MiG-21 replacement estimates

rama · Post by **rama** » 08 Aug 2000 05:54

Kanak, What are you using as the source for your price estimates? Prices for combat jets have shot up a lot in the 90s and $11 million for a Mig-29A seems very cheap as does $26 million for Mirage 2000s. The Pakis in 1994 almost signed a deal with France that priced them well over twice that figure. Even the Hawk India is allegedly buying seems to be in the $15-$19 million dollar range.

shim george · Post by **shim george** » 08 Aug 2000 06:05

SAT I ddi find a few flaws in your statement. true we do not know how good that will be. But Pakistan can not buy from France and Britan because India will make them aware of the deals they are about to jeopardize that are worth more to Britan than what Pakistan can offer. Second I would love to get rid of lets 200 mid-21s. We can make money by selling them to other countries.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 08 Aug 2000 06:30

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nikhill: By the way, the French have again offerred us licence prodn of the Mirage 2000, which would make sense considering it is an excellent aircraft, combat proven, and the 2000D would give us nuclear capability. Producing it locally may also make producing the LCA eaiser, as they are both similar. It would also act as a counter weight to the LCA (Ostrich/Turkey) in case it does'nt take off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a no-brainer. Local production of the Mirage-2000 is the best thing that could ever happen to the IAF. The Mirage-2000 is simply an outstanding aircraft and is far superior to anything in the IAF inventory, including the much-hyped (and non-existant) SU-30MKI. The Mirage-2000 series has great upgrade potential, too. It's an aircraft that could continue to serve the IAF well into the 21st century. Even if it costs more than the SU-30MKI, it's a vastly better deal, especially considering the planes would be produced in India.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 08 Aug 2000 06:38

Better to use the Mig-21's as target drones. IAF pilots almost certainly don't get enough live-fire practice.

Div · Post by **Div** » 08 Aug 2000 07:10

Agree with Michael, the Mig-21s should be re-designated as QMig-21. Only to be used as target drones...time to see how good these AA-10s really are.About replacement costs; no country is gonna give India a sweet deal on license production today. Simple economics, we need replacements and have few choices. That means a seller's market and high costs. Hopefully the GoI will decide on both the Mirage 2000s and the Su-30s for license production.

Div · Post by **Div** » 08 Aug 2000 10:53

Guys,Check the July ISS thread started by Tim; kind of a reality check. It all comes down to the $$$.

ehsmang · Post by **ehsmang** » 08 Aug 2000 15:16

the point made by venkat is spot on. What is needed is the ability to put max hours for loitering. What is needed are force multipliers like Mid air refuelling, AWACS, better radars, PGM's . Only problem is that in short term these things look expensive but actually they are cost effective. However, central to these are issues of technology transfer and $$$.These MIGs are being flogged only because some of the indigenous programmes have not materialised. The numbers game is also kept up with china in mind. Another fall out of fewer aircrafts is better training, savings of funds ... The current thinking is towards multi role aircrafts and not towards dedicated kind of a/c which the Mig's are.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 08 Aug 2000 15:22

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by kanak: TSP is concerned, who is willing to sell frontline aircraft to them? The best they can do is to buy Mirage III or IV if they have the money. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>France is willing to sell them frontline aircraft, last I heard they were negotiating for the possible purchase of some 40 or so Mirage 2000-5, although the financing this deal is proving very difficult, and it will probably never take place, but they can buy, if they can find the money.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.[This message has been edited by Nandai (edited 08-08-2000).][This message has been edited by Nandai (edited 08-08-2000).][This message has been edited by Nandai (edited 08-08-2000).]

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 08 Aug 2000 16:27

Did India ever consider the Israeli Mig-21 upgrade package? I wonder if there had been any delays if the Mig-21-2000 had been selected instead of the Mig-21-93.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

shim george · Post by **shim george** » 08 Aug 2000 20:00

Sat getying 2-3 million off it is better than nothing. Tell me is that a great deal or what. Now as far as that post goes with Russia and China competition not friendship that is really untrue. Now considering Russia is supplying a competitor with plabnes and warships and tanks I really do not think that is competition. Sat by the way the Africsn nation I was thiking of selling them to is Congo. Desperate they will take anything.

Div · Post by **Div** » 08 Aug 2000 20:06

For those of you trying to sell Mig-21s...especially to African nations. India has a 3-400 of these planes; these countries buy 6-10 max. What about the other 390? The Romanians and other FWP countries have been re-furbishing and selling them in the continent for the past few years. It seems like every issue of AFM over the past year has a story of 2-3 Migs being bought by someone in Africa. Don't set your heart on making money off these tiny deals.

rama · Post by **rama** » 08 Aug 2000 22:32

The best use IMHO for IAF Mig-21's is to wire them up as auto/remote piloted drones. When war breaks out fly out dozens of these unmanned drones on diversionary one-way sorties to rustle up the PAF interceptors - who will not be able to tell them from the real things- and thus get them out of the way for the actual attack waves. Much more useful than the $100-200K per copy that is best case for 30 yr old Mig21s.An added bonus would be for these drones to be programmed to dive bomb into Mushy's residence.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 08 Aug 2000 22:38

use them as cruise missles.

Prakash · Post by **Prakash** » 08 Aug 2000 22:50

Could some of the MiG-21's not be converted into trainers? It seems as if the trainer MiG-21s work fairly well. If more MiG-21 can be converted into trainers, then monies saved (by having fewer crashes, perhaps not buying new trainers) could be used to buy newer and better fighters.

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 09 Aug 2000 00:27

What about the LCA ?The MFs and FLs (~ 150 in number) are still there today because LCA is so late and they will be replaced only by LCA. LCA's specs have been designed based on these parameters.One thing your discussion ignores is that all the non-mig21 planes are much expensive to operate, more costly to maintain etc. etc. as they are at least 50% more in weight and no. of parts. LCA is hence a 'light' plane as they have their own roles. You can's have your fleets consisting mainly of Mirages and Mig-29s. You can but that won't be too smart.LCA program if not given an order of at least this 125 (6 squadon Mig 21FL/MF replacement) and later another 200 for bis will never become sophisticated anough so that after 10 years when you will think of replacing around 300 (even upgraded)Mig 23/27s, MCA will be there to take care. Meanwhile the Mirages, Jaguars, Mig 29s and Su30s(both purchased and co-produced) can keep their place as the quality parts for specific tasks, not the quantity parts of the force.Just like IN, IAF has to look towards at least 50% indigenous content if not by 2010, at least 2015, by relacing 21s and 23/27s by LCA and MCAs. If both of these, as you seem to suggest, are cancelled, I can't see anytime in the next 40 years how that can be done & an Indian aircraft industry maintained (HAL will produce what ?).And future defence ministers will always have the swords of Damocles hanging over them in spares/planes embargoed in dire times.If the LCA/MCA esperiment, which has been the 'one and only' big dream of an 'Indian'IAF so far, is squandered I can't see how another dream can be ever be fruitified later in this same scale of ambition. There have been errors and delays but we are too far into the game to look back now.Keep the faith...

Div · Post by **Div** » 09 Aug 2000 00:57

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dbpatra: What about the LCA ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good question...will know for sure 5-10 years from now. For now, I don't think the IAF is expecting anything soon and they need to have contingency plans. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One thing your discussion ignores is that all the non-mig21 planes are much expensive to operate, more costly to maintain etc. etc. as they are at least 50% more in weight and no. of parts. LCA is hence a 'light' plane as they have their own roles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1. I don't know why newer planes should be more expensive to maintain. Yes they use newer technology; but that whould be a benefit when it comes to maintenance. Newer engines can go longer without servicing and the use of advanced composites should lead to longer frame life. Otoh, the Mig-21s need a lot more maintenance; being 15-35 years old they have to have more frequent overhauls and depot level maintenance trips. IMO that leads to a higher probability of possibly fatal problems. Not to mention that the frequent maintenance is more costly and decreases available combat aircraft at any given time.2. LCA is not a 'light' plane anymore. See if you can get the AFM article that was written by GC Kapil Bhargava in the June issue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You can's have your fleets consisting mainly of Mirages and Mig-29s. You can but that won't be too smart.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tell that to just about every European and even the American air force. Most countries are trying to cut down the number of aircraft types they operate. Why else would the Americans drop the F-4s and F-111s; especially for the very important wild weasal and EW roles? One has to weigh the positives or having different suppliers with the problems of logistics and training. I think that the latter weigh in more heavily. The IAFs current operation of 6 different a/c types has to lead to inefficiencies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LCA program if not given an order of at least this 125 (6 squadon Mig 21FL/MF replacement) and later another 200 for bis will never become sophisticated anough so that after 10 years when you will think of replacing around 300 (even upgraded)Mig 23/27s, MCA will be there to take care. Meanwhile the Mirages, Jaguars, Mig 29s and Su30s(both purchased and co-produced) can keep their place as the quality parts for specific tasks, not the quantity parts of the force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't expect the IAF to put all their hopes on the MCA. Once burned, twice shy. For all intensive purposes the MCA is just on paper, and will most likely stay there for the next little while. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If the LCA/MCA esperiment, which has been the 'one and only' big dream of an 'Indian'IAF so far, is squandered I can't see how another dream can be ever be fruitified later in this same scale of ambition. There have been errors and delays but we are too far into the game to look back now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is enough blame to go around for the LCA. For now, the military should be allowed to build up their forces with means that can be afforded. HAL isn't really that involved in the LCA business, ADA being the prime there. I hope that HAL will just continue to pump out those ALHs and Lancers. At the same time working on getting a IJT and light transport into prototype. Add any license production, maintenance and out-sourced work and I think they will probably have their hands full.[This message has been edited by Div (edited 08-08-2000).]

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 09 Aug 2000 01:39

Div, I completely agree with 90% of your rebuttal and most of the facts, but I still disagree with some aspects and your fundamental point. Yes I agree that the military readiness can never be an 'experiment' and if the experiment fails, the military ought to be be given the full right to do things by the means available. Moreover I agree with your 'contingency' argument as I think for the sophistication level in 1985's Indian aircraft setup, the lack of a contingency for the LCA/MCA program to fall back on was a mistake of the highest order.I don't think that USAF/USN operates a reduced number of types. If any, the number of types have increased. <A HREF="http://www.af.mil/news/indexpages/fs_in ... l#AIRCRAFT" TARGET=_blank>http://www.af.mil/news/indexpages/fs_in ... IRCRAFT</A> <A HREF="http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/fac ... .html#air1" TARGET=_blank>http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/fac ... ml#air1</A> For IAF's forceprofile of ~1000 frontline, to have a backbone of 60-70% of 2 types of cheap planes and the rest in smaller number of planes is perhaps a good idea. The 6 types happened as the other 4 ( apart from 21 and 23) were so expensive. Try making IAF's 6 types to 4, any of your calculation would have been more expensive to the country ( here I am talking 1980-2000 expens) to procure. I take your point about maintenance, but then you would be mixing up issues as the mother russia's 1990 suicide affected us most. Think for a moment in 1980 how else could you have a 1000 strong supersonic fleet of 4 types (preferably from Western sources) ? We could not have been to afford it. Don't forget we are still paying for 23s and 27s.Now that is in the past. Let's talk future.Future objectives: 1. Maintain 40 squadrons of the best A/F planes. 2. Strategic security. (Russian security hazards and Harrier embarrassments have only underscored this point)- This is always in relative terms. 3. Right to manufacture. ( helps in cost, helps building HAL competence)So tell me, to fulfill all the 3 conditions in 2005 as well as 2015, what in your opinion is a better and cheaper strategy than the present one and what is the fault with the present one which is roughly (includes a little of irrational optimism, of course): 2005: 100 LCA, 125Mig21-93, 100 other Migs, 300 Mig 23/27s, 75Mig 29(includes 20 K version), 100 Jaguar, 50 Mirage, 50 Su30 (100 more in works) 2015: 300 LCA, 300 MCA, 100 Mig 29 (includes 50 Ks for both carriers), 150 Su 30s, 150 Western types (to replace Jaguar & refurbish Mirage, which most probably means 50 current Mirages refurbished and 100 Rafale/?)BTW, in Indian threat environment, 'light' still is an important objective, we are not USA which is so big and so far away from everybody, our enemies are our neighbors.[This message has been edited by dbpatra (edited 08-08-2000).][This message has been edited by dbpatra (edited 13-08-2000).]

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 09 Aug 2000 01:41

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dbpatra: One thing your discussion ignores is that all the non-mig21 planes are much expensive to operate, more costly to maintain etc. etc. as they are at least 50% more in weight and no. of parts. LCA is hence a 'light' plane as they have their own roles. You can's have your fleets consisting mainly of Mirages and Mig-29s. You can but that won't be too smart. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would rather have a fleet consisting of only Mirages and Mig-29s than have Mig-21/23/27s. First, the Mirages, and probably also the Mig-29s are more reliable than the older aircraft, they need less maintenance. Just because something is modern doesnt mean that it need a engineer to perform the basic maintenance. I think the opposite is more the truth, a modern plane is almost always a better construction, the constructors have heard from pilots and such what they liked and didnt like about their previous design, and they try and fix that to the next one. I dont understand you arguement that it wouldnt be smart to have an airforce made up of only modern fighters, that is exactly what air forces all around the world is trying to achieve, if they can afford it, if they cant they either up-grade or buy small numbers of modern fighters and hope that they will be enough to scare of any potential enemies.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 09 Aug 2000 01:55

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dbpatra: Second, I don't think that USAF operates a reduced number of types. If any, the number of types have increased. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I completely and utterly disagree with you, the number of types in the USAF has gone down, they used to have the F-4, all the F-century planes, several other types of helicopters, bombers, transport aircraft, spy planes and misc. aircraft. Now they basically only fly the F-15 and the F-16, with a small number of F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52 as bombers, the A-10 for attack, which is probably going to be phased out

, these are being supported by a large number of tankers, surveillance aircraft, transports and special forces planes. In a not too distant future the number of types will be further reduced and the active force will be mainly made up of F-22s

and JSFs. All airforces, except maybe china, tries and cut down on the number of diffirent types in service, and thats possible thanks to, to a certain point, multi-role aircrafts developed to perform as a fighter, bomber/attack and recon aircraft.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 09 Aug 2000 02:05

Nandai, by smartness, I mean the following.Smartness Law 1: Take what you can afford. 1000 Mig29s and Mirages, my friend, methinks the Indian budget can never digest. Smartness Law 2: Never, ignore one link to strengthen another. Just hear what IN people say about an ultramodern IAF at the cost of a IN which can not afford a supersonic missile so settles for a subsonic, and has to defer and cancel programs.I have no disagreement that modern planes are better than 60s Migs. But we are not discussing that.[This message has been edited by dbpatra (edited 08-08-2000).]

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 09 Aug 2000 02:17

Nandai, you said " that is exactly what air forces all around the world is trying to achieve, if they can afford it, if they cant they either up-grade or buy small numbers of modern fighters and hope that they will be enough to scare of any potential enemies."Exactly, my friend, if one can afford it. Exactly, my friend, buy small numbers of modern fighters and hope that they will be enough to scare off potentail enemies.I thought you were advocating 1000 Mig 29s and Mirages. I would then really think if my tax rupeees are being handled well.

Div · Post by **Div** » 09 Aug 2000 02:33

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dbpatra: Div, I completely agree with 90% of your rebuttal and most of the facts, but I still disagree with some aspects and your fundamental point. I don't think that USAF operates a reduced number of types. If any, the number of types have increased. <A HREF="http://www.af.mil/news/indexpages/fs_in ... l#AIRCRAFT" TARGET=_blank>http://www.af.mil/news/indexpages/fs_in ... IRCRAFT</A> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Adding a bit to what Nandai said above. The A-12 cancellation is another example of trimming the aircraft types. Off hand, you will note that most of the support aircraft on the site are based on two mainstays: the C-130 and Boeing 707. So, even though they have different names (AC-130H/U,MC-130E/H Combat Talon I/II,HC-130P/N,MC-130P Combat Shadow, WC-130 Hercules) or (E-3 Sentry (AWACS), E-8C Joint Stars,KC-135 Stratotanker, E-6, etc) are based on or modifications of the C-130 and Boeing 707 respectively. This usually helps in logistics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For IAF's forceprofile of ~1000 frontline, to have a backbone of 60-70% of 2 types of cheap planes and the rest in smaller number of planes is perhaps a good idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a force profile of when Mig-21/23/27s flowed like water. This does not (and will not) happen any more. So, maybe its time to re-think the 1000 plane AF and bring it down to a more effective 700 plane AF. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Now that is in the past. Let's talk future.Future objectives: 1. Maintain 40 squadrons of the best A/F planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Refer to my comment above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So tell me, to fulfill all the 3 conditions in 2005 as well as 2015, what in your opinion is a better and cheaper strategy than the present one and what is the fault with the present one which is roughly (includes a little of irrational optimism, of course):2005: 100 LCA, 125Mig21-93, 100 other Migs, 300 Mig 23/27s, 75Mig 29(includes 20 K version), 100 Jaguar, 50 Mirage, 50 Su30 (100 more in works) 2015: 300 LCA, 300 MCA, 100 Mig 29 (includes 50 Ks for both carriers), 150 Su 30s, 150 Western types (to replace Jaguar & refurbish Mirage, which most probably means 50 current Mirages refurbished and 100 Rafale/?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that your 100 LCA number is best suited for 2015, with no MCA yet. This is IMO the most realistic view. The 2005 IAF will look much like it does today on the outside; except with some upgrades. 20015 is also when the IAF will face a real crunch cause as of now they plan to start retiring the Mig-27s and Jags then. You know that the early Mirages cannot be that far behind either. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>BTW, in Indian threat environment, 'light' still is an important objective, we are not USA which is so big and so far away from everybody, our enemies are our neighbors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe they should take some lessons from the IN that is trying hard (on a meager budget) to extend its reach beyond the shores. Something that will come in handy in the futre.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 09 Aug 2000 04:36

I never suggested that the IAF should try and get 1000 Mirage 2000s and Mig-29. I just think its a better idea to have a small air force made up of advanced and highly capable aircraft, rather than having a Big force consisting mainly of B-class aircraft, with a few A-class planes, like the chinese have. ------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

dsandhu · Post by **dsandhu** » 09 Aug 2000 04:51

Dont count the LCA in your analysis. Now way the airforce is going to have full strength frontline squardons based upon the LCA. It is time to think about an alternative and the IAF and MOD should have some aircraft in mind. 2005 comes and the baus say that LCA will be ready by 2010. then 2010 comes and LCA will come in 2020. There should be a firm line drawn for the LCA and if DDRO and HAL dont deliver,then shoot the babus as well as the LCA.

shim george · Post by **shim george** » 09 Aug 2000 05:00

Sorry Sat i was not responding to your post. I was just making a wild statement after I heard Su-30's were being bought from Russia. That really was not competition. There was a post a long time ago. But as far as buying 2-3 aircrafts the are rich in diamonds. So they are taking diamonds away.[This message has been edited by shim george (edited 08-08-2000).]

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 09 Aug 2000 07:17

Let's be cynical and realistic for a moment, and consider a reasonable "ten year plan" for the IAF.First of all, it would actually be far more cost effective to cancel the Mig-21-93 upgrade and convert the entire Mig-21 fleet into drones, use them for spares, sell them off, etc. At the same time, go for license production of Mirage-2000 in India and build more Jaguars as well. Let's not forget the Jaguar: India already has large numbers of these in service and they are a proven and survivable aircraft (as is the Mirage-2000). There are already French and Isreali upgrades planned for the Jaguar fleet and these should be pushed through quickly. Meanwhile to keep the Russians happy the the SU-30 deal should continue (but only if the Russians will agree to tech tranfer & license production in India). As for the Mig-27 fleet, I think with the planned upgrades to French Litening pods and Isreali EW systems, these are definitely worth keeping in service as long as this upgrade is done immediately. Meanwhile the IAF must purchase an AWACS system (probably will have to buy A-50's for political reasons) and aerial refuelers (probably IL-78M).So over the next five years the IAF would be "losing" over 400 Mig-21's and 30 or so Mig-23MF's (the latter is already planned), a staggering figure on the face of it. But it would be adding about 150 new aircraft (Mirage-2000's, Jaguars, SU-30's, and AJT's), and would now have AWACS and aerial refueling "force multipliers" in service, too. The Mig-21/23 trainers retired from service would be offset by the aquisition of some type of AJT(probably Hawk I guess). This would leave the IAF in 2005 with the following combat-capable aircraft:~90 Mirage-2000 H/D/TH ~130 Jaguar IS/IM/IB (upgraded) ~75 Mig-29 B/S/UB ~40 SU-30MKI ~200 Mig-27ML (upgraded) ~100 Mig-23BN/UM ~60 AJTThis is around 700 combat capable aircraft, a smaller force than today's fleet of around 1000 or so, but more efficient to maintain, safer to fly, and far more lethal. With the Mig-23BN/UM aircraft still in service, the force would not be entirely modern, but its effective combat power would actually be much greater than the horde you have today, and it would still be a very big force purely from a numbers perspective. Now, looking ahead further, in 2010 indigenous production of Mirage-2000, Jaguar, SU-30MKI, and AJT would be continuing, and by now the existing Mig-29's should be upgraded to the -SMT standard, and the Mig-29K also now in service with the IN. The remaining Mig-23's would be gone. Also the LCA might even be in in production by then. Indian airpower would be truly formidable, comprised entirely of modern aircraft, most of them multirole capable, and with complete AWACS and aerial refueling support. This is a far better "game plan" than the current policy, which is to hang on to the Mig-21/23 fleet until all of them drop out of the sky. The current plan sacrifices readiness and undermines the morale of the IAF, to say nothing of killing scores of pilots (who require large amounts of $$ to train, by the way).The good thing about a plan like the one I outlined above is that even if LCA/MCA don't pan out, India's aerospace industry still benefits greatly from indigenous production of Mirage-2000, Jaguar, SU-30MKI, and hopefully an AJT as well. And the money saved from trying to maintain and wring more life out of the Mig-21 and Mig-23 fleets can be spent more productively. Yes, overall it means spending an extra $6 billion or so over the next ten years. But I submit the current situation actually costs more than that when you factor in dead pilots, hard to maintain aircraft, aircraft lost to crashes, decreased readiness, low morale, and so on.

Div · Post by **Div** » 09 Aug 2000 09:36

Michael, here is an another 'realistic' list for the IAF. I think that this is the best they can do, and if they can get 10 tankers and 4 AWACS, they will be pretty happy. So, here goes...2005: 176 Mig-27s - All upgraded (8 sqdns) 125 Mig-21-93s (5 sqdns) 120 Jaguars (5 sqdns) 72 Mirage 2000H5/D (3 sqdns) 72 Su-30MK/MKI (3 sqdns) 72 Mig-29s (3 sqdns) 48 Mig-23BN (EW/WW) --- 685 (27+ sqdns)-The extra Jags have already been ordered in 2 batches over the past 2 years. -All the other Mig-21s being scrapped. -Trim the Mig-27 fleet to only the upgraded ones. -Mirages include current + the rumoured purchase of 40 more. -Hopfully the Su-30s come through. -Mig-23s would be on their very last legs by 2005 and be prime candidate to go next.So, new purchases apart from known orders would be: 40 Mirage 2000s and 24 Su-30s. I think that it could be done.By 2010, i would look for the Mig-27 levels to decreasw, no more Mig-23s, no more Mig-21s (hopefully) and a whole lot of holes to fill. Maybe add a Mig-29 sqdn, a couple of Su-30 sqdns from license production and if the LCA fails; another Mirage 2000 sqdn.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 09 Aug 2000 12:40

Yes Div, that makes a lot of sense, too. In fact no matter how bad the Mig-21 situation gets, it's probably a sure thing the Mig-21-93 program will still go ahead anyway, simply because the deal was signed so long ago. Hopefully only the newest Mig-21's will get the -21-93 upgrade. Even if the Mig-21-93 also proves to be a deathtrap, cutting the Mig-21 fleet down to 1/4 it's current size will lower the overall accident rate in any case. But will this actually happen? You stated that all the other Mig-21s are being scrapped. Is that statement part of your "wish list" or is that really going to happen? I was under the impression that the Indian government plans to keep the IAF saddled with not just Mig-21-93's but all the other Mig-21's also, until the LCA goes into service.

Prakash · Post by **Prakash** » 09 Aug 2000 23:15

Well, I had asked a simple question that so far remains unanswered. I would appreciate if the experts on this thread would help answer it: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Prakash: Could some of the MiG-21's not be converted into trainers? It seems as if the trainer MiG-21s work fairly well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Looking at the wish lists for 2005, it seems that IAF may need to scrap some 300 21s and also some 30 23s. Why not convert some of them into trainers?Thanks.P.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 10 Aug 2000 01:28

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Prakash: Why not convert some of them into trainers?Thanks.P.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>PrakashOne of the problems with the MiG-21s is that they fill an important training role (at Stage III). Until the "bis" variant came along the aircraft was a beast to fly and went into uncontrollable spins at high AoA. The aircraft that fill the training role are the older variants which are most unforgiving aircraft...hence the news reports about crashes due to pilot error/imexperience! Also the airframes are now too old to cope with the demands that training puts on them. Training airframes log many more hours than their counterparts in operational units. So the aim is (or should be) to get the MiG-21s out of the training role.Hope this answers your questionsRupak

Div · Post by **Div** » 10 Aug 2000 01:38

Michael, the scrapping rest of the Mig-21s is part of my 'wish list'. I hope that someone in the right place also has such a notion.

rama · Post by **rama** » 10 Aug 2000 02:53

Div, To add to your list: There's been a lot of talk of HAL license manufacturing Su-30's. If that comes to pass, may be we can look forward to 5 squadrons of Su-30MKs. (+40).Also worth considering is that HAL is certain to license manufacture whichever AJT (Hawk) is chosen and deploying a couple of squadrons of them either in point airdefence (if Hawk) or CAS (if Alphajet) is realitic by 2005. That would make the procurement from now to 2005 consist of 3 squadrons of Su-30, one squadron of Mirage2000 and two squadrons of AJT-derivative, or just over one combat squadron a year - which is more in line with current procurement (even accounting for 3 AJT squadrons).Your list would require the addition of only 1 Mirage2000 and 1 Su-30 squadron over five years (besides delivery of already ordered SUkhois and Jaguars) which sounds too low.

Div · Post by **Div** » 10 Aug 2000 03:00

Rama,India won't go for license production of the Su-30MKIs unless they actually have an MKI version to look at, fly etc (common sense). By most estimates, this version won't be available to the IAF before 2002-3. So I only added 1 more sqdn to the 2 that can be made from original 50 (assuming a 24 a/c sqdn).Kanak,The war reserve/cannibalisation for parts is fine...as long as they are not part of the active force.[This message has been edited by Div (edited 09-08-2000).]

rama · Post by **rama** » 10 Aug 2000 03:12

So, what will be the IAF buying over the next 5 years if the Su-30MKI is not available? Mirage2000's perhaps, if the price is right. More Jaguars may make sense as well - the line is still open. More Mig-29SMTs along with IN's order? More combat variants of the AJT?My personal wildcard entry is new build Mig-27 with the upgrade package built in.

Div · Post by **Div** » 10 Aug 2000 03:40

The article Sat is referring to is here: <A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/today/10indi8.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/today/10indi8.htm</A> It also mentions the following:"On the issue of conversion of SU-30s, the minister, while admitting there was a delay, denied that it was inordinate. Four aircraft of the SU-30 MK series were likely to be acquired by 2001, 12 by 2002 and 16 by 2003. The already inducted SU-30Ks would be upgraded."This means that the Russian deliveries end in 2003 (best case?)...if the infrastructure/logistics for license production were started in 2001-2; then we will probably have aircraft rolling out by 2003-4.

Prakash · Post by **Prakash** » 10 Aug 2000 04:04

Rupak, thanks for the answer. I suppose that India presently has 400 (or so) Mig-21 largely becuse she has not been replacing them fast enough over the last decade or so.P.

Div · Post by **Div** » 10 Aug 2000 04:17

While on the topic of $$$, Tim's thread on the July IISS memo is also relevant."The remaining thirty percent of the defence budget (Rs.180 billion or $4 billion) will be used for research and capital expenditure such as weapons procurement. The budget for the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) that develops ballistic missiles, the Light Combat Aircraft and the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) was increased by 7 percent to Rs.31 billion ($720 million). Procurement funds have jumped 30 percent, inflation-adjusted. This is nearly double the rate of increase in the 1999-2000 budget period. These successive increases in procurement spending represent a considerable hike, although not unexpected given that the Indian military has made only limited procurements in any major weapon system in the last ten years. Some of this year's procurement funds will go towards replacing equipment used in the Kargil conflict. The remainder will be used to purchase additional weapons and hardware. Defence analysts commonly believe that the capital expenses budget is divided in the rough ratio of 44: 34: 22 between the air force, army and the navy. "...."Air Force modernisation The Indian air force remains the most powerful in the region, but in the last decade it has been plagued by aging equipment -- particularly the obsolescence of its MiG-21s - and by its lack of an advanced trainer. The budget increase will partly redress these problems. It will fund around 60 British or French Advanced Jet Trainers and Russian-assisted upgrades of MiG-21bis fighters. It will also finance a $2 billion deal for 50 Russian Su-30MKI strike aircraft that carry an 8 ton payload to a 5,000 km range with one flight refueling. These will be in service by 2003. India may also license-produce an additional 140 Su-30s. In addition, India seeks more Mirage 2000D fighters (at $80 million apiece) and 40 Mi-17-1B transport helicopters from Russia for $170 million. Other expenditures include the production of the Light Combat Aircraft, currently ten years behind schedule. The air force has recently leased two Russian A-50 / Il-76 planes with AWACS, but it lacks other important force-multiplying capabilities such mid-flight refueling aircraft, advanced electronic warfare capabilities and sophisticated night-strike equipment. It plans to and will require significant additional funding to attain these systems."The $80m price for the Mirage 2000D sounds a little ridiculous, but the rest seems ok.[This message has been edited by Div (edited 09-08-2000).]

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 10 Aug 2000 04:50

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Irfan: Could we sell the retired Mig-21's to North Korea or is that going to haunt us in the future. I'm sure some kind of arrangment could be made thru which any ding dongs that NK sells to TSP are made with flaws in them in return for India sellign them the Mig-21's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why would North Korea wanna buy used indian Mig-21s, if they can afford to buy anything it will most likely be more Mig-29s from russia, or more chinese crap. ------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 10 Aug 2000 05:05

Confusing about the Mirage-2000 pricing. On sat's post above, it shows the IAF paying $25 million for each Mirage-2000. In Div's post we see an $80 million price tag. I understand the -D is a more expensive variant but this huge disparity doesn't make sense.Also, I'm surprised to see the SU-30MKI being quoted at $33 million while the Mirage-2000 is $25 million. This shows the SU-30MKI is not a very good deal. It's certainly no better than the Mirage-2000 and no doubt far less reliable (being Russian). Whatever is done about the Mig-21 situation, one thing we can say for certain: India desperately needs to get license production of some kind of advanced fighter underway. Since the French have offered license production of the Mirage-2000, and since HAL already makes the Jaguar, and since both of these highly regarded aircraft share much of the same equipment, it's seems totally idiotic to me if the Indian government rejects the French offer. Of course the best solution would be to license produce all three in India (Mirage-2000, SU-30, AJT). I think the best way to advance the Indian aviation industry, and to ensure the LCA's eventual success, is to do large-scale license produce of advanced aircraft like the Mirage-2000, SU-30MKI, and Jaguar. This is the first step to self-sufficiency. India needs this kind of experience before it can hope to get the LCA program moving forward again.But all this is happening too slowly!!! Why doesn't anybody raise a stink over these endless delays? The Mig-21-93 ugrade has been "underway" for so many years now, and only two aircraft to show for it? How many SU-30's have been upgraded to -MKI standard? Zero. Same drill for the Mig-27 upgrade, the Jaguar upgrades, the Mig-21 situation, the AJT purchase, and so on. All I ever hear are news stories about "deals signed", "upgrades underway", "license production planned", etc. But nothing ever pans out. The level of incompetence and apathy simply amazes me.By the way, remember Pakistan signed a deal last year to purchase 200 F-7MP's from China? How many of these have been delivered so far? And how many Agosta90B's does Pakistan currently operate?

Div · Post by **Div** » 10 Aug 2000 06:54

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But all this is happening too slowly!!! Why doesn't anybody raise a stink over these endless delays? The Mig-21-93 ugrade has been "underway" for so many years now, and only two aircraft to show for it? How many SU-30's have been upgraded to -MKI standard? Zero. Same drill for the Mig-27 upgrade, the Jaguar upgrades, the Mig-21 situation, the AJT purchase, and so on. All I ever hear are news stories about "deals signed", "upgrades underway", "license production planned", etc. But nothing ever pans out. The level of ncompetence and apathy simply amazes me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Michael, I agree that things happen very slowly. I don't know how this can be changed, but for now this is reality and I wish things would change for the better.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).