shukla wrote:MMRCA: A difficult choice for the IAF
it seems that the political factor is likely to influence the choice of the MMRCA more heavily than just the performance parameters. As an old fighter pilot, however, I would always pitch for a light, easily manoeuvrable, agile and relatively inexpensive fighter that delivers every time, generates high sortie rates and is easy to maintain and train on a day to day peace time schedule. What counts in war is the number of fighters one can launch every hour, every day, day after day, with full confidence and ease of operation.
Gripens the way to go..if that would be the thought process..
Yes, looks like the rank and file in the IAF still want a Mirage 2000 replacement!
But there are some glaring errors made by the author above in an effort to push the single engined birds, esp. the F-16.
For one, it is hardly light
compared to the twin engined birds except for the Shornet. It weighs a good 10tons empty equaling or exceeding the twin engined Rafale, and just about a ton lower than the TIffy and fulcrum.
Two, based on prices quoted for the UAE deal, it is anything but cheap.
The NG though has quite a few things going in its favor over the other contenders -
Supposedly has exceptional turnaround times and operating costs. Has low enough upfront costs as well - should fit in the current budget. Saab has shown the willingness to integrate 3rd party hardware without much drama. Overall, almost a perfect replacement of the M2k - only a little less payload. PLus the offer to work on a gen 5 JV.
Just a tad low on the TWR imho - I'd like to see the 12.5 ton engine
certainly think an MLU could increase payload, add CFTs, and get the 12.5 ton engine.
Of course, what the presence of US engines means in terms of end user restrictions is another concern.
As far as "killing" the Tejas goes, it depends on what they aim for in the MkII. The current bird is certainly lighter (empty and MTOW) and has a lower capacity in terms of fuel carriage/range and payload.