Indian Military Aviation

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 08 Dec 2010 00:20

shiv wrote:
So the short answer to your question: "Do we have enough CAS assets?" is "Probably not". That is my opinion. I would like to see a powerful fleet of combat helicopters used by the army for their CAS while the air force does its job as only the air force can do.

Thanks shiv,
Really appreciate your reply.

I was intrigued by the A10 being built around the GAU-8 Avenger which claims to plough through armor.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Dec 2010 01:27

Austin wrote: The R-77 is in wide service and so are the A2G weapons that can be used on Mig-29 in the IADF and as such Mig-29 has BVR capability both Active/SARH for decades now.

For Mirage a BVR Active is something that will come post upgrade , so you are comparing a capability which existed to a capability which will come post upgrade.

Certainly the 29UPG will be able to track and guide more number AA-12 and will be using the newer longer range RVV-SD and RVV-MD.

I still think the $2.1 billion upgrade is a plain rip off ,well one would say it is better then $2.5 B that French were demanding

That is only thanks to the Su-30MKI and Bison deals and they didn't come for free, they had to be paid for. So what difference does it make whether or not they were paid for in separate deals or together when the aircraft is upgraded?

Otherwise our regular MiG-29s were not R-77 and R-73 capable either (to date no pic exists showing an R-77 on a MiG-29), despite what Harry said in the past regarding them being capable of firing R-77s. he also said that the original Mirage-2000s had RDI radars and not RDM but that is confirmed false.

So the cost of the R-77, R-73 and other A2G weapons has ALREADY been expended and if the 63 odd MiG-29s now uses them as standard weapons then they'll need to replenish stocks sometime. That will be additional cost that is not included in the MiG-29 upgrade deal.

The MiG-29 only had R-27 (and R-60) capability that is semi-active/IR and so did the Mirage-2000.

As per Sipri, the IAF has to-date ordered 4000 R-73 missiles, so the fact is that the cost of these weapons is not included in the MiG-29UPG deal but it is has been paid for.

No idea when the IAF acquired its Matra Super-530Ds (most likely in the late 1980s or early 1990s) but they must be surely close expiration date. Whether the IAF wanted or not, they needed new missiles for the Mirage fleet and if the RDM/RDI radars weren't upgraded we'd end up with a BVR-less Mirage. Even the Magic-Iis are nearing the end of their lives. So there was no choice. Either get the MICA or go for an Israeli upgrade with limited potential and save some money.

People talk about the LUSH Sea Harrier upgrade and how that type of upgrade might have been a better way to go- that still required $25 million for just 20 Derby missiles and 11 Shars were upgraded in that deal (for $110 million), which was nowhere near being comprehensive. So, if the platform isn't compatible with your existing stocks of weapons, then you need to buy some for the platform and this is nothing new.

The IAF chose to go with the OEM, which ensures that spares are available for the rest of the fighter's life and no headaches arise later since they are pissed off on losing out. This is nothing new, even the Russians didn't want to allow some of their weapons in India to be upgraded by the Israelis.

As per SIPRI, the cost of the deal to upgrade the 51 Mirages is 1 billion Euros. The rest then must be for weapons, HMDS, etc.

The MICA on the other hand tries to do both the task of WVR and BVR hence falls short on range compared to AMRAAM and R-77 variants.

Yeah ? Well at least we don't hear reports of MICA in French service giving the kind of issues that we read about from the CAG about the R-77s.

Anyway, SIPRI had reported back in 2009 that the IAF was looking at 600 MICA missiles for the Mirage-2000-5s (approx 10 per Mirage, including both MICA-EM/IR for BVR and WVR). That alone will be worth close to $600 million or so. That is every indication that these are meant to be frontline fighters for another 20 years. But SIPRI can be misleading as well- they reported that the IAF bought 100 Python-4 starting back in 2005-2007. And we've never seen them in service to date.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 08 Dec 2010 04:41

Even accounting for all that the Mirage upgrade is certainly too costly. The MiG for example is getting two new engines/aircraft as well.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 08 Dec 2010 04:45

from above post,,,, Wondering what happens to the expired missiles ... can the warhead or the propulsion fuel be re used??? say we have 1000 expired A2A missiles, can they be used like long range dumb arty rockets...???

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Dec 2010 06:39

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:
I was intrigued by the A10 being built around the GAU-8 Avenger which claims to plough through armor.

Effective as the A-10 may be, I think its role and utility have both been hyped beyond measure by popular media - including media who are paid to hype such hardware - such as Discovery and Nat Geo. For example the war in Afghanistan has lasted nearly a decade now and you find that the A-10's role in that war is relegated to a forgotten corner with platforms like the Chinook, Apache, C-130, F-16 and F/A-18 are doing the donkeys work.

I believe an aircraft like the Kiran or Hawk - or perhaps an aircraft that was defined on the first page of the "Design your own fighter" thread by Abhibhushan would be far more versatile and useful than an A-10. But it is the A-10 that catches the imagination while other less "glamorous" platforms are not "admired".

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 08 Dec 2010 08:43

shiv wrote:
Ashutosh Malik wrote:
Is the book, that you have mentioned above, the following?

"Aerospace Power and India's Defence"

By Knowledge World and Centre for Air Power Studies
ISBN: 81-87966-48-3

Best regards.

No the book I am speaking of is slightly dated but brilliant. "Air Power in modern warfare".

Thanks. I will try to get my hands on it.

Best regards.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2010 10:32

Kartik wrote:That is only thanks to the Su-30MKI and Bison deals and they didn't come for free, they had to be paid for. So what difference does it make whether or not they were paid for in separate deals or together when the aircraft is upgraded?

And that is where your logistics advantage comes in , you do not have to pay 100 of millions of dollar to buy a unique missile for an aircraft and then you cant use it across the fleet.

With Mig-29 the logistics have won the day and no there was no need to buy a unique missile paying millions

Otherwise our regular MiG-29s were not R-77 and R-73 capable either (to date no pic exists showing an R-77 on a MiG-29), despite what Harry said in the past regarding them being capable of firing R-77s. he also said that the original Mirage-2000s had RDI radars and not RDM but that is confirmed false.

The Mig-29 were hardwired to fire the R-77 in late nineties , iirc that was even openly stated by ex PAF chief.

Yeah ? Well at least we don't hear reports of MICA in French service giving the kind of issues that we read about from the CAG about the R-77s.

Well that still does not take away the fact that MICA is an inferior missile in range to late model AIM-120C/D and late model R-77 and in BVR combat one who fires first would have an advantage.

Mica tries to do with BVR and WVR with the same missile and then its like jack of all trade but then one could argue that its better then having a SARH R-530D

they reported that the IAF bought 100 Python-4 starting back in 2005-2007. And we've never seen them in service to date.

The Mirage some time in this decade was provided with Python-4 capability not a widely known fact.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 10:43

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 8.jpg.html

Ahh this brings back some memories - can anyone guess what the yellow bin around the landing gear is for?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Dec 2010 10:50

catch loose nuts and bolts left behind by workmen? catch leaking hydraulic fluid?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 10:50

For example the war in Afghanistan has lasted nearly a decade now and you find that the A-10's role in that war is relegated to a forgotten corner with platforms like the Chinook, Apache, C-130, F-16 and F/A-18 are doing the donkeys work.

shiv not correct

keeping aside propoganda etc the A 10s are pretty much involved in most ground strafing sorties.

one wing flew 10000 hrs in 6 months IIRC -

added later yup - 10000 hrs in 2500 sorties in 6 months ie. almost 4 hr duration pretty good for a 30 yr old aircraft

troops I have spoken to prefer the A 10 which flies lower and slower and hence less damgerous for friendlies.

you can see it in Restropo where the A 10 dives into the valley and after its run jinks and climbs outsteeply. No F 16 or F 18 could have done that

The A 10 and Su 25s defintely are useful if you can afford a dedicated CAS aircraft. I would prefer the Frogfoots for their more ruggedness

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 10:51

Singh - nopes

negi · Post by **negi** » 08 Dec 2010 10:53

The caption says 'anti-rodent-bin'.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 10:53

darn

should have just posted the image

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Dec 2010 14:46

Surya wrote: keeping aside propoganda etc the A 10s are pretty much involved in most ground strafing sorties.

one wing flew 10000 hrs in 6 months IIRC -

added later yup - 10000 hrs in 2500 sorties in 6 months ie. almost 4 hr duration pretty good for a 30 yr old aircraft

troops I have spoken to prefer the A 10 which flies lower and slower and hence less damgerous for friendlies.

you can see it in Restropo where the A 10 dives into the valley and after its run jinks and climbs outsteeply. No F 16 or F 18 could have done that

The A 10 and Su 25s defintely are useful if you can afford a dedicated CAS aircraft. I would prefer the Frogfoots for their more ruggedness

What is Restropo?

Comparing the number of hours flown by F-16 and F/18 over Afghanistan - I think the latter two flew far more missions and hours than the A-10. Add to that the utility of Chinooks, C-130s and other helos in Afghanistan - the A-10s role is truly a niche role. Leaving aside what troops feel the number of friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan is something like one each for F-16, F/A 18, A-10 and F-15. So troops "feeling safer" and facts about friendly fire are two different things.

This is not to say that the A-10 is ineffective and I have never said that. The A-10 is a very limited role aircraft. It was designed for a very restricted role and plays that role well. Only the US can afford to field such a limited role aircraft and that limited role aircraft has played its limited role well in Afghanistan. For me the takeaway lesson is that such a limited role aircraft is probably bad news for India. We are better off having a counter insurgency/CAS aircraft in the Hawk class that can double up for other roles such as training and limited air defence against microlights and other threats. That is the context in which I am a critic of the A-10 and an even more harsh critic of the way it is constantly admired and praised without saying a word about what it is no good for and whom it will be no good for.

Too many people ask why we cannot have an A-10 like aircraft. Not only is the A-10 a great aircraft its story has been hyped no end. But that does not make its role any more versatile. And in the absence of such versatility an A-10 type aircrat would be mostly useless for India except in very limited situations. I do not think India should buy, make or maintain an A 10 like aircraft in the hope that some war comes up to find a role for it. The US on the other hand initiates wars where its hardware can be used.

Do not mistake my opposition to the A-10 as an indictment or criticism of its capability in US hands. I will be the first one to say that the A-10 is a great aircraft whose importance in war has been hyped beyond reason.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 16:55

1. Have not found total hours of other aircraft so at this point I am not sure its greater or less than A 10
But any which way 10000 hrs in 6 months with 2500 sorties with each sortie of approx 4 hrs is substantial

2. Restropo is the documentary on Korengal Valley and shows A 10s and AH 64s in close support

Have no disagreements with what you are saying except that A 10 is playing a minor role. Dedicated CAS is not something we can afford.

But I would be surprised if any other individual type is substantially more especially in Afghanisthan where the A 10 would be preferred.

Guess it would be interesting to see hours for other aircraft in Afghanisthan.
European F16s flew something like 250 hrs in 3 months but they are not a good yard stick

maybe someone can google more

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 08 Dec 2010 17:19

90 percent of Components for HAL Advanced Light Helicopter Dhruv Sourced Internally

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 08 Dec 2010 17:22

Fighter Aircraft Crashes
MOD press release

A total of 15 fighter aircrafts and helicopters of the Defence forces crashed during the financial year 2009-2010. 1 civilian and 8 service personnel (including pilots) were killed in these accidents. Human Error and Technical Defect were the main reasons for these accidents. Appropriate measures for modernization of the Indian Air Force based on operational requirements and national security is undertaken by the Government from time to time. This is an ongoing process.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antonty in a written reply to Shri Moinul Hassan & Shri T M Selvaganapathi in Rajya Sabha today

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2010 17:28

i have seen some of the restrepo programmes
it doesn't strike me as terrain where the A10 will excel, i.e. heavily wooded mountain valleys, where target designation and precision strike need to be used rather than strafing runs
the A10 will do well in the kabul valley, or iraq - flat, open terrain with relatively conspicuous targets that can be obliterated with an ass full of DU 30mm high velocity unkil love
under normal circumstances, given the amount of AAA and SAM's that conventional armoured columns would carry, i am not sure a slow flying day light operating CAS gun based platform remains very viable

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 18:04

Lalmohan
watch the whole programme - pretty much A 10s and Ah 64s

In fact the valley implies the advantage for slow flying aircraft and you see the A 10 diving in and pulling steeply.

We had the same issue in Kargil and even contmeplated arming some of our slowest aircraft and sending it to the mountains.

Regarding AAA and SAMs - A 10s and SU 25s take a beating compared to other aircraft

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Dec 2010 18:29

Lalmohan wrote:
<SNIP>

under normal circumstances, given the amount of AAA and SAM's that conventional armoured columns would carry, i am not sure a slow flying day light operating CAS gun based platform remains very viable

While the AAA and LL-QRM have really evolved over the years, the A-10 and subsequently Su-25 were made to tackle these situations from ground up. The widely seperated engines on A-10 are but a reflection of this approach - one engine is available in case of a missile hit and the damage is localized. There are many a stories of Su-25 taking hell lot of battering in Afganistan and still making it back.

Please to remember that when A-10 was being designed, USSR fielded the most potent, and dense, mobile AD system with their mechanized coulumns - the ZSU-23-4 was as much a terror in 70s at is it today. Those tubes can really spit out sh*t loads of lead and in pretty quick time.....plus do check the angle at which they can fire.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2010 18:33

ofcourse, ofcourse
and A10 has the famous titanium bathtub for the pilot and multi redundant control lines for hydraulics and electrics (i've spent some time studying the airframe in the past

)
all that is ok
but the A10 lacks precision targetting capabilities, unless it is carrying pods
and whilst it can hang everything like a xmas tree, it remains slow and vulnerable

over open tank columns, it will blast and scoot before turning around
in a thick valley it remains vulnerable

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 19:05

in a thick valley it remains vulnerable

who is not

But dumping ordance accurately - its the A 10

It does fly slower (again we were looking at some of our slower ac for Kargil) and hence it is more accurate and while it can carry the fancy ordanance its main psy ops effect is the burp of the 30 mm

and what that does to human bodies

after a couple of sights of the outcome I would like to see that trembling hand which is holding a SA 7 copy

or sitting on a ZSU 23

Again in Restropo pretty much all support was A 10 and AH 64s

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Dec 2010 19:34

The A-10 was designed for the expected massed Soviet tank attack in Western Europe. But the A-10's advantages have been eroded by UAVs, secure data sharing and precision guided munitions. I am afraid the so called psychological effect of the A-10s burp is part of the Hollywood style hype associated with the A-10. A battle zone in which people are firing things at each other is hardly a situation in which the A-10's burp will be heard from 1000 meters away above the din of battle.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2010 19:42

Guys,

What is rest pro

Ps is thiswhat you are discussing

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2010 19:44

yes, that is what it is
its shown on discovery and national geographic every so often

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Dec 2010 20:49

shiv wrote:The A-10 was designed for the expected massed Soviet tank attack in Western Europe. But the A-10's advantages have been eroded by UAVs, secure data sharing and precision guided munitions. <SNIP>.

Doctor Sahib, it seems Uncle Sam and you are on similar frequency. From wiki:

The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program will update 356 A-10/OA-10s to the A-10C variant with a new flight computer, new glass cockpit displays and controls, two new 5.5-inch (140 mm) color displays with moving map function and an integrated digital stores management system.[3][27]

Other funded improvements to the A-10 fleet include a new data link, the ability to employ smart weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition ("JDAM") and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensor, and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING targeting pod or the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included is the ROVER or remotely operated video enhanced receiver to provide sensor data to personnel on the ground.[29]

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Dec 2010 21:03

I am afraid the so called psychological effect of the A-10s burp is part of the Hollywood style hype associated with the A-10. A battle zone

Not necessarily - there is lot of propoganda but there is also some truth

there is the same effect for ATGM crews who before fire and forget have to keep the tank in sight longer than it takes for the retaliatory tank round to find the operators position. many a tank was draped with wire from nervous operators. other than steely Hezbollah operators (propoganda itself

)it affects everyone. Israeli ATGM crews had the same problem wen facing the BMPs 30 mm cannon - it does play on your mind

The brrrrrpp is distinct and in the Restropo film you can hear it as the A 10s dip into the valley.

regarding UAVs making it redundant well the same was mentioned with respect to Reapers replacing F 16 sorties in Afghanisthan

UAVs will replace more and more

But of all the crew flown craft I would be really surprised if A 10 sorties were substantially less than any other aircraft in the US inventory

and for all the smart ammo use primary weapon used for strafing seems to be 30 mm incendiary rounds

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Dec 2010 21:30

Surya wrote:
The brrrrrpp is distinct and in the Restropo film you can hear it as the A 10s dip into the valley.

Sorry Suryaji. It is still propagand onlee. 30 mm shells from the Gatling have a muzzle velocity of over 1000 meters per second. Sound travels in air (at sea level) at 330 meters per second. By the time the sound of a three second burst from the Gatling is heard by the target 1000 meters away - he will already have several dozen 30 mm shells exploding around him drowning out everything else If you are off to one side you may hear it but then the shells are not coming at you. And of course the videos will have sound for the effect.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Dec 2010 21:36

rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote:The A-10 was designed for the expected massed Soviet tank attack in Western Europe. But the A-10's advantages have been eroded by UAVs, secure data sharing and precision guided munitions. <SNIP>.
Doctor Sahib, it seems Uncle Sam and you are on similar frequency. From wiki:

The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program will update 356 A-10/OA-10s to the A-10C variant with a new flight computer, new glass cockpit displays and controls, two new 5.5-inch (140 mm) color displays with moving map function and an integrated digital stores management system.[3][27]

Other funded improvements to the A-10 fleet include a new data link, the ability to employ smart weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition ("JDAM") and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensor, and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING targeting pod or the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included is the ROVER or remotely operated video enhanced receiver to provide sensor data to personnel on the ground.[29]

Rohit. That is the way warfare is moving. Anyone who can get a picture of the target will share it with everyone else and a controller (AWACS) decides who fires what to hit the target. SDREs are also trying the same thing onlee. After all what is this AESA-shaisa business? It is all about a radar that can see and give you a simultaneous picture of ground and air targets. Mix that with Litening from one fighter and IRST from a UAV and gunsight image from a ground gunner - all broadcasting their pictures and GPS position via secure data link to AWACS who prioritizes and perhaps tells an unseen high flying PGM carrying fighter to hit the designated target using information from all these sources. That is what modern warfare should be.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2010 22:49

i believe that the firing time of the gun is much less than 3 secs (due to the very high rate of fire)
the gun (sans barrells) and its ammo tank are significantly bigger than a VW Beetle

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 08 Dec 2010 23:01

Thanks Shiv, Surya, rohitvats and lalmohan for your insightful posts.

I assume CAS for armored corp rumbling down the thar desert can be provided by the Multi role, ground attack aircrafts and helos of IAF with all the techno goodies for targeting. But what about providing Air cover on Eastern front. In case of a limited Chinese conflict, which aircraft in the indian arsenal will be best equipped to provide Aerial support in terrain which sometimes might be not accessible to the artillery. My perception is chinese conflict will be like a large scale kargil conflict, (although i dont know who holds elevated terrain in this case)

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2010 23:11

most of the PLA thrust will be infantry driven, backed by arty and where possible using BMP type vehicles in the few places where they can be used (Tawang?) - all a factor of terrain. in places this terrain is kargil like, in others it is thickly wooded jungle hills rising up to 10,000'+ and various combinations in between

i like the idea of the CBU105(?) drop on the forming up and line of advance locations of any BMP columns or concentrations

otherwise the most value from air power is large scale 'close-interdiction' of the reserve armies waiting to follow the lead army using regular munitions and then logistical interdiction using PGM's. (the lead army is designed to act as a battering ram and than fall aside for the next formation to pass through). Also - a LOT of effort has to go into finding and destroying SAM's and tactical missile sites - which will threaten our rear areas and logistical nodes

there is a desperate need for a LOT more artillery to be deployed with IA infantry units in the NE and Ladakh/Himachal - that is what will blunt the initial attacks

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 Dec 2010 02:12

Shiv wrote: Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10205
Location: Mons Veneris The A-10 was designed for the expected massed Soviet tank attack in Western Europe. But the A-10's advantages have been eroded by UAVs, secure data sharing and precision guided munitions. I am afraid the so called psychological effect of the A-10s burp is part of the Hollywood style hype associated with the A-10. A battle zone in which people are firing things at each other is hardly a situation in which the A-10's burp will be heard from 1000 meters away above the din of battle.

A-10 is a modern day Stuka. Cannot function without assured battlefield clear skies.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Dec 2010 05:31

Re. the M2k upgrade. I will believe it when I see it. All this "almost done/signed/drafted" sh*t we've been hearing for the last 3 years. Aint nothing moving.

And in some ways, I hope that it doesn't go through. The Israeli option seems to offer much better bang for the buck. Ya it won't be that comprehensive, and yes it won't add to the M2k's life more than another 5-10 years perhaps. But so what, who wants to fly 80s tech 40 years later at an obnoxious cost?

Rather see the IAF fork over half the price, get some Derbys, and keep working the birds till 2020-22. AFter that, sayonara! Use the saved dinero for getting more TEjas Mk2 - that seems to have as much or more capability than an uber expensive M2k-5/9.

Somewhere deep within I feel that the powers that be know that this is a rather pricey deal and are probly looking to find other avenues to invest that kind of $$s.

Added l8r: The one upside to this upgrade is the addition of the Mica IIR - it will surely give the IAF a very robust option in terms of tactics and operations. This could be the clincher I s'pose.

CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Dec 2010 05:37

What about the engines? another question would be is the french legally willing to a third party changes on the m2ks? Are there any existing legal bindings?

BTW, if it delays another 3/4 years, we can replace the core with Kaveri as well.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Dec 2010 05:42

SaiK wrote:What about the engines? another question would be is the french legally willing to a third party changes on the m2ks? Are there any existing legal bindings?

BTW, if it delays another 3/4 years, we can replace the core with Kaveri as well.

What about the engines? They are not getting replaceed anyways, perhaps an overhaul - I though HAL was setup to do that? The French can be pacified by giving them something else, Rafale sounds good, no? I doubt they will create much hullabaloo anyways, especially when there are other deals to be had.

CM

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 09 Dec 2010 05:58

Cain Marko wrote:And in some ways, I hope that it doesn't go through. The Israeli option seems to offer much better bang for the buck. Ya it won't be that comprehensive, and yes it won't add to the M2k's life more than another 5-10 years perhaps. But so what, who wants to fly 80s tech 40 years later at an obnoxious cost?

Rather see the IAF fork over half the price, get some Derbys, and keep working the birds till 2020-22. AFter that, sayonara! Use the saved dinero for getting more TEjas Mk2 - that seems to have as much or more capability than an uber expensive M2k-5/9.

Somewhere deep within I feel that the powers that be know that this is a rather pricey deal and are probly looking to find other avenues to invest that kind of $$s.

CM.

Sigh..

Please read this article in full

You really have to see what the Mirage-2000-5 is capable of before passing these comments CM.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Dec 2010 06:04

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking there were some engine replaces for few of the upgrades. Please ignore. Besides, Kartik's link sound great. BTW, there is no contemplation of changing the wings and skins with composites? perhaps ADA can do some of it!?

What are the legal aspects of this?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Dec 2010 06:19

SaiK wrote: BTW, there is no contemplation of changing the wings and skins with composites? perhaps ADA can do some of it!?

What are the legal aspects of this?

Legal aspects not withstanding, there is little possibility of that happening. It is not that it cannot be done. If you want a science project on one aircraft, then fine. But to replace fuselage and wings with composites for all the aircrafts...well, it can safely be said that this will not be economically feasible. Not to mention the time it will take to do that will be preposterous.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Dec 2010 06:38

Kartik wrote:Please read this article in full
You really have to see what the Mirage-2000-5 is capable of before passing these comments CM.

I have read it before Kartik, but went through it again to make sure I was not forgetting something. Nothing there that suggests a quantum leap over what the IAF will get in the same timeframe. However, as impressive as the M2k-5/9 is (and we don't know for sure what we are getting - is the the ICMS 2 or 3 or IMEWs?, Scalp? Hammer?), none of this is going to sound too impressive in 10, even 5 years. Once the MRCA and Tejas Mk2 start coming in, they will doubtless have all these features and more.

It would have been worth it perhaps 3-5 years ago, but now we can expect these birds to start coming in around the same time as the ones mentioned above, to what end? This capability will not allow us any significant advantage over the current threats, it comes in too late for that. Even worse, 15-20 years later, everything that seems impressive on the M2k-5/9 will sound rather obsolete but India will be stuck with this and the dollars sunk in it for the remainder of the M2ks lifespan. Rather save the $s, go with a cheaper upg. and buy more MRCA.

A simple LUSH type upgrade will be good enough - EL-2032/Derby along with Dash/PYthon are not much different from Topsight/Mica. I'd wager that adding the Astra to this bird would be a lot cheaper than trying that with an RDY. Even if the hps are not increased to 9, so be it. A little less exotic perhaps but much cheaper and rather effective. Even the French themselves did not opt for an uber M2k-5 upgrade ala the ARabs and went with something more modest since they knew that the Rafale (a far more potent a/c) was on its way. India is in a similar position - after 2015, almost everything that comes in will be well ahead of the M2k-5. In this situation, something similar to a cheaper and almost equally good Israeli upg should be enough.

The only capability that I really like, and it is not there in the article you linked, is the MIca IIR - that is special, and perhaps it will make the whole thing worthwhile. ADmittedly, there are other aspects to such upgrades - OEM support etc, which may hamper uptimes. In that sense, the French option might be a necessary expense.
But damned if it is not pricey!

CM