Chandigarh: Over two weeks after a Tejas Mk1 Light Combat Aircraft met with an accident, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has yet to provide a full public account of what went wrong, even as it quietly grounded the indigenous fighter fleet for exhaustive checks — an implicit acknowledgment of the seriousness of the incident amid continued official silence.The decision to suspend operations across both Tejas squadrons, comprising around 32 aircraft, including dual-seat trainers, underscores the gravity of the mishap, reportedly at a frontline IAF base in the north-west. Moreover, the absence of a clear explanation has only deepened unease within professional and strategic circles.The mysterious incident occurred on February 7 but did not surface publicly until weekend media reports disclosed that the IAF’s Tejas fleet had been withdrawn from flying duties. Had those reports not flagged the grounding, the episode might well have passed without scrutiny — a remarkable prospect for a frontline combat platform central to India’s military aviation ambitions. Such opacity could also complicate the Tejas export push, as prospective buyers tend to value transparency and institutional candour as much as technical capability and price.Grounding the entire Tejas fleet is a serious operational measure, as such action typically suggests that authorities are probing potential systemic concerns rather than treating the episode as a minor, isolated event. Yet despite the scale of this response, the IAF has remained silent on the specifics of the February 7 incident, the status of the affected aircraft, or the likely duration of the fleet-wide suspension.‘A minor technical incident’Instead, it was Tejas manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) that confirmed the grounding, stating that checks across multiple systems were underway. A day after media reports highlighted the development, HAL posted on X on February 23 that what was being described as a crash was in fact a “minor technical incident on ground and not an accident,” without offering further details.It added that, as part of standard operating procedure, the matter was under detailed analysis, while again declining to elaborate. HAL also underscored the Tejas’s “strong safety record” and said it was working with the IAF towards resolving the unspecified issue.In this instance, the line between an “incident” and an “accident” appears carefully calibrated. The terminology leaves the event suspended somewhere between routine malfunction and serious occurrence – vague enough to temper concern yet imprecise enough to sustain doubt.“This inversion of roles – with the manufacturer speaking on the Tejas incident, while the operator remains silent – has drawn attention in defence circles,” said a three-star IAF veteran fighter pilot, who declined to be named. Transparency in military aviation, he noted, does not entail divulging sensitive operational details but acknowledging events that inevitably become known, thereby providing a coherent account before speculation fills the vacuum. Compounding the opacity further, the IAF is believed to have ordered a formal inquiry into the February 7 episode, though the scope and terms of reference remain unclear, he added.Conflicting accounts of the ‘incident’, meanwhile, suggest it may have occurred either during landing or at take-off from an unnamed base. Some news reports indicate a possible brake malfunction on landing, while others point to an incident during departure from the runway.Damage and pilot’s circumstancesBut in the absence of authoritative clarification, conjecture has rushed to fill the vacuum — a development that is deeply unhelpful for the indigenous fighter programme already under scrutiny and one that risks eroding public confidence in both the aircraft and institutions like HAL executing it.Equally unclear is the extent of damage to the affected fighter, with uncertainty over whether it sustained repairable damage or is a total write-off. In military aviation, that distinction is consequential — not only in financial terms but also for perceptions of platform reliability and, in the IAF’s instance, management of an already tight fighter fleet.Also read: Tejas Turbulence: The Gaps in India’s Fighter Programme GovernanceMoreover, even the circumstances surrounding the pilot of the affected Tejas remain imprecise. Contradictory media accounts variously claim he suffered minor injuries or was entirely unscathed. Some early reports on Monday went so far as to state that he had “bailed out,” implicitly suggesting the aircraft was airborne – despite subsequent indications that the episode occurred on the ground. That such basic facts remain subject to conjecture rather than authoritative clarification only reinforces the sense of institutional reticence surrounding the incident.What is not in doubt, however, is the scale of the response to the still-enigmatic episode. Grounding the entire Tejas fleet is not a symbolic gesture; it is an operationally significant step, typically taken when there is concern that a technical issue could have implications across multiple aircraft of the same type. For a service already operating at around 29 fighter squadrons or 260–275 combat aircraft, against an authorised strength of 42 squadrons, or roughly 850–880 platforms, the move carries wider operational consequences for training cycles, preparedness levels and deterrent posture.Whither acknowledgement? In the meantime, a cross-section of military aviation industry officials maintained that in all modern air forces, accidents involving frontline combat aircraft are acknowledged promptly, even if investigations take months to conclude. Basic facts — date, location, pilot status — are typically confirmed almost instantly by the concerned air force, with additional details released as inquiries progress.“The absence of such communication in this latest instance has led to concerns that the IAF is reluctant to publicly discuss setbacks involving Tejas” said one such official. The IAF’s silence, he stated, refusing to be identified can be interpreted in different ways: it could reflect caution, while an inquiry was ongoing or, as some critics suggest, it could signal discomfort over a development that risks undermining confidence in a programme that has already faced decades of delays, cost overruns, disruptions and adverse scrutiny.“For a platform that sits at the heart of India’s aerospace ambitions, transparency is not merely a public relations issue; it is a strategic imperative,” he said. Confidence in indigenous defence manufacturing depends not only on technological success, but also on institutional credibility, he added.The February 7 Tejas accident is the third involving this fighter type in less than two years. The first crashed near Jaisalmer in March 2024 while returning from a firepower demonstration, with the pilot ejecting safely. The second, at the Dubai Air Show last November, proved far more tragic: it claimed the life of Wing Commander Namash Syal and severely undermined the aircraft’s credibility before a global audience of defence officials and potential buyers.Originally intended to showcase the Tejas as a credible export contender, the Dubai crash undercut that pitch. Now, the February 7 incident — which prompted the grounding of the entire fleet — has further amplified concerns over the aircraft’s reliability and the overall stability of the LCA programme.Also read: The Dubai Tejas Crash Is More Than a PR Embarrassment – It Threatens to Deepen a Credibility Gap“International fighter customers do not assess an aircraft on brochure specifications alone. Procurement teams typically conduct exhaustive due diligence, examining operational history, accident rates, fleet availability, maintenance cycles, and how setbacks and incidents are disclosed and addressed,” said a senior military aviation industry executive familiar with multiple fighter acquisition campaigns.“International fighter customers do not assess an aircraft on brochure specifications alone,” said a senior military aviation industry executive familiar with multiple fighter acquisition campaigns. Procurement teams typically conduct exhaustive due diligence, examining operational history, accident rates, fleet availability, maintenance cycles, and how prior incidents or operational setbacks are disclosed and addressed, he declared, declining to be named.“In competitive tenders, every data point matters — not just performance, but predictability and institutional transparency,” he noted. Against this backdrop, recent Tejas incidents, combined with limited and sometimes shifting public explanations, risk raising doubts about the programme’s maturity at a time when India is actively pitching the fighter as a credible, dependable option in a crowded global market, he added.Dependent on importsInitiated in 1981 as a bold step toward aerospace self-reliance and to replace the legacy Soviet-era MiG-21 ground-attack fighters, the LCA programme has instead become a case study in delay, drift, and diluted ambition. Its maiden test flight occurred in 2001, and series production began only in 2014 — 33 years after the project’s launch.Multiple agencies, including the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), HAL, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the IAF, have been involved, often resulting in diffused accountability and slow decision-making. Coordination challenges and shifting requirements further complicated the fighter’s development.Besides being championed as an indigenous platform, Tejas remains heavily dependent on imported systems, including its engine, radar components, and several key avionics and weapons packages. According to HAL, 59.7% of the Tejas Mk-1’s value by cost is indigenous, with the remaining 40.3% imported. By number of Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) — self-contained modules that can be swapped for maintenance — the aircraft has 210 indigenous and 134 imported LRUs, meaning roughly 75.5% of its components by quantity are domestic.And though the majority of Tejas’ components are locally produced, the higher-cost imported systems account for a disproportionately large share of the aircraft’s overall value. Despite HAL’s frequent claims of indigenisation, this numerical advantage masks a harsher reality: many imported LRUs — including the GE F404-IN20 engine, Israeli radar, missile systems, avionics, electronic warfare suites, and critical cockpit instruments such as the ejection seat — are high-value and strategically essential.By both cost and strategic impact, these imported components disproportionately determined the fighter’s price, performance, and export potential – yet HAL downplays their significance, presenting Tejas as largely indigenous. Independent analyses like ones by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi, estimate a slightly lower indigenous content by value – around 53.5% –reflecting methodologies that account for raw materials and imported subsystems. But then again, regardless of the exact figure, all assessments unequivocally confirm one reality: Tejas remains dependent on foreign-made systems for its most critical functions like flying, navigating, sensing and fighting.As the inquiry into the February 7 Tejas incident proceeds, the central questions endure: What precisely occurred that day? What damage did the aircraft sustain? Are there systemic issues that necessitated the grounding of the entire fleet? And why did it take nearly two weeks for the incident to emerge?Until those questions are addressed openly, the silence itself will remain part of the story – shaped and determined largely by media reporting and public speculation.