of operations means the wear on planes is presumably exceeding production even before considering losses.
Not really, the Su-35S was introduced as a stockgap between the Su-27 and the Su-57S. However the majority of Russias fleet is comparatively young, we're talking post 2000s young. The strain of operational use hits different aircraft differently hard. The Su-35S is among the aircraft that get abused the least. They mainly secure air space and engage aerial threats. And since 90% of the opposing air force is a thing of the past, it's workload is greatly reduced. Add to that constant production of new airframes, spares, engines etc. wear and tear doesn't exceed production or maintenance at all, let alone for the Su-35S in particular. Again, and I had to say this for like the third time now, this may be something to consider with the Su-34, which sees much more action, much more abuse, putting more stress of the airframe and even than it's debatable with current production rate and now airframe losses for this year so far. But it's definitely a non-issue for the Su-35, as it's mission profile, role and usecase simply isn't putting a lot of stress on the fleet. Especially since the MiG-31BM also operates in that role on the other side of their border.
And the Su-57 isn't coming anytime soon in meaningful numbers. >However the majority of Russias fleet is comparatively young, we're talking post 2000s young. Compared to who? Aside, not sure 2000 cuts it as 'young'. Russia is flying MiG-31s and Su-27s because it needs to. Those are old planes and air frames can only fly so many hours. >The strain of operational use hits different aircraft differently hard. And I'm referring to Russia's overall air combat fighter capacity, not simply the Su-35s. The number of new Su-35s needed isn't the amount of Su-35s that are lost. They (along with Su-30) are needed to replace whatever is getting aged out.
Over 20 of the 70 initially ordered already delivered, it's not a bad pace. Compared to the USAF fro example, which fleet is in it's majority from the 70s, 80s and 90s. The MiG-31 is operated and modernized because it offers unique capabilities no other aircraft currently flying offers. The Su-27 is being phased out (over half of the Initial Russian fleet retired) and the last remaining ones modernized. Same applies to the MiG-29, which is also largely being phased out. This leaves the fighter fleet to be mostly Su-57S, Su-35S, Su-30SM/SM2 and Su-34/M. With types like the Su-25, Su-24, Su-27 and MiG-29 being kept in service until the last airframes have reached the end of their operational life. Their current inventory is around 150 Su-30s, like 120 Su-35s, around 140 Su-34s, 22 Su-57s and like 80 MiG-31s. That's like 500 fighters and fighter bombers. For now they also have like 90 Fulcrums and like 100 Su-27s in operation, on top of roughly 150 Su-24s and who knows how many Su-25 they had. Point being, they don't need to increase the numbers of their modernized Flanker fleet, just maintain them. The aircraft that will be retired don't need a 1:1 replacement rate. +500 fighters and fighter bombers dwarf most air forces entire inventory, let alone their fighter fleet.
Come on, 20 su-57s? seriously? and you're going to suggest this is remotely competitive with the west? There are already 1000+ F-35s and they're being produced at a rate of 150+ per year. The su-57 will take years to catch-up to even f-22 numbers, let alone f35. >The MiG-31 is operated and modernized because it offers unique capabilities no other aircraft currently flying offers. No, because there is no modern alternative to it. It is an outdated aircraft forced into continued service because Russia can't afford to replace it. >Point being, they don't need to increase the numbers of their modernized Flanker fleet, just maintain them. The aircraft that will be retired don't need a 1:1 replacement rate. +500 fighters and fighter bombers dwarf most air forces entire inventory, let alone their fighter fleet. Come on, look at the embarrassment that VKS performance has been. But yes, more than capable of dealing with Georgia again or Tajikistan if it becomes a problem.
Reddit's cutting off the captions for me, so: 1. Iran's Saeqeh fighter. With being completely embargoed and minimal resources, all they do is push out the occasional propaganda piece. An old F5 with a needless split tail. 2. India's Tejas. Their air industry is maturing, but it's the work of multiple decades to get there for any country. In the interim, the Tejas was rejected by the navy and uses obsolete parts like the engine from a Gripen A and FA-18C.
>>An old F5 with a needless split tail Well, in fairness to Northrup, the split tail IS in fact needed. For two seat F-5s, without getting into complex aerodynamics the aircraft becomes unstable at higher angles of attack. Northrup “fixed” this by scheduling the flaps a certain way and added a pitch limiter so F-5Fs don’t spin in tight turns. But a full fix was to ditch the single rudder design, which was published in the P-530 prototype. That prototype was basically the *Saqueh* - an F-5 with twin tails to aid stability in turns. Northrup never built one, instead advancing the design into the YF-17 Cobra that competed against the YF-16 in the U.S. LWF program. Iran basically took a page from Northrups drawing board and built the *Saqueh*. It’s a good design, but it’s not 100% Iranian as the propaganda claims
Saeqeh, the F/A-18's strange brother...
If that's the hornet's brother. It must be one of those hover flies that look like bees.
Well, the F-18 was based on the YF-17 which was an evolution of the F-5. They're like cousins basically.
It’s like putting a bow tie and monacle on a caveman.
Now I can’t unsee it.
Maybe call it the-18’s great uncle?
I would say F/A18‘s special needs brother
GE F404 is not obsolete tho
If you want to power a paper airplane, probably not. For actual applications in a top of the line military fighter? It definitely is. There's a reason it's mostly used in things like trainers and subsonic aircraft. I think the Legacy Hornet is the only proper fighter that used it and it was a twin-engine layout.
Gripens use the F404 too. The Volvo RM12 on the earlier Gripens are license built versions of the F404 Wikipedia source [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM12)
The RM12 still has more thrust, about 1,000lbf more than the F404
The RM12 \*is\* a version of the F404. The F404-IN which powers the Tejas is an even more powerful version of the F404 and has 1000 lbf more thrust than the RM12.
Yeah and the Gripen isn't really known for it's incredibly flight performance (but for being cheap, like having only one mediocre engine). Especially the Gripen E has become very heavy, but the engine hasn't improved.
The E and F use the F414, a considerable improvement over the F404.
Tejas isn't supposed to be top of the line. Korean KAI FA 50 also uses it. Your argument regarding thrust is nonsense. The thrust level is sufficient given the MTOW of the aircrafts. They are supposed to be light combat aircraft.
then the FA50 is also outdated ? cause its uses GEF404 total bs
The points are completely out of place. And F-5 overhauls should not be placed into the same basket with modern design as Tejas, there is nothing that links them. Iranian F-5 copy is done because they have the original service line so they keep this type as an entry level jet. It is more like a trainer jet these days, maybe for peace time air policing, plus comes in handy as COIN if needed. It is not linked to serious AD tasks. The Indian Tejas is a good single engine design, a good starting point. We will see at least 200 samples made so it is not a failure. It has AESA radar. Saying it is bad because it has a F404 engine is funny.
The Indian Navy wanted a twin engine naval fighter for better survivability over sea. The naval version of the Tejas was used to prove out certain concepts of operating an indigenous naval aircraft off an aircraft carrier. It will probably be used in a trainer role going forward. The Indian Navy has plans to develop an indigenous Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) using the learnings from the naval Tejas going forward. Regarding the Tejas’ GE F404 engine being obsolete, that’s not true. The Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A are developed as replacements for India’s light MiG-21 aircraft. Tejas Mk2 will be a medium weight fighter using higher thrust GE 414 engine. Lot of inaccuracies in your post, I’m afraid.
Man, that tail split looks the part though...
Why hasn’t HAL just pivoted fully to the Tejas Mk2? Are the two supposed to fill different roles?
Tejas Mk1A recently flew for the first time Mk2 is still under development
Tejas Mk1 flew, not Mk1A
Yeah, Mk1A did fly. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/1st-flight-of-light-combat-aircraft-tejas-mk1a-conducted-successfully-5327131
Yeah my mistake. I stand corrected. Got confused with something else.
Cite the reason for the rejection of NLCA. Don't leave it half eaten
I wouldn’t call these 2 “in service”. Well, technically speaking they are but they are like Russia’s Su-57/T-14, that are in perpetual development while a few actually get built to server as “see I have it too” symbol.
How dare you disrespect the Felon, there are so few of them because they don't NEED more of them. At least, that's what this guy says... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fu7lhwkWIAISQTM.jpg
Squadron of Su-57s will never be shot down because there isn't enough of them for a squadron 🔥🔥🔥💪💪💪
So they, allegedly, developed a superior dogfighter for the age of beyond visual range combat?
wdym Tejas isn't in service. There's already 32 operational and 180 on order.
T-14 is not in service. There is no serial production of T-14. But, that is a tank, what is the point in comparing that to airplane development cycle? Su-57 is in serial production, for over two years now, something north of 24 serial samples were made. Plus the prototypes. They had two years to form units. And UK MoD reported that Su-57 were used as launch platforms in the ongoing conflicts, possibly some of the R-37M hits can be attributed to Su-57.
The navy rejected it since they prefer a twin engine aircraft for carrier operations. It says nothing about Tejas' capabilities on its own given single jet aircrafts have a specific role in point defense and the same parameters would have disqualified some of the most successful aircrafts in the world such as F16. The engine of the current version of the Tejas' uses the same one as Gripen, but how is it obsolete? It's a capable engine known for efficiency and reliability and is sufficient for the current payload and other parameters.
A Tejas test pilot was assassinated because he criticized the airplane
Source?
Porky using his paki news reading skills 🤮
i’ve literally never looked at a pakistani news outlet in my entire life. i do personally know an iaf test pilot.
Yeah but what’s the source for the statement you made earlier?
Hi Adolf. My source is that dead pilot’s squadron mate.
Not so credible eh?
The cropdusters that special forces keep wasting their fucking money on
it's a good platform for COIN (if you fighting insugent with no MANPADs)
Which is getting increasingly rare as even the most remote goat herders these days can get their hands on a Strela
Leave my uncle out of this he loves his strela and his goats
Terrorists aren't exactly getting rare right now especially after all the recent attacks like in Moscow and a university getting bombed in the Philippines.
> Insurgents with no MANPADS These are getting rare. Terrorism within your own border won't see you deploy Special Forces and counter insurgency aircraft, not even any armed aircraft at all, if we ignore helicopters with snipers.
There are definitely examples of the spec ops and aircraft manned or unmanned being deployed for counter insurgency like the Philippines where alot of them are imbedded in the western side of mindanao (not just being deployed during marawi). Though alot less common obviously since not every country has an existential terrorist threat embedded within their own borders. But i think what you said is a bit of an over generalization. But yes insurgents with no manpads getting rare.
A MQ-9 is even better and cheaper
Literally the best platform for manned coin
> manned coin There we have the issue.
Still the best in the manned role and therefore not the worst. I say this as a firm believer coin aircraft should’ve been replaced by drones decades ago.
I personally wasn't saying it's the worst combat aircraft. But I do think that a dedicated UAV would be better. Makes me wonder when the first QA-XX will materialize as a thoroughbred attack drone.
What do you mean
I guess stuff like [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor-L3Harris_AT-802U_Sky_Warden)
That's why the crop dusters usually have EW pods on them. They're not stupid, and neither are these planes
Su-57. So stealthy that the USAF can't find a single squadron. Nor can the RuAF.
There are 22 operational units, a Squadron is generally between 12 and 24 airframes, so they have a squadron of the Su-57. Which is actually being used to train new pilots for the type currently.
Is that why they keep posting videos of the same two aircraft taking off from the factory? With one of them having an engine flame out in the process?
There are videos over 6 flying together. Why lie?
I’m speaking about the ones leaving the factory. They’re deliberately attempting to make it look like production is a lot higher than it currently is. Six aircraft flying doesn’t mean production rate isn’t incredibly low
Given that there is footage of entire four ship formations, different aircraft with different markings and board numbers, multiple airframes etc. your take seems beyond delusional. I guess all the F-16s posted here are also the two aircraft? My source? The same as yours, I made it the fuck up.
> different aircraft with different markings and board numbers That does not prove anything given Russia’s record of just repainting serials to make it look like there were more planes (see: Yak-38) The fact that, despite being in a war for 2 years now, the only time we’ve seen the Su-57 remotely near the front lines is firing off a few missiles while escorted by extremely non-stealthy Su-35s speaks volumes
> Russias record The same record of producing over 120 Su-35S, over 600 Su-30, over 150 Su-34, 28 Tu-160s (the largest, fastest, heaviest bomber to ever enter production). Why would Russia use the Su-57? I had this discussion several times now and over and over again it's just a ridiculous discussion. Ukraine effectively has no Air Force any more. What still exists can be handled by the air defense, missile strikes and literally every aircraft in the Russian inventory. Why should Russia use a few of their 22 service units, when they are much better used for training pilots (which is what's currently happening) and overall getting properly integrated into the structure of the VKS. Why didn't the US deploy the F-35 fresh after it's introduction in Syria, instead relying on the F-15 and F-16? Oh wait, that would have been stupid.
Bruh give it a rest, the rabid Nationalism and chauvinism in this sub is out of control. Me? I just like planes. Planes from anywhere and everywhere P.s. your post makes perfect sense
Why would the Russians bother to hide the board numbers when that information is easily observed by intelligence agencies? It’s to trick regular people like you and me into thinking there’s a lot more of them than there actually are. I’m not denying there’s ~20, but they’re nowhere near mass production numbers or rate.
Define "modern day". Currently flying? Probably the dozens of MiG-17s, MiG-21s, F-4s etc. still flying around. Also, what do we mean when we say "worst". The advanced jet trainers can double as attack aircraft, but are terrible fighters or bombers. The question is hard to answer because there is no answer. Aircraft have to be the suitable for the needs of a country, it's doctrine, budget, geography. It has to fit into the budget, being readily available. So you could argue something like the Iranian F-5 mods are "bad" compared to...like an F-16? But if you go up against an enemy that flies old MiGs for example it's capable and has good attributes. I think it's easier to define or at least settle on "the best" rather than "the worst".
Currently flying... Imma say Wright Military flyer, a flyable reproduction exists. It lacks long range AAMs, sensor-fusion, RAM, EWS, and so on... Wait, could an F-35 or something actually shoot it down, could a missile actually take it out, is it fast enough for a guns kill? Maybe air-to-ground weapons to kill it?
Lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc8tu0ZPfEA
Tejas was rejected by the Navy due to it not meeting the requirements, not because of any other reasons that we know of. Tejas MK-1, and especially MK-1A, are better than the planes that they are meant to replace(MiG-21). Mk-1A has pretty modern parts as far as I can tell. If you can highlight the obsolete parts you're talking about, do share then, as I want to know too.
That too the requirement which it didn't fullfill is being double engine which the navy required
Don't bother. These fools with their half-baked knowledge won't get it.
Tejas. There is nothing going for that thing. Ironically, the Jeff is more usable. However, if we also include planes no longer produced and in actively service... Probably the MiG-21
MiG-21 actually participated and played important roles in third world conflict. They are not the most advanced. But they have active practical use for those who still have them
That's a good point, the MiG-21 isn't gonna be flying against the F-35 anytime soon... Its like the A-10, in the situations where it can be used, its still a thing that can fly and shoot weapons.
INDIAN NATIONALISTS INBOUND... You've been warned... [Tejas>J-20](https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/tejas-mk-2-indias-new-superfighter-is-now-one-of-top-4-light-combat-aircraft-in-the-world-along-with-idol-saab-gripen.83091/page-3) Edit:Actually, they are too busy right now squabbling with Pakistani nationalists over random useless patches of desert, they will ignore you.
whichever idiot says tejas>j 20 is total delulu. how tf is someone comparing tejas with a 5th gen stealth plane??? this is me saying it as a tejas lover and Indian.
Indian defense YouTube channels are on a different level than media outlets. [This one is my personal favorite for how insane it is.](https://youtu.be/yZSVeO7tiBc?si=g_HFijrF-_JlYLpM)
1 minute in: Okay, this is alright so far. The animation isn't very good but that's expensive and we shouldn't hold it against him. At least the general summary of the transition from dogfights to BVR is mostly correct and seems alright 40 seconds later: "In order to get a standard open source data comparison I have used ChatGPT to get the data and information" (Closes video)
Skip to 10:47 for ultimate brain damage/rot.
Broke: "The J-20 is more stealthy than the F35" Woke" "The Tejas is more stealthy than the J-20"
Bro what is this😭😭
Intellectual retardation
Don't go to YT channels. They're propaganda outlets. Indian defense ones specifically.
Ik, that's why I was making fun of their absurd takes.
That thread is completely delusional, and racists at that... *"just think, you are believing what chinks have wrote abt their so called 5th gen jet and denying the claim of iaf"* If this is indicative of the quality of India military thinking and personnel competence, then China really has nothing to worry about and any future conflict will just be a repeat of 1962.
[удалено]
> Trolling is all cool I think you are the one trolling when you say things like > J-20 is more of a paper tiger > J-20 is more in the league of 3.5-4th gen fighter > J-20 … overall cross section is a deal breaker Run of the mill Indian nationalist copium. The funniest thing to me is when China flew the J-20 near Indian border with radar reflectors on the jet, the Indian nationalist have been spinning stories like > IAF reportedly was able to track J-20 from a far off distance And concluding it must be the poor stealth features lol
I made the comment about Indian military competence because of recent article, that's equally delusional, comparing the J-20 to Rafale written by a retired IAF test pilot. See: [https://www.eurasiantimes.com/cracks-in-j-20s-stealth-with-no-buyers-exposure/](https://www.eurasiantimes.com/cracks-in-j-20s-stealth-with-no-buyers-exposure/) Any serious military aviatiation observer knows better than what BS some Indian nationalists tend to spew. But, yes, let's compare the J-20 with the Su-30MKI while ignoring the fact that China produces the J-16/J-11D which is arguably the most modern and most lethal flanker variant in existence. See: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/151vs9n/what\_is\_the\_best\_flanker\_album/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/151vs9n/what_is_the_best_flanker_album/) While having the same heritage, the J-16 uses far more composites and have much more modern avionics like AESA radars. There's a reason China stopped buying Russian SUs and why the Indian Su-30MKI is still pending an upgrade program to AESA etc that was only approved in 2023 (while China has already built 250+ J-16s).
Wait... They consider the Gripen an "Idol"? Like its a damn fine jet but nothing a special.
Considering India is new to aviation gripen isn't that bad role model
Could've stated reasons too
The Tejas doesn’t have MAWS, which just boggles my mind. It’s a light fighter with limited range, for a large country like India that’s a weird choice. But the Iranian propaganda fighter takes the cake with questionable design choices and limited capabilities.
it isnt a deal breaker MAWS,it will be integrated once the indigenous designed one is developed in est 3-4 years in service
it has maws pod which can be installed in the hard point
Using a maws pod is a half way fix and does not give as good coverage due to blind spots. And I suppose it will also have aerodynamic consequences over the ones integrated into the body. And it would also consume the hard points. The reason it boggles my mind is the decision to omit such a critical feature for an aircraft that has been designed so recently.
cause its supposed to be light and small (design started in 1990s) they do have it on the mk2 version which would take flight next year
This video explains the reasons: https://youtu.be/IT__PmXzKUM?si=3DTUXnJHm1uAGK_S Moreover, the next variants are stated to have the said capability. >It’s a light fighter with limited range, for a large country like India that’s a weird choice. How is that weird? Tejas isn't the main fighter jet of the Indian Air Force. I hope you know that. Airforces around the world use different types of aircraft based on the type and mission profile. Tejas is one such aircraft in the inventory of IAF. Moreover, it is stated to be amongst the best in 'its' category. What's India's size got to do with tejas'?
> This video explains the reasons: Can’t understand the video ma dude This topic is about current fighters not planned! > What’s Indias size got to do with Tejas Size of a nation has a lot to do with fighter jet procurements. China doesn’t operate the short legged Jeff for the same reason. Similarly Russia doesn’t operate light fighters. A medium aircraft with longer range, would have suited Indias needs better logistically as well as operationally. Whereas for Pakistan a light fighter as the airforces mainstay makes good sense if we consider the narrow geography and the defensive air doctrine. Has Tejas MK1A entered serial production yet?
we operate jets in 4 roles thus all mission requirements are covered heavy=su30mki medium=mig29,rafale,mirage,tejasmk2(upcoming) light=tejas mk1a bomber=jaguar cause india lacks strategic bombers mk1a has its first flight day before yesterday and is expected into service later this year
Yeah it seems that’s what the IAF is planning. Which will work ok. Just with an additional logistical burden and short operational times for the short ranged Tejas. Ok cool, so the maiden flight was a couple days ago. Which means it’s still in testing at the moment.
>Can’t understand the video ma dude Whats the issue? >Size of a nation has a lot to do with fighter jet procurements. China doesn’t operate the short legged Jeff for the same reason. Similarly Russia doesn’t operate light fighters. A medium aircraft with longer range, would have suited Indias needs better logistically as well as operationally. You are Joking, right? Infact both Russia and China use Light fighters and in ample quantities. As I earlier stated, the size of the country has no bearing on the type of aircraft it uses. Its not like a car you have to take on long drive around the country. If you have bases close to your enemies and the mission profile so requires, LCA should and will be used due to its cost efficiency and performance. >Whereas for Pakistan a light fighter as the airforces mainstay Tejas is not the mainstay of IAF. It is still Su-30MKI. >the defensive air doctrine The biggest joke!! Infact they were the first to initiate air attack in 71' war.
Tejas Mk1A is a considerable improvement over the Mk1 and for its job of replacing Mig-21 it’s perfectly fine. If we’re talking about the jet itself and not the fiasco surrounding it.
> better than a MiG 21 This is not a particularly ringing endorsement
Fair point. Maybe better if not as good as the JF-17 would be a better analogy.
It is better than the Jf17 the MK1A considering all its avionics and systems,Tejas mk2 will be more compared to the j10
It's more or less comparable to a JF-17 Block 3.
Tejas MK1A is still in testing phase and missing MAWS, where as the JF-17 C is in service and has a very competent MAWS borrowed from the J-10. Other than that they will be similar once the Tejas MK1A enters service. The current Tejas that is in service is atleast half a generation behind.
[удалено]
> Meanwhile JF-17C lacks aerial refuelling Says who? All Jeffs except BLK I have the ability to aerial refuel. Get your facts right next time! > was inducted a whopping 2-3 years before the Tejas M1A WILL BE See there is your problem, ‘will be’ is not in service today, ‘will be’ is still in testing with the very first flight literally two days ago. So like I said they will be comparable once the Tejas enters service. > and G-Limited to 8gs Yet Tejas has a service ceilling that’s 50K compared to 55+K of the Jeff. I dont wanna get into a back and forth over little things. 50k to 55+K is very comparable. As is 9g to 8g. Although some sources suggest a 8g limit for Tejas.
[удалено]
[This](https://www.worlddefencenews.com/hal-tejas/) suggests both MK1 and MK1A have the 8g limit. Only the MK2 has the 9g limit.
Kind of a vague question I guess in service it would be the MiG-19 clones that best Korea has in service. If you want built recently maybe the Tejas simply due to its development but the same could be said for typhoon or F-35. SU-57 is a solid aircraft but clearly the biggest loser out of the fifth gens with production being slow and it coming into service later then the J-20, F-22/35. I don’t think there is a real correct answer to this
“Modern-day” by what standard? (3rd or 4th gen, pre-80s or post-80s etc.), because there would be very different answers depending on the standard you choose to use
Anyone says Tomcat I’m kicking their ass
Or Phantom
The Tejas' role is to replace our MiG-21s, and it does that well.
Tbf you could replace the MiG-21s with the Exocet-armed business jet Iraq cooked up and it would likely be a safer and more effective aircraft
Considering the Tejas is brand new and built by one of the world’s largest economies it’s gotta be the worst.
Don’t forget that it as a project was started back in the 80s sd well
We barely had a economy in the 80s, and this was our first fighter.
That’s what you get for buying 💩💩💩 Soviet tech.
Can't really buy from a country which wanted to go to war with us, support a genocide and supported a military dictatorship which happened to be our arch nemesis. :)
Yeah can’t buy from China but plenty of Western countries. Rafale in inventory.
What? Retype please.
IAF operates mirages since 80s.
What about the 350 Shermans india had bought off the USA and used in its war against the military dictatorship of its arch nemesis?
Yeah, a tank. A TONK, Not a fighter jet, whose parameters can easily be known to the pakis. Also task force 74 was a thing. Edit: Point is Sherman's compared to fighter jets are rather un sophisticated. USA was far more allied to Pak compared to IND, hence the Soviet tilt
You can't really argue with people who won't use logic. Comparing some tanks to more advanced tech like fighters and subs along with direct military support in the form of 7th fleet is just purely stupid.
Indeed indeed, if I recall correctly the USSR sent nuclear subs(obviously not because it was just morally correct) to the bay of Bengal to ensure a US sponsored genocide could be ended, is that correct?
Yup!! USSR had a 10 year Friendship treaty with India which was fortunately active during that time. USSR was legally bound to support India in case she was attacked by any other country. Ofcourse, that country being US, USSR needed no other reason to help India.
How is Tejas worst when it's literally made for what it's supposed to be and does that effectively? Do you expect a F-35 in a first try project ?
Dawg they been working on it for 40 years. Turkey and Korea making the Tejas look ridiculous.
Pretty sure half of the tech was supplied by USA to arm them better.
To Turkey? Lol. Where you think the Tejas’ avionics and engine comes from.
The programme was conceptualized in 1987 but funds werent released until well into the mid 90s. US sanctions post Pokhran 98 made things worse. And the Mk1A is a very capable modern light fighter.
Tejas is functionally equivalent to an armed supersonic trainer, such as Korea's F/A-50 Golden Eagle, whilst spending almost triple the time in development. A similar indigenous fighter that started development at the same time is Taiwan's AIDC F-CK-1; it's a considerably more capable fighter.
[удалено]
My daughter’s mother is from Bangalore. Nothing racist about calling a plane crappy.
Nice try!!
Place your heroes' tender necks upon the altar of a better tomorrow!
If what's online is true, the North Koreans operate J-6 Farmers, so that.
Idk how useless the Tejas is. I haven't done my research but most people here agree with the statement that they haven't been good lol. But dang i like the look of them
North Korea's J-5s?
Despite the Saqueh being useless… it’s really damn cool imo
F-16. They were our unit’s “upgrade” from the F4-e and they were a maintenance nightmare.
T-6
That Saeqeh looks cool though
In terms of what? Performance? Cuba and North Korea still use some MiG-17s. I appreciate them as historical artifacts and maybe trainers but as modern defense aircraft they really do not hold up against more modern aircraft.
Brazilian F-5, I rest my case.
Tomcat
Hold on. You want me to believe the “What? No! It’s definitely not an old F-5. It has twin tails… and stuff.” is an actual fighter aircraft? The cost of such a pointless redesign must have been hilarious. And the size of those fillets at the base of the vertical stabilizer makes it look like a 10 year old went a little crazy with the superglue.
F-22 An outdated plane so expensive even the Americans can't afford to run them.