Delays in Tejas Fighter Partly Due to IAF's Periodic Changes in Avionics and Weaponry, But Necessary to Counter Emerging Threats, Admits IAF Chief

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has acknowledged that requests for updated technology on the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) have contributed to delays in the fighter jet's delivery schedule.

However, the IAF maintains that these changes were crucial to ensure the aircraft remains effective against evolving security threats.

Speaking at a defence conference in New Delhi, Air Chief Marshal AP Singh, the Chief of the Air Staff, conceded that alterations to the aircraft's weaponry and other specifications, requested by the IAF, played a role in extending the program's timeline.

He explained that the Tejas's lengthy development period, which began in the 1980s, necessitated upgrades to keep the aircraft equipped with cutting-edge technology and armaments, in line with current operational needs.

The Tejas, developed domestically by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), was originally intended to replace the IAF's aging MiG-21 fleet.

While the Mk1 variant of the Tejas achieved Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in 2011 and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) in 2019, the program has been subject to criticism due to delays, increased costs, and production challenges.

The Air Chief Marshal's statement clarifies one significant factor behind these delays: the ongoing modifications requested by the IAF. As the Tejas program progressed, the IAF identified the need for enhancements to the jet's avionics, radar, electronic warfare capabilities, and weapons systems.

These upgrades were deemed necessary to counter evolving threats and keep pace with the capabilities of advanced fighter jets operated by neighboring countries, such as Pakistan's JF-17 Thunder and China's J-10 and J-20.

"It is true that some of the delays in the LCA program can be attributed to changes we requested at various stages," Air Chief Marshal Singh stated. He emphasized that each modification, whether related to weapons, avionics, or other systems, required extensive testing, validation, and sometimes redesign. These processes inevitably extended delivery timelines.

A prime example is the upgrade from the Tejas Mk1 to the more sophisticated Mk1A variant. This transition included substantial improvements, such as the integration of an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, enhanced electronic warfare systems, and compatibility with advanced weaponry like the ASRAAM and Python-5 close-combat missiles.

While essential for the Tejas to operate effectively in both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat, these enhancements required HAL and ADA to rework design aspects, conduct further trials, and obtain new certifications – a process that added years to the development.

Despite acknowledging the delays, Air Chief Marshal justified the IAF's insistence on these changes, citing the rapid advancements in military technology. "The LCA program took a long time to mature—decades, in fact," he said. "During this period, the threats we face and the technologies available to us changed significantly. We couldn’t induct an aircraft with outdated systems or armament when adversaries were fielding more advanced platforms."

Prominent defence analysts supported the IAF Chief's position, stating that without these updates, the Tejas risked becoming obsolete before entering widespread service. "If IAF had stuck to the original specifications, IAF would have ended up with an aircraft that might have been adequate in the 1990s but not in the 2020s," they explained.

The requested modifications ensure that the Tejas Mk1A is equipped with modern technology, including an AESA radar and contemporary weaponry, making it a viable platform for modern combat scenarios.

 

[sanket]

I am always right. I was the first who commented about the last-minute demand by the IAF in Tejas MK1A, and for that, changes in certification & testing caused the delay, apart from GE Aviation delaying the delivery of engines. HAL has taken less time for upgrade & testing, while Dassault have upgraded changes almost after 66 months. That's the difference to be noted. Time has come for comedian jokers, fools, to pack up their comedy show & start somewhere else.

 

[Sudha]

When delivery is delayed for more than 30 years (Tejas Mk1 was supposed to be delivered in the early 1990s), it is obvious that the IAF will require changes so that the response to adversaries is lethal.

 

[Sudha]

I am always right. I was the first who commented about the last-minute demand by the IAF in Tejas MK1A, and for that, changes in certification & testing caused the delay, apart from GE Aviation delaying the delivery of engines. HAL has taken less time for upgrade & testing, while Dassault have upgraded changes almost after 66 months. That's the difference to be noted. Time has come for comedian jokers, fools, to pack up their comedy show & start somewhere else.

You are a fanboy of HAL. Tejas Mk1 was supposed to be delivered by HAL in the early 1990s. You want pilots of Bharat to be killed while facing adversaries with fifth-gen fighters? Due to the late delivery of Tejas Mk1, the IAF is justified in asking for changes.

 

[Lal M Khaidem]

You are a fanboy of HAL. Tejas Mk1 was supposed to be delivered by HAL in the early 1990s. You want pilots of Bharat to be killed while facing adversaries with fifth-gen fighters? Due to the late delivery of Tejas Mk1, the IAF is justified in asking for changes.

No air force asks for changes once the configuration is freezed. All aircraft have long development timelines, not only Tejas. Rafale took 25 years to develop; did the French Air Force ask for design changes? No, only tranches.

 

[Lal M Khaidem]

When delivery is delayed for more than 30 years (Tejas Mk1 was supposed to be delivered in the early 1990s), it is obvious that the IAF will require changes so that the response to adversaries is lethal.

Don't spread canard. Who told you Tejas Mark 1 was supposed to be delivered in the 1990s? Tejas' design was finalized in 1992 only. Go and check history.

 

[Skyfall]

No air force asks for changes once the configuration is freezed. All aircraft have long development timelines, not only Tejas. Rafale took 25 years to develop; did the French Air Force ask for design changes? No, only tranches.

Changes are required due to upgraded aircraft in the neighborhood. Configuration can be frozen if the timeline for delivery is reasonable. In the case of Tejas, it's anything but reasonable.

 

[Praveen]

In fact, this is also what is happening around AMCA, Tejas Mk2, TEDBF, ALH Dhruv, LCH, LUH, and every other platform.
When AMCA first started, it started the same as KF-21 requirements: 4.5 gen.
Then - changes in requirements - 5th gen.
Now - changes in requirements - 5.5 gen.
Future - changes in requirements - 6th gen.
... This fiasco goes on and on.

 

[Abs29]

Sometimes, l feel both IAF and HAL deserve each other. Have said of before and will say it again. An aircraft specification and armament cannot be changed on fly, especially so late in development. If they wanted upgrade to the specification they should have taken delivery of the LCA MK1A first batch as per originally negotiated specification and then separately negotiated for a block upgrade program to incorporate changes in tranches as they are rolled out.

By requesting such radical modifications at such a late stage just before its delivery they demonstrated IAF does not know a squat about industrial production processes, assembly line operations and has its head stuck in clouds completely disjoint from reality.

it essentially gave HAL an alibi to justify their perceptual delays. It also demonstrates the total ineptitude in managing industrial assembly line and reflects poorly on HAL. Who in the right mind accepted such ridiculous requests at such a late stage and why did they even accept it. They ought to have made it clear , the specifications are frozen and cannot be changed at such a late stage and can only be accomodated as a part of block upgrade program, which would be rolled out in successive years.

Even MoD deservs the blame for approving such atrocious upgrade request at such a late stage. Heads have to roll across the entire decesion tree for such absurdity.

 

[Varaaah]

But the IAF never demands the same from foreign vendors. And here is where the GoI/MoD fails. They have to ensure that the Indigenous product is not neglected by shifting requirements of the Armed Forces.

 

[Sandeep]

The long delays and inexperience in designing and developing a jet is now mostly over. Based on the amount of data, information and technology that we have manufactured it will help a lot. Now we can design, develop and manufacture many of our very advanced jets like the Tejas MK2 and AMC.

 

[Sumanta Nayak]

Appreciate the truth of the IAF, but now there is demand for private players for manufacturing. Can they accept last-minute changes? If at all they agree, how much time and money will they demand? The IAF is lucky as HAL supplies at the least cost, and the pressure of the government & the IAF is high-pitched. Let the private companies start production; then you will realize the confidentiality, price, and timeline factors. In an aero engine, around 7000 parts are required to assemble it; a small example. ONCE a plane is designed, and last-minute changes are very, very difficult to certify, particularly the weaponry system.

 

[Pankaj]

I am always right. I was the first who commented about the last-minute demand by the IAF in Tejas MK1A, and for that, changes in certification & testing caused the delay, apart from GE Aviation delaying the delivery of engines. HAL has taken less time for upgrade & testing, while Dassault have upgraded changes almost after 66 months. That's the difference to be noted. Time has come for comedian jokers, fools, to pack up their comedy show & start somewhere else.

If experienced people like you start defending the inability of HAL, the defence discussion in this forum will become obsolete. Design changes and technological changes are two different things in aircraft. Technology upgradation and modification can be done any time if the system is indigenous. It's not a herculean task to add the latest radars and missile systems in our own aircraft, but the question is: where is the basic model of Tejas Mark 1A? HAL has shown us its efficiency in developing Tejas MK1A, MK2. [There is a] Similar attitude of HAL and allied PSUs in other critical projects like Tapas BH 201, IJT Sitara, HJT, Saras, HLFT, Rustom 1, and 2.

 

[Ravi]

ADA, at least, have done their part to a fair extent, as the aircraft has flown successfully despite all challenges. The bigger culprit is GTRE, who have been dicking around for 40 years with no viable engine in sight. God knows why they have to hire so many PhDs / MTechs to serve chai/paani when they want to settle with co-development with a foreign partner (who also is elusive).