MiG-21 replacement estimates

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 10 Aug 2000 12:13

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by pratyush k ojha: why cant the whole fleet be remanufatured istead of replaced, is it something no one has thaught of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What are you talking about? Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Div: I don't think all of you comments on the various deals/upgrades I quoted are correct. Rupak, can you clear up some of the upgrade issues that Mike has brought up. From what I gather, the Mig-27 and Jag upgrades should be in 'full swing' now. I have also read in a post here (some defence mag) that the Mig-21-93 kits have been sent to HAL (don't know how many).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For real? If so that's good news, especially about the Jag and Mig-27 upgrades. By the way, speaking of the Mig-21-93 upgrade, what do you guys make of this report:(Jane's Defence Weekly, 14 June 2000)Russia's Rosvoorouzhenie arms export agency is proposing that India amend a $340 million contract signed in March 1996 for the upgrade of 125 MiG-21bis fighters to include the application of a radar-absorbing coating to the aircraft, a military-diplomatic source has told Jane's Defence Weekly.He said on 29 May at Sokol's Nizhniy Novgorod plant that India's Air Attaché to Moscow witnessed the effectiveness of a radar-absorbing coating. During the demonstration, two MiG-21bis fighters were used as the attackers, one with a standard coating and the other with a radar-absorbing coating applied. The two attacking fighters, moving about 10 km apart, approached the lone defender from about 70 km away.During the demonstration several simulated attacks were conducted. The MiG-21bis with the radar-absorbing coating was identified by the defender's radar at 50% of the range of the fighter with a standard coating. The Moscow Institute of Applied and Theoretical Electrodynamics developed the radar-absorbing material. It claims the radar signature from a MiG-21bis with the coating is "1000 - 1500%" less than that from standard aircraft. Rosvoorouzhenie and the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG have proposed that the Indian Air Force apply the coating to all the upgraded MiG-21-93s.[This message has been edited by Michael Baxter (edited 10-08-2000).]

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 10 Aug 2000 13:49

pratyush k ojha - that's a very intriguing idea. India certainly has the expertise to completely remanufacture Mig-21's - they've been building them for years. Still, you'd be spending several million on what will still be an obsolete (albeit more reliable) aircraft. Assuming your figure of $5 million or so for each aircraft, if you then add in the cost of a -21-93 upgrade, you're looking at around $8 million for each rebuilt, upgraded Mig-21. It might be worth it, but only if the remanufacturing could guarantee vastly increased reliability. And I would think there are many defects that would go unnoticed even if the aircraft is completely taken apart. Still an interesting idea, though.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 11 Aug 2000 04:53

There have been a lot of good solutions to the Mig-21 crisis posted here. I wonder if one of the more prominent Indian columnists could write an editorial to put these ideas out to the public. Anybody here have any good contacts?

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 11 Aug 2000 17:10

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sonu: I am thus of the opinion that an upgraded Mig-21 is the best option in the forseeable future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Even better than some Mirage 2000-5s or SU-30s------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 12 Aug 2000 03:31

Well, if the IAF maintains its gaint fleet of some 400+ Mig-21's for the "foreseeable future" then it better plan on retiring at least one Mig-21 squadron each year, to make up for all the crashes. This will require constant reorganization, though. To give an idea of the crisis proportions of the problem, consider that on average, each Mig-21 squadron is losing 2 or 3 planes a year. This is the entire squadron reserve lost each year!! Of course some squadrons might lose a lot more than 2 or 3 per year, and some might make it the whole year without a crash, but in any case, you see the problem. The Mig-21 fleet is now dwindling at a rate of about 12% per year. This rate is likely to get worse as the planes get older still. This is simply not sustainable for logistic, organazional, and morale reasons. I have a great solution though: how about the IAF wires up all it's oldest Mig-21's so they can be flown by remote control, then, India can start a war with Pakistan this fall, and for the first wave of the attack, India will have 400+ cruise missiles at its disposal? And the rest of the IAF will no longer have a pilot shortage! I'm serious - this would work! Hey, you what they say: "If it sounds stupid but it works, it ain't stupid."

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 12 Aug 2000 15:38

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sonu: Also I fail to realise as to how you can compare an Su-30 to a Mirage-2000 ,remeber the Su-30 outperforms the Mirage in range and payload by almost 2:1<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have never tried to compare the Mirage 2000 to the SU-30, not here anyway. But I can give it a try. I wouldnt be that certain that the SU-30 outperforms the Mirage in range and payload, it all depends on which version of the Mirage you are talking about, I agree that the SU-30 will probably carry more hardware than any of the Mirage versions available, but im not as sure about the range diffirence. I think that a Mirgae 2000-9 with conformal fuel tanks will have a quite long range, and it will also be able to carry a big payload compared to the ordinary 2000s. That is probably one of the main resaons why the UAE have decided to both upgrade their old Mirgae 2000 to the 2000-9 version as well as buy new ones. The Mirage 2000-9 is a formidable aircraft, which I would rather have in my airforce than the SU-30. Because I think its more reliable and cost effective, sure it is probably more expensive, but once you pay for them you are more likely to get them on time than the SU-30. I dont know how many PGMs a Mirage 2000-9 can carry compared to the SU-30 though, probably not as many, but I wouldnt care that much.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Div · Post by **Div** » 12 Aug 2000 21:30

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sonu: The upgrade for the Mig-21s involves making structural changes to the airframe and also adding to its stability.....Also the upgraded Migs,I am certain will be more airworthy and therby we can expect to see less crashes in that type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know of any structural upgrades that will occur in the -93 version (except for minor radar housing stuff, etc.). No airframe or engine upgrades. Can someone in the know confirm/deny this! Anyone know what variant crashed recently in Delhi and its possible age?Here's a pic if someone can do some magic and maybe figure out the s/n. <A HREF="http://www.indiatimes.com/photo/indiax34.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indiatimes.com/photo/indiax34.htm</A> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nandai: I think that a Mirgae 2000-9 with conformal fuel tanks will have a quite long range, and it will also be able to carry a big payload compared to the ordinary 2000s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AFAIK, the 2000-9 does not have conformal fuel tanks. It has a much faster and upgradeble MDPU, and an added 1,000kg in max take off weight. Some of the tech is from the Rafale and it will eventually have an onbroard oxygen generation unit.I don't think its a question of Su-30s or Mirage 2000 - ideally the IAF would have both. They are both very formidible aircraft; with the Su-30 being unproven wrt combat and integration, but having long range and large payload capacity. The Mirage might have shorter legs and a smaller payload, but is a superior plane when it comes to electronics (already integrated and work), ECM and a reliable engine. Air refuelling would negate the small range easily.Having said all this, its a moot point if none of this can be afforded. There is a slight chance that the French might want to concentrate on the Rafale once their UAE and Greek contracts are completed; and the 2000 might be available for license production at affordable prices. (2009 is a very upgradeble aircraft).

Div · Post by **Div** » 12 Aug 2000 21:39

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nandai: I dont know how many PGMs a Mirage 2000-9 can carry compared to the SU-30 though, probably not as many, but I wouldnt care that much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was just checking an older AFM which has an article on Mirage-2000s. Just for fun...here are all the different payloads they show in the pics!1) 2 LGBs + 2 Magic-II + 2 fuel tanks + 4 MICA EM + 1 Pod2) 2 Fuel tanks + 2 Magic-II + 2 MICA IR + 4 MICA EM + 1 Exocet3) 2 Fuel Tanks + 2 Magic-II + 4 MICA + 1 Black Shaheen And a classic Mirage 2000N payload2 Magic-IIs + 2 Fuel tanks + 1 ASMP--So, they can lug their fair share; and with PGMs the point is that you don't need to carry as many compared to dumb bombs.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 12 Aug 2000 21:42

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Div: AFAIK, the 2000-9 does not have conformal fuel tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know that the 2000-9 ordered by the UAE will not have conformal fuel tanks, but I have read somewhere that it is an option, I dont know if that is true. I know that conformal fuel tanks are available to the Rafael though.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 13 Aug 2000 03:10

Dear Michael,In this forum of progressives, let me not become an oldie but let's have some perspective on the Mig21 crash figures. IAF maintains 400 Mig21s, officially 16 squadrons(326) of A/F and (5 squadrons worth)92 in training roles at Migoftu/Tacde. You claim "each Mig-21 squadron is losing 2 or 3 planes a year. This is the entire squadron reserve lost each year!! " That's simply not true. From 1991-1998 (7 years)IAF had 154 crashes out of which Mig21s were around 105. I don't know about last 2 years, but in 1998, there were 17 crashes (11 Mig21s).So for 16+5 squadron's worth, to claim that they lose their reserve each year is a bit too much. You are only 'quadrupling' the actual crash rate.Hope you will take my rebuttal in the correct spirit, i.e. let's have perspective.

Div · Post by **Div** » 13 Aug 2000 12:32

From the HT article above:"Since 1997, at least 61 fighter aircraft of the IAF have crashed. This includes 57 MiGs, of which a major proportion if the '21' variant, the IAF's frontline fighter since 1965. At 28, peace-time crashes last year were the highest in the decade of the 1990s, which recorded 230 Air Force crashes."Oh, and for whoever mentioned structural upgrades for the Fishbeds:"The stop-gap arrangement is the upgrade programme for 125 MiG-21 Bis, which will not touch the engine and the airframe. "And more LCA optimism:"Analysts feel it's unlikely for even four squadrons of the LCA to be inducted in the force till even 2015."[This message has been edited by Div (edited 13-08-2000).]

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 13 Aug 2000 15:10

Couldnt the LCA airframe be used for an advanced trainer, I mean alot of money have already been poured into the project. By the time it will be ready for service it will so be out-dated. But to save some of the money spent already turn into a 2-seat advanced trainer. Could that be done?------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 13 Aug 2000 15:54

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dbpatra: Dear Michael,In this forum of progressives, let me not become an oldie but let's have some perspective on the Mig21 crash figures. IAF maintains 400 Mig21s, officially 16 squadrons(326) of A/F and (5 squadrons worth)92 in training roles at Migoftu/Tacde. You claim "each Mig-21 squadron is losing 2 or 3 planes a year. This is the entire squadron reserve lost each year!! " That's simply not true. From 1991-1998 (7 years)IAF had 154 crashes out of which Mig21s were around 105. I don't know about last 2 years, but in 1998, there were 17 crashes (11 Mig21s).So for 16+5 squadron's worth, to claim that they lose their reserve each year is a bit too much. You are only 'quadrupling' the actual crash rate.Hope you will take my rebuttal in the correct spirit, i.e. let's have perspective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's quite simple. Over the last several years, the IAF has lost 60 out of 500 Mig-21's in service over that time, leaving presently around 440 Mig-21's remaining. That works out to a 12% attrition rate. This works out to 3 aircraft lost each year per squadron (3 out of 24 = 12%). Like I said, this is a simple way of putting things but it gives you a good perspective on the overall problem.

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 13 Aug 2000 16:55

Dear Michael,I hate to argue with you as you evidently know more about aviation issues and I am trying just to distinguish facts from alarmist blabber.You said, "It's quite simple. Over the last several years, the IAF has lost 60 out of 500 Mig-21's in service over that time, leaving presently around 440 Mig-21's remaining. That works out to a 12% attrition rate. This works out to 3 aircraft lost each year per squadron (3 out of 24 = 12%)." This is the sentence that beats me. A 12% attrition is over "several" years, not "per year." To touch your claim of the entire squadron reserves being lost every year, IAF has to lose 24x3 = 72 MiGs every year, ie. 6 per month. That's why I said you are 'quadrupling' the actual figures.If you are still unconvinced of the veracity of this, please care to educate me. However, if you are trying to make your point by unnecessarily sensationalising the facts, just remember that for many even the actual figures are a matter of great distress. Either way, I won't comment anymore. You have the last word.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 13 Aug 2000 18:26

dbpatra - Please excuse my silly mistake. You are correct. The annual attrition rate is only 3% not 12% percent. Oops!

Sounds pretty glib to say "only 3%". This is still a terribly high attrition rate! By the way, I still like the idea of converting all the older Mig-21's into cruise missiles.

Div · Post by **Div** » 13 Aug 2000 22:54

Nandai,The LCA is an inherently unstable design - which is why it requires the complicated FBW. Ideally one would like the AJT to be forgiving to the learning pilot - this takes the LCA out of that role.

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 14 Aug 2000 00:31

<A HREF="http://www.outlookindia.com/20000821/affairs4.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.outlookindia.com/20000821/affairs4.htm</A> Good article to summarise all the key points we are discussing.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 14 Aug 2000 05:00

"The Mig-29SMT is just as capable as the Mirage 2000" Have you got any facts to support this claim?"Mirage 2000-5 mkII (fighters)"Why go for the mkII version of the 2000-5 if you are gonna use it as a fighter. The mkII is a version of the Mirage 2000-5 ordered by the greek AF, it has more advanced attack capabilities than the regular 2000-5.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 14 Aug 2000 10:09

Just thought I'd make a quick correction: Mig-29SMT is an unproven design with no credibility behind it. And it costs as much as a Mirage-2000. And it cannot be manufactured locally. Mirage-2000, by the way, is not just for air superiority - this is a true multirole fighther, as was so aptly demonstrated during Kargil. And the Mirage-2000 actually works, and is reliable. The SU-30MKI, Mig-29SMT, Mig-21-93, etc. are all "vaporware" at this time. They look good on paper but so far, have no real world performance date to back them up. In fact, the Mig-29SMT and SU-30MKI don't even actually exist. (These aircraft are not actually in service with any nation. In fact, the Mig-29SMT has only one or two models for testing purposes, IIRC.)

Div · Post by **Div** » 14 Aug 2000 10:21

Mirage 2000-5 MKII = Mirage 2000-9.Agree with Michael, the SMT variant exists only in prototype. I am not even sure if the Russians have succeeded in creating an SMT upgrade for their existing Mig-29s. IMO, the most potent Mig-29 out there today is probably the M version used by Malaysia, and it won't be cheap. They did a good job in whipping some Aussie butt last year which has led to talks of the RAAF junking the F/A-18s well before their expected operational life. (Can you say Typhoon?)

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 14 Aug 2000 14:22

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Div: Mirage 2000-5 MKII = Mirage 2000-9. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats not correct, the mkII Mirage 2000 has more advanced attack capabilities, but not as advanced as the Mirage 2000-9.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Bharat Rakshak

MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates

Re: MiG-21 replacement estimates