I fully agree with matt and Samsara that the fears of Tejas being sidelined or given a few “token” orders are indeed valid. If Gripen is selected, then the “death knoll” for Tejas would be even more certain. However, even some jet other than Gripen can also “jeopardize” the Tejas’ induction in large numbers.

See, what Army did to Arjun, IAF can do on the Tejas. They’ll say something like, “Uh…look, we need new generation fighters. Tejas is more like a 4th gen MiG-21. We need more Eurofighter kinda jets.” {This would actually validate my conjecture, that the light-medium-heavy theory is rubbish (designed to justify MRCA imports), and all air-forces ultimately come to the conclusion that they should maintain only deep-strikers and multirole jets.}

When pointed out about their so called light-medium-heavy paradigm, IAF’ll say, “Hey look we ordered 40 Tejas Mk.1 and some 100 Mk.2. Isn’t that sufficient ?”.

Then we all will ask, “But….but wasn’t Tejas meant to replace 300 MiG-21s ? (forget replacing MiG-23s and MiG-27s as we don’t expect that much from you). And besides, don’t you have an optimum requirement for 45 squadrons ? Forget increasing to 45 squads, given that all MiG-27s and many MiG-21s are up for retirement in the coming decade, you’ll spend the next decade in just replenishing your fleet. Add to that, your MiG-23s are already retired now. So, don’t you think you need something like 400 Tejas units in all ? In addition to the 126 MRCAs ? Do you know that PLAAF’s J-7 fleet alone roughly equals IAF’s entire fleet ? Shri. Naik himself said PLAAF is 3 times larger than IAF.”

Then IAF may say, “Yes, all that is fine, but according to the Standing Committee Report 2013-14, new doctrines have to be adopted. We need new generation fighters. I told you Tejas is a glorified MiG-21, and we don’t need more than just 140 of those. We need (drooling) Typhoon Mk.3, we need PAK-FA MKI, and the new UCAVs that we saw at the exhibition that day…”

“Arey baba, you plan to fly MiG-21 bis till 2025. And Tejas Mk.2 is also a 4++ gen fighter in the class of Gripens and Rafales. And We are developing the MCA. And also UCAVs in a “collaboration” with Israel…What about all that ?”

“No, you don’t understand. Tejas is a light MiG-21 replacement…”

“Sigh…”

I’m also of the same opinion about Vishnu Som. Actually, this particular reporter is known to post good news about Gripen, when he gets some (of course, with the usual disclaimers and other journalistic proprieties). But I don’t know why he doesn’t post news about other fighter jets with the same frequency. Does he not get any reports about them, or he simply does not bother ? Anyway, it’s his BR account, and so he’s free to post whatever he likes and nobody can infringe that right.

Once, he wrote in support of Tejas vis-a-vis Gripen (or at least I thought he did) on BR. Then a member from this forum brought him here, and he spent the next few posts clarifying, that the Gripen has a “proven” record and is “experienced”, etc. etc. etc. and what he posted in BR did not mean that he supported Tejas over Gripen. I folded my hands.

Now, just visit this blog. Somebody called “RAT” on 4:45 AM, made a small ‘snide’ remark about Gripen. Now just scroll below and see the response from Vishnu Som. Calling it a ‘response’ is mild, it’s more of a “backlash”. You can see the usual stuff about Gripen being sold to so many countries, and no probs in tech support, blah blah, blah. And of course, how it “beautifully” cleared the trials in India (reportedly, of course. But brought to you by Vishnu Som).

handragupta, there have been many such rumours in the past that have been debunked :-

Rumour 1) : 126 order will be split into 2 vendors (like say, Gripen and MiG-35).
Result : IAF CoAS himself on some occasions has stressed that there will be a single vendor procurement. No splitting the order.

Rumour 2) : F-35 will be part of MRCA tender.
Result : Nothing of the sort. F-16 has ended up auditioning in India.

Rumour 3) : Order will be jacked up to 200.
Result : This is just an option and not a confirmed requirement. The confirmed proposal stands at 126 only.

—————————-

Here we may once again go back to what is the actual purpose of the MRCA ? In 2001, IAF had an ageing fleet of either dedicated air-interceptors (like MiG-21) or dedicated dedicated ground-attackers (like MiG-23 / 27). These were up for retirement, and IAF wanted the replacement to roll these two into one multirole jet.

Now, they had the Tejas, which had just begun it’s testing. But they thought of Tejas as no more than a MiG-21-ish jet (and do so even today). And anyway it was many years away till induction. Another candidate was Mirage-2000. It had also performed superbly in the just concluded Kargil war too. So finally, 126 Mirages were called for.

Now fast forward :- After the Mirage line closed down and Qatari deal fell through, and lots of jhol-jhapaat later, IAF invited RFIs from Gripen, F-16 and MiG-35. The year is 2005.

Later, F-18, rafale and typhoon also gatecrashed themselves into the competition. Btw, F-18 comes quite close to MKI’s range-payload specs. And F-15 outclasses it. So, one fails to see why F-18 was entertained at all to participate.

2007-08 : Along comes along the Parliamentary Standing Committee report on Defence, which says, “..Air-Forces like to have light-medium-heavy jets in their fleet….” ” … LCA is a light replacement for MiG-21, and MRCA is a medium jet….” Around the same time, Mr. Tyagi says in an interview that M-MRCA is meant to be in between the “heavy” Su-30 MKI and the “light” Tejas. Note that the extra “M” is now added to the MRCA, thus making it M-MRCA to justify the ‘medium’ thingy.

So, MRCA has always been a multirole fighter, and hence a one-stop replacement for soon-to-be-retired MiG-27 bombers, MiG-21 air-interceptors and MiG-23s (already retired). The “medium” bit was deliberately added 3 years back when the Tejas (also multirole) began shaping up very well, and the arms agents and lobbyists thought of a new justification to edge it out.

Fact is that No Air Force follows the light-medium-heavy paradigm. Instead, they have deep-strikers and multirole jets. Indeed, it is amazing to note that USA and Soviet Union arrived at the same conclusion, albeit totally independently of each other.
The F-16 arose in the need for a compact “buddy” to the larger F-15. It was thought that F-15 would be the deep striker, and F-16 would be the cheap-to-operate fighter, where the per hour cost of operation of F-15 were not justified. At around the same time, the Soviets independently reached the same conclusion : they asked Sukhoi and Mikoyan to take a radical new design by Tsagi. Sukhoi was ordered to make a large deep striker out of it, and Mikoyan, the smaller one.

Result : Su-30 became the direct competitor to the F-15, and MiG-29 was matched to the F-16.

Arey, forget USAF and USSR even next door PLAAF has reached the same conclusion. They only have Flankers and J-10s respectively as their mainstay (though they also have a few older JH-7A bombers). They’re the least interested in the FC-1 LCA, and have no intention of replacing their 600 odd J-7s with FC-1s. So, the Flankers (and illegal variants) will be their deep strikers, and the J-10 will be the F-16 equivalent in the PLAAF. And there’s no FC-1 Mk.2.

So, unless there is a very stringent requirement that the MRCA must be able to carry nukes or Nirbhay-like missiles, there is absolutely no reason why Tejas Mk.2 shouldn’t be the Multi Role Combat Aircraft of the IAF, complementing the Flankers perfectly well.

In Bharat Rakshak, many members are expressing very good views about why Tejas Mk.1 itself should be inducted in very high numbers, Tejas Mk.2 notwithstanding.

I’m posting the posts of some members :-

“I guess 100 odd LCA’s MK1 engine are still better choice than mig21 defending our border.“

I fully agree with the above view. Tejas Mk.1 — even if a bit short of ASRs — is leagues ahead of those antique MiG-21s. And wasn’t the Tejas a “MiG-21 replacement” originally ? So, if it is much better and available now, why does the IAF intend to fly MiG-21s, till 2025 but cap Tejas Mk.1s at only 1 squadron ?? Do we treat our pilots like canon fodder in those unforgiving MiGs ? Don’t they deserve better ?

If product specs change what can be done to what has been built already.
e.g in 2004 who thought of a new engine and Mk2? and Why could not IAF see that they would have needed a better engine?
IAF is surely acting like kid spoit for choices …Like for PAKFA .. it will fund and wait few more years for 2 seaters PAKFA rather than single seaters.

I am sure one day will come
LCA MK3 = MCA MK1
and still it would not be inducted on some pretext – e.g the components are doing well better than LCA (oops MCA). That is the biggest hogwash. Then why invest the weapon system we could just keep developing components.

The last comment is quite pertinent. It is actually the pattern followed by IAF and IA.

So you mean to say that all that Boeing gets from the deal is a one year [or two?]extension of the production line when the deal is sealed? I am not sure how helpful that be. Are we over estimating our impact, unless you expect US and Boeing to find out more foreign customers within the delivery of the final C-17 to India? Or may be the Congress would approve for more C-17 by the time for the USAF? That all doesn’t add up with what you are attempting

As per the news report, the current order of 10 planes will last for the next 2.5 years only. A foreign order (like India’s) will last another 2.5 years. 2.5 years is significant for 5,000 workers and 44 states (another say, 5000 workers) which supply that plant.

After that Japan, Israel, Saudia, and other vassal states will be nudged to extend it’s order books for the next 2.5 years. Then another 5 years, and so on.

I don’t think Boeing will be concerned about firing 5000 people for lack of order, the senators may. Boeing’s worry would be money and unless they get bulk US orders there is no further point.

Exactly. Senators themselves have “goaded” India to buy these. After all, its an FMS purchase i.e. govt to govt level and not Boeing to IAF.

so i guess pressure is already on india to order more c-17 to keep jobs in usa

Exactly. Not just that, but P-3C Orions, E-2C Hawkeye maritime AEW&C and what not. Enough to keep 25,000 American homes buzzing for the next 10 years, with due thanks to Indian taxpayer.

Years and years of “binge consumption” cannot be changed overnight. They desperately need these orders continuously from countries like India, otherwise democrats and Obama are in serious trouble.

And how many troops do you intend to transport? Maldives and Afghan theater is an all together different story. The question is always what is the number; the troops, logistics, sorties etc,, not whether something supports or not.

JimmyJ, you raised the question of transporting to Maldives and Afghanistan yourself. Now, when I replied you say, “forget it, its a different story”. Fine.

Firstly, two Il-76s can carry more than one C-17. A couple of C-130Js can also do the job equally well (It is infact a troop carrier only, and nothing else. Used very well in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). Even if they’re not available, IC-814 from Air India can be pressed into service. Easily, without the need of C-17s.

Forget India, even Canada which is on the other end of the globe from Af-Pak region, uses C-130Js or civilian airliners to ferry it’s troops to Afghanistan (it is part of the coalition nations).

Look, C-17s cannot be bought for that one dreaded Afghan embassy bombing. The nations that have them, use them like ships on the move. Right as you read this, a C-17 must be flying or readying for takeoff to / from Iraq or Afghanistan. The cost of operations of this flying titanic are so huge, that they are “bang for the buck”, only when a) they’re flown for intercontinental distances, and b) they’re used very often, otherwise by being a “hangar queen” its money going waste.

Here’s an interesting read to illustrate points a) and b) outlined above :-

“Actual use of C-17 missions during Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF) , which is the Afghanistan Operation, and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) :-

The average C-17 load during both of these missions averaged just around 18 tonnes (metric) on deployments and around 13 tonnes on redeployments. That’s it. Barely C-130 Hercules-sized loads.

Of course, when a C-17 is used to carry personnel, with a full load of 102 troops (without the pallets), at 200 Kg each, it just has a payload of 20 tonnes, half of the C-17s’ ACL. It’s better to put them on a commercial flight. A CRAF B-747 can carry 350 and is much cheaper for flying troops than a C-17.

The US Air Force, in its planning documents, plans on an average daily use of 14.5 hours for its C-17 in times of crisis (The aircraft, I have no doubt, would be quite capable of maintaining such a tempo if it was operated by an efficient organisation).”

Reference :-

Canada and the Boeing C-17 Strategic Aircraft

Shouldn’t it have something to do with operational scenario too especially when it was mentioned that it is for special ops

Special ops yes, but only at over 2,500 nautical miles away. For relief ops in flood-hit Bihar, is the IAF going to fly a C-17 from Nagpur ??? Better do that with 2 C-130Js. The few thousand dollars saved thus, could go a long way in helping the flood-hit.

Even during wartime, commercial planes from AI are pressed into troop transportation. What’s more, so many commercial planes are up for retirement that they can easily be refurbished and used by IAF, if they’re no longer good for passenger comfort and safety.

The IAF begs to differ…and I am sure the army will be grateful for the extra load the C-17 can bring in if everything goes south.

C-130J’s are being bought because the the IL-76’s are ending their service lives and the IAF is perhaps sick of using shoddy Russian equipment.C17’s and C-130’s will make a superb combo…giving the IAF far greater lift capacity than what exists today.

The above s the “last line of defence”, because the “IAF says so” and so it must be good. Please understand that defence deals also have geopolitical ‘undercurrents’ also, and are not always based on pressing requirements. The C-17 assembly line was on the verge of closure in the US, and now India has given it a lifeline.

I don’t disagree with the C-130J purchase at all. If the Il-76s cannot even be refurbished to extend it’s life (also given Russia’s bad record on refurbishing Gorshkov), then purchase more C-130Js, I’m in full support of that.

But I don’t see the need for C-17s as explained above.