The AIR6002 RFI (some details here) was open to anyone I believe. Hence why HAL presumably submitted. That said, it wouldn't have any realistic chance of proceeding to actual hardware.
Well, thats why i get for not reading the wiki then
, thanks !This reminds me of a conversation with a US Navy SEAL circa 2000. I had not seen him for a few months when he strode across the Perris Valley, California Skydiving Center to greet me. When I asked where he had been, he replied "We were in (insert name of a Central American shit-hole) teaching their riverine forces how to intercept drug smugglers."View attachment 650339
For a small nation with presumably a small fleet (e.g. Malaysia - total 39 fighters across 3 diverse types, 25 transports across 3 types, 4 VIP transports across 4 types, 12 jet trainers across 2 types...) having diversity is a recipe for very high sustainment costs and actually poor operational capability.
Building your own for a small nation is even more ridiculous.
As for the Indian example (and I don't think anyone would class India as a small nation
I was talking about small and developing nations in general.
concerning your main point it may be more efficient to buy from one supplier but this also means you are completely beholden to that supplier and their whims. look at caatsa. look at rumors of Iranian tor missile batteries being deactivated by Israel with quiet help from Russian weapons companies. look at ME and west asian nations that have to develop clever ways to keep their western fighters operational. even rumors of the so-called "kill switch". Malaysia's foreign and domestic policies might some day be at odds with the American geopolitical stance. if I was a native son of Malaysia I'd want to see hard home grown development and stop gap purchases of equipment from multiple nations in order to protect from sanctions and embargos and sabotage. wouldn't you feel the same for your nation?
www.zona-militar.com
Because of its troubled development, lack of capability when compared to alternates, questionable support, lack of history for anyone buying Indian products such as this and about a dozen other reasons backed by years of experience in this field. Discussions with some of the senior members of the Air Forces supposedly being offered it such as the RMAF also back this ascertain. They are just not interested.
Ill disagree on certain aspects, first on capability...as the plane is equal or some times superior when compared to its equals (LCAs). Things like service and the history of sales by India will remain a unknown until there is an Export user, as the same thing can be said about its Pakistani counterpart...and that has already scored a few Sales (and its competing for both RMAF and FAA deals).
I say Pakistani (according to them, there is a Half-ish Percent of the aircraft made there), because the aircraft its mostly Assembled/made there, and also the approaches made by PAC for export were more..."Vivid" than what the Chinese showed.For this reason, for a while Tejas probably won't go far from Indian borders. A bit of a shame, I really like its looks.
- Its Pakistani counterpart isn't just Pakistani (hope I haven't offended anyone). China is in this market since the 1980s at the latest;
- PRC for many decades had a fully established financing(loan)/technical support/feedback infrastructure. India - not yet;
- JF-17 is seen as an evolutionary airframe. Yes, there is little left from J-7/Super-7, but it still was never seen as a true dark horse;
- There is only one foreign "tail" with JF-17 - engine. And Russian engine will not bother almost anyone who will even consider it;
- JF-17 had a huge foreign anchor buyer(so much anchor you've named it Pakistani counterpart). This is not something Tejas has;
- It took >decade of service to start getting orders, and those orders are from very specific countries(huge red banner once again);
- JF-17 appeared 1.5 decade ago. Tejas by now is a bit late to the party for what it is;
- (hope not offending anyone #2) - Tejas purchase carries little prestige and brings in big risks/suspicions to a politician responsible. To make it into export success, you need someone truly desperate for fighters, here and now.
The cutest fighter around
| Platform | HAL Tejas | CAC FC-1/PAC JF-17 | KAI T/FA-50 | Saab JAS-39 Gripen |
| First Flight | 4 Jan 2001 | 25 Aug 2003 | 20 Aug 2002 | 9 Dec 1988 |
| Number Produced (Exported) | 37 (0) | 150 (12) | 200 (64) | 270+ (139) |
Tejas 2 ... or whatever they are calling it lately .. reminds us of the proposed South African Carver 2. Both are big, long-ranged, twin-engined, two-seater naval strike airplanes capable of launching heavy anti-ship missiles ... a completely different role than Carver Mark 1 or Tejas Mark 1. Both nations probably need two or more different types of fighters: a light-weight single-seater and a larger, longer-ranging naval strike airplane. South Africa could not afford both types.
Its hard to say with certainty what they think about the Mk.2, as (like the Mk.1 and Naval Tejas) the opinions towards it change from time to time. The only thing that is Certain is that there are 80+ on oder and they are saving some margin for export, whether it happens or not, its up to them and some user that is on the look for an LCA.
Thats the TEDBF or Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter...(what an absolute name eh?), and..to be fair, its pretty distant from what the Tejas is.
Given the degree of difference, it's a modification of Tejas Mk.1A in the same way Super Hornet is a modification of the basic Hornet airframe.
You could say that, but i guess we will have our final answer when the Mk.2 prototype is rolled out in 1 or 2 years. (if it goes on with all the changes it proposes, or its just an elongated Mk.1A)
Original plans iirc call for us to see it within a year - i.e. in 2022.
Thats..my bad, the render i posted its not from the TEDBF, but from another idea that came before it..ORCA...or Omni Role Combat aircraft, that was essentially a Tejas with 2 engines. But yeah, the TEDBF is a completely different thing.
With the structural changes its already a different thing, although its could retain a few things from Mk.1A, it will be quite an improvement.
A bit of a shame IAF didn't bite.
www.defenceaviationpost.com
While its a very good artwork.. its a fan drawing of TEDBF.
the latest TEDBF model looks like this, a far cry from Tejas and in actuality a totally different plane
There's been a worrisome trend on people trying to upload their own artwork and designs (especially in Wikipedia), instead of using actual official ones that are not copyrighted. The problem is these artwork are often totally original and quite inaccurate from whats been presented.
I also agree with the previous comment that the Mk2, with its new engine, longer length, canards, etc.. make it functionally a new plane (you can't upgrade one plane to the other). just like the Hornet to super hornet, MiG-29 to MiG-35, Su-27 to Su-35, etc
