Indian Military Aviation

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Jul 2009 02:54

Er, the CAG report was on one aspect of the issue. They don't go into "yet-to-be" procured items. They look at the items purchased, its cost and whether it is doing what it was supposed to do. They may not be following the right methods. But you can't blame them for not criticizing procurement policies as it is not their charter.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 15 Jul 2009 03:09

RaviBg wrote:Er, the CAG report was on one aspect of the issue. They don't go into "yet-to-be" procured items. They look at the items purchased, its cost and whether it is doing what it was supposed to do. They may not be following the right methods. But you can't blame them for not criticizing procurement policies as it is not their charter.

Not true look at reports from US equivalent: http://www.gao.gov/. Btw I was commenting on the media reporting.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Jul 2009 03:18

Why are you looking at the US equivalent when you can look at CAG's charter itself?

http://www.cag.gov.in/

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 15 Jul 2009 04:21

arun wrote:Spare me your harangue on my posting trash How many more press articles is it going to take to get you to quit acting like an ill-mannered bumpkin with faster fingers than good sense

your personal attacks show a regrettable lack of basic culture, good sense and more importantly, also inability to argue based on facts

and accept the fact that the CAG also has a problem with the Ardiden/Shakti engined Dhruv?
For starters will the Hindu do?:
ALH delay holding up de-induction of old Army copters: CAG report

Should another lesson in reading & analysis be given?
Nobody here claimed CAG does NOT have a problem. What we are pointing to is your unseemly dance using old CAG data.

1.CAG data is always 1-2 years out of date. There are many gaps and mistakes made by non technical evaluators in understanding the issue which is then taken up in parliamentary reports and action taken reports.
If CAG was 100% correct, this corrective mechanism would not exist.
2.Domain-B link provided previously clearly shows Dhruv certification for Siachen with earlier engine
3.HAL India link with epaper issue clearly provides glowing testimonial and commendation for Dhruv in high altitude ops.
4. CAG has a record of hits and misses when it comes to "recommendations" on military issues. Prominent example of where CAG have missed the big picture totally are issue of T-72 shells at Kargil, MKI cost escalation issue and many others. They have been better at "non technical" evaluation, such as picking up the golf cart = military vehicle aspect or saying building costs were inflated.
5.It would have taken you 5 minutes on google to look up the data on Dhruv chopper and utility for Indian Army (Google has various features to do searches including keyword date combinations).
6.There are enough reports on Dhruv & how improvement was made to vibration system (it is currently at third level).
7. Army can order 105 Dhruvs even w/o Siachen capability because Siachen is one of their responsibilities not the "only" - even without Siachen there is severe shortage of helicopters especially Dhruv capability which has already proven in various terrain across India, including high alt (see HAL magazine).
8.Dhruv trials in South America involved high alt trials as well which Dhruv was again successful in.

Last time, CAG made similar claim on OFB, some of which were wrong and led to cancellation of important export order when customer looked at the CAG report and cancelled. After that "success by CAG", CAG reports stopped appearing on net. Their comment on MKI was also wrong in several parameter (ask HAL people about what they think of audit team). In 2007, I ask IAF about a report by CAG on IAF. Some words used were not worthy of being said on public forum because CAG team did not comprise technical evaluators who could understand IAF operating procedurs.

It is the job of media to sensationalize. Least person can do is avoid falling into that trap and attack product which is being exported also.

Is common sense so uncommon. Or are you going to attack the village rustic who speaks the truth and do more name calling this time as well

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 15 Jul 2009 04:25

shiv wrote:I am upset that people have the temerity to compare the the lowly MSM of HAL with NSN. Please cease and desist.

oh dont say that, you are ill mannered country bumpkin to even mention that media can get it wrong when it sensationalizes 2 year old CAG data, and MSM of HAL is surely not any good

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 15 Jul 2009 04:43

To show how old CAG data can be used by media and tom tommed for sensationalism

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/09/ ... -of-3.html

by Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 8th Sept 08
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore

Wikipaedia, the popular internet encyclopaedia, lists the Indian Army’s Sonam Post, on the Siachen Glacier, as the world’s highest point reachable by transport. Landing in a helicopter at Sonam is a hair-raising experience. As the shuddering helicopter bears down on the tiny helipad atop a needle of ice at 20,997 feet, the rotor blades struggle to extract lift from the rarefied air. This is the ultimate test for helicopters. But the army’s new Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) has proved that it can land at Sonam, bringing in much larger payloads than the Cheetah helicopters that have laboriously sustained the jawans in Sonam for the last two decades.

Now in hot weather trials in Siachen (yes, Siachen is cold even in summer, but trials conducted in summer are termed hot-weather trials!) another Dhruv will test-land in Sonam, powered by the new Shakti engine, which has been especially designed for India’s extreme altitudes by French company, Turbomeca. The Shakti gives the Dhruv enough power to carry to Sonam four times as much load as the TM333-2B2 engine, which has powered the Dhruv so far.

MSM has details of Dhruv operation in Kashmir also.

Point is to take old CAG data and believe fools in Army/HAL are killing time is simply waste of time.

Army does not accept anything which does not meet basic requirement. The Dhruv order only came after HAL met ARMY requirement of service and spares.

Ardiden engine is new and integration and full experience will take time, but there is nothing to say it will not be done. Unfortunately CAG is not as professional as US GAO in military issue. Proposal to include technical expert in CAG not just number checkers have not met sufficient success

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 15 Jul 2009 04:56

^^^ The worst thing IMVHO is when these CAG reports come out and are published in the media one can only wonder what impression it gives to potential export customers...

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Jul 2009 07:44

India lost 34 personnel, 56 military aircraft in four years

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 15 Jul 2009 08:55

Details of the Mirage 2000 upgrade on Livefist

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 15 Jul 2009 08:56

A Sharma wrote: Rs 10,000cr deal likely for Mirage-2000 upgrade

I read that this deal also comes with ToT. What is the ToT we are expecting from this deal any ideas?
It seems quite hazy right now.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 15 Jul 2009 23:39

Structural fault in MIG-29 Fighter Planes

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 16 Jul 2009 04:09

Nearly Half of Russian Air-to-Air Missiles with IAF have Homing, Ageing Problems : CAG Report
The Indian Express

Nearly Half of Russian Air-to-Air Missiles with IAF have Homing, Ageing Problems : CAG Report
Manu Pubby
Posted online: Thursday , July 16, 2009 at 0303 hrs

New Delhi : Putting a big question mark on the performance of the Russian beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missiles with the Indian Air Force, an audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has noted that nearly half the missiles tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were ageing much before their shelf lives.
The R 77 (RVV-AE) BVR missiles, fitted on board the Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s and MiG-21 Bisons, were bought from Russia starting 1996. More than 2,000 missiles were ordered after the Kargil conflict and 1,000 have been delivered.

The CAG report, which will be released soon, is based on evaluations of the missile — its range is close to 90 km — during ground tests, inspections and test firing by the IAF. The missiles were bought at a “cost of Rs 2 crore each” but their failure during tests, says the CAG report, has affected the “operational preparedness” of the IAF.

“All figures in the report are based on air force records. Everything is verified by the IAF,” an official said.

The problem with the missiles was referred to Russia and several teams subsequently visited India to rectify faults. IAF officers familiar with the missiles confirmed that this has been a problem area for long. “It is a known fact that the missiles do not work as we would like them to. Periodic tests that are carried out when they are in storage show their dismal state. We also have problems with spare parts,” said a retired officer who was closely associated with the matter.

Former Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy said: “When the missiles were bought, they were top of the line, world class systems that no other country had. As we did not have our own testing facilities, they had to be tested in Russia. The question to be asked is whether the government approved testing facilities for the missiles in India.”

The IAF has for long enjoyed an edge over Pakistan due to its inventory of BVR air-to-air missiles. In an article on the Pakistani side of the Kargil war — it was published in The Indian Express — the then PAF Director (Operations) Kaiser Tufail admitted that the presence of the BVR missiles with the IAF kept away the Pakistani F-16s from disrupting aerial bombing being carried out by India near the Line of Control.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jul 2009 06:29

Full-fledged IAF fighter base likely in Kayathar

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is in talks with the Tamil Nadu government for the transfer of a World War II airfield at Kayathar, about 60 km from Tirunelveli, for developing it into a full-fledged fighter base in South India.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 16 Jul 2009 06:30

SanjibGhosh wrote:Full-fledged IAF fighter base likely in Kayathar

http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/16/stories ... 421800.htm

That, however, will soon change in view of the evolving geopolitical situation and the increasing strategic pertinence of the peninsula. “Sulur, to begin with, is going to be the country’s first Tejas LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) base and will be operational by the end of next year or the beginning of 2011. Despite hiccups pertaining to its engine, the aircraft should be a very potent platform,” the Air Marshal said.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Jul 2009 09:52

AmitR wrote:
A Sharma wrote: Rs 10,000cr deal likely for Mirage-2000 upgrade
I read that this deal also comes with ToT. What is the ToT we are expecting from this deal any ideas?
It seems quite hazy right now.

It will be a great fillip for our indigenous defence industry and Tejas. Guess the ToT will include the tech for the RDY-2 radar as well, which will eventually help the MMR program. That would also explain the huge difference in costs between the upgrade of Mig-29s and the Mirages. IIRC, France had offered us the entire assembly line for Mirages as MRCA with the rights to build and sell the aircraft at our own will.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Jul 2009 10:50

Dmurphy wrote:
AmitR wrote:I read that this deal also comes with ToT. What is the ToT we are expecting from this deal any ideas?
It seems quite hazy right now.
It will be a great fillip for our indigenous defence industry and Tejas. Guess the ToT will include the tech for the RDY-2 radar as well, which will eventually help the MMR program. That would also explain the huge difference in costs between the upgrade of Mig-29s and the Mirages. IIRC, France had offered us the entire assembly line for Mirages as MRCA with the rights to build and sell the aircraft at our own will.

Thanks for the reply. That sounds good on paper but I guess we will have to see the deal unravel a bit more to see the actual ToT effect.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Jul 2009 11:27

Dmurphy wrote:IIRC, France had offered us the entire assembly line for Mirages as MRCA with the rights to build and sell the aircraft at our own will.

Gurus, do you see that happening now? Now that the French have already closed down the assembly line, they stand little to lose. They might even subscribe to the school of thought that such goodies might tilt the MRCA competition in their favour.

For India, the benefits are obvious in terms of Tejas, MMR, Kaveri(?), HMD et al. Who knows, if we pass on the building rights to some private company, it can produce and sell it abroad, scuttle JF-17's wet dreams till a fully developed Tejas can take over.

Thats enough wet dreams in one post!

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 16 Jul 2009 12:45

What is the need for a IAF fighter base in the south? What kind of threat do we perceive and from whom?

I can understand if marine strike platforms are placed, but why is a IAF fighter base needed unless ofcourse if we are preparing for a/c from the US or chinese(

) carrier. can gurus shed some light behing this logic?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Jul 2009 12:48

Dmurphy wrote:
Dmurphy wrote:IIRC, France had offered us the entire assembly line for Mirages as MRCA with the rights to build and sell the aircraft at our own will.
Gurus, do you see that happening now? Now that the French have already closed down the assembly line, they stand little to lose. They might even subscribe to the school of thought that such goodies might tilt the MRCA competition in their favour.

For India, the benefits are obvious in terms of Tejas, MMR, Kaveri(?), HMD et al. Who knows, if we pass on the building rights to some private company, it can produce and sell it abroad, scuttle JF-17's wet dreams till a fully developed Tejas can take over.

Thats enough wet dreams in one post!

Why in the world would we need mirage 2000 TOT for the Tejas? The latter is already in an advanced stage of development. The development (TOT incorporation period) for the Mk1 and its subsystems is almost finished, the collaboration for subsystems was with Israel (mainly), whether for the radar (EL-2032) or HMD (Elbit-Dash) and perhaps EW suite as well. Why change over to expensive french goodies now?

The MkII is slated to get an AESA, don't see how Mirage2000/RDY 2 tech helps here.

Naah, tot would make sense at this juncture only if
a) The IAF plans to use the Mirages for a long time to come and the TOT helps reducing overhaul/maintenance costs.
b) The IAF plans to expand mirage fleet (used platforms from other nations including fra)
c) THe IAF/GOI plans to buy a super duper a/c like the Rafale for the MRCA, but can't afford 126 of them and divvies the order into 60 rafale and 60 Mirage 2000, the latter to be built and inducted in India. JMT. Actually something to this effect was mentioned by ACM Tyagi iirc.

My guess is something along the second option is in the works. The IAF intends to use the existing infrastructure, hence the TOT (if the report has any merit).

CM.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 16 Jul 2009 17:09

New Delhi: The MiG-29, which was thought to be one of India's most potent weapons, is a defective aircraft. The stunning disclosure that the MiG-29 is structurally flawed was made in Parliament by Defence Minister A K Antony.

The Russian-made MiG-29 has a tendency to develop cracks due to corrosion in the tail fin. Russia has shared this finding with India, which emerged after the crash of a Russian Air Force MiG-29 in December 2008.

"There was a MiG 29 accident in Russia in December 2008. RAC MiG has intimated that corrosion on the fin root ribs has been identified as the cause of the crack development," Antony said while replying to a question in Rajya Sabha.

He added that there was no plan to decommission the aircraft from IAF.

"A repair scheme and preventive measures are in place and IAF has not encountered major problems concerning the issue," Antony said.

The MiG-29 is the most advanced aircraft of the MiG series so far.

Antony's statement is the first official acknowledgment by India that the MiG-29 has serious limitations.

Despite this scare, India recently signed a billion-dollar deal with Russia for the upgrade of its MiG-29 fleet.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/antony-spill ... 226-3.html

This should effectively end the changes of mig-35 in MRCA.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 16 Jul 2009 17:49

^^
there were more defects in Fulcrum then reported by Russians now, but we never seemed to complain and used them for last 20 years without major mishaps.

Seems to be full fledged media phyops running against Russians. First precision munitions, then ships, then fighters, then tankers....... list goes on. Also Russians shot themselves when they allowed sale of IL 76s to PAF and host of other weapon systems to Chinks.

Russians are a bit shady in providing after-sales services but they provided us what no one else will ever give to India in difficult times

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 16 Jul 2009 18:41

The way news are coming these days.. All indicating some thing or other is not working. Radars of IAF, Navy submarines,Air to Air Missile, ships, Artillery PGMs, Aircrafts, Quality of Russian ships (Which contributes considerably) coupled with diminishing fighter squadron, Artillery shortage, Huge fleet of older T 72 tanks

I apologize but i can't resist thinking that Pakistan obliged us by not attacking us...

-Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jul 2009 19:26

This should effectively end the changes of mig-35 in MRCA.

Do not know why.

After all even the mighty F-15 had cracks!!

Corrosion is there wherever there is "metal". Glad that we detected it early enough. Granted it is a pain that we did not expect or anticipate. To that extent it is acceptable that we complain.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Jul 2009 19:32

Is there any provision/possiblity to rectify this "defect" in the recently signed upgradation deal?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Jul 2009 19:48

Cain Marko wrote:THe IAF/GOI plans to buy a super duper a/c like the Rafale for the MRCA, but can't afford 126 of them and divvies the order into 60 rafale and 60 Mirage 2000, the latter to be built and inducted in India. JMT. Actually something to this effect was mentioned by ACM Tyagi iirc.

That thing must have cropped up since the French offered us 60 Rafales on a fast track basis to plug the widening gap till the actual MRCA deal happened.

And forgive my ignorance/lack of info as regards Tejas. But what about the possibility of a private manufacturer taking over Mirage production for a commercial venture with due help from HAL? IIRC, Jaswant Singh once mentioned some 5000 a/cs required around the globe. Thats a good way to earn money, experience, respect, loyalty from other 3rd world countries.

JMT.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Jul 2009 20:07

Dmurphy wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:THe IAF/GOI plans to buy a super duper a/c like the Rafale for the MRCA, but can't afford 126 of them and divvies the order into 60 rafale and 60 Mirage 2000, the latter to be built and inducted in India. JMT. Actually something to this effect was mentioned by ACM Tyagi iirc.
That thing must have cropped up since the French offered us 60 Rafales on a fast track basis to plug the widening gap till the actual MRCA deal happened.

And forgive my ignorance/lack of info as regards Tejas. But what about the possibility of a private manufacturer taking over Mirage production for a commercial venture with due help from HAL? IIRC, Jaswant Singh once mentioned some 5000 a/cs required around the globe. Thats a good way to earn money, experience, respect, loyalty from other 3rd world countries.

JMT.

If there was demand, the french would have never closed the line. There isn't demand for it and certainly not 5000 of those birds.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Jul 2009 22:34

p_saggu wrote:NO no I am talking of the total price of :
1. Purchase of 50 Mirage 2000-9 from UAE
2. France upgrading them / refurbishing these 50 mirages.
3. France refurbishing our 50 mirages

Aah, I quite understand. The UAE M2k-5/9s are already the most advanced mirage 2000s around. The IAF vajra can be brought to a similar standard. I am sure there will be a small degree of customization for the IAF but the refurb/upgrade for the UAE birds ought not to be nearly as extensive as the IAF vajras (thook-paalish wonly).

My take is 50 vajras upgrade @ $ 20 mil a piece = $ 1 billion
50 M2k-5/9 slightly redone @ $ 25 million a piece = $ 1.25 billion
Weapons (Mica, AASM, Meteor????) ~ $ 750 million

Nice round figure no?

CM.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Jul 2009 05:21

Dmurphy wrote: It will be a great fillip for our indigenous defence industry and Tejas. Guess the ToT will include the tech for the RDY-2 radar as well, which will eventually help the MMR program. That would also explain the huge difference in costs between the upgrade of Mig-29s and the Mirages. IIRC, France had offered us the entire assembly line for Mirages as MRCA with the rights to build and sell the aircraft at our own will.

The cost difference most likely includes the cost for new air to air and air to ground ordnance that will come along with the upgraded Mirages..the current fleet can only use the Magic IIs, R-73s and R-530Ds, which themselves must be approaching the end of their shelf lives and the current Mirage fleet cannot use any other modern missiles. so, it became imperative that the upgrade went ahead. the upgraded ones will get the MICA IR, MICA EM and LGBs, PGMs. AASM could also be purchased, as could the Storm Shadow/ Scalp EG long range cruise missile. it would be interesting to see if the IAF wants the Astra to be integrated with the RDY-2 at a later stage, when it becomes operational..hopefully the Astra will be more cost effective than foreign missiles.

looking at how the Qataris wanted $650 million for 12 Mirage-2000-5s with 80% TTL intact and related arms and spares, upgrading 51 Mirages to the same or even better specs and the arms and spares for these, $2 billion is line with that.

The cost may also include research by Dassault on how to increase the TTL by another 10 years or thereabouts because it was never even attempted for the French fleet of Mirage-2000s. they are simply being retired or sold to other countries, as is.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 07:54

I am seriously considering cross posting all CAG reports in the Humour thread. But here goes.

Nearly half of Russian air-to-air missiles with IAF have homing, ageing problems: CAG report

Manu Pubby
Jul 16, 2009 New Delhi:
Putting a big question mark on the performance of the Russian beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missiles with the Indian Air Force, an audit report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has noted that nearly half the missiles tested either did not home in on targets during evaluations or failed ground tests because they were ageing much before their shelf lives.

The R 77 (RVV-AE) BVR missiles, fitted on board the Su-30 MKIs, MiG-29s and MiG-21 Bisons, were bought from Russia starting 1996. More than 2,000 missiles were ordered after the Kargil conflict and 1,000 have been delivered.

The CAG report, which will be released soon, is based on evaluations of the missile — its range is close to 90 km — during ground tests, inspections and test firing by the IAF. The missiles were bought at a “cost of Rs 2 crore each” but their failure during tests, says the CAG report, has affected the “operational preparedness” of the IAF.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 17 Jul 2009 09:51

Cybaru wrote:If there was demand, the french would have never closed the line. There isn't demand for it and certainly not 5000 of those birds.

The French were more interested in assured contracts, they didn't like competition for an aircraft they wouldn't have been developing further or producing. Besides, India and France have different global ambitions. The exact figure might be much lower buddy, but there's no harm in marketing a plane which is still considered a class act.

JMT.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Jul 2009 11:26

Vikram_S wrote:
arun wrote:Spare me your harangue on my posting trash How many more press articles is it going to take to get you to quit acting like an ill-mannered bumpkin with faster fingers than good sense
your personal attacks show a regrettable lack of basic culture, good sense and more importantly, also inability to argue based on facts {Snipped}

Vikram_S,

Full marks for chutzpah

. Write rudely and when ticked off for the rudeness claim to be personally attacked

.

I notice you have a history of being ........ ahem ........ “difficult” and have received a friendly warning from the Moderators, namely Ramana with regard to your behaviour with Sunilupa. To jog your memory here is that moderators warning.

As it still does not seem to have registered with you let me once again reiterate that it was rude for you to tell me and I quote “Before posting trash, why dont you check your sources”.

There are other more acceptable ways to communicate your disagreement with what has been said/linked by me rather than saying, as you did, that “trash” is being posted by me.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 17 Jul 2009 19:03

Philip wrote:For those advocating the buy of Chinooks helos from the US!

. . .

Revealed: scandal of UK's grounded helicopter fleet

Chinooks out of service because they are too sophisticated to be deployed

That is a very misleading article.

The UK operates plenty of other Chinooks just fine.

This was a special batch of Chinooks that was intended for special forces operations. The UK royally messed up the procurement by specifying parts that would not work together and then was surprised when . . . they didn't work together.

This is in no way an indictment of the Chinook, just the Brits acquisition system.

More details here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... hc-3s.html

scroll down to the 21st May 2004 post by Jackonicko

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jul 2009 19:39

Philip wrote:For those advocating the buy of Chinooks helos from the US!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 50094.html

Revealed: scandal of UK's grounded helicopter fleet

The Mark3 Chinooks were designed to carry members of special forces and were equipped with the sophisticated technology. However the Ministry of Defence then discovered that this was incompatible with systems in place in the UK and were thus forced to downgrade the specifications in the aircraft while other Western countries were upgrading theirs.

So, when the UK placed orders someone inside the UK forgot to check compatibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is a scandal - for sure.

The Boeing company seems to have fulfilled the order properly. The client asked for digital - they got digital. IF the client had asked for analog - they would have got analog.

I do not think Indians are capable of such mistakes. But, then, I KNOW I am wrong.

That is one thing India (IAF) does not have to worry about. All Chinooks will be brand new.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 17 Jul 2009 22:28

Philip wrote:For those advocating the buy of Chinooks helos from the US!

I totally agree. Never buy anything from America but at the same time we need to stop buying from Russia. We need to go to more reliable suppliers like the Europeans.

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 Jul 2009 22:54

Aah, I quite understand. The UAE M2k-5/9s are already the most advanced mirage 2000s around. The IAF vajra can be brought to a similar standard. I am sure there will be a small degree of customization for the IAF but the refurb/upgrade for the UAE birds ought not to be nearly as extensive as the IAF vajras (thook-paalish wonly).

My take is 50 vajras upgrade @ $ 20 mil a piece = $ 1 billion
50 M2k-5/9 slightly redone @ $ 25 million a piece = $ 1.25 billion
Weapons (Mica, AASM, Meteor????) ~ $ 750 million

CM.[/quote]

Why does upgrading the UAE M2K cost higher then the upgrading vajras? I they should cost substantially lower as there is no need to change the radar and most sensors in them.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Jul 2009 23:15

koti wrote:
Aah, I quite understand. The UAE M2k-5/9s are already the most advanced mirage 2000s around. The IAF vajra can be brought to a similar standard. I am sure there will be a small degree of customization for the IAF but the refurb/upgrade for the UAE birds ought not to be nearly as extensive as the IAF vajras (thook-paalish wonly).

My take is 50 vajras upgrade @ $ 20 mil a piece = $ 1 billion
50 M2k-5/9 slightly redone @ $ 25 million a piece = $ 1.25 billion
Weapons (Mica, AASM, Meteor????) ~ $ 750 million

CM.
Why does upgrading the UAE M2K cost higher then the upgrading vajras? I they should cost substantially lower as there is no need to change the radar and most sensors in them.

It also includes the cost of the purchase itself. Still, I think Kartik's post above makes more sense. French weapons cost a lot and the IAF would need a good deal of them.

CM

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jul 2009 03:40

NRao wrote: That is one thing India (IAF) does not have to worry about. All Chinooks will be brand new.

haha..reminds me of JC's posts on how the Russians were so blatant in trying to cheat at times, that they'd try to pass off used T-72s as new ones to experienced Indian Army evaluators..pissed off the IA a great deal..he mentioned quite a few such instances where India actually recieved used Russian spares, while paying for new.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Jul 2009 03:43

same happened with the first batch of tunguskas. some of the vehicles even had bullet holes !

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2009 13:57

Rahul M wrote:same happened with the first batch of tunguskas. some of the vehicles even had bullet holes !

The holes were new.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 18 Jul 2009 18:17

Russians have a habbit of repainting old stuff and giving it a new series number. Algerian and Yemeni Mig-29SMT purchases suffered from the fact. That's why they changed the series to Mig-29M/M2. Now when the MMRCA contract came up, it is Mig-35. Many fans of Russian equipement here seem to claim it is a completely new aircraft. But in the same breath they argue the possitives of enornmous similarity to the upgraded Mig-29S with IAF. Now which one is it? Completely new aircraft or just repainted?