Sancho
I heared that argument often enough, but that’s just the assumtion of Gripen, or F16 supporters, there is not a single official statement, or evidence, that would hint on that. On the contrary, the fact that IAF wants to induct more Su 30s, want to add a 2nd twin engine stealth fighter and did not took the Mirage from the start speakes even against that theory. Flankers are way more costly to operate than MMRCAs, if it would be to costly IAF could simply add more single engine MMRCAs, instead increase the number of Flankers, that will be even licence produced alongside the MMRCA production!
Maintaining stealth is costly enough, but India even wants to go for 2 different twin engine fighters (personaly a silly decision, but that’s another topic), while again it would be more cost-effective to increase FGFA numbers and add more single engine MMRCAs. See I do think about the cost point as well, but if it’s not a problem for IAF as it seems, why should we bother about it?
1. There are a few statements from IAF officals on what they like a cheap relaible light fighter and these people actually were willing to put their name in, in the case of the Typhoon on Rafale its always “un named IAF/MoD” offical – see the difference, I do.
2. The reason why IAF adding more Su 30s is two fold. Firstly buying more Su 30s means no need for protracted contract negotiations and thereby ensures fast induction. The second reason ‘may’ be that IAF envisages the MRCA to be single engined and hence ordered more MKIs to complement them.
3. The reason why the AMCA is twin engined is due to the lack of engine options, if we had something in the F 135-136 class or even slightly lower, they may have gone for a single engined solution.
Sign In
