As mentioned earlier, the Tejas can carry the standard payload –by weight as well as variety — of 2-3 tons like the F-16 or F-18, that are useful for all types of conventional combat missions. Being proportionately lighter, it’s combat radius should also be similar to Gripen NG or F-16. The only difference between Tejas and the MRCA contenders is that because it’s weapon loading is not of the order of 8-9 tons, it cannot carry cruise missiles and some heavy types of nuclear tipped warheads.
Gripen-NG can carry 40% more fuel in order to accomodate the loading on 2 extra pylons and a heavier engine. In range-payload specifications, it is thus closer to F-16 only.
Again, many MRCA contenders themselves are “on-paper” only. As an example, MiG-35, Gripen-NG are very recent entrants (though have a tested history of earlier variants) and the Typhoon got a certain certificate for weapons firing only this year. It is doubtful whether it has even reached the equivalent of IoC/FoC within the EU itself.
Now as mentioned earlier, as regards the F-22 it was part of a definite vision to procure a 5th G plane, whereas JSF ”ended up” as 5th G because it was the “natural evolution” to 4 & 4.5 planes like F-15, F-16 and F-18 (naval as well as terrestrial). In contrast, other countries do have a vision of a separate fifth G plane — akin to F-22 — but do not immediately plan to replace older planes by a 2nd 5th G plane, but by more like 4+++ plane. The latter example is that of Russia vis-a-vis planned Su-35 and variants, and EU & UK vis-a-vis Typhoon. In fact for UK, F-35 and Typhoon are in the same proportion as F-22 and JSF are for the US.
Similarly, India may “ill-afford” a 2nd fifth G plane for replacement of older MiG series and Jaguars. The IAF has envisaged the MRCA primarily for this purpose, but I think this can also be done possibly by Tejas itself and more Su-30/35 variants. The vision for having 5th G planes must be there — as it is with Russia, China, Australia etc.– but it must be fulfilled by MCA instead of a foreign plane. IAF may also specify the relatively ‘minor’ change of a twin-seat/trainer MCA also, if it so needs.
From all available reports and Mr. Fakruddin’s interview, the PAK-FA will be to India what JF-17 is indeed to PAF i.e. a foreign aircraft with local licence rights only. However, as in case of Su-30 MKI, IAF had major custom-components indigenized, whereas PAF seeks the same custom-components from Europe. Thus, PAK-FA is not different from Su-30 model of development at all.
I think there is still time for IAF to exit from the yet unconcluded negotiations with Russia, because once signed finally, it can be difficult for IAF to extract it’s customizations from PAK-FA. This is because there will be terms and conditions as to what India will be restricted and prohibited to modify on PAK-FA, and it’s expectations (except that of a twn-seater) are likely to “fall short”.
If begun early now, the IAF can dedicatedly and teamingly work alongside DRDO to develop the MCA. As per Dr. Natarajan, it can be developed in 15 years’ time, and as per Mr. Pranab Mukherjee’s statement in Parliament in his capacity as Defence minister, India could seek assistance where needed on MCA (similar to Tejas’ model of development).
Sign In
