If India abolishes/scraps or discards MK2 story completely, i dont mind Gripen E as MK2 but would like to use its FOC date and mate it with a Safransied kaveri as well as look at say a similar radar and avionics as present in Indian MIC ecosystem. Be it a Thales based radar or even Dare based RWR etc..
Weapons i would like it to be common between LCA Mk1A/ Gripen E and Rafales.
Presumably, i would like Gripen E to be of limited number not beyond say what was envisioned for Mk2 sqd numbers.
Also one must understand that Gripen E as Mk2 is just a light to lower strata medium fighter.. There is no way it can replace twin engined Rafales in a true medium category or in ops. For us Gripen E will become a FW base fighter jet only. Like the other contender F-16.
The downside of course will be that with Mk2 replaced, AMCA will also need time and French cooperation in a joint effort (if we go that path) , will need good confidence building measures with orders for Rafales and involvement in projects liek LCA and gripen E /LCA Mk2.
The possibility of say 80 odd LCA Mk2a and 90 odd Gripen E with almost limited commanlity will be worst course of action and decision making ever. Whatever be the circumstances, striving for commanlity is the key for future for all jets which go in FW bases and are SE fighters with missions envisioned for LCA series of aircraft
When Tejas Mk1 is already flying, AESA radar, Turbofan engine in final stages of development, why would India back off from Mk2 which only requires an additional airframe development and fly by wire adjustment?
The hardest part of making a plane is making its subsystems, not the airframe. Also, Gripen has large number of metallic components which reduce the stealth.
Let us look at comparison:
Tejas Mk1 has MToW of 13.2 tons with 19000lbf egine (86kN). Tejas Mk2 is expected to have 100kN engine (F414 type) which will have MToW of 15.3 tons. Due to modifications and improvisation, the weight of MK2 is expected to be same as MK1 (ballast removal, design improvement). This will give healthy 2 ton extra payload and fuel over current Tejas Mk1A.
As of now, Tejas Mk1A has empty weight of 6.7 tons, 3000 litres fuel (2.4 tons), 600kg of SPJ, EW, LDP and 3.5 ton payload while MK2 will have empty weight 7.3 ton with SPJ and EW internal and 200kg LDP in addition to 4000 litre fuel(3.2 ton) and 5+ ton payload.
Now, let us compare to F16.
F16 has empty weight - 8.8 ton with 200kg LDP, fuel of 3.4 tons and 9 hardpoints. The engine is 125kN and has MToW of 19.2 tons, thus giving 7 tons of payload.
The fuel to empty weight ratio of F16 is 3.4/8.8 = 39%. For Tejas Mk2, it is 3.2/7.3 = 44%. So, on internal fuel, Tejas is expected to be on par with F16 or better in terms of range.
Now, let us consider usage of drop tanks and actual war scenario:
Tejas Mk2 :
scenario 1 (medium range mission):
1 centreline tank of 800kg (1000 litres),
2 x 1000kg bomb/cruise missile
2x 500 kg bombs
2 x Astra BVR
This amounts to 4.1 ton. In addition, 20% pylon weight will make it 5 ton
Scenario 2 (long range mission):
2 tanks of 800kg ( 1000 litres) under wings
1x 1000 kg bomb/cruise misisle
2x 500kg bomb
2x Astra BVR
This amounts to 3.9 tons which along with 20% pylon weight comes to 4.7tons
Scenario 3 (full air superiority/patrol):
2 tanks of 800kg ( 1000 litres) under wings
2x Astra BVR racked under fuselage
4x Astra BVR racked under wings
2x Astra BVR with one each under extreme end of wings
Scenario 4 ( short ranged mission)
3x 1000kg bombs (one under fuselage, one under each wing)
2x 500kg bomb
2x Astra BVR
Total of 4.3 tons and with pylon 5.1 tons
F16:
scenario 1 (medium range mission):
1 centreline tank of 1000kg (1200 litres),
2 x 1000kg bomb/cruise missile
4x 500 kg bombs
2 x BVR
This amounts to 5.3 ton. In addition, 20% pylon weight will make it 6.4 ton
Scenario 2 (long range mission):
2 tanks of 1000kg (1200 litres) under wings
1x 1000 kg bomb/cruise missile
4x 500kg bomb
2x BVR
This amounts to 5.3 tons which along with 20% pylon weight comes to 6.4 tons
Scenario 3 (full air superiority):
2 tanks of 1000kg (1200 litres) under wings
2x BVR racked under fuselage
8x BVR racked under wings
2x BVR with one each under extreme end of wings
Scenario 4 ( short ranged mission)
3x 1000kg bombs (one under fuselage, one under each wing)
4x 500kg bomb
2x BVR
Total of 5.3 tons and with pylon 6.4 tons
Conclusions:
The ability ratio of Tejas Mk2 to F16 across scenarios are:
1)2:3
2)3:5
3)2:3
4)5:7
The range of Tejas and F16 is comparable in all mission roles above due to similar fuel to weight ratio and hence is not a factor. The efficiency wise, Tejas is about 66%. This means, 3 Tejas is equivalent to 2 F16. F16 is also less stealthy than Tejas which adds to advantage of Tejas.
So, to replace F16, Tejas has to be made in 1.5 times the quantity of F16. This equation is not fully correct in air superiority as 3 sets of eyes is far better than 2 sets of eyes, even though number of BVR missiles may be lower.
Now we have to consider several aspects :
1) Attrition in war (losses)
2) Cost of production
3) Ease of production
4) Ease of maintenance and repair
The Tejas is extremely cheap, about 30% of F16 and the maintenance and repair is extremely simple as it is fully Indian. India has vast industrial base which makes 25 million automobiles a year, large number of other goods etc and hence also has a healthy number of educated and trained people. This should also mean that production in large numbers shouldn't be a problem and neither should wartime repairs.
Considering the huge cost advantage, low cost of attrition, large spare parts manufacturing ability and ease of maintenance, it is only logical that Tejas Mk2 will be far better than F16. The higher cost of logistics is easily offset by indigenous production at cheaper rates. The threat scenario of India also mostly calls for short/medium range combat - Pakistan or Bangladesh.
The only time when F16 will be better than Tejas is during peacetime patrol whereby the losses are low and most of the cost is for fuel which is less for 2 F16 than 3 Tejas. If we compare it to Rafale, then 1 Rafale = 2 Tejas will be the ratio in terms of payload. The stealth will be similar.
So, unless there is absolute requirement for a single plane doing maximum damage, even Rafale can be replaced with 2 Tejas. The cost of Rafale comes out to be 4-5 times that of Tejas Mk2.
Almost all planes in Indian inventory - Mig21, MiG27, jaguar, Mirage 2000 can be replaced with Tejas Mk2. Only MiG29 (due to short take off), Su30 (heavy payload and very long range) is not replaceable by Tejas Mk2.
There is absolutely no reason to go for F16. Gripen is almost same as Tejas but at twice the cost and poor stealth. So, there is no point in it
I don't think it's totally true.
It is a very agile platform, and quite affordable. But developped as a light fighter, it can't offer medium plane perf (range, load).
It's a nice fighter for peacefull country. But when you need to be ready for war, maybe a little bit more away from your own borders, it's not a first choice.
In the indian case, as a Mig21 replacement, it's a nice solution. But THE nice solution is Tejas.
As a replacement for Mig 23 and Mig 27, it's too light.
As I mentioned above, Gripen or Tejas Mk2 can offer the role of medium plane. Tejas or Gripen can double up in production numbers. Lightness of fighter also means that lesser fuel drop tanks are needed for extended range. See my figures above. So, only heavy bombers can't be replaced by Tejas. The only other plane not replaceable is short take-off ones due to unique ability