Indian Military Aviation

[Kartik]

Shiv saar, you are trying to apply piskology where there is no need. I like to look at individual deals while forming such opinions. The Mig-29 upgrade deal for example seems to be very good value for money. The M2k upgrade deal appears quite the opposite, although I'll try to have another look at the timelines as Kartik suggested.

Nachiket, read my earlier post again- the timelines are given there. And then google it to cross-verify that I'm not making up anything there. the dates that I've given for the MiG-29UPG upgrade and the Mirage upgrade are mentioned in multiple media reports. They both are projects that are taking (or will take) approximately the same time, give or take a few months.

The difference is that the MiG-29UPG upgrade finishes in 2016 and the Mirage upgrade finishes in 2021 thanks to the approximately 5 year difference in the time when they were signed respectively (early 2008 vs end 2011).

Really, people are getting carried away and not making the correct inferences based on logic.

[shiv]

Shiv saar, you are trying to apply piskology where there is no need. I like to look at individual deals while forming such opinions. The Mig-29 upgrade deal for example seems to be very good value for money. The M2k upgrade deal appears quite the opposite, although I'll try to have another look at the timelines as Kartik suggested.

Nachiket, read my earlier post again- the timelines are given there. And then google it to cross-verify that I'm not making up anything there. the dates that I've given for the MiG-29UPG upgrade and the Mirage upgrade are mentioned in multiple media reports. They both are projects that are taking (or will take) approximately the same time, give or take a few months.

The difference is that the MiG-29UPG upgrade finishes in 2016 and the Mirage upgrade finishes in 2021 thanks to the approximately 5 year difference in the time when they were signed respectively (early 2008 vs end 2011).

Really, people are getting carried away and not making the correct inferences based on logic.

Let me ask a rhetorical and deliberately naughty, below the belt question

Why do the Russians and French take so long for a simple upgradation? Are they just incompetent like our own people?

[Kartik]

>> A part of that lengthy timeline is because of shifting the work to HAL --building the infrastructure...re-tooling etc...same as Scorpeone.

I dont understand what India or HAL gains by this slow process of setting up a upgrade line here and doing it over 10 years!! as it is HAL is overwhelmed with work in jaguars, tejas, hawk, mki, helicopters and soon the MRCA. they have hardly anything to gain from this imo...if dassault could do it quicker it should have been completely done over there in batches of 10 a year maybe which even the french with their 35 yr work weeks and long lunch breaks should have managed! pretty much all the new eqpt is foreign so there is no need for intensive interaction with drdo on this.

once the upg was done by Dassault the BRD facilities could have been set up.

I can only hope its some kind of accounting gimmick to pay the french for help on missile and nuclear submarine tech 'under the table' ... I am clutching at straws I know...

HAL IS NOT DOING THE UPGRADE OVER 10 YEARS !! Dassault/Thales are taking 40 months from the date of contract signature to upgrade the first 2 Mirages and then are going to upgrade 2 more in India with HAL while in parallel setting up the assembly line for the remaining 47 Mirages to be upgraded.

When their assembly line is setup, the rate at which the Mirages should leave the upgrade line is 1 per month. That is respectable anywhere.

[member_20067]

I apologize for the ignorance but are there any air-frame changes associated with Mirage upgrade unlike what we have in case of Mig-29..

[Kartik]

Let me ask a rhetorical and deliberately naughty, below the belt question

Why do the Russians and French take so long for a simple upgradation? Are they just incompetent like our own people?

They must be.

After all the Russians took 36 months to come up with the upgrade for the first few MiG-29s despite the upgrade being essentially similar to a MiG-29SMT with some new Indian sourced equipment. No whizbang AESA and no replacing the engines with something better than just RD-33 Series 3..(a deliberate snap at CM )

And the French will take 40 months to come up with the Mirage-2000-5 upgrade..Of course, we can ignore the fact that the RDY-3 on this upgrade is actually reportedly superior and more capable than even the RDY-2 on the UAE's Mirage-2000-9 and the ICMS Mk4 is the most sophisticated EW suite ever on a Mirage-2000 (as per Air & Cosmos, reported by poster by the name eagle1 on Keypubs forum).

[member_20067]

another part of this 10 year puzzle might be associated with the payment schedule...we might have staggered the fund outflow based on certain baseline deliveries.. and do not have the ability to pay up the entire amount in a year or two so better spread the process over a period of 10 years.. . just guessing

[rajanb]

Let me ask a rhetorical and deliberately naughty, below the belt question

Why do the Russians and French take so long for a simple upgradation? Are they just incompetent like our own people?

A below the belt answer:

They aren't incompetent.

Unlike us SDREs they know how to enjouy life. The Stoli and Bordeaux breaks make for a mean fighting machine. Hic!

But here is an attempt at a chankian excuse. In the pipeline are laser zappers with a 200Km range. Which they will throw into the upgrade. Hence the delay.

[kmkraoind]

Are there any chances of getting UAE's Mirages. It seems the deals has more than eye can see, because it will be ridiculous if we just spend 40-50 million for an upgrade, where as we can get a brand new Mig-29 or Gripen for that price.

[shiv]

Are there any chances of getting UAE's Mirages.

I read in a recent issue of Vayu that those same Mirages had been offered to a "biratherly Islamic country" (unnamed) at one fifth the price offered to India. A big hack thoo to those Mirages. They can shove 'em where the sun don't shine and only madarsa teacher goes.

[Cain Marko]

Sorry Kartik, despite all your defense of the M2k, the IAF 29 upgrade seems a far better, and even faster deal than the M2k.

First, the 29 upgrade is more comprehensive.
Second, it is a LOT cheaper
Third, it is supposedly delayed by 1 year (I'll wait for some named sources to make the 2016 date certain) since sign off. The Mirage 2000 deal otoh will take a nice 10 years, and for fewer birds. 2 year difference, no? And that is assuming it all goes smoothly - the Scorpene deal does not exactly inspire confidence.

Sorry bhaiyya, on the face of it, this looks like one s**tty move - the HAL/IAI option might have been worth it. And people are screaming about new MKIs costing $ 100 mill a piece! Frankly, I'd rather have seen an inhouse upgrade even if more risky, and time consuming.

Viv, I know the MOD is risk averse, however, there have been successful precedents in the Shar, Jag, and the Tu-142. With Israeli collaboration I think the risk factor could have been mitigated.

[Kartik]

Sorry Kartik, despite all your defense of the M2k, the IAF 29 upgrade seems a far better, and even faster deal than the M2k.

First, the 29 upgrade is more comprehensive.
Second, it is a LOT cheaper
Third, it is supposedly delayed by 1 year (I'll wait for some named sources to make the 2016 date certain) since sign off. The Mirage 2000 deal otoh will take a nice 10 years, and for fewer birds. 2 year difference, no? And that is assuming it all goes smoothly - the Scorpene deal does not exactly inspire confidence.

Sorry bhaiyya, on the face of it, this looks like one s**tty move - the HAL/IAI option might have been worth it. And people are screaming about new MKIs costing $ 100 mill a piece! Frankly, I'd rather have seen an inhouse upgrade even if more risky, and time consuming.

Viv, I know the MOD is risk averse, however, there have been successful precedents in the Shar, Jag, and the Tu-142. With Israeli collaboration I think the risk factor could have been mitigated.

No surprises that the Fulcrum upgrade had to be more comprehensive..after all the original Fulcrum had more drawbacks that needed to be addressed such as its low internal fuel volume, poor MMI, an engine that smoked heavily and a much lower overall serviceability rate. So frankly, touting the change in engines as proof of a more comprehensive upgrade is not quite right now, is it ? (as if thats a plus- it actually is because the RD-33 has a lower MTBO and overall service life than the Mirage's M-53P2).

As for the timelines, get yours right- the last MiG-29UPG will not enter service till 2016, a full 8 yrs after the deal was signed and if the Mirage upgrade is completed by 2021, that would be 9 years after the deal was signed. Not 10. Its 2012 now and the IAF still hasn't recieved a single UPG into service as yet.

Call it what you may- it was a wise move, will allow the IAF to keep the Mirages going for 10 years/2500 hours more than its MiG-29UPGs, since they will last 40 years/3500 hours as opposed to 40 years/6000 hours for the Mirages, which means that they give more bang for the buck as opposed to the UPGs. I OTOH feel that the IAF has done the wise thing of going with the OEM and instead should've gone ahead with this deal earlier if they could have arrived at a mutually acceptable cost figure earlier. Also, over 3000 hours of service, the Mirages will be far more economical to operate than the much larger Su-30MKIs and no one seems to factor that in. Plus the IAF won't have to re-train crews that flew Mirages and can fully utilise the existing infrastructure at HAL and Maharajpur for the Mirages.

[Austin]

At dollar $ 2 million for MICA i am not sure why would any one pay such kind of money for a missile that is inferior to AIM-120C5 or RVV-SD , The only advantage would be its all passive IIR seeker for long range engagement. Not sure what they are going to charge for Meteor an arm and a leg

I think the IIR mica only exist becuase the MICA is also used as WVR weapon ,much like a single universal weapon proposed by french for both roles , Its common to see such seeker in all WVR missile.

The Mig-29UPG is superior in most regime of flight compared to M2K and 2 engine means it has more safety in peace time missions , wonder why we neglected the RD-33 Klimov 3D TVC , its just a add on kit and can greatly add to its manouveribility and even perhaps fuel consumption as the conventional surface would need less trimming and less work when combined with TVC.

The positive point about M2K upgrade is its Rafalised avonics as we are told and the new radar , hopefully its worth the money . It took us a long long time to negiotiate for M2K deal like more than 5 years , becuase the french were ripping is more and its only with local subsidiary procurement that we managed to bring the cost down of M2K upgrade.

But a upgraded M2K is still better then a non-upgraded one considering its adding 25 years more of life to the upgrade , Most likely the policy to upgrade equipment from original OEM would mean a cheaper Israel upgrade is out of question.

Now after the MICA sticker tag , will we end up paying for other stand off weapon that we would plan to buy for M2K ? Like Kh-59 class stand off weapon.

[Singha]

but saar the problem is R77 is a early 1990s weapon and has seen no updates unlike the amraam which is into C7 and moving to D model now. how good is it vs the latest ECM gear? nobody is telling. its replacement (the ramjet adder) is a fixture at airshows for some time now but no word whether its been funded and undergoing active testing and when is the FOC?

to me it seems the future is clouded about many of these Rus weapons we carry...incl the R73 which we have in huge numbers. also is there a update or MLU to the AA10 which we again have in huge nos.

the Mica too seems to have no hw or sw updates for a decade now, unless they are doing it secretly..but we are stuck with RDY3 and Zhuk and no amraam capability.

for MRCA we should make sure integration of Astra is guaranteed and even thales rbe2aa must have amraam integration...

[Austin]

Singha , I am talking of RVV-SD and not the older R-77E here

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/

And similary the R-73E has been superceeded by RVV-MD

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/5 ... 601f3a8fea

The performance of AIM-120D/C7 and RVV-SD are almost identical , both have their pluses and minuses but by and large they are same and both are better then MICA and probably cheaper.

Mica was the french way of getting both the job done by single missile , its fine for WVR but for BVR they are not quite on par with US or Russian newer variant.

[Singha]

is the RVV-SD in production and in use with the RuAF? when is the expected FOC? it was somewhat revealed in 2009 - we need it asap and should work out deals to replace our older AAMs in tranches.

[Austin]

is the RVV-SD in production and in use with the RuAF? when is the expected FOC? it was somewhat revealed in 2009 - we need it asap and should work out deals to replace our older AAMs in tranches.

Getting info about Russian inservice weapons or performance figures is rare unless you can hear it from Yefim or Pitor etc but if TMC has it on its website then its available for export.

[vic]

Trials for IAF’s Multi-Role Tanker Transport Completed

So earlier cost of $1.06B was deemed too expensive and the new cost of around $2B is not? Something doesn't sound right here.

US tender for tankers gives a very good idea about the base/approx price offered by Boeing and Airbus. Google the details. Airbus cannot better that offer, their flyaway unit price may be around US$ 180-200 milion dollars

[tsarkar]

And the French will take 40 months to come up with the Mirage-2000-5 upgrade...

What is not widely known is that the Mirage upgrade includes Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU).

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/filead ... [quote]The core of the enhanced capabilities of the RAFALE lies in a new Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU). It is composed of up to 18 flight line-replaceable modules, each with a processing power 50 times higher than that of the 2084 XRI type computer fitted on the early versions of Mirage 2000-5.[/quote]
MDPU is the French designation for IMA Architecture (integrated modular avionics). The only flying aircraft with IMA Architecture are F-22, Rafale and Boeing 787. Most other fighters dont have it.

IMA enables real time sensor fusion and datalinking http://www.thalesgroup.com/Pages/NewsAr ... x?id=11665

For the Mirage, this is a brain transplant. Hence the time and cost. This will be India's first experience with IMA architecture, and the Mirage is the test bed for it.

Its not Mirage 2000-5 upgrade, its Mirage with brains of the Rafale.

[Viv S]

For the Mirage, this is a brain transplant. Hence the time and cost. This will be India's first experience with IMA architecture, and the Mirage is the test bed for it.

Its not Mirage 2000-5 upgrade, its Mirage with brains of the Rafale.

I'm a little hazy on what the IMA means for an aircraft in practical terms (is it like cloud computing but for aircraft?), but doesn't the IAF already have an aircraft employing the IMA architecture in the HAL produced BAE Hawk? So why would it be India's first experience with the technology?

[tsarkar]

HAL proposes to manufacture it via ToT -
http://www.hal-india.com/AvionicsKorwa/products.asp
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... pgrade.jpg

I'm a little hazy on what the IMA means for an aircraft in practical terms (is it like cloud computing but for aircraft?)

No, not CC, SOA would be a better analogy.

but doesn't the IAF already have an aircraft employing the IMA architecture in the HAL produced BAE Hawk? So why would it be India's first experience with the technology?

Correct, but Hawk is a trainer, Mirage IMA will cater to full spectrum fighter capability.

[Lalmohan]

therefore, built into the upgrade price is future optionality of reconfiguration of sensors and armament systems... makes more sense now

[tsarkar]

...AIM-120D/C7 and RVV-SD...but by and large they are same and both are better then MICA and probably cheaper...Mica was the french way of getting both the job done by single missile , its fine for WVR but for BVR they are not quite on par with US or Russian newer variant.

@Singha and Austin - What were the datapoints used & features considered to conclude that MICA is inferior to AMRAAM/R77?

[Austin]

@Singha and Austin - What were the datapoints used & features considered to conclude that MICA is inferior to AMRAAM/R77?

tsarkar there are many article written on MICA if you check older issue on AW&ST and many have even questioned the very idea of having a single missile for WVR and BVR engagement , becuase it seems to be a case of neither here or there.

But the one i have is from Richard Fisher who is a well known author on the subject

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/ ... detail.asp

As you can see MICA range is 60 Km which is even inferior to R-77E and AIM-120C7 model , not to mention the latest AIM-120D and RVV-SD.

Infact if you consider the weight dimension of MICA , you will find its in the range of Derby Class BVR which advertised itself as 50 km range BVR

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_S ... /0/950.pdf

[tsarkar]

As you can see MICA range is 60 Km which is even inferior to R-77E and AIM-120C7 model , not to mention the latest AIM-120D and RVV-SD...Infact if you consider the weight dimension of MICA , you will find its in the range of Derby Class BVR which advertised itself as 50 km range BVR

So the only inferiority criteria is range, 50-60 km MICA vs 80 km R77.

Let us see some other features.

Missiles designed for long range lack control surfaces, because at high speed, the wings add drag. This is the reason why AMRAAM and R77 have such small wings. Problem is maneuverability suffers, for which control surfaces are required.

http://imagery.vnfawing.com/archive/Wea ... 022827.jpg MICA is the only BVR missile with TVC and tail control surfaces. Does the R77 & AMRAAM or their progeny have TVC? No. So which BVR missile is more maneuverable? MICA

When a missile radar seeker goes active for last 15 km, it triggers RWR and the aircraft can take evasive action. Enter the dual band IIR seeker. The missile is guided by datalink and IIR seeker homes passively during endgame. IIR is immune to flares, because it generates an image. So which seeker will have better kill probability? MICA

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagaller ... ica_ds.pdf

It additionally outdoes any BVR missile with its unique stealthy interception capability authorized by its silent seeker.

Weight – MICA 112 kg AMRAAM 152 kg R77 175 kg. Which missile has more efficient propulsion? MICA

Lastly range. I find AMRAAM and R77 claiming 80 odd km range. But that range is against straight and high flying B52 or Tu-142 or Tu22M3. Against a fighter, effective BVR ranges are around 40-60 km. Which is what Derby and MICA have been honestly stating all along. And the French or Israeli never designed their missiles against B52 or Tu142, so never used godown sized RCS targets as maximum range indicators. Do note from your link, AMRAAM claiming range of 50-80 km, implying lower 50 km range against fighter sized targets.

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/scienc ... 037476.ece

It can cover 110 km when launched from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when fired from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when the altitude is sea-level.

At that height only bombers fly, fighters fly medium or low altitudes.

In terms of maneuverability & sensors, MICA outstrips R77 and AMRAAM. And range is mostly same for all three missiles.

[Austin]

TSarkar , the TVC is probably there for the reason that it is also a WVR missile where TVC along with Control surface provides more agility. The R-77 is capable of dealing with 12G targets , so there is manouveribility plus AFIAK it has got larger motor so better end game energy. I dont have data about performance parameter for AIM-120 but it will be similar.

Yes IIR is a useful feature for a passive intercept but please note for most part of the flight the mid course update will be provided by radar updates and most modern fighter aircraft RWR and MAWS can detect an incoming missile basically to say the target will be aware he is under attack , unlike older times where it was not possible.

Those 80 Km range and 60 km range are just kinematic range nothing to do with the size of target , its a very known fact that MICA is inferior to the modern US and Russian BVR in most cardinal parameters been focus of many article that i have seen.

Yes that 50 km range is the range of AIM-120C5 is what i have been told and 120C7 is 80 km , AIM-120D and RVV-SD has similar range.

[nachiket]

Is the RVV-SD the ramjet version? Wiki doesn't seem to say so. The claimed range for the SD is 110 km.

[Austin]

Is the RVV-SD the ramjet version? Wiki doesn't seem to say so. The claimed range for the SD is 110 km.

No its just the modernised R-77 version with solid fuel no ramjet

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/

The first seeker shown in the picture is that for R-77

http://missiles.ru/_foto/MAKS-2011_1_news/IMG_1420.JPG

[abhik]

At dollar $ 2 million for MICA i am not sure why would any one pay such kind of money for a missile that is inferior to AIM-120C5 or RVV-SD , The only advantage would be its all passive IIR seeker for long range engagement. Not sure what they are going to charge for Meteor an arm and a leg

I remember reading in the MRCA thread that the price of the Meteor has escalated to ~ 2m pounds. And that's they hope to be paying for it. By the time it reaches us don't count out the possibility that a pair of them may cost more than a JF-17 they are meant to shoot down.
Now its going to set a precedent, so next time some one is going to ask "6 million for Meteor?" the answer would be "But we paid $ 2 million for a short legged old missile, but of course a missile with that much larger no escape zone using ramjet tecknology would cost that much more"; "What! $ 180 million for a fighter?"will get the following retort "But we paid $ 40+ million just to upgrade an 80's fighter, that to without any air-frame changes and not with the latest avionics. Plus that had only IMA, the Rafale has JBL, BMW and XXX technology. So cost is reasonable onlee."
What makes me upset is not that we cannot make these weapons by our selves, but that some people think we have an infinite defense budget. In India even a rupee can go a long way, its sad to see people taking the spending of such large amounts of money so lightly.

[Kartik]

Singha , I am talking of RVV-SD and not the older R-77E here

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/

And similary the R-73E has been superceeded by RVV-MD

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/5 ... 601f3a8fea

The performance of AIM-120D/C7 and RVV-SD are almost identical , both have their pluses and minuses but by and large they are same and both are better then MICA and probably cheaper.

Mica was the french way of getting both the job done by single missile , its fine for WVR but for BVR they are not quite on par with US or Russian newer variant.

Whats the point of showing that? Are the MiG-29UPGs getting the RVV-SD and MD ? If so, where is the deal for purchasing these weapons? the MICA is recognised as being a potent weapon with a high Pk..the R-77 in IAF service has had its own set of issues as pointed out by CAG.

From what I've read, the R-77 had issues with motor burn time and consequently lost energy by the time it got to around 45-50 kms and had low end-game energy to engage maneuvering targets. The lack of a lofted trajectory is also a well known drawback of the older R-77.

Plus, the higher range numbers of the AIM-120 and R-77 are almost always in a best case scenario. You'd need to launch them at a high altitude with a high speed launch against a non-maneuvering target approaching head on in order to be able to get them at such long ranges. That was the entire point of the Meteor- its no-escape zone is higher and the end-game manevuerability and energy is much more than in the case of AIM-120 or R-77.

You spoke of how almost all fighters have RWRs or MAWS, so they would be able to detect an AIM-120 or R-77 launch if they could detect the MICA, so how is that a disadvantage for the MICA? In fact, at higher ranges, the targeted fighter (especially so at lower altitudes) has a much higher chance of escaping since the R-77 at the end of its flight will have little energy left to maneuver hard against a fighter that reverses its course. Anyone will agree that surprise is most important factor for a successful long range launch. And the MICA with its passive IIR seeker has the best chance of surprising a target whose RWR hasn't gone off and the MAWS may not have detected a long range launch.

[Indranil]

I remember reading in the MRCA thread that the price of the Meteor has escalated to ~ 2m pounds. And that's they hope to be paying for it. By the time it reaches us don't count out the possibility that a pair of them may cost more than a JF-17 they are meant to shoot down.
Now its going to set a precedent <SNIP>

I was trying to type up a reply ... but couldn't quite compose it ... deep down somewhere I agree with you.

I have read what Kartik has been saying about the Mirage upgrades and he has very strong points as always ... but I don't buy this "OEM does it best" statement ... We did come up with the Mig-27 upgrades too, don't think that it was a very bad one!

Anybody would ask a simple question ... the French update deal + Mica missiles cost upwards of twice of IAI update proposal + missiles ... Are we getting twice the worth?

[Rahul.ka]

Some good info on P-8I

The P-8A is a 737 derivative, but Boeing says that the airframe is “60-70% different,” with a structure that is twice as thick in some places. There is an aft-fuselage weapons bay—required for torpedoes because the fuel will freeze at high altitudes if they are carried externally—and four heavyweight external pylons for SLAM-ER missiles. The usual load will be three missiles and a data link pod, but SLAM-ER will eventually be replaced by a network-enabled weapon with no separate pod.

Some P-8 capabilities will be introduced under Increment 2, due to enter service in 2016 and a joint development between the U.S. and Australia. The big change is a move toward high-altitude antisubmarine warfare. This is not only a matter of performance (the P-8’s fuel burn goes up at low level) but a need to cover bigger areas. There is also concern that future submarines, armed with antiair-warfare missiles and packing IR search-and-track systems in their masts, could make low-level MAD runs hazardous.

One idea under study is for the P-8A to launch a version of Boeing’s Scan- Eagle UAV that could carry a MAD sensor. The UAV would recover to a land base.

Increment 2 includes a multistatic active coherent (MAC) acoustic system and associated sonobuoys, using Doppler processing and expected to be more accurate than today’s systems. A weapon mating a torpedo with a wing-kit and GPS/inertial navigation will be implemented, for more accurate drops from high level.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_incl ... 403446.xml

[Kartik]

It took us a long long time to negiotiate for M2K deal like more than 5 years , becuase the french were ripping is more and its only with local subsidiary procurement that we managed to bring the cost down of M2K upgrade.

But a upgraded M2K is still better then a non-upgraded one considering its adding 25 years more of life to the upgrade , Most likely the policy to upgrade equipment from original OEM would mean a cheaper Israel upgrade is out of question.

Now after the MICA sticker tag , will we end up paying for other stand off weapon that we would plan to buy for M2K ? Like Kh-59 class stand off weapon.

What local subsidiary procurement are you talking about?

As regards stand off weapons, the Mirages can already use the Crystal Maze stand-off PGM acquired from Israel.

[Singha]

one of the problems with the israeli upg was likely their El2032 derived radar would not work with Mica and the french would refuse to make it work. derby is not upto par with mica. also putting in a new mission computer and core avionics arch is a major change, different from changing component blocks like EW or cockpit panels.....would the french give IAI all the access needed for that?

chances of delays and goofing up are definitely less with a OEM deal ....

[Karan M]

ViVS,

The MDPU on the Mirage 2000-V is not true IMA - not the manner in which the US usage of the term has popularized it anyhow. What it is, is an advanced mission computer - similar to the ones we are fielding on our homegrown AEW&C which basically take all the inputs from different sensors, compare them, and create a unified track file. Mission computers have got more and more complex over the years. In the original days, they were basically the systems which would process information from different sensors, and then hand them off to the display units after a bit of post processing. Basically, also enable weapons guidance and navigation options. Today, they can handle display map generation, sensor fusion, direct voice input etc. Some of their functions have gone back to the original sensors - MFDs have become smart with embedded processors and can generate their own images - they don't need the MC to do all that for them. IMA on the other hand was a way for the Americans to basically centralize all the processing activities at one LRU (with another as hot standby). The advantages of this were straightforward - avoid the duplication of processing resources at multiple locations and also, create a single version of the truth where BITE could be employed to fix and localize faults, and also enable easy upgrades. Basically, multiple OS or sensor specific software running on a software platform able to handle these (think of OS emulation on another OS) and the hardware being of one common standard would be another plus. So what does centralize the processing mean. Think of the amount of processing in each sensor today. The radar has signal processors & then data processors. Similar processors for the ESM. Then all the processors running different functions in the Mission Computer, Air Data sensors, Flight Control Computer, Weapons Management Computer (which usually sits on the weapons bus & is connected to the Mission Computer) etc etc. IMA is a method to put all of these in one place, standardize the hardware, and also minimize the signal lag which often occurs in different sensors having to send all their data to another sensor. So if the radar's processing fucntions we split from it and put in the MDPU - that would be IMA. Not as it stands today.

One thing though - IMA is good when it works but making it work is a huge challenge by itself. There have been public reports that one of the issues facing the JSF is this exact same thing. And upgrading the F-22's IMA has not proven as easy as originally thought as well.

In India we are seriously evaluating IMA for the AMCA, and a variant has been proposed for the LCA as well, for continued avionics development. Lets see how it goes. The current OAC though is a fairly advanced system, of the federated kind. While it does not ostensibly claim sensor fusion, the latest RWRs developed by DRDO do have that capability and of course, the software and algorithms for the same are to be on the AEW&C as well.

I suspect the long timeline for the IAF mirage upgrade is basically to standardize all these aircraft on a common standard & then upgrade them to a moden suite which includes new subsystems like the MDPU, RDY3 and then the ICMS 4 all of which take time. As Kartik pointed out, the time taken is really not thatt different from the MiG-29. We really should have signed this deal sooner.

Interestingly, if you see the architecture diagram for the Mirage 2000 upgrade, it clearly shows a HAL OSAMC on one of the buses. So India is having its own Mission Computer put into the aircraft. We would not go to this extent unless we intended to integrate our own systems onto the plane without OEM involvement & clearly, we would need some level of access to source codes. At least the relevant levels that would allow us to have our new systems speak to the weapon and navigation system. That is another integration complexity. On the MiG-29 Upg we are using Russian 486 based Mission computers as are standard on the MiG-29 Upgrades

[Karan M]

Singha , I am talking of RVV-SD and not the older R-77E here

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/

And similary the R-73E has been superceeded by RVV-MD

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/5 ... 601f3a8fea

The performance of AIM-120D/C7 and RVV-SD are almost identical , both have their pluses and minuses but by and large they are same and both are better then MICA and probably cheaper.

Mica was the french way of getting both the job done by single missile , its fine for WVR but for BVR they are not quite on par with US or Russian newer variant.

Whats the point of showing that? Are the MiG-29UPGs getting the RVV-SD and MD ? If so, where is the deal for purchasing these weapons? the MICA is recognised as being a potent weapon with a high Pk..the R-77 in IAF service has had its own set of issues as pointed out by CAG.

From what I've read, the R-77 had issues with motor burn time and consequently lost energy by the time it got to around 45-50 kms and had low end-game energy to engage maneuvering targets. The lack of a lofted trajectory is also a well known drawback of the older R-77.

Plus, the higher range numbers of the AIM-120 and R-77 are almost always in a best case scenario. You'd need to launch them at a high altitude with a high speed launch against a non-maneuvering target approaching head on in order to be able to get them at such long ranges. That was the entire point of the Meteor- its no-escape zone is higher and the end-game manevuerability and energy is much more than in the case of AIM-120 or R-77.

You spoke of how almost all fighters have RWRs or MAWS, so they would be able to detect an AIM-120 or R-77 launch if they could detect the MICA, so how is that a disadvantage for the MICA? In fact, at higher ranges, the targeted fighter (especially so at lower altitudes) has a much higher chance of escaping since the R-77 at the end of its flight will have little energy left to maneuver hard against a fighter that reverses its course. Anyone will agree that surprise is most important factor for a successful long range launch. And the MICA with its passive IIR seeker has the best chance of surprising a target whose RWR hasn't gone off and the MAWS may not have detected a long range launch.

Fair points. Just to add - the RVV-AE does have lofted trajector. Our issues were with the initial batches. As always, the initial export customers were the guinea pigs. Those issues are stated to have been resolved. We are not getting the newer missiles with the MiG-29 Upg but the original R73E and RVV-AE. The Mica, as you say - the IIR version is the real danger. it can knock down any plane in the world today or intended as well. Only PAKFA has DIRC measures nobody else does

[tsarkar]

TSarkar , the TVC is probably there for the reason that it is also a WVR missile where TVC along with Control surface provides more agility. The R-77 is capable of dealing with 12G targets , so there is manouveribility plus AFIAK it has got larger motor so better end game energy. I dont have data about performance parameter for AIM-120 but it will be similar.

g-loading is not a correct indicator of maneuverability. ITR, STR, etc are, that is never published. g-loading is simply an indicator of how much stress the airframe can take, not how sharp it can turn. TVC provides the end game agility for taking on fighters taking evasive manoeuvers. If TVC is useful at short range, no reason why it cannot be useful at BVR.

The Mirage upgrade will enable them take on Pakistani Block 52 and earlier Block 15 upgraded to Block 52 standards, leaving Sukhois free for the east. It will also enable familiarization of newer technologies.

[Cain Marko]

From what I've read, the R-77 had issues with motor burn time and consequently lost energy by the time it got to around 45-50 kms and had low end-game energy to engage maneuvering targets. The lack of a lofted trajectory is also a well known drawback of the older R-77.

Plus, the higher range numbers of the AIM-120 and R-77 are almost always in a best case scenario. You'd need to launch them at a high altitude with a high speed launch against a non-maneuvering target approaching head on in order to be able to get them at such long ranges. That was the entire point of the Meteor- its no-escape zone is higher and the end-game manevuerability and energy is much more than in the case of AIM-120 or R-77.

You spoke of how almost all fighters have RWRs or MAWS, so they would be able to detect an AIM-120 or R-77 launch if they could detect the MICA, so how is that a disadvantage for the MICA? In fact, at higher ranges, the targeted fighter (especially so at lower altitudes) has a much higher chance of escaping since the R-77 at the end of its flight will have little energy left to maneuver hard against a fighter that reverses its course. Anyone will agree that surprise is most important factor for a successful long range launch. And the MICA with its passive IIR seeker has the best chance of surprising a target whose RWR hasn't gone off and the MAWS may not have detected a long range launch.

One thing to note is that Russian tweaks and improvements to the R77 (or any of their AAMs for that matter), are not very well covered in open source. The idea that the R77 does not have lofted trajectory is still making rounds, however, I recall quite distinctly that Pit (remember him?) had posted a source stating that it does in fact have the same in a discussion with JCage.

Russki AAMs are not well covered - we have the same info about R77 since the early 90s - I for one doubt that things have just remained the same over such a long period. I think a lot of trouble shooting had already happened by the time the IAF got theirs. And it remains IAF's most potent BVR weapon.

As far as long range launches are concerned - a video showed MKI drivers launching the R27 at "insane" ranges - go figure. I think tactics play an important role here and kinematic advantages cannot be easily dismissed.

Quite frankly, this deal for $ 4.5 billion is not convincing based on open source reports so far. The argument that OEM upgraded M2ks are way better than IAI/HAL upgrades is not well supported, at least not enough to justify such a sticker. The western front will at best provide a Block 52 type threat, and the MiG-29UPG, and similarly equipped 4/+ gen fighters should be more than up to the task - including Bisons, MKI, LUSH type Mirages.

I think a nice number of MIG-29Ms/ MKIs or even MRCAs could have been procured for the same price, that could have provided far more capability in terms of quality and quantity! Say $ 2.5 billion on the inhouse upgrade and $ 2.5 billion for 1 sqd of MKI/29/, possibly, MRCA

[Austin]

Kartik , MICA design goal was to have a common missile for both WVR and BVR engagement , so it simply ended up compromising some of its long range engagement capability , MICA was superior to early model AMRAAM but ended up being inferior in long legs to late model AIM and R-77 , discounting the newest D model or SD model.

If longer reach was never really an issue most of world BVR developer would not have strived for achieving that in latter variant.

The loafted trajectory issue was with only with very early model of R-77 that was later rectified , the missile just needed to be programmed to do that , as you can check the R-77E has a range of 80 km , previously the earlier R-77 had 50 km range.

MICA/R-77 comparision
link1 link2

You spoke of how almost all fighters have RWRs or MAWS, so they would be able to detect an AIM-120 or R-77 launch if they could detect the MICA, so how is that a disadvantage for the MICA?

Kartik of all the 3 missile were fired at similar altitude , speed and condition say at 50 km from target , AIM-120 and R-77 would still end up having significant energy reserve to deal with maneuvering target compared to MICA if the target is aware he is under attack and tries to manouver to defeat the missile due to the latter better kinematic range.

[Cain Marko]

If all the 3 missile were fired at similar altitude , speed and condition say at 50 km from target , AIM-120 and R-77 would still end up having significant energy reserve to deal with maneuvering target compared to MICA if the target is aware he is under attack and tries to manouver to defeat the missile due to the latter better kinematic range.

I think this should be fairly obvious. The derby and Mica have always had a similar range, which is shorter than the R77/Aim 120. The Russians have often made very effective hardware - cheaper and less sophisticated perhaps, but nevertheless, very effective. The only reason to go with the Mica is simply because it is easiest to integrate with the M2k-5. I have yet to see anything convincing that shows the Mica EM to be superior to the Derby. The IIR is quite special though.

[Austin]

CM , there is a TINA factor , you cant integrate any thing in there with M2K except MICA ..... cant help much.

I really do not think having a IIR seeker in BVR missile is useful to the extent it is advertised , we would have easily seen a AIM-120 with a FPA seeker or R-77 with a 2 color seeker by now , I think the problem with any IIR system is its all weather capability and lacking long range lock on ranges to the extent where it would allow the host aircraft to slip out , RF being preferred choice here.