As it is well known, the MRCA proposal was initially merely one to acquire 126 units of Mirage-2000-V only. But in 2005, as the the assembly lines of Mirage-2000 were closed, the IAF changed this proposal to MRCA (Medium Range Combat Aircraft [and not Multi Role C A]). As per an interview of then Air-Chief Mr. Tyagi, the so-termed MRCA was needed because in his words I quote, “a fighter jet of ‘medium weight’ was needed to plug the gap between the light LCA and the heavy Su-30 MKI”, end quote.
His opinion was either based on, or seconded the opinion expressed in the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on Defence 2006-07, as per which I quote, “….Now, every Air Force likes to have a combination of heavy, medium and light aircraft. The LCA will fit very well into the front line requirement of a Light Combat Aircraft…”, end quote. It must be mentioned that this observation is completely flawed, as NO Air-Force maintains such a combination of light, medium & heavy fighters. The USAF maintains only medium to heavy fighters in the form of F-teens. The PLAAF is also inducting only medium J-10s and heavy Su-30 variants for future acquisitions (though it has older light planes). The same can be said of various air-forces of the EU also.
Besides the above, Tejas can complement the Su-30 MKI very well and hence such a “medium-weight” plane is not needed to be ‘wedged’ between the Tejas and Su-30 MKI. The same will be explained further.
Even in the present config, Tejas can carry an external load of 3,500 kgs of weapons, fuel tanks and target pods (in 8 weapon-stations). This is equivalent to the external load carried by Gripen and F-16 in their ‘normal’ or ‘fighter’ config, i.e 2500-3500 kgs in 8-10 stations respectively.
Again, although F-16 has a greater fuel capacity than Tejas, it must be noted that its empty weight is also 2,500 kgs greater. This is in order to justify it’s advertised max. external load of 6900 kgs, for which a heavy and strengthened frame is needed.
Hence, when in the ‘fighter’ config, a major portion of the fuel carried by F-16 is spent in ferrying redundant weight. Thus, Tejas is likely to have a similar combat radius as the F-16 in the ‘fighter’ config.
It must also be noted that Tejas has the same weapon load and range as the serving MiG-27 and MiG-29 fighters of the IAF. Thus, Tejas can replace not just the MiG-21, but also the entire MiG-27 and MiG-29 fleet of the IAF. Thus, as per DRDO’s head Dr. Natarajan, upto 450 Tejas units can be procured by the IAF and not a ‘token’ number of just 150 units.
As regards other twin-engined contenders of the MRCA contract like Rafale, F-18 and Typhoon, it must be mentioned that they NEVER carry their advertised max. external loads of 8,000 – 9,000 kgs for any mission profile. In the fighter config, their loadout too never exceeds 2500-3500 kgs. Now, it is known that IAF’s Su-30 MKI also carries only a maximum of 5000 kgs of external weapons in the ‘normal’ configuration. Internal fuel carried is upto 8,000 kgs.
The F-18 S/H can also carry upto 5 tons of weapons and 8 tons of fuel (internally & externally) . Thus, as these specs are the same as Su-30 MKI, it’s induction in the IAF would totally be a wasteful expenditure. The same may also be applied to the Rafale, Typhoon and MiG-35 also.
Operating costs of Rafale, Typhoon, MiG-35 and F-18 are likely to be only slightly lesser than Su-30 MKI. In any case, the exorbitant per unit cost of procuring these planes will more than negate any slight advantage of operating costs that they may have over the Su-30 MKI.
Thus, EACH of the 6 MRCA contenders would be totally unnecessary and redundant in the IAF. Their practical functionality is met by the Tejas or Su-30 MKI.
As per recent reports, the Tejas is required to replace the current GE-404 engine. As per historical trends, it is NOT a “cause for alarm”, because other fighters in it’s weight category also have had to abandon’ the GE-404 for a more powerful engine. The Gripen A/B had to install RM-12 at the outset itself, which is an enhanced F404. The T-50’s below par performance with the GE-404 is satisfactory because it is a trainer. As predicted on another thread earlier, the JF-17 also has to undergo an imminent engine change (it’s engine too is of the power class of the GE-F404) which was recently confirmed by the Air Chief of PAF, and totally “downplayed” by the Pak media.
As per noted defence journalist Col. Ajai Shukla (with photos), the Tejas variants from LSP-3 onwards will feature auxillary air-intakes to improve air suction in certain flight-envelopes. As per a recent statement of the head of GTRE Mr. T Mohan Rao, the Kaveri engine will be installed on Tejas next year after 2 remaining important milestones are crossed. If a new engine like GE-414 or Eurojet is to be selected, then it may be hoped that the contractual formalities are completed soon and the new engine is installed and tested on Tejas very soon.
References :-
1) Standing Committee Report on Defence
2) Standing Committee report on Defence 2006-07
3) Kaveri in LCA by 2009 (Nov 7, 2008)
Sign In
December 28, 2008 at 3:59 pm