Now single engines are multirole so everything a su-35 can do can also be done by a jf-17. They have the same systems which cost just as much to develop and produce and can do the same missions. The small single engine will just carry less weapons and fuel.
I agree with what you are basically saying but the much bigger aircraft can carry bigger more powerful engines and bigger more powerful radar and there is more internal space for all sorts of things that might need to be carried externally by the smaller aircraft.
The point is that that small aircraft is going to spend most of its operational life carrying external fuel tanks to give it decent range... I personally think instead of making the plane quite so small you could make it bigger... like a MiG-29M2 so the fuel can be internal most of the time... obviously some times you will need external fuel tanks and even inflight refuelling, but a MiG will spend more time carrying weapons rather than the extra fuel it should have carried internally if it was better designed.
Different targeting and navigation pods can be carried too but they can be carried by big and small aircraft...
The single engine aircraft has one engine less but that's not even 10% of total price.
Exactly... I think a lot of people think having to service two engines on a plane means a twin engined fighter has double the maintenance of a single engined fighter, but it really depends on the engine itself.
The F-5 is an excellent little light fighter and it has two engines. A bit obsolete now, but two small cheap engines can save more money than one bigger much more powerful engine that would be needed to replace it.
An su-27 can be made half as cheap as a normal su-35. Nowadays the size doesn't really impact the price. It's the technologies used inside that really make its price.
The theory of High/Low would be Russia having one quarter their air fleet being Su-35s and Su-30s, and three quarters of their fleet MiG-29M2s being modern and capable and fully multirole where the Su-35s operate on their own or with Su-57s for long range stuff and for closer range stuff an Su-30 with Su-35 systems and avionics being the mini AWACS radar leader of a flight of MiG-29M2s who operate with their radars off most of the time.
What seems to be happening is that they are buying MiG-35s instead of MiG-29M2s so saving money on cheap planes does not seem to be what they are planning.
If you plan to make a small single engine with multirole capabilities that will be just as expensive as a su-35 then just scale it up to really have a plateform that will allow you to efficiently use your systems.
I think going small is a mistake too... it is not going to be a lot cheaper because the radar and avionics and the really powerful engine you are going to have to fit will make it expensive anyway... you just wont have any room for enough internal fuel for it to fly anywhere so it will always be carrying several external fuel tanks.
That is why I think taking a medium sized fighter and dumbing it down... a good multifunction radar can be a cheaper PESA with all the advantages of an AESA in terms of electronic scanning but without the cost... a medium sized plane can have more internal fuel so external pylons carry weapons and pods which reduces drag because external fuel tanks are big and heavy when full and counter half the fuel they contain by reducing flight performance.
I would leave the light fighter to drones to be honest... but I think the Tejas could be a useful fighter but they need to focus on making it cheaper and simpler rather than a super high tech super fighter to match anything made anywhere else.
It should be a capable light bomb truck that can defend itself... its best feature is its low operating costs which result in India building 700 of them...
It could, bun it will hardly happened. PAF proved in Balakot clash, that their air force works smoothly. PAF will not send single JF-17, but they will work in group and JF-17 is well data link networked to share picture between them and they work together with ZDK-03 AWACS. They will be well aware of Tejas jets in the air and AWACS will bring them in proper position to engage them and not to fall in trap. IAF have few AWACS planes, but their jets don't have data links and their ultra modern AFNET show to be a total mess. Indian problem is not in planes, but in their structure and ilogical decisions.
They certainly need to work on communication... made a problem by having so many different aircraft for the same role from different countries.
The new Brahmos long range AAM for anti AWACS use is a good positive step in the right direction, but undermining their communication is no substitute for not having your own working communications system in place.