Spitfire9, I agree with your view that the F-16 will be a threat to the indigenous Tejas.

Thus, it must be hoped that Tejas Mk.II is completed as per schedule declared by DRDO, so that when the time comes to deliver the first of the MRCAs (i.e. by 2013), the Tejas is ready to step into the MRCA role.

Now for this to happen, Tejas must also formally compete for the MRCA i.e. the IAF must allow it to make test sorties pertaining to the M.R.C.A competition and not routine reviews or IoC, FoC etc. In my view, it may be a “pity” if Tejas is not able to compete for the MRCA competition in a few months from now, simply because it does not have an IAF certified IoC. However, the “glaring injustice” meted out to Tejas may be that despite the fact that any aircraft bidding for IAF’s contract foreign or Indian has first to obtain an IoC specific to the IAF, NONE of the 6 contenders are required to do so and will be directly entering air-trials this year for the MRCA competition.
The IAF seems to have given an unofficial or “de-facto” recognition to the IoC given by alien Air-Forces and is willing to directly allow 6 foreign aircaft to enter air-trials for the MRCA competition.

In my view, the IAF must not be biased and must remember the procedures for induction no matter how stringent they may be.

See, MiG-35 is similar in size and operating costs to F-18 E/F. In terms of payload specifications, it is similar to the F-16 (> 7 tons external payload).

Thus, in my view, it is the “worst” amongst all the 6 MRCA contenders, because atleast the other 5 contenders have range-payload specs that are commensurate with their size.

Actually it may be noted that this is a recurrent problem with “hooded” Russian fighters like Su-30 and MiG-29. Even the Su-30, which is a few tons heavier and larger than the F-15 E Strike Eagle, carries 4 tons lesser payload than it. It’s hooded frame makes the aircraft ‘sacrifice’ payload for extra manoeuverability.

I think it is all the more reason to disregard absolute weight of the fighter vis-a-vis range-payload performance.

Another interesting that may be noted is that as per an article by Janes Defence dating April 2007, the IAF had sent an RFI (request for Information) as far back as in 2004 which was for single engined fighters only (just like Mirage-2000). Thus, it may be unclear as to why the IAF later sent RFP to “all & sundry” twin-engined fighters too.

Reference :-

1) Jane’s Defence Report on MRCA , April 2007 (Pakdef.info, post by #533 by a member named jawad)

Tejas will make a terrible MRCA contender. The Indians are better off going with the F-18E or Rafale and spinning the engine from that choice into the Kaveri’s slot.

See, as discussed earlier, as the F-18E and Rafale are already equivalent to the Su-30 MKI, their induction in the IAF would be needless. Similarly, Tejas practically can perform as well as F-16 and Gripen (with the exception of nuclear weapon carriage).

Thus, augmenting the numbers of Tejas and Su-30 MKI would be sufficient and none of the 6 foreign MRCA contenders would be needed.

In any case, since we know that the 126 MRCA was originally a requirement for a 126 Mirage-2000s, and that the Tejas is regarded as a mini-Mirage-2000, we may “put 2 & 2 together” and hope that Tejas is also selected as an M.R.C.A contender

If anything India should go the route of the Chinese, reverse engineer the Su-30mki and MRCA winners, then build their own heavy jets for the future. The goal as a nation is independence and time after time they seem perfectly happy playing the stooge to some supplier.

In my view, the “hassles” of purchasing and licence manufacturing a hitertho unknown fighter would be far lesser than developing Tejas Mk.II with a new engine (and possibly dual launchers).

I think it’s a waste of time considering it but why not? It will be excluded from selection immediately, won’t it?

Spitfire, in my view it need not be excluded from selection if instead of the “myopic” view of absolute empty/loaded weights, the range-payload performance of Tejas is considered.

Like pointed out before by some one else. The Tejas delays are the main reason for the MRCA competition. Now After RFP and Submission of bids, there is and there must not be no going back.

Actually the above is not the reason why the MRCA was proposed; however, the counter-logical statement holds true : that had the Tejas been delivered much earlier, then the MRCA proposal would have been ‘shelved’.

In my view, the only possible issue that IAF may raise about Tejas is the absence of dual-missile launchers. If a dual-launcher is added by ADA, it would then be able to carry 6 A2A missiles + 2 A2G munitions like F-16 or Gripen – NG. Presently it can carry 4 A2A missiles + 2 A2G munitions + 1×1,200
litre fuel tank. Multi-bomb racks may also suffice (like BRU-57 or in Gripen).

I think what may remain to be seen now is the amount of empty-weight that will be reduced by the removal of telemetry equipment and conversion of the displays to LCA from the present CRT displays.

ante_climax, the only requirement in Tejas would be a newer engine of 90 kN thrust, like Kaveri or an imported engine.

Other than this, what may be against Tejas is the absence of multiple weapon racks like BRU-57 on F-16 (that can carry 2 bombs on 1 hardpoint), or the dual-launcher seen on JF-17 in a covert video. This is highly important, as Lockeed claims 5,000 combinations of loadouts on F-16. Gripen-NG too has added 2 more bomb racks.

Another function of importance may be additional fuel. As per SAAB, Gripen-NG carries 40% more fuel (besides 2 more bomb racks) due to a relocated landing gear.
F-16 has instead added conformal tanks to enable it to deliver 3 tons of bombs 1,600 kms from base and return. Tejas, in the meantime has to rely on air-to-air refuelling to approach such ranges.

Can you give me any citations regarding this. So far as we know IAF wants a diverse fleet. But i agree with you that the fewer multirole types the better it would be logistically.

ante_climax, that was my view. It is true that IAF is reducing the types of fighters. Ideally, the Su-30 MKI, Tejas and MCA (by DRDO) must be the only 3 types in use by the IAF. Foreign dependence must be eliminated totally for it to be a powerful Air-Force.

Thats hardly the criteria one should use to judge a fighter. What about the performance of the airframes, g loads, radar etc. So far the Tejas MK1 is nowhere near either the F 16 or Gripen.

Please note that Tejas’ airframe has the highest percentage of composites amongst ALL 4th or 4.5 G fighters. As per the official websites of ADA and Eurofighter, Tejas has greater percentage of composites by weight and surface area. It’s composite layout software package was sold to and used by Airbus in the A-380 project.
Tejas also has quadruplex full digital FBW. Test pilots of the IAF have consistently given it a first class rating in handling.

As regards G loads, the IAF’s current ASR specify a max. load of 8G, whereas ADA’s official website specifies a target G load of 9G. An Elta radar is yet to be integrated and tested on Tejas prototypes.

Mr Antony said 140 Mk2 Tejas’ going to be inducted after the first 20-40 MK1. MK2 still don’t have an engine and should also have other upgrades the IAF wants. So realistically 2015 is a good time frame. which many in the forum do not agree to. But I hope to see it getting inducted before 2016.

See, Tejas has already been integrated with the new GE-IN20 engines and new auxillary intakes have already been crafted on it’s airframe. As per the statement of chief of GTRE, Mr. T Mohana Rao, the Kaveri engine will be installed and tested on Tejas this year (note that Kaveri would be the 3rd engine on the Tejas).

The IAF Chief, chief of DRDO have all expressed confidence that Tejas will achieve IoC by next year and FoC by 2011-12.

IAF is not USAF, India is not US. So stop talking about 400-600 fighters of the same kind.

See, the chief of DRDO Dr. Natarajan has expressed ths view in a recent interview (also posted in another thread of this forum). It is logical because of IAF’s new doctrine of ‘global force projection’, massive numbers of only 2-3 fighter types must be maintained.

The matter is not as much how much weapons a fighter can carry, but more for how far. Whith 2500 kg of weapons Tejas wont have much space left for external fuel while both F-16 and Gripen can extend their range significantly by using drop tanks.

Rogerout, as discussed earlier, Tejas will also have the same range as Gripen and F-16 with the aforementioned loadout. F-16’s empty weight is 33% more than F-16; thus whatever larger fuel load it carries will be spent in “lugging” this redundant weight (this high weight is actually a necessity of it’s rarely used ability to carry nuclear weapons and cruise missiles).

The west generally phases out their aircraft quite early. The Teen series were so successful and that is the reason why they are taking even this long. While if you look at Russia the Mig 29 and 31 and 25 are going to be in service for the foreseeable future. While the Su 25s are getting an upgrade. Note also that the F 18 E-F is significantly different from the normal hornet and the development began in the 90s only.

See, IAF’s doctrine is to acquire high-end fighters of the class of JSF etc. in numbers of hundreds just like the USAF is doing now. For the purpose of replacing aging fighters with 4++ G fighters, a “mixture” of Su-30 MKI and Tejas is sufficient and adequate because both of them complement each other perfectly.

While i agree with your post on the Su 30 MKI, I think the IAF doctrine calls for the use of fighters in a High-Med-Lo mix. The MKI and the future PAK FA may be deemed to the heavy class.

As already discussed earlier, the doctrine of light-medium-heavy combination of fighters (as mentioned in Standing Committee report on Defence) is either NOT followed, or not going to be followed by ANY major air-force which seeks global reach, be it USAF, RuAF, PLAAF, or European Air-Forces.

Although the so-called heavy-medium-light “mixture” is a naturally intuitive gesture, it is practically very flawed. It is because empty weight (or loaded weight) is a loose criterion in which a fighter’s performance can be gauged or pegged against. Regardless of the empty weight, any fighter from Tejas to F-22 will never carry more than 2,500 to 3,000 kgs of weapons in ANY mission profile like interception, sead, strike etc. Su-30 MKI, Rafale, F-18, Typhhon etc. can carry upto 5 tons of weapons for specially long-range operations, but hardly any more.

As another example, in cricket game, so long as the length of the stumps and pitch is unchanged, a batsman’s height beyond a lower limit becomes immaterial (examples Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar who are barely 5 feet and 5.5 feet tall respectively).

Similarly, if no more than 2.5 tons of weapons are to be carried in any case, the Tejas can be preferred over Gripen and F-16; and if only 5 tons of weapons are to be carried, the Su-30 MKI can be preferred over the F-18, Rafale, Typhoon and MiG-35.
As discussed earlier already, the range of these fighters vis-a-vis Tejas or Su-30 MKI, will be equivalent.

The Tejas can “take a cue” from JF-17, by adding twin-stations on it’s 2nd and 7th hardpoints. This will allow it to carry upto 10 individual weapons/pods, which is only 1 less than F-16. It is appreciative that although JF-17 has 1 hardpoint less than Tejas, it can actually carry 9 weapons/pods because of a dual-station each on it’s 2nd and 7th underwing hardpoints.

Now, it must be noted that the F-16 can carry 6.9 tons of advertised max. external load. The remainder external load (other than the 2.5 tons carried in the ‘normal’ or ‘fighter’ config) is to carry various heavy nuclear weapons and cruise missiles, which can weigh over 1,000 kgs each. Tejas is not intended for this role.

The latest block F 16s and Gripens (even the non NG) are not matched my the Tejas MK1, I hope it will come near their performance when it comes to the Tejas MK2.

See, Tejas has same number of hardpoints and fuel capacity as non-NG Gripen versions.

Yes that’s like 20-40 planes, can hardly fill in the 126 (200 opt) MRCA.

See, Tejas is required in 150 nos. anyway. In addition to that, 126 Tejas can be inducted in lieu of the so-called MRCA taking the total to 276. Ideally, as per the statement of head of DRDO, Dr. Natarajan, IAF must procure upto 450 Tejas units. If observed, this is standard practice in large air-forces like USAF where there are 400-600 units of 1 single fighter type.

F 18 is going to be in service till 2030 F 16 til 2025 and Mig 35 is a new fighter designed on Mig 29 which will be serving Ruaf well past 2020.

Tejas is not capable to stand near these till it achieves MK2 stage, which is only hopeful by 2015.

ante-climax, nevertheless the F-teens and MiG-35 are being phased out by their home countries, and are being offered for export in order to leverage a final advantage out of them, i.e. export income. The IAF must not purchase these “leftovers”.

By the same application even the Migs, Jaguars and Mirages of the IAF are slated to serve till the next 2 decades. Still, it is not an incentive for third world nations to purchase Jaguars or older Mig derivatives.

Tejas is not capable to stand near these till it achieves MK2 stage, which is only hopeful by 2015.

Please note that as per my first post, the roles of F-18, Rafale, MiG-35 and Typhoon (in terms of weapon-load and range) are already met by the serving Su-30 MKI’s of the IAF. Hence, induction of any one of these would be totally needless and redundant.
As regards the Gripen and F-16, they are practically matched by the Tejas.

Hence, there is NO scope whatsoever for each of the 6 MRCA contenders, as their capabilities are met by either the Su-30 MKI or Tejas.
Also, they are so expensive, that whatever greater per-hour cost of operation that Su-30 MKI has (against Rafale, Typhoon and F-18) will be more than negated by their high cost price.

These are old news the recent news is that IAF will not be ordering any more Tejas till it attains MK2 standards.

As per news reports IAF will order 1-2 squadrons of Tejas units after IoC and before FoC (i.e before M2k standard).

Oh dear, my beloved F-4 just made it to 4.5 generation fighter. It has carried a Litening pod and fired AAMs as well and it even has a final and proven engine, no it has 2 of theose.

Seahawk, as already mentioned by 21Ankush, Tejas’ airframe and flight-controls are far more advanced than 3rd G F-4. Besides, F-4 does not have the level of avionics and number of weapons as the Tejas has.