KramerObviously you are not aware of the level of military cooperation between Pakistan and Saudis. Countries do leverage each other experience and expertise for many reasons other than being dumb. Saudis were in a hurry to buy the Erieyes as there are ristrictions on how they use their AWACs and they don’t really trust the Americans. The Israeli solution is obviously not an option. There was an off-the-shelf solution available with Pakistani version of Erieyes who they trust and have an existing relationships so why is it against the realm of possibility that they cooperated? Your statement seems to be more driven by your low opinion of Pakistan capabilities. What Saudis have basically done is to go Swedes and asks them to sell them planes somewhat similar to the classificiation they developed for the Pakistanis and I am sure they spoke to the Pakistani before they did that. The alternate approach Saudi could have taken is to use the Indian model and start every thing from scratch and end up with great successes like the LCA.
Dear Mr Pakistani Zarro. Please read my reply to Mr Arrows and you’ll see why its foolish to suppose that the Saudis would actually pay for a PAF order. They may have ordered Saab 2000-Erieyes because it helps in maintaining a common configuration with the PAF whom they may or may not train extensively with- but to assume that THE SAUDIS WOULD PAY $1.2 billion for the PAF order, just for commonality’s sake and to have the PAF train them is ludicrous. 😀
Your arguments seem to indicate that you believe that the Saudis are not as smart as the Pakistanis are. Is that the case?
I can see how you hope that bringing India into your post will somehow strengthen your argument..But then, “great successes” or not, the LCA took time and has allowed India built up a capability in aeronautics that neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan will be able to achieve for a long time to come. That is what happens when you have no indigeous program of your own that you work on from scratch. Why even look at the LCA, when we’re talking about AWACS and such..India is getting its own phased-array AEW&C on an EMB-145 platform. Even if the first iterations won’t be as mature as the Erieye, within 1 or 2 variants they’ll get there on their own. There’s nothing for you to crow about there unfortunately.
But if you want to discuss Indian programs, maybe the IAF thread is a better place than the PAF thread.
KramerYou really need to study more about how militaries operate.
Are Malaysians dumb as they require IAF instructors to help on the SU-30?
Are Srilankans dumb as they require PAF help on the C-130?
No, it just makes sense sometimes. I would call it very shrewd.
1) PAF helped develop the Erieye with the Swedes to their specific requirements
2) They operate in Hot and high envoironment
3) Have long and solid military relationship with Pakistan
4) PAF have not shortage of trained manpower and Saudi do
5) PAF is only Erieye SAAB 2000 operatorIf Saudi chose PAF help I would call it very intelligent, you call it dumb…..
Rubbish. There had been a long standing relationship between the IAF and RMAF (goes back decades and even back when they even bought the MiG-29N it was helped by a good recommendation by the IAF). The IAF was operating both the MiG-29 and the Su-30MKI much before Malaysia bought theirs and hence the IAF was able to depute instructors to them. And there is a big difference between deputing instructors for common equipment or training together and financing a foreign billion $ deal just so that someone else also operates the same equipment as you.
If someone suggested that the RMAF financed the IAF’s Su-30MKI purchase just so that the IAF could teach the RMAF how to fly and maintain Su-30MKMs, they’d be laughed all the way to a loonie asylum.
No one said that training or cooperation is not possible. But the Saudis are not so stupid as to be paying $1.2 billion or so to pay for the PAF’s Erieyes JUST SO THAT THEY COULD TRAIN THEM. They would simply pay the Swedes to train them and then build up competency themselves (and it would be much much cheaper) rather than financing an entire PAF purchase just so that they could operate a common equipment. If that was the case they would be lining up to buy JF-17s and J-10s from China just so that the PAF could “teach them” even if they could afford far superior equipment like the Typhoon and F-15E.
KramerIt might not be limited to training but it could also be operations. Saudi hardly operates a major system without outside support including its AWACs. The fact that Saudis are buying a version of Erieyes which has been customized for PAF and there is significant existing military cooperation between the two countries including training as well as deployment of Pakistani military personnal in Saudi Arabia it is easy to infer that there will be some level of cooperation on Erieyes.
Sure they can cooperate, since it will help both sides’ training, but the Saudis are hardly so dumb that they need the PAF to acquire the Erieye and then teach them how to use it.
KramerMr Sengupta does not have a good record in this respect. I always ignore his opinions, & have never had reason to regret it.
I know that..and I was merely pointing out how silly his reasoning about Saudis financing PAF Erieyes was.
KramerWow! What a informative post by you…..
Saudis are so dumb. Ever considered the fact it could be Mr Senguptas very own assumption that could be wrong?
More snide remarks.
Just because you cannot understand what I said doesn’t mean that I have to explain it all over again. :rolleyes: So when you cannot get sarcasm its actually surprising considering your level of posts.
Jawad and Samsara understood what I meant (it was knock at Mr Sengupta, who is a well known fibber) not at the Saudis.
Kramer1 – You ask an official statement from India that they certainly won’t buy from Russian, their main weapons provider ? For sure, even if that make sense, that doesn’t exist.
2 -Do you really me to dig for troubles over the carrier or Mig-29K ?
3- Hard to prove something that don’t exist.
Glitter, there was no official statement from the IAF but it was reported that the MoD was not happy with certain clarifications that it had sought from Dassault and didn’t recieve. AFAIR these related to anti-radar weapons and some other aspects (which I cannot remember) for the Rafale and after news of an elimination came, they rushed forth and clarified all doubts. Sarkozy intervened and the MoD reinstated them.
the Gorshkov project was a disaster no doubt what with the ridiculous price escalation and multiple major delays, but at least now its almost all been sorted out, so its over and behind. Even the Scorpene project with DCNS ended up with huge cost escalations and delays, so if one just looks at this without going into real facts, then even the French would be out.
But there never really were any major complaints on the MiG-29K front. If one reads interviews of Indian Navy officers associated with the program (posted on the IN thread by Austin), they seem very happy with the quantum jump in capabilities it has brought as compared to the Sea Harriers. Mostly the project was executed without any hoopla over issues. yes, there are recent reports about some problems with emergency brakes and the IN maybe somewhat dissatisfied with MiG’s support and finding loopholes in the contract to ask for more, but those are relatively minor. The MiG-29K arrived with very minor delays and the very fact that the IN ordered 29 more of them apart from the initial 16 shows that they are overall satisfied with the program. Long ago, I personally expected a much bigger set of problems with the MiG-29K considering how it was so customised for the IN (the only user) and because so many changes were being implemented, but was pleasantly surprised with what they were able to produce, pretty much on time.
KramerThese also come with a stock of weapons, and people were saying that it is the weapons that make the cost so high! Anyways, the idea is to inject some numbers into the IAF in a hurry. They were saying that sqd. strength is seriously low as of now.
The $ 375 mill price offered was low, probably even offensive – the Qataris paid a fortune for them, and the a/c have much of their life left!
USS.
The original deal for $600 million included the weapons as well.
KramerYes, it’s understandable, since IAF already uses the Mirage also in A-G. Still, you will have to buy missiles for self-protection. And MICA is pretty much obligatory choice. At this point, why not buy both versions… I have a vague memory that the Mirage2000-5mk2 can’t even use Super530D or Magic2.
Aspis, at least one report on Aviation week clearly mentioned that both MICA EM and IR versions would be bought. Since the IAF’s Magic II stocks are nearly close to retirement age, they have to be replaced and unless they buy ASRAAM they would have no other CCM on the Mirage if not for the MICA IR.
Besides, the Super 530D is a very old and nearly obsolete missile now and not in production, so new stocks cannot be bought even if they wanted to I suppose. So MICA is the only real choice.
KramerI would like to see the IAF pick up a few extra airframes during this time though – what happened to those Qatari M2k-5s, still languishing in their hangars? Shelling out even a $ 1 bill tag for these 12 birds might not be a bad idea.
USS.
$1 billion for 12 Mirage-2000-5s? And people were complaining about a $2.1 billion deal for 51 Mirage-2000 upgrades.
The MoD offered $350 million or so for them and was rejected. the Qataris wanted $600 million or so for these 12 and that itself was considered too high and the negotiations failed.
KramerThe CBU-105 will likely be integrated on the MKI, plus probably the Jaguar, as they are 450 Kg each. The Jaguar can carry six bombs of this weight class, but the CBU-105 seems a bit largish, size wise, thanks to its cluster munitions, so only a couple may be carried. The Mirage 2000 is another carriage possibility, provided the IAF is willing to pay for the integration expenses.
yes the Jaguars will most likely be used to carry the CBU-105. They did have a Raytheon Munitions Controls Unit added on so they could carry US weapons without going in for costly re-wiring.
KramerSo what Prasun Sengupta is saying is that the Saudis are so dumb that they couldn’t have the Swedes train them and would rather finance a larger and costlier Erieye deal of the PAF so that they would train them in return ? Wow, what logic !
KramerThing is airframes are rotated, so the actual number of hours flown per crew could be in the range of 150-180 hours, whereas the hours per airframe could be lower.
Ah, that’s a fact that I didn’t account for. The newest 10 Mirage-2000H/THs then must be the ones getting the heaviest use to kind of even out the airframe hours across the fleet then? Even if they were to fly at 300 hours per year for the past 4-5 years, they’d be only around 1500 hours total, which is a piddly number considering TTL is at 6000 hours.
As matter of fact, given the point that the GPS control is in the hands of the US which has not been too keen on aggravating tensions in South Asia, relying on US made JDAMs etc at the time of conflict seems a bit…presumptive. India is going towards Glonass & IRNSS for a reason. I’d point to the PAF’s heavy reliance on JDAMs & not their own proprietary system or the Chinese Beidou, as being a possible challenge, not a plus. With degraded accuracy, a miss is as good as a mile.
And coming to Mica versus AMRAAM, Mica-IR offers the capability to do a fully passive attack, AMRAAM, an active radar homer, does not.
Teer, any idea about whether the deal includes any sales of AASM bombs or not? Or will they continue to use the existing air to ground weapons? Even those AASMs are quite expensive AFAIK.
KramerAs suspected, this rapidly turns into a IAF is better then PAF saga. Almost all the time, by the same posters whenever facts may be inconveniant for them.
Lol..it was you who was claiming that the PAF’s F-16 Block 50 is better than the upgraded Mirage-2000s and was mocking the number of hours per pilot per year. and now you claim that others are turning it into an “IAF is better than PAF saga”..really you change goal posts every in other post of yours..;).
I can see how you conveniently ignore those facts that are inconvenient for you, such as lack of AIM-9X, no DRFM jammer, US restrictions on use and monitoring, etc. And the excuse for not getting AIM-9X that you gave once earlier was that they’re producing most for the USAF. lol ! A ridiculous excuse considering how many foreign nations have imported the AIM-9X and including recent F-16 buyers.
@ Kramer
It really does not matter how many hours PAF, PLAAF or USAF does.
You claim IAF Mirages do 1,500 hours per decade (with no source), in the same breath you can reliably inform us IAF only has 1.2 pilots per plane. You know this how? 125 hours? Almost below NATO minimum.I cannot think of any fighter plane entering service in the 80s that will not need at least some strenthing in order to continue being active beyond 2020. Even USAF is retiring F-16s and F-15s younger then 1985due to airframe issues, but in your magic world the rules of physics do not apply to IAF planes.
Yes the moment we mention how the PAF had 66 flying hours per year for its F-16 pilots throughout the 1990s, the number of hours per year doesn’t matter anymore. You say it doesn’t matter and then you say 125 hours is below NATO minimum. how much below NATO minimum is 66 hours per year ?
Ok, it doesn’t matter alright, but the facts that I mention are based on discussions with several people, including guys in the IAF. I don’t need to either mention them to you and you don’t have to believe me. But even a cursory look into this will back up what I say.
Not every fighter jet flies every day. Not every fighter pilot in the Mirage squadrons flies everyday. Even assuming that 50% of the aircraft in a squadron flies on any given day, that means that they fly for about 3-4 days a week and the rest of the time are in the hangar being maintained. Some of the aircraft are always kept as reserves and used sparingly. A few may have parts sent to OEMs to be repaired and for that duration they are basically grounded. Even so, considering that open sources claim that the IAF’s Mirage squadrons have maintained nearly 90% operational readiness rates, we can assume that 90% of the squadron’s fighters are available.
Since the IAF didn’t have aerial refuellers throughout the 1980s-1990s, the duration of each mission was only as long as internal fuel and a drop tank or two could sustain it. This meant that sortie durations lasted from around 30 minutes to around 1.5 hours at most. If we take 45 minutes as the average duration of a sortie and that they flew for 180 days in a year, the average rate will be approx 150 hours per Mirage.
Regarding ratio of crews to aircraft, the figure I gave is based on discussions on BRF. I don’t care if you don’t agree with it. You don’t know any better anyway.
I cannot think of any fighter plane entering service in the 80s that will not need at least some strenthing in order to continue being active beyond 2020. Even USAF is retiring F-16s and F-15s younger then 1985due to airframe issues, but in your magic world the rules of physics do not apply to IAF planes.
Ah more snide remarks. No its not some magic world (unlike yours). They have not yet even gotten to their TTL and have been used in Air-Defence roles (which generally exert lower fatigue loads that carrying heavy ordnance in ground strike roles does) and except for the Kargil war, they haven’t seen the very high combat operational tempo which USAF fighters have been seeing. All that leads to higher fatigue rates for USAF fighters. Have Tornadoes in UK service gone through life extension or airframe refits? No. There are other fighters too that will retire without having gone through any airframe extension programs. the IAF’s Jaguars are of nearly the same age or older than the Mirages and they’re going through DARIN-3 upgrades now but without any life extension refits. They’re stripped down, checked thoroughly for any damages or cracks and if found, replaced. That’s it. Certain other types have gone past their original life estimates and have had Accelerated Fatigue Tests to find out if they can survive any longer and when that is found out, the required refit is provided. Like for the MiG-21Bis and MiG-29s.
Even IAF officers speaking about this upgrade have said that there is 15-20 years remaining life in the Mirages but I guess they too must live in a magic world and should’ve asked your lordship whether its safe to fly them any more or not. Anyway, these fighters will be stripped down and any worn parts that are found will be replaced. They’re professionals and know how to do their job, thank you very much.
Oh and the Adl’A (French Air Force in case you don’t know what that is) is planning on using its Mirage-2000Cs and Mirage-2000-5s till 2025 without any life extension refit program. There must be a Magical land of Mirage fighters that defy physics as Mr Arrows understands it.
@ Boom
Can Top Owl cue a AAM? No. Please do not call me kiddo or try and BS me and forum members.
More nonsense. Just blatantly typing BS or didn’t you see my post where I showed that the Top-OwlF is a full-fledged Fighter HMDS and can cue more than just an AAM?
Again, we have a case where Boom, Kramer and Quadbike claim “Mirage 2000 upgrade puts it on par with Block 50 F-16”
When facts prove wrong we get into PAF fighter numbers, flight hours etc.
An upgraded Mirage2000 is not on par with a Block 50. That is simply the point I am refuting.
And we know the exact reason as to why you are refuting that- because the PAF has it. Simple as that, the rest is all your spin on it.
I don’t know how many forum members will agree with you that a Mirage-2000-5 with RDY-3, Top-Owl F HMDS, EW suite with DRFM jamming, datalinks, MICA IR/EM, ICMS Mk2, etc. is not on par with a neutered F-16 Block 50 with JHMCS but no AIM-9X (non HOBS AIM-9M) and no DRFM jammer just because it has Sniper and AMRAAM and JDAM capability. I believe NATO exercises have proved without a doubt as to how potent Mirage-2000-5s are against F-16s.
KramerI stand by my words. I feel you are disguising your own thoughts/wishful thinking as facts, simply in order to help your arguement, which goes along the lines that anything India has is simply better.
No, that is something that you do. I back up my statements with facts.
Lets take it apart one by one shall we?
1) Mirage 2000 airframe hours.
These planes have been flying since the mid 80s. If they have only been flying 1’500 hours per decade that means one of 3 things. IAF Mirage 2000 pilots (assuming 2 per plane) fly only 75 hours on average a year, IAF only has one pilot assigned per plane, or you are wrong. Your call….
There is nothing to take apart. These have not all been flying since the mid-80s. The first few started flying in the 1985 and the IAF didn’t receive all of its 49 Mirages till 1988. So the number of hours on the airframes are staggered out. Its not like the entire fleet is 25 years old or has the same number of hours. Plus, the IAF started receiving 10 additional Mirages (all of which are flying) in 2004 which serve in the No. 9 Wolfpack squadron and these will have very few hours on their airframes compared to the rest.
The IAF doesn’t maintain 2 sets of crews for 1 aircraft. The ratio will be closer to 1.2. That means that for each aircraft doing 150 hours per year, their crews will be doing around 125 hours per year on average.
BTW, how many hours were PAF pilots on F-16s doing when the PAF was trying to conserve their life? For instance Sq Ldr Sameen Mazhar did 500 hours on the F-16 in 7.5 years ! That works out to like 66 hours per year, so that was the average number of hours PAF F-16 pilots did throughout the 1990s.
Interview date is 2000, he started flying F-16s in 1990 and took a 2.5 years break when he became a Flight Instructor at PAF Academy.
2) SIPRI mention a lot of inaccurate facts. No sale of MICA has gone through, in fact without an upgrade it would be pointless. No specific number is mentioned. It cannot be, the deal is not even signed yet. Please do not let wishful thinking hide as facts
Again snide remarks.
I know that the sale didn’t go through and I didn’t say that it did- but the figures were mentioned obviously based on some reports that were accessed by SIPRI. They clearly mentioned 600 MICAs were to be sold to India in 2009 for Mirage-2000-5s. So your point of “no specific number is mentioned” is BS on your part to be polite. The obvious implication was for the Mirage upgrade. That figure of MICAs will most likely not change or at least can be used as as barometer for gauging how many will be bought when the deal goes through.
3) Very simple, there is not other equievelant of the JDAM by teh French. The Sniper outclasses the Litening by at least a generation, the Top Owl is no wear near the capability of the JHMCS and lastly the AMRAAM has almost twice the range of the MICA.
Ever heard of something called the AASM ?
Anyway, the IAF has large stocks of other PGMs and LGBs of Israeli origin that the Mirages are already capable of using. Suddenly JDAMs are the gold standard because PAF has them is it? sheesh ! Why then not use them on the JF-17 too instead of using Chinese PGMs?
And prove how the Top-Owl F is not in the class of the JHMCS.
KramerHow many F-16 Block 50s does the mighty PAF have again?
As of now or as of the “future” ?:D
Oh and lets not forget the US’ On-site inspectors whose job it is that the PAF doesn’t use them in anyway that the US doesn’t want them to be used. Plus no DRFM jammers.
Sign In
