Who said we thought Gripen as inferior? There are certain points where Gripen broadly weakens:
- It failed to provide commitment for AESA radar then. Elta from Israel was pressured by US to drop out of competition.
- Sweden is an independent country true but it doesn't command the political influence France has; one of the possible considerations.
- Range is an issue with full armament. We are looking to replace Medium range fighters, not MiG-21s for which there are Tejas jets already.
No one ever stated India thought the Gripen was inferior, but Abingdonboy wondered why Switzerland chose the Gripen even though they had ranked the Rafale higher in the initial evaluations. I responded.
Secondly, no one really knows why the Gripen 39IN didn't make the shortlist in the M-MRCA. The first most apparent reason would be the U.S. making sure that the Gripen wouldn't get the exporting license for the AN/APG-79 originally proposed with the Gripen 39IN, just like they did in Norway the year before. The second one being unable to present an actual 39IN demonstrator fitted with a AESA radar in time. The rumors has it that the short-listing of both the Eurofighter and the Rafale was made because they were just barely capable of delivering some sort of evidence that their AESA-radars could be fitted in the aircrafts, would work and could be delivered on time. Funny thing is that it is the Gripen who flew first with an actual working AESA out of the Eurocanards. The Rafale prototype that was brought to the evaluations atleast had proof that its radar could be fitted by showing them a non-working module of the AESA fitted in the demo aircraft, and the Eurofighter was fitted with a down-graded version of its proposed AESA radar.
Well, the Eurofighter and the Rafale are both capable of going far with large payloads. But whilst comparing the strike packages, the Gripen doesn't come too far behind. With the same combat radius as mentioned before, the Gripen would be able to carry 2 racks of 4xSDB Gbu-39, each one capable of taking out tanks and planes hidden under concrete domes, in addition to two 450 gallon (1700L) tanks, two IRIS-T, a LITENING III pod and 2 dual racks of 2xMeteor. I was going to add some images but I have done too few posts on this forum to be allowed to do so.
And the M-MRCA is intended to replace the single-engined MiG-21 where even the single-engined Gripen IN gives a significant increase in range, combat load and capabilities over the old fighter.
What small number are you talking about? That's a hell load of jets I think.
About the comparative lesser number of single engine light jets is because our country's size. To fly from one corner to another at transsonic speeds, to engage the enemy and destroy targets and return to base is not easy.
Gripen's combat radius is good for smaller countries or large countries with one enemy on one side of the border or a single-point focused aerial combat.
Its own capabilities are very good and no one doubts it; but for a country like us where hostile countries cover large swathes of borders with us, it may not be the right choice.
Well, I said compared to. 272 Su-30MKI, 126 Rafale, 68 MiG-29UPG, 214 FGFA and 151 Jaguar which makes up for a total of 831 dual engine jets. Compare that to 40 Tejas Mk.1, 180 Tejas Mk.2, 55 Mirage 2000 and 102 MiG-27 which makes up for a total of 277 single engine jets and you can clearly see the dual engine fighters are overrepresented in the IAF by far.
Compare that to the USAF, that has 475 F-15, 185 F-22 and 345 which makes up for a total of 1005 dual engine jets, and that has 1006 F-16. The A-10A, the F-16A-D and even the F-15C intends to be replaced by 1763 F-35A. Which will make the balance look like this in the coming future; 185 F-22, 221 F-15E, ~100 A-10C which will make up for a total of 506 dual engine jets whilst having a fleet of 1763 single engine F-35A.
So compared to the number of aircrafts, India would have a large park of dual engine jets, especially when the AMCA replaces the MiG-27, the Jaguars and the Mirage 2000. That's where I wonder whether or not its reasonable (or economic?). Somehow, I don't think the situation is much different for the United States, having enemies everywhere, deploying everywhere and participating everywhere with their fighters. There's no way one fighter would do a sortie in two different parts of the country. The +300 km you get with the Rafale wouldn't help.