One crash cannot define India’s future fighter

The crash of the Tejas fighter jet at the Dubai Airshow on November 21 was heartbreaking. A talented pilot died in front of thousands of spectators and the whole country mourned. This tragic event led to new discussions about our domestic fighter aircraft. But what we need to understand is this—A single accident does not define the value of an entire program representing India’s aviation dreams.

Let me be clear from the beginning. I believe in Tejas and I think every Indian should too. Not because it’s perfect, but because it’s ours and represents something much bigger than a fighter jet.

This was only the second accident in 24 years. Think about this for a moment. The MiG-21, which the Tejas replaced, earned the unfortunate nickname of the “flying coffin” due to its accident record. By comparison, the loss of just two aircraft since 2001 is actually remarkable for any fighter program. The earlier crash near Jaisalmer in March 2024 ended safely as the pilot ejected in time. Every aircraft in the world faces accidents during testing and operation. What matters is how we learn and develop.

Yes, there were major delays in the Tejas schedule. It started in the 1980s, flew its first prototype in 2001, and only entered service in 2015. This has been a decades-long wait. In fact, our Air Chief Marshal openly said that HAL was “not in mission mode” when it failed to deliver even one of the 11 jets promised by February. These criticisms are justified and necessary. We must hold our defense industrialists responsible.

But delays do not mean failure. Building a fighter jet from scratch is incredibly difficult. Only a few countries can do this. We’re talking about creating a plane that flies supersonic, carries lethal weapons, and protects our skies. India had to develop this technology almost entirely on our own because other nations would not share their secrets. Every challenge we have faced has taught us something valuable.

Now look at what we have achieved. Tejas is the world’s smallest single-seat, single-engine fighter aircraft. It uses 45 percent composite material, making it lighter and harder to detect on radar. Y-shaped air intakes hide the engine blades from enemy radar. The pilot can fire missiles simply by looking at the targets on the helmet screen. It carries laser-guided bombs, cluster bombs and advanced missiles such as Derby and ASTRA. There is a zero-zero ejection seat in the cockpit; This means that the pilot can safely launch the aircraft even at zero altitude and zero speed; This is a crucial safety feature that can save lives in emergencies immediately after takeoff or before landing. Speaking of impressive figures, this fighter can reach speeds between 1,975 and 2,220 kilometers per hour. This is faster than a high-speed train travels in an hour; but Tejas covers this distance every hour he flies at top speed. This is truly impressive technology made in India.

Some critics cite its small size and single engine as its weaknesses. They completely miss the point. Yes, twin-engine jets are more powerful and can carry heavier payloads. However, single-engine fighters are 30 percent cheaper to build and operate. For a country that requires 42 battle fleets but currently has only 29, affordability is of utmost importance. We need numbers as well as skills.

Each Tejas costs around 250 to 300 crore rupees INR. To put that in perspective, that’s about a small town’s one-year budget, but it’s actually pretty reasonable for defending our nation. Compare this to foreign alternatives that cost three or four times more. With 182 jets already ordered and 351 planned eventually, we are building a formidable force without driving ourselves into bankruptcy. Every rupee we spend on Tejas stays in India, creating jobs, developing expertise and strengthening our defense industry.

The upcoming Mk1A version addresses previous limitations with AESA radar that can detect enemies from much further away, electronic warfare systems that intercept enemy missiles, and beyond visual range capabilities. The Mk2 will bring even more upgrades. This is how local programs work; You start somewhere, you learn, you constantly improve.

Our Air Force is retiring the MiG-29, Jaguar and Mirage 2000 by 2035. We cannot depend on foreign suppliers for spare parts. What happens during disputes when spare parts do not arrive? What happens if other countries use defense sales as political leverage? Tejas gives us strategic independence. This is priceless.

Every successful aviation country has experienced the same thing we have experienced. America’s F-16 had problems initially. So did France’s Rafale and Sweden’s Gripen. They kept going, solved the problems, and eventually produced world-class fighters. We must show the same determination.

HAL definitely needs to speed up production and meet deadlines. The Air Force’s disappointment is entirely justified. But the solution is not to give up on Tejas; Our aim is to fix the production system, invest more resources and support our engineers and employees to do better.

When Prime Minister Vajpayee named this aircraft Tejas, meaning shine or brilliance, he saw its potential to make India shine. This vision is becoming a reality, albeit slower than we hoped. The 38 jets currently flying prove that the design works. International interest, including countries looking to buy it, proves that others see its value, too.

We can’t let a tragic accident or production delays discourage us. Instead, we must investigate thoroughly, implement safety improvements, pressure HAL to provide faster service, and continue to support this vital program. Tejas represents India’s engineering prowess, strategic autonomy and national pride. He deserves our patience and faith as he grows into the formidable warrior he was meant to be.

(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and Defense, Aerospace and Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above belong to the author and do not reflect the views of DNA)