Which Grippen version fighter gets what version of GE-414-EPE is not the point. The moot point is why is IAF not asking for 120 kn GE-414-EPE version with full 120 kn for tejas mk-2,
tejas mk-2 can complete 70 percent of the flight tests with GE-414-IN S 6 engine (which is a stage 6 version excactly like EPE, so it will have a normal 108 KN engine thrust is my guess).
And even if it take 4 or 5 years for GE-414-EPE to be certified for 120 Kn , there is no harm in it. IF IAF and indian Navy give an assured order of at least 250 tejas mk-2 version , then considering 3 engine changes in the lit time of a single fighter , it is a guarantee of close to 700 GE-414-EPE 120 Kn engine from IAF itself. Not to speak of the extra number from huge potential exports. it is not for nothing the SAAB is sinking money into Grippen E/F.
If IAF asks for tejas mk-2 with 120 KN EPE then Grippen -Ng or E/F has no choice but to order the same 120 Kn EPE version for it's fighters. Because both the fighters are going to face each other in the replacement market for thousands of Mirages, F-16s and Migs.
The rationing of 40 mk-1 orders and 88 mk-2 orders from IAF will be a death knell for the export prospect of IAF Tejas mk-2 with 120 KN engine.it is the same tactic adopted by Indian army for restraining the ARJUN tank as forever R&D project.GE needs a higher order from Tejas mk-2 for GE-414-EPE 120 kn version certification to go for the full certification process more than from Grippen E/F.
WHY?
Unlike grippen Tejas mk-2 has the surefire potential of a big home airforce order from IAF. By adopting chaltal hai attitude on this EPE engine front and spending 40 million dollar each on old Mirage updates and billions more on MIG-29 and Jag updates IAf is surely hobbling the tejas mk-2's potential to emerge as one of the most powerful 4.5th gen fighters for the price it commands.
Ia IAF sees merit in spending a few billions on mirages and Jags which will have just two decades of service life with half the combat potential of Tejas mk-2, what is wrong in spending a few extra billions for buying EPE-120 Kn version for tejas mk-2.
Instead of doing this IAF is poking it's nose into the negotiations between SNECMAA and GTRE saying the proposed K-10 will be too underpowered for tejas mk-2. Then why not IAF articulate it's view strongly advocating for the much much more powerful GE-414-EPE -120 KN version that will have the same form fit as Ge-414-IN S 6?
Only stony silence.
The case to support the indigenous LCA programme , with strong numbers is understood by Ashok Parthasarathi and Raman Puri in the following article , but sadly not by the IAF.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/09/stories/2008030955051000.htm
As for network-centric capability, which intrinsically needs indigenous systems for secrecy, security and inter-operability, it is superior in the LCA compared to any aircraft in the IAF's inventory.
So it is a fallacy to think that we can continue the importing spree and still have such network-centric capability.
As recently as in 2005, the IAF's requirement for 126 new aircraft was only for an upgraded Mirage 2000. At Rs.120 crore to Rs.140 crore a plane, compared to at least double that amount for any of the aircraft types now bidding for the 126 MRCA, is not the LCA a highly cost-effective fighter for volume induction into the IAF?
As for development costs, the LCA has remained well within the sanctioned $1.2 billion — which is about the lowest anywhere. Time overrun in the strict sense is only by a year or two, despite the sanctions. A first-of-type aircraft of this degree of complexity has not been developed anywhere in the West or in Russia in less than two to three decades.
The F16 series that was inducted into the U.S. Air Force in 1975 is today at Mark 60. That is how aircraft of this level of complexity are improved after induction. That this imperative applies even more to the LCA has to be recognised.
It is for the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to ensure that this effort is not belittled or scuttled, and that the LCA programme is given all-out support — as successive Prime Ministers have ensured for our atomic energy and space programmes.
(Ashok Parthasarathi was Science Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Vice- Admiral (retired) Raman Puri was Chief of Integrated Defence Staff to the Chairman, Committee of Service Chiefs, remaining closely involved with the inter-service weapons acquisition process from October 2003 to February 2006).
