MRCA News and Discussion

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 02 Dec 2009 14:43

Strange news today in the (serious and trustworthy) economic newspaper "Les echos": Thales would be entering the final negotiations phase of the M2K modernization deal. Price (estimated at 1.2Bn €) and specific contract clauses are to be discussed. It is also been acknowledged that the modernization focuses on the renewal/consolidation of the whole plane electronics.

the paper (in french - I gave you all the infos)
http://www.lesechos.fr/info/aero/020246 ... de-la-.htm

I thought the deal was dead and Buried. Who told us that already ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Dec 2009 15:31

jean, price looks VERY high for just upgrading electronics of 50 odd aeroplanes.
heck, IAF can buy 40 new built su-30mki for that price !

===================

kit wrote:Lets all hope and pray that MMS succeed in his endeavor and take his place in history as the architect of a truly emergent India.The way I see all this and much more can happen.It is in American interests as much as India s. India is going to take Britain s place in the new century as America s foremost ally.

yipee ! we are going to be head poodle in place of UQ ? do we get a pat on the back and a bone for all the hard work too ? so, for all these years the phrase "a truly emergent India" meant to become a lapdog of the US ? this is what the freedom fighters had in mind when they gave their lives ? that is indeed cause for celebration ! I never knew !
thanks for telling !

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2009 15:58

So our **EDIT** infamous tail-wagging Tony B.Liar,whose falsehoods on Iraq are being unearthed in the Iraq Inquiry in London?! I suppose that the old saying,"every court must have its clown",holds good for the Obama administration too.Bush had his Blair and now Obama must have his Singh.Is that right?

However,judging from the mood of some partywallahs back home,his "experiments with (nuclear) truth" are are popular as Dawood in "Matoshree"! The good doctor's tinkering with the NPT is sending alarm bells ringing in his own "house" and bound to come a cropper especially after his Baluchi blunder.

The main point is being lost.The MMRCA acquisition is NOT a political titbit for finger food feasting,but a long standing serious requirement of the IAF.The aircraft that does the job best,of contemporary technology,which is easy on the pocket,to acquire,operate ,and possesses a good lifespan of service that can postpone its inevitable obsolescence through regular service-life upgrades,is the need of the day.What is not required is that the entire process is held to ransom by a pathetic display from the MEA,the Ministry of Eunuchs and Appeasers,where at the altar of obeisance to Uncle Sam,a "bird" is being sacrificed.

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 02 Dec 2009 16:06

Rahul M wrote:jean, price looks VERY high for just upgrading electronics of 50 odd aeroplanes.
heck, IAF can buy 40 new built su-30mki for that price !

I'm well aware of that ! (and I agree, but just for you to know, we had 9 Rafale F1 in storage that are to be upgraded to F3 standard which implies complete wiring and electronics replacement and new engines... 30mn€ per aircraft - no research nor new weapons integration required)

Last time we spoke of the subject, there was an announcement that the negotiations were broken and over. Seems they are still going.

By the way, I heard Su-30Mk lifespan is 3000h, is that also true for MKI ? Rafale C lifespan is 7000h... can explain a bit the price difference ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Dec 2009 16:11

yes, I read about the rafale upg and was surprised by it.
what do you people do on these things that make them so pricey ? does it include a lifetime supply of the best champagne for the dassault workers by any chance ?

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 02 Dec 2009 16:25

Well, Christmas is coming - al least for Dassault.

I guess electronics don't come cheap and wiring requires many hours of work (there is so much to do that planes have to get back on the production line). F1 standard is really basic, in every aspect. Planes were stored because it would have been dangerous to have pilots fly on Rafale F1 as well as F3. Both standards are really different and it seems that only the look of the planes won't change during the upgrade

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Dec 2009 16:31

mki lifetime is 6000 hours.

what was the initial cost of the F1 samples ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2009 19:32

are there any crash data reports on EF2K and Rafales, that are fairly newer platforms?

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 03 Dec 2009 14:06

@Rahul: From what i know, we bought the first ones à the same price than the others. There was a good reason behind that: all Rafale were bought at F3 standard, Dassault was supposed to upgrade them cost free when F3 would have been qualified. This is happening for F2 exemplaries (the last ones of them should be done early 2010) but there seem to have been some unwillingness around F1. Well, given the cost...

It seems Dassault used the share they had in financing R&D for F3+ and some other bs of this kind as arguments to ask a little money. Seems that our govt wasn't against the idea (a way to distribute hidden subventions).

@Saik: there is no public report available about Rafale crashs. We lost a rafale B and its pilot in 2008, it was later reported to be a spacial disorientation case. The second crash (in September this year) involved two Rafale M who collided in mid air. The report hasn't been completed yet, but preliminary conclusions tend to lead to a human error.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 03 Dec 2009 17:39

Jean_M wrote:Well, Christmas is coming - al least for Dassault.

Welcome back Jean. Any news/updates from Brazilian sales??

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2009 20:55

but preliminary conclusions tend to lead to a human error.

interesting... an advanced fighter near 5th gen in specs can't detect and warn that they are too close. would'nt automatic controls take over to avoid such mid-air collisions? it could be useful in dogfight as well, merged along with the MAWS system.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Dec 2009 21:38

SaiK wrote:
but preliminary conclusions tend to lead to a human error.
interesting... an advanced fighter near 5th gen in specs can't detect and warn that they are too close. would'nt automatic controls take over to avoid such mid-air collisions? it could be useful in dogfight as well, merged along with the MAWS system.

what ? to avoid a ground collision the Rafale has sophisticated terrain avoidance features that give the pilot a pretty good SA (read the article that Pete Collins wrote on the Rafale on Flight International's website). and even if the systems holler "pull up pull up", the pilot should be at least in a state where he can comprehend what its saying and in some cases even thats not good enough because its going towards the ground at a speed where he would need a lot more vertical separation to be able to avoid a ground impact because even 9G pull ups won't be enough..I remember watching on tv about ejections where they describe an F-15E accident where the fighter hit the ground at supersonic speed..the front seater ejected almost immediately into the dive, but the rear seater was late by 3-4 seconds which was too late for him. the first Rafale twin seater was lost in a night strike training mission and G-LOC coupled with spatial disorientation was the most probable cause..the aircraft hit the ground almost vertically creating a crater that was nearly 10 mts deep.

as for the second mid-air collision, no fighter, not 5th not 6th will have any such features that would prevent a pilot from formating close to another fighter. mid-air collisions happen because close formation flying is a requirement and they train for it a lot. sometimes the systems don't need to detect because Eyeball Mk1 can tell just as well. the collision could have occured due to a split second miscalculation on the part of the pilots..Discovery had once shown a very good documentary on a recording of the Air Combat Maneuvering..it showed just how close a F-18 and a F-5 once came to hitting each other in mid-air after the F-18 (or F-5?) pilot unexpectedly pulled up while turning into the other during mock combat..AFAIK, the minimum separation at the closest point was less than a feet or so and the closure rate was so high that no systems could've sensed it, made the split second calculations and then suddenly changed the aircraft's path to avoid a collision. it was pure providence that they escaped.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2009 21:46

all i am asking is could it have been avoided by some programmable configuration sets for closed formation. anything closer, would have auto-pilot taking over to avoid collision.

well you have answered that no system in the world provide that. thanks

Jean_M · Post by **Jean_M** » 03 Dec 2009 22:19

RKumar wrote:
Jean_M wrote:Well, Christmas is coming - al least for Dassault.
Welcome back Jean. Any news/updates from Brazilian sales??

No news yet. The FAB should publish its evaluation soon but thereis no date and we are told it won't mention any clear winner. Politics will prevail in the end.

@Saik, you got your answers, I may add that auto-ejection systems were tried on the first VSTOL and some other aircrafts but were abandoned as they were too sensitive in some cases and not enough in others (I heard a naval pilot was ejected without reason while taking off, got quite shocked, took a bath and that's one plane lost for you...)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2009 22:24

LoL.. but seriously wouldn't that be a sensor issue? or the algorithm that determines it taking the inputs.

Kalle · Post by **Kalle** » 04 Dec 2009 16:35

SaiK wrote: interesting... an advanced fighter near 5th gen in specs can't detect and warn that they are too close. would'nt automatic controls take over to avoid such mid-air collisions? it could be useful in dogfight as well, merged along with the MAWS system.

Hello all! I found this discussion ointeresting, and I hope to contribute with someting useful.

Actually such technology is being developed, but not yet operational. Look for Auto ACAS and GCAS.

A small quote from http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article8.html :

The F-16 GCAS is a modified Block 25 F-16D to perform flight tests of an automatic ground collision-avoidance system. This system has demonstrated that the use of advanced computing technology can significantly reduce the number of accidents attributed to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). The U.S. Air Force has lost 4-5 aircraft per year to CFIT since the early 1990s, and the Swedish air force has a CFIT rate about twice that. However, the GCAS system now being developed could reverse those trends.

A USAF, Lockheed Martin, NASA and Swedish air force Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) team completed flight tests of an automatic ground collision-avoidance system or Auto-GCAS on an upgraded USAF Block 25 F-16D in the fall of 1998. In 29 flights, the team conducted more than 350 test maneuvers - such as diving at the ground and the side of mountains - to fulfill two key objectives of the program:

■Demonstrate that an Auto-GCAS could significantly reduce critical fighter-aircraft mishaps resulting from pilot spatial disorientation, loss of situational awareness, G-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC) and gear-up landings.

■Identify any areas where an Auto-GCAS might impede a pilot's performance of standard tactical missions.

During a dramatic 1-hr. demonstration flight for this it became clear that these objectives essentially have been satisfied. The system is not mature enough to install in production fighters yet, but it's about 95% ready.

There is no funded program in place now, but the Air Force will probably field some type of Auto-GCAS on the F-16, F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter. Air Combat Command is developing a formal requirement, and there appears to be enough top-level interest in curtailing perennial CFIT accidents that the AFTI team's research won't be relegated to a dusty shelf, a senior USAF officer said.

The Swedish air force, which routinely flies missions down to 100 ft. above mountainous terrain, could be the first to install a production Auto-GCAS on their JAS 39 Gripens. Sweden's Forsvarets Materielverk (FMV) and Saab participated in Auto-GCAS development and flight tests, and cofunded the program with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory under a collaborative agreement. Four Swedish air force pilots have flown Auto-GCAS demonstration profiles at Edwards AFB, and their assessment of the system's viability was very positive.

For a more technical description on GCAS read the rest of the article.

ACAS (Air Collision Avoidance System) read here: http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/ABCC ... 003_02.pdf

Gripen, through Saab, is a major partner
in a joint Swedish-US advanced technol-
ogy program to develop a system that
makes manned flight in combat aircraft
safer – and empowers the complex
flight behavior that the unmanned
platforms of the future (UAVs and
UCAVs) will demand. This new concept
is the Automatic Air Collision Avoid-
ance System (Auto ACAS), a co-funded
effort by Sweden’s Defence Materiel
Administration (FMV) and the United
States Department of Defense, through
the US Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL). The associated industrial part-
ner team also includes Boeing and Lock-
heed Martin.
Auto ACAS will protect combat aircraft
from mid-air collisions, throughout the
entire flight envelope, by building an
automatic escape maneuver mode into
the flight control system (FCS). Using
the Gripen’s data processing/manage-
ment capability, plus the aircraft’s
unique high-speed datalink, the Auto
ACAS is to develop its own situational
awareness of the operational environ-
ment around each aircraft in a forma-
tion, or on the same mission. It will
then use this ‘knowledge’ to maintain a
safe separation distance between all
friendly aircraft at all times. The
Gripen’s high-capacity real-time data-
link is the key to maintaining the razor-
edged timing that Auto ACAS needs to
function in such a fluid and dynamic
environment.
The Auto ACAS software generates an
ever-changing ‘claim space’ trajectory,
to identify all the possible escape
routes that might be needed when air-
craft are maneuvering in close proxim-
ity. The system will typically generate
three potential lines of escape that can
be shared across the datalink between
all aircraft in the network. As the
Gripens communicate on their secure
data network, the Auto ACAS com-
putes and updates a ‘maneuver cone’
for each aircraft. If these cones intersect
a collision is deemed likely, the pilot is
briefly locked out by the FCS as the air-
craft is directed to the correct escape
heading and automatically pulled out
of harm’s way. Passing the minimum
separation distance, control is immedi-
ately returned to the pilot. A typical es-
cape maneuver would be flown at 5 g
for between two and three seconds.

Also more to read if you follow the link, and googling for Auto ACAS GCAS provides even more.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Dec 2009 17:51

sounds like a good technology for transfer and advance.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 04 Dec 2009 21:22

old article about CAPTOR E RADAR,if its been posted by some one else before,will delete this.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... hoons.html

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Dec 2009 01:06

Kalle wrote:Hello all! I found this discussion ointeresting, and I hope to contribute with someting useful.

Actually such technology is being developed, but not yet operational. Look for Auto ACAS and GCAS.

what you're providing links for is a ground collision avoidance system..what SaiK was referring to is a sort of mid-air collision avoidance feature, similar to what is being developed for cars today.

even the Rafale F3 already has a Terrain Following feature available as was mentioned by Pete Collins in his article on the Rafale F3

The covert mode used a GPS database, but it can also use TF Radalt or the RBE2 TFR mode as back-up. Low-level ride was excellent in the gusty Mistral conditions, as was the accuracy of the TF profile followed by the aircraft over the semi-mountainous terrain, including flying towards sharply rising cliffs. The "ground watch" system painted a constantly updated escape profile floor in the HUD. With the TF engaged, Nino explained to me some more of the "data fused" symbology in the tactical HLD and altered the flight planned route and the time over target, which was then followed by the autopilot and autothrottle in speed mode.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 05 Dec 2009 01:15

Political push from Paris for Mirage-2000 upgrade
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... de/378645/

this might be another turn in MMRCA deal !!!

Kalle · Post by **Kalle** » 05 Dec 2009 02:25

Kartik wrote:
what you're providing links for is a ground collision avoidance system..what SaiK was referring to is a sort of mid-air collision avoidance feature, similar to what is being developed for cars today.

even the Rafale F3 already has a Terrain Following feature available as was mentioned by Pete Collins in his article on the Rafale F3

The first of my links was for Auto GCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System), but the second one was for Auto ACAS (Automatic Air Collision Avoidance System). Here is another link for Auto ACAS: http://acgsc.org/Meetings/Meeting_95/Ge ... .1.9.ppt#1
Notice that the design goal is to avoid mid air collisions.

Commercial airliners already today has a similar system, but it is just a warning system and the the demands are much greater for a system in military aircraft.

When it comes to the Auto GCAS it seems to me that the great advantage is the automatic part, that it kicks in even if the pilot is unconsious or spatially disoriented. Furthermore it is meant to work when the aircraft is inverted and in a dive.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Dec 2009 05:38

Kalle wrote: The first of my links was for Auto GCAS (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System), but the second one was for Auto ACAS (Automatic Air Collision Avoidance System). Here is another link for Auto ACAS: http://acgsc.org/Meetings/Meeting_95/Ge ... .1.9.ppt#1
Notice that the design goal is to avoid mid air collisions.

Commercial airliners already today has a similar system, but it is just a warning system and the the demands are much greater for a system in military aircraft.

you're right about the much greater demands from an AACAS for a military fighter. commerical airliners are not meant to be wingtip to wingtip at high speeds over different heights or carrying out dogfights where a small mistake may lead to a collision..

but you're right, the presentation by Saab shows that they're working on that..I was wrong in assuming that the task was too difficult to be funded, developed and brought into production (although I don't think its still in production, is it ?). They make it clear that the system does not predict collision, and it appears to be more about avoiding a collison when 2 aircraft paths are known to intersect in space at some future time. how would that tackle a collision where a sudden gust or wake pushes one aircraft into another's path in a split second (they claim that formation flight logic would mean that in close formation all activations are inhibited) or when one fighter trailing another enters its wake, loses control and comes into the path of another in what might be a few seconds at most ? (one Gripen was lost in this way, although it didn't come into the path of another). they themselves accept that its a complex task to make it fail-safe and will limit tactical data that is being transmitted over the datalink as this will also use the a/c datalink.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2009 05:43

intel just came out with the 48 core cpu chip, and there was an 80 core one too. we have ton of computing power getting in civilian sector, and we have to make sure such power is available under mil specifications as well.

for all the split second real time systems, we need high end event driven computing power. f22 raptor was right in getting a super computing facility on board.

Kalle · Post by **Kalle** » 05 Dec 2009 16:08

Kartik wrote: you're right about the much greater demands from an AACAS for a military fighter. commerical airliners are not meant to be wingtip to wingtip at high speeds over different heights or carrying out dogfights where a small mistake may lead to a collision..

but you're right, the presentation by Saab shows that they're working on that..I was wrong in assuming that the task was too difficult to be funded, developed and brought into production (although I don't think its still in production, is it ?). They make it clear that the system does not predict collision, and it appears to be more about avoiding a collison when 2 aircraft paths are known to intersect in space at some future time. how would that tackle a collision where a sudden gust or wake pushes one aircraft into another's path in a split second (they claim that formation flight logic would mean that in close formation all activations are inhibited) or when one fighter trailing another enters its wake, loses control and comes into the path of another in what might be a few seconds at most ? (one Gripen was lost in this way, although it didn't come into the path of another). they themselves accept that its a complex task to make it fail-safe and will limit tactical data that is being transmitted over the datalink as this will also use the a/c datalink.

Yes, none of these systems is used on operational aircraft yet, probably because of the complexity and the sensitivity of giving control to an automated system. When FBW was introduced there was quite some opposition and questioning if it was really safe.
But Gripen NG will get these system and probably as an upgrade to exiting Gripens.

Obviously there are drawbacks and limitations, but it seems to me that the advantages far outweigh them, at least for Gripen that already has a high speed real time datalink. Of course such a system cant overcome all outer influence, such as bad turbulence. But it would probably have better chances to recover the aircraft afterwards, due to the quicker and more accurate actions than a human pilot is able to execute.

One Gripen was lost after encountering bad turbulence, because the pilot received a faulty ground collision warning and ejected. This was probably because the radar altimeter targeted the other aircraft instead of the ground. When reading about Auto GCAS and ACAS it sems as INS and other system vill be used to complement the radar altimeter and therefore reduce the risk that something similar happens.

When reading about it, what interests me is also other applications as for UCAV, military transports and other and I think there is quite a market there. Also for civilian airlines, because when the airspace becomes more and more crowded, todays system might not be good enough because of the need for a large separation between flightpaths.

Kalle · Post by **Kalle** » 05 Dec 2009 16:42

SaiK wrote:intel just came out with the 48 core cpu chip, and there was an 80 core one too. we have ton of computing power getting in civilian sector, and we have to make sure such power is available under mil specifications as well.

for all the split second real time systems, we need high end event driven computing power. f22 raptor was right in getting a super computing facility on board.

Actually I am quite sure that at least the first F-22s used 486 CPUs that today are really obsolete in the civilian market. I believe the later ones use Power PC CPUs that arent very modern either and thats because the need for certified hardened chips and the systems design has to be frozen rather early.

The performance comes much from the software being written purposely for its task without a bloated operating system. Still considering the increasing demands for onboard computing power there would be a strong benefit from being able to upgrade with faster CPUs in the future. Perhaps not with the same ones PC gamers use, but at lest ones thar are just a few years older. Shockingly it seems that F-22 with its centralised computer architecture is quite difficult to upgrade and many of the earlier ones will not be able to receive newer weapons and functionality. A few of the first ones will not even be combat coded unless they get funding for totally replacing large parts of its avionics.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 05 Dec 2009 20:12

SaiK wrote:intel just came out with the 48 core cpu chip, and there was an 80 core one too. we have ton of computing power getting in civilian sector, and we have to make sure such power is available under mil specifications as well.

for all the split second real time systems, we need high end event driven computing power. f22 raptor was right in getting a super computing facility on board.

Saik, what we don't know and Intel won't disclose is which cores those were. If those were the Atom cores (anything else would exceed any sane TDP envelope), then you really don't have a significant gain in processing throughput per core and considering how insanely difficult it is to write multi-threaded applications for dual and quad core systems I am certain that any gains from 48 cores would at best be limited since programming 48 threads or better still 96 threads (if it's the Atom core with hyper threading as most assume it is) has got to be self inflicted torture. This is why Intel hasn't launched these chips yet and most probably (based on most analysts out there) won't launch them for a while and when they do come out they will be restricted to the server market initially till AMD's (and Intel's copy of AMD) APU style processors come out. We all know from recent press releases that Intel's many-core x86 GPU replacement project has been ditched.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Dec 2009 23:54

SanjibGhosh wrote:Political push from Paris for Mirage-2000 upgrade
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... de/378645/

this might be another turn in MMRCA deal !!!

How exactly? The way I see it asking for $41 mil just to upgrade a single jet (without even a new engine) is not good way to improve your chances of selling a new jet to the same country. And even if they manage to reduce the price to some extent as hinted by the article, the deal will still look like a rip-off if the IAF compares it to the Mig-29 upgrade. Taking this into consideration the IAF eval team would probably think 10 times before recommending the Rafale for the MRCA acquisition because they wouldn't want to be in this very same situation with the Rafale 20 years hence.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 06 Dec 2009 00:05

$41 million per plane for an upgrade is insanity. The upgraded Mirage 2000 would likely be inferior to the LCA mkII, if not why build an Lca mkII?

Buy another 70 LCA mkIIs or upgrade a 40 yr old design form France? I think someone ( hint: Thales) needs a one finger salute.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Dec 2009 00:17

tejas wrote:$41 million per plane for an upgrade is insanity. The upgraded Mirage 2000 would likely be inferior to the LCA mkII, if not why build an Lca mkII?
Buy another 70 LCA mkIIs or upgrade a 40 yr old design form France? I think someone ( hint: Thales) needs a one finger salute.

As much as I agree with the insanity part, I fail to see what the LCA has to do with this. It'll be a few years before the LCA MkII flies and a few more before its induction in large numbers, which will be for re-equipping the Mig-21 squadrons. There is no escape from the Mirage-2000 upgrade (a fact which the French have exploited to its full extent)...the IAF needs them.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 06 Dec 2009 06:22

nachiket wrote: As much as I agree with the insanity part, I fail to see what the LCA has to do with this. It'll be a few years before the LCA MkII flies and a few more before its induction in large numbers, which will be for re-equipping the Mig-21 squadrons. There is no escape from the Mirage-2000 upgrade (a fact which the French have exploited to its full extent)...the IAF needs them.

With that kind of money wouldn't it make sense to just buy brand new Su 30 MKI to replace Mirage 2000 completely.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Dec 2009 08:07

abhiti wrote:
nachiket wrote: As much as I agree with the insanity part, I fail to see what the LCA has to do with this. It'll be a few years before the LCA MkII flies and a few more before its induction in large numbers, which will be for re-equipping the Mig-21 squadrons. There is no escape from the Mirage-2000 upgrade (a fact which the French have exploited to its full extent)...the IAF needs them.
With that kind of money wouldn't it make sense to just buy brand new Su 30 MKI to replace Mirage 2000 completely.

Well the Su-30 order books seem to be full currently. There is a limit to how fast we can manufacture them.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Dec 2009 10:02

this is exactly the reason, we should have a home grown industry to do the upgrades like how the Israelies are.. LCA Kaveri engine would have been very important step in the upgrades.. we could have gone for kaveri+drdo+HAL based upgrades for M2Ks.

The faster K-2 acheives hours and been put on tejas, the better is going to be future upgrades for all IAF planes.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 06 Dec 2009 11:35

nachiket wrote:
tejas wrote:$41 million per plane for an upgrade is insanity. The upgraded Mirage 2000 would likely be inferior to the LCA mkII, if not why build an Lca mkII?
Buy another 70 LCA mkIIs or upgrade a 40 yr old design form France? I think someone ( hint: Thales) needs a one finger salute.
As much as I agree with the insanity part, I fail to see what the LCA has to do with this. It'll be a few years before the LCA MkII flies and a few more before its induction in large numbers, which will be for re-equipping the Mig-21 squadrons. There is no escape from the Mirage-2000 upgrade (a fact which the French have exploited to its full extent)...the IAF needs them.

I agree with both you that the cost is way high and I think most of us in this forum will agree that it does not worth to spend $41m on this. But my feeling is that GOI will go for it ..... and from there things might change ....
As regard to LCA markII ... I believe it would make it's first flight when the upgraded M-2000 will start coming. I think it is best, not to upgrade M-2000 ... use it till is't life exists ... go for fresh new fighter even if it requires $10 - 15m bucks ... it would serve much more than the upgraded M-2000 ....
But I'll keep LCA-II out of it .... MMRCA would be the best to replace M-2000 ...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Dec 2009 11:59

capability wise (weapons and sensor fit) the upg mirages will come very close to the lower end of the MRCA spectrum, so its not quite a waste. the price is very high though but some of it will come down/be mitigated if offsets are managed well.
there's a very high chance that a host of A2S weapons like the scalp, apache AASM etc might be integrated as well as the mica missiles. that's a very welcome addition to IAF's strike potential in the short to medium term.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 06 Dec 2009 12:56

Rahul M wrote:capability wise (weapons and sensor fit) the upg mirages will come very close to the lower end of the MRCA spectrum, so its not quite a waste. the price is very high though but some of it will come down/be mitigated if offsets are managed well.
there's a very high chance that a host of A2S weapons like the scalp, apache AASM etc might be integrated as well as the mica missiles. that's a very welcome addition to IAF's strike potential in the short to medium term.

Even if it matches to MMRCA capability, it would offer only 15yr extra life where as in MMRCA we are looking for 30-40yr life span .... hence MMRCA is more worthy ...

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Dec 2009 13:09

Rahul M wrote:there's a very high chance that a host of A2S weapons like the scalp, apache AASM etc might be integrated as well as the mica missiles. that's a very welcome addition to IAF's strike potential in the short to medium term.

Rahul is there any chance of Meteor being integrated with it?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Dec 2009 14:41

Rahul M wrote:capability wise (weapons and sensor fit) the upg mirages will come very close to the lower end of the MRCA spectrum, so its not quite a waste. the price is very high though but some of it will come down/be mitigated if offsets are managed well.
there's a very high chance that a host of A2S weapons like the scalp, apache AASM etc might be integrated as well as the mica missiles. that's a very welcome addition to IAF's strike potential in the short to medium term.

My guess is that its actually the weapons that make the upgrade so darned expensive. Unlike the MiG-29 upg, the M2k-5/9 simply does not have decent weapons within the IAF inventory that it can use. I mean whats the point of upgrading the Mirage with an RDY 2 if it is going to use magics and super 530s A2A, and barely any stand off munitions, A2G?

IOWs, to make full use of the upgrade, it will have to either:
a) Come with a bunch of newer gen. weapons such as Mica EM/ IIR and Scalp, AASM etc, OR
b) Come with an ability to integrate a whole variety of weapons that India currently uses and will use in the near future, this would include: Astra, possibly R77, Crystal Maze, Israeli/russki/india PGMs, KH-31s?, KH-35? Harpoons?, Asraam/Python5 etc
c) A combination of a and b

These options will make the Mirage upgrade more expensive and hence the uber price that we see. JMT

CM
E

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Dec 2009 14:51

I do not think they can integrate any Russian PGM/Standoff weapons and AAM thats out of question.

The only weapon that can be integrated are the R-73M and perhaps the LGB/JDAM'ski types

Most likely the Mirage upgrade will get the Mica and French Stands Off Weapons besides some Israel stuff.

As far as Mig-29UPG goes they have been upgraded to SMT plus standards , PBU has to say this on Mig-29UPG on AFM Nov 2009 issue.

IAF Mig-29 upgrade will be more advanced then SMT and he cites that the aircraft will receive new weapons aiming system , using Zhuk-M2E radar as well as an OLS-UE EO sight the same on Mig-29K.

The Zhuk-M2E has several additional modes compared with the Zhuk-ME , for eg it can determine the type of target while it is scanning , other elements includes equipment from Israel , French and Indian manuf.

A service life extension program will enable the aircraft to be in service for 40 years or 3,500 flight hours rather than present 25 years , oncondition maintenance procedure will be implemented and all Mig-29 procurred in 3 batches will be brought to same standards

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Dec 2009 14:59

Austin wrote:I do not think they can integrate any Russian PGM/Standoff weapons and AAM thats out of question.

The only weapon that can be integrated are the R-73M and perhaps the LGB/JDAM'ski types

Most likely the Mirage upgrade will get the Mica and French Stands Off Weapons besides some Israel stuff.

Yup, I'd have to agree - unlikely to see russian BVR AAMs or stand off missiles on the M2k. What about Israeli (crystal maze/popeye)? Mica, Scalp, Apache, AASM - any and all of these cost a packet. Plus Astra integration. I wouldn't be surprised if the MIca was dumped. There is no real need, not with the Astra coming within a couple of years.

As far as Mig-29UPG goes they have been upgraded to SMT plus standards , PBU has to say this on Mig-29UPG on AFM Nov 2009 issue.

IAF Mig-29 upgrade will be more advanced then SMT and he cites that the aircraft will receive new weapons aiming system , using Zhuk-M2E radar as well as an OLS-UE EO sight the same on Mig-29K.

The Zhuk-M2E has several additional modes compared with the Zhuk-ME , for eg it can determine the type of target while it is scanning , other elements includes equipment from Israel , French and Indian manuf.

A service life extension program will enable the aircraft to be in service for 40 years or 3,500 flight hours rather than present 25 years , oncondition maintenance procedure will be implemented and all Mig-29 procurred in 3 batches will be brought to same standards

[/quote]

Nice, very potent bird. I wonder if i'tll have the "fatback" dorsal CFT. The SMT is a solid upgrade anyway. but this one is shaped after the naval fulcrums it seems. Datalinks and asolid ECM suite could also find their way.

CM.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Dec 2009 15:00

SanjibGhosh wrote:Even if it matches to MMRCA capability, it would offer only 15yr extra life where as in MMRCA we are looking for 30-40yr life span .... hence MMRCA is more worthy ...

no doubt about that. it's just that this will arrive quite sometime before MRCA starts arriving in numbers. that has a value of its own and IMHO is the reason why IAF is ready to pay an arm and a leg for this upg.

Manish_Sharma wrote:Rahul is there any chance of Meteor being integrated with it?

manish, frankly I don't think we can say that for sure at the moment. the meteor itself is some 4-5 years away from deployment ?
it would depend on which bird gets selected for the MRCA, if its one of the euro-canards then surely, otherwise unlikely, for the sake of maintaining weapons commonality with the rest of the fleet.

CM, I don't think weapons itself form a part of this deal, french toys are costly, refer to the rafale F1 discussion earlier in this page.
of the options a seems likely and b somewhat unlikely other than for a couple of items on that list, mainly israeli ones.
I can't help thinking that IAF will be very interested in the stealthy A2S weapons given the AD environment in our neighbourhood. as of now there are few counterparts to these weapons. PLA already makes and operates S-300 clones and its a matter of time before it proliferates to our peaceful western neighbours.