VnomadVnomad,how exactly will EF’s MLU prove cheaper when even partner nations decline to commit to it? Winning MMRCA was crucial for Rafale’s MLU…but was absolutely critical for EF’s.
The MLU is not to be expected a few weeks down the line. We’re talking 2025 conservatively. One presumes the current economic crisis will be over by then, and the ongoing fiscal retrenchment in the UK will be consigned to history.
Historically, the RAF has had at least as great an emphasis on fleet modernity as the AdA (if not more). And then there is the Luftwaffe and RSAF. Between them they should have the scale to come up with a cost effective MLU.
Qualitatively I’m sure the French will provide excellent MLU options as well. That said, one of my main sources of misgivings with opting for the Rafale was the fact that the upgrade process, whenever it may be sanctioned, will be a very painful ordeal for the Indian exchequer, like the Mirage deal.
VnomadUnless of course, updating and keeping those Tornadoes are cheaper than making the Typhoon multirole…?
Or am I missing something else here? Hopefully somebody can clarify this mystery!
It sounds like a standard upgrade to me. Unlike the EF, the Tornado isn’t really a multi-role aircraft, and these upgrades simply make it more efficient strike/recon aircraft, the only role it can currently perform.
Therefore I don’t see why this is an either or case for the Luftwaffe. They need to keep the remainder of the Tornado fleet modern, while at the same time continually upgrading the Eurofighter, adding up to the same net strike capability as before the Tornado fleet got culled.
In the long term it appears the Eurofighter will become the Luftwaffe’s primary strike aircraft as well.
http://defense-technologynews.blogspot.in/2008/10/germany-awaits-new-capabilities-of-air_06.html (original article – dead link)
VnomadYou are forgetting the impact of having less moving parts and as a consequence less hydraulic systems :
Fixed refueling probe, fixed intakes, no dorsal airbreak and a fixed radar means less check, maintenance duties and risk of failures and thus better avalaibility rates.
With the Eurofighter you have greater economies of scale in production of spares and parts and an arguably cheaper MLU.
for the rest feel free to believe what you want, it’s a matter of selecting the informations that suit you or not but there is nothing certain in those claims that you are advancing.
I believe that is the point Jackonicko was making originally – its a subjective question, and there are no ‘clear’ answers in black and white.
I could, for example, insist that the Times of India has a long and inglorious history of shoddy defence reporting, while Ajai Shukla (Broadsword/Business Standard) is one of the better journalists out there, but I doubt that you’d accept that.
VnomadNo that’s just common sense and if even Dassault’ CEO claims it there must be ground for this.
As for the lower production rate this is balanced by the fact that the same workers that are making the rafale can skip to the falcon chain. There is a lot of flexibility to amortize fixed costs unlike for the typhoon.
And if you look at the number of assembly lines and barroque industrial organization for the typhoon it more than lose any advantage of a bigger production.
All these contribute to only to the fly away cost which as per the bidding was near identical for both aircraft.
The rafale being a smaller and less complex aircraft to run you don’t have to think for long before acknowledging a significant cost advantage for the rafale both unit wise and operating costs.
Its the operating costs which are really the issue here. On the face of it would appear the Rafale has an edge with its lower fuel consumption, but its Rafale’s adherence to the models assigned by the MoD that have been questioned by a part of the committee.
Perhaps you are mixing the fact that France had to bear the development costs of the Naval variant and nuclear capability as well as the F3+ standard. But those costs are not re-billed to an export customer.
Those contribute only to flyaway cost, so they obviously haven’t been into account.
The case is : which of the respective standard offered on the export market with AESA and full multirole capability is cheaper ?
By all accounts the answer is the rafale by a significant margin.
The only aspect about the Rafale that is clearly cheaper is its fuel consumption – by virtue of its smaller size and greater optimization for subsonic flight.
Question thereafter is how much of difference to the lifecycle cost does that make. As a rule of thumb the operating cost of a fighter aircraft over its lifetime generally equals its cost of acquisition. And fuel can be taken to contribute about half the operating cost. Point being, the difference in lifecycle cost is not that substantial.
While the Times of India story that’s been reproduced by most other news sources puts the difference at a astonishing 25%, I’m more likely to give credence to the Ajai Shukla report that put the gap at Rs 25 crore/unit – roughly $5 million. Which isn’t all that huge.
VnomadDeleted
Snafu – Whoops!
VnomadYou don’t have any data to backup M2K was droping bomb from 40k feet and
I don’t need to back it up because this ’40K’ figure is one that you’ve come up with, not me. And the fact remains that the Mirage 2000’s ability to carry out accurate bombing at high altitudes is far far superior to that of the Su-24.
nor it is realistic for manpad to hit anything above 25k feet. Not 1999 era manpad.
Did you miss the point about an enemy having a perch at an altitude of 17,500 feet with a weapon with a range of over 12,500 feet? As the Americans say – do the math.
Operating conditions are pretty similar. Su-24 bombing runs continued in 1988-89 and not a single one shot. Su-24 1970s technology was fighting against 1980s manpad.
Who says operating conditions were ‘pretty similar’? You’ve made it amply clear that your knowledge about the Kargil war is limited. (That’s not a criticism – I, for example, know little about the Third Indochina war)
From where you get this information.
In due time. But for now seeing as you were the one to first make the claim about a loaded Mirage being restricted to flying below 40,000 feet, I believe its incumbent upon you to back it up.
And while you’re at it – what in your opinion is the flight ceiling of a loaded Su-24?
Cost of acq in 1980s were far cheaper for Su-24M than M2K. maintainance cost comparable. Even in fuel cost Su-24 will be superior as it can carry more in single flight without the drag of drop tanks. And you don’t have to deal with 3 types of aircraft.
The Mirage 2000 is multi-role fighter – when the Su-24 starts self escorting, and demonstrates a comparable mission availability, then you can start talking about cost of acquisition. Till then a fairer comparison is with the MiG-27 and Jaguar – and both were a better fit for the IAF’s requirements at the time.
Flying aircraft at combat radius of 800km is far cheaper than flying to 200km. when you have to shift entire ground crew and support from its home base.
And why does the same crew cost so much more to sustain on a different base, that the advantages of quicker transit to the combat zone and more time over target, are overshadowed?
So it was temprorary flying from another base.
I didn’t say it was permanent. The Mirages were deployed there for two and half months and guess what… the sky didn’t come crashing down.
When you carry so less payload. Mission availability don’t matter. As most fuel is used in takeoff phase.
Right… so when aircraft might be needed at short notice, mission availability becomes irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Chinese bomber is 1960s era Phantom technology. M2K is built in 1980s Western EU. As I said M2K is now competing with MIG-21 built inside India in 1980s.
You didn’t include all these justifications about this era and that era, before boldly claiming and I quote –
‘M2K maybe the only aircraft that crashes during international exercises until this point’.
^^ I didn’t see any riders about the aircraft’s generation in this pile of BS.
2 Thai jet fighters crash during military exercise
Two Thai Air Force F-16 fighter planes taking part in a joint military exercise with the U.S. have crashed in north-eastern Thailand. The pilots safely ejected from their jets.
The planes were taking part in Exercise Cobra Gold, an annual joint Thai-U.S. military exercise in which personnel from Singapore, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea are also taking part.
Committee to Probe Crash of F-15 Jet
On Sept. 16, 2004 a Saudi Royal Air Force pilot died when his F-15 aircraft crashed during a training exercise. The crash occurred at the King Abdul Aziz Air Base during Gulf Spears, a joint exercise with air forces from other member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The pilot was named as First Officer Mohammed Ahmad Al-Kubaiby.
A Saudi F-15 fighter aircraft crashed into a French Mirage during a joint drill in Tabuk region in the north of Saudi Arabia, a Saudi press agency reported on Sunday quoting the defense ministry. No casuality has been resported as three pilots in the two aircrafts, one Saudi and two Frenchmen parachuted safely to the ground.
One American pilot was rescued and another missing after two U.S. F-16C/GE-129 jets collided in mid-air over the Sea of Japan on Monday.
The collision took place during joint military exercises (Keen Sword) between Japan and the United States which began on November 2, their first exercises in line with the adoption of new security arrangements last year.
A U.S. Air Force F-16CG fighter jet crashed near a Canadian military base in northeastern Alberta during joint training exercises late on Wednesday, but the pilot sustained only minor injuries.
The F-16 and its pilot were assigned to the 388th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. The pilot was taking part in annual military exercises of U.S. and Canadian forces, dubbed “Maple Flag”.
There’s plenty more where that came from but I doubt it’ll stop you from trying to BS your way out of this one as well.
Vnomadr there heat seeking missile at 18000 feet.
How do u know M2K altitude with weopon load?. If your main strike fighter cannot deal with heat seeking missile what chance it has against more sophisticated missile system.
^^ A little time spent on editing will do you good. I can understand little of what you’ve posted. I’m making assumptions and carrying on –
Were there heat seeking missiles at those altitudes? Yes. At least the IAF was was operating under SOPs that took them into account.
Was the Mirage 2000 equipped to ‘handle’ missiles? Yes – as much as any other fighter and more so than the Su-24. But just because you’re wearing a bulletproof vest doesn’t mean you go charging into enemy fire. No aircraft can claim immunity against MANPADS and the Mirage is no exception.
In some mission upto 4*1500kg bombs were used. Russians used Su-24 in similar role 10 years before India and they were well protected against heat seeking missiles.
And where does it say that the operating conditions were the same. Was the altitude the same, was the terrain similar, was the enemy dug in, how heavily had the Stinger proliferated amongst the Mujahideen at that point? Kindly don’t draw parallels without having the facts at hand.
So u think loaded M2K was droping bomb from 40k accurately?. First you don’t even know altitude of M2K fully loaded.
The service ceiling for a loaded Mirage 2000 is in excess of 40,000 feet. And yes, the most effective strikes involved LGB delivery safely outside the MANPAD envelope.
See Soviet example of long range strikes of Su-24. It is more cheaper to fly aircraft from its home bases.
So you say. Without any facts or figures to back it up. While completely ignoring other factors including the cost of acquisition, cost of operation, maintenance load and turnaround time of a heavy long ranged aircraft.
How this better when ur Jaquar fleet cannot even operate effectively at those heights. And M2K needs external tanks for very short range bombing run. IAF M2K have only 7 weopon stations.
This was in the context of aircraft dispersing to FOBs in wartime (not specific to the Kargil operation), in contrast with a long range strike aircraft which would operate from the hinterland.
Why not admit it that it is expensive and complex aircraft to maintain. So it cannot be moved.
Because its a nonsensical claim. The Mirage sorties in the Kargil operation were flown from Adampur nearly thousand km away from Gwalior. I suspect some manner of sorcery was employed.
So all ur support assets are located just because M2K needs there support.
:rolleyes: Its the way round. The Mirage 2000 with its high mission availability is very well suited and well situated to provide escort to support assets at short notice. Agra on the other hand was the IAF’s primary transport hub decades before the Mirage entered service.
Just because you say so does not make it perfect. M2K maybe the only aircraft that crashes during international exercises until this point.
You don’t do your credibility on this forum any favours by shooting from the hip.
One of China’s fighter bombers crashed during the China-Russia Peace Mission 2009 joint military exercise on the morning of July 19.
VnomadManpad is 15000 feet. And man sitting at mountain top will at most give it 25k. Nuclear capable is lose term without specifying weight..
Again.. you’re making claims left right and centre with practically no knowledge about the conflict, its terrain or topography.
How do you know that the ‘man sitting at mountain top’ is at an altitude of max 10000ft? Almost every critical feature that had to be recaptured was at heights in excess of 15,000ft going all the way upto 18000ft.
Su-24 service ceiling – 36000ft.
And how do u know big bombs are not required or not most efficient?
Maybe because unlike you I know what I’m talking about. The terrain in the region was such that the slightest deviation would have turned a large expensive bomb into a total dud. And flying lower for greater accuracy would have exposed the aircraft to MANPADS in the region.
There’s a reason why the EE Canberra was used solely for reconnaissance missions.
Big bombs open the way for smaller bombs
Which means what exactly?
Significant costs are involved in moving aircraft from there home bases to make shift bases for extended period of time. Not just for few days exercise.
India just collected short range aircraft. When one type of aircraft could have easily done job of multiple types. See Algeria example. Su-24M is followed by Su-30MKA.
And there are also significant costs involved in operating an aircraft from halfway across the country.
The IAF’s fleet in wartime is better dispersed unlike a long range bomber based in a single airbase. Flying lighter aircraft allowed for lower costs, made for easier maintenance, could sustain a greater sortie rate and when time was of the essence had a lower time to target for FOBs.
M2K hasn’t moved from this place. It means it is not easy or cheap to maintain at another place.
There is simply no incentive for the IAF to move the aircraft from ‘this place’. Its the base for the IAF’s elite flying school TACDE, and houses the best training range in the country allowing the Mirage 2000s to serve as training tools for visiting squadrons.
Its also a short distance from Agra, where the IAF’s heavy transports, tankers and Phalcons are based, allowing the Mirage to be available for escort duty at short notice.
You have to understand crash during exercise is different than regular crash. For exercise every thing is check more than usual as every one tried to there best.
Perhaps you should check your posts for more than usual ludicrousness.
Every professional air force ensures that all possible measures for ensuring safety are adhered to – exercise or no exercise. No operation is taken lightly.
Vnomadwhat is biggest bomb MIG-27/M2K/Jaquar could deliver in 1999?. Su-24 was as much needed as F-15E/B-52 is needed to bomb mountains.
All three aircraft are believed to be capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Which doesn’t make lick of difference. The IAF didn’t need big bombs in Kargil. The primary requirement was for LGBs to be employed from altitude out of the MANPAD envelope.
M2K is underpowered aircraft with small fuel tank not suitable for heavy loads over extended distance. and it was only 10 year old in 1999 anyway.
What extended distance? All of the IAF’s airbases were relatively close to the combat zone.
As i mention India is couple of decades late in operating long range strike aircraft.
Define late. Unlike the US or Soviet Union, the Indian military up until recently wasn’t tasked with projecting power across large distances. They had little need for long range strike aircraft or for that matter air to air refueling.
There is greater cost involved in keeping fighters in more bases than one. along with lesser control over quality of maintainance.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
Point is most of the IAF’s aircraft including the MiG-21 and MiG-27 had multiple squadrons deployed at a single airbase as well (though with retirement numbers have dwindled and several squadrons have been number plated).
There is nothing peculiar about all Mirage 2000s being based at Gwalior in peacetime.
Two crashes in month happened before in 2004. as i said these Mirages will not be taken outside India for too long otherwise they keep crashing.
Yes two of the previous crashes happened near simultaneously. So what? :rolleyes:
‘Taken outside India for too long or they crash’? Do yourself a favour and kindly think before you type.
First off the crash was in India not in Singapore. And secondly, the IAF’s Mirage squadrons deploy all over the Indian countryside for DACT, including bases that are not equipped to support the Mirage 2000. Just because the transit time to a foreign airbase is large doesn’t mean the exercise is inherently unsafe.
VnomadSu-24MK could have done better. It was droping bombs in uncontested field protected by MIG-29.
Su-24MK could have replaced M2K/Jaquar/MIG-27 all in one. At that time IAF neither has long range strike aircraft nor airrefuellers.
Yet more utter rubbish. Pray, what laser designation pod was integrated with the Su-24 in 1999? What is the service ceiling of the Su-24 (how well could it have skirted the Stinger envelope)? What was its turnaround time on ground?
And why the heck would the IAF need long range strike aircraft and/or air refuelers during the Kargil conflict?
I am sure the high crash rate of single engine fighter have influenced the decision. There is recent crash of M2K in UAE. These are not some old or not well maintained airforce.
Well, you’re sure. That settles it.
Let see how many left and in what condition. if you dont fly them they will not fall.
Now now. There’s no weaseling out of the fact that you firmly believe the IAF’s Mirages cannot be older than 35 years by 2022.
If you distribute these M2K over 5 airbase and use them as real fighters or trainers for new pilots not bomb trucks with experianced pilots than we can compare there reliability.
Brilliant! Lets distribute three squadrons of aircraft over 5 airbases and use them as trainers. Tell us more o’ wise one.
FYI, the Mirage 2000 squadrons do have their fair share of rookies and they train for the entire gamut of air operations including air superiority (read up on the Garuda exercises with the AdA).
VnomadMirage has very high crash rate. it makes it unreliable.
Garbage.
Also if all them are parked at one airbase it means they are expensive to maintain . You cannot spread them out to different bases and have the same uptime and reliability at minimal cost.
It is a operational wing that is based at Gwalior, not just an aggregation of squadrons. Also, in wartime they do disperse to multiple FOBs.
The USAF and RAF base their fighter wings in a single airbases as well.
VnomadBecause it was competing against 10 year older radar less MIG-27. (1970s technology and manufacturing standards).
It performed every bit as well as was expected of it. Aside from the F-16 and F-15E, no other aircraft of the period could have done as well.
Conclusion is clear. IAF prefer twin engines fighters now. I haven’t seen these older M2K loaded more than Gripen. These old M2K are in LCA/Gripen class.
The IAF is interested in performance not in number of engines. If the best option available is single engined well and good, if its twin engined, so be it.
In 10 years it will be maximum at 35 years starting from 1985. the point is that at 25 year mark. M2K is approaching MIG-21 reliability standards.
So there’s no way that an aircraft inducted in 1985 will exceed 35 years of age, by 2022? :rolleyes:
What do you even mean by reliability – Safety record? Mission availability? Maintenance load? Potency in combat?
In all spheres the Mirage will continue to have a leg up over the MiG-21, at the same age.
VnomadKargil crises is not thousands of sorties with not so sophisticated airdefence. and M2K was at best competing with unupgraded MIG-27 for droping bombs.
As opposed to? It did as well as any other fighter of that time could have done.
See when Su-30 start entering service in large numbers. India basically lost interest in further M2K orders. They are now looking to twin engine fighters.
Number of engine don’t matter. Its weight class that is of greater interest to the IAF. Had the F-35 been in running, despite being single-engined it would have been considered in the same bracket as the EF, Rafale and F-18, unlike the light weight Gripen.
As i said give it 10 more years and M2K fleet avg will be worse than MIG-21.
10 years from now the bulk of the IAF’s Mirage fleet will be approaching 40 years of age. Its natural that it wouldn’t be the safest aircraft in the fleet by that time.
VnomadGiven that, according to wiki the P-1 is about $80 million (:eek:) cheaper than a P-8, I’d say it would certainly be better for the UK.
Do we know that for certain? I’d expect the gap (also in operating costs) to be much smaller given that over 3500 civilian Boeing 737NGs are in operation today. That commonality should presumably lead to substantial savings.
VnomadThe best short term solution for their Sukhoi fleet might be to end production once Rafale begins delivery in substantial numbers. Commit to the Rafale until the FGFA begins delivery in substantial numbers. Something tells me that FGFA may not be their best option by the time it bears fruit.
Actually that part, by design or by chance, has worked out quite well for the IAF/MoD.
The Su-30MKI production is scheduled to end around 2017, which is when the Rafale production at HAL would be entering high gear. By the time the Rafale production comes to an end around 2022, a FGFA line at Bangalore or Nagpur should be up and running.
Even the Tejas Mk2 production 2015-2020 (presumably) should slide in quite well with the retirement of the MiG-21 and MiG-27 in the same period.
India is suffering bureaucratic overload. What they really need is someone to take charge and make decisions. And after those decisions are made they need to be supported, good or bad. Quite frankly they are being eaten by worms from within their own political system. The bureaucracy path they have chosen is simply paralyzing their progress.
The system works slowly and improves slowly but like the tortoise its does work steadily but surely. There is world of change in how the MoD functions today and how it did just ten years ago. The ‘Defence Procurement Procedure’ is being revised and refined every year. By 2015, I would expect it to be at par with that of any other country in terms of both efficiency and transparency.
Sign In
