VnomadNo, but it wouldn’t stop him from putting that claim forward. Mirages are phased out, starting with the oldest ones and reolaced by next generation (Rafales), and considering that most air wars consist of bombing the other guys, the D’s are good candidates to stay the longest alongside the Rafales (and in intensive use)
Hardly comparable to phasing out pretty much new aircraft and preferring buying a few “a bit newer” of the same, as upgrade to the same level costs about as much if not more
So you’re now implying that the Mirage 2000D is better than the Eurofighter T1 just because the latter is being retired earlier.
FYI the EF T1 is also more than capable of ‘bombing the other guys’, while easily being superior to the Mirage at air-to-air roles. The only aircraft in the IAF’s inventory that is comparable is the Su-30MKI and even that is not necessarily superior.
VnomadAre the Mirage 2000Ds going to be retired soon? First time I hear that..
Got a source?
The French MoD White Paper 2013 capped the total French fighter fleet at 225 aircraft (180 AdlA + 45 MN). Unless they the Rafale orders are truncated, the AdlA’s Mirages including the Ds are on course for complete retirement.
(The fleet had been previously capped at a cumulative 300 aircraft by the 2008 White Paper.)
VnomadWell, “assembled” in India is not the same as “made” in India, at least not in my books which is why I am doubting the goodwill of LM re. ToT. Unless of course they offer the F-16.
It isn’t. But unless the MoD is willing to pay the prices that it earlier balked at, ‘Make-in-India’ by default refers to local kit assemble for all contenders. The Indian govt will be able to sell a locally assembled F-35 as a ‘made-in-India’ product to the general public and that’s what matters (even if it isn’t accurate, strictly speaking).
VnomadFAF is retiring Mirages that are used to the bone and about 30 years old, not barely 10 years old aircraft. RAF kept modernizing its Jaguars almost to the end of their service life.. T1 Typhoons are left as is. You can turn it any way you like (or not), the reality is they don’t consider it worth it and won’t spend a penny on them
The Mirage 2000D deliveries started in 1995 with the last one delivered in 2001. The ‘used to the bone’ argument is BS and you know it. The AdlA always intended to use them past 2030 until budget priorities put the kibosh on the plan capping the fighter fleet at 180 aircraft.
Early retirement for the T1s is an RAF-specific plan. The other air forces will continue to operate them. And there’d be very useful to an air force like the IAF which is still operating a substantial number of MiG-21s, MiG-27s and Jaguars.
VnomadThe Su-30MKI can do SEAD/DEAD today..
I’m aware of that. But I’m still taking a conservative case where only the Super Sukhoi (with its improved ESM systems) & the PAK FA are assigned (higher risk) SEAD/DEAD missions.
VnomadIn any case I can’t see how an aircraft that its very makers consider unworthy of an upgrade may be a good investment…
This is a rhetorical argument you’re making here. The French Air Force is planning to retire all its Mirages within a decade. Does that mean its Mirages are unfit for war?
Fact is the RAF is downsizing its fighter fleet and divesting itself of the T1s, just as the French Air Force is downsizing (from 240 fighters to 180 fighters). And that makes them an opportunity for any air force looking for a quantitative bump such as the IAF.
They should either go for more Rafales, or, if they are to induct a new type, take the Gripen NG or, eventually, a SH option. At least the avionics would be first class with possibility to evolve in the future, unlike the Typhoon T1 which looks like a dead end
You’re (deliberately?) misrepresenting the argument which was about how a heap of T1s are available as a cheap supplement to however many T3s a customer chooses to buy.
VnomadDon’t know where you get that number from, but it doesn’t matter, what I’m talking about is the price Dassault offered when they beat Eurofighter’s offer during MMRCA bidding; basically ttell them: you proposed your stuff your way for that price: now do it!
I’m talking about the MMRCA contract too. The current price of $200 mil+ each (for 36) is reported to be 25% lower than the original unit cost (for 126), putting the original unit cost at $250 mil (= $30bn package).
The 36 Rafale jets were offered at just over $200 million each when the PM visited France in April, a price 25% lower than that offered to the UPA government. – Link
And upgrading them to anything remotely approaching Rafale’s capabilities is way beyond the depths of anyone’s pockets.
India wants a multirole aircraft, not an interceptor… the A2A is Su-30’s primary job
On the contrary, what the IAF wants is lots of aircraft delivered quickly to compensate for the dipping squadron strength.
The Su-30MKI can do basic strike & CAS. The Mirage 2000, MiG-29, Jaguar and Tejas can do basic strike and CAS. The (Litening-equipped) Eurofighter T1 will be able to do it too. The upgraded ‘Super Sukhoi’ Su-30MKI and PAK FA will be assigned SEAD/DEAD and recce tasks.
There is no mission that’ll go unserved for the lack of an appropriate aircraft. The priority is to get the numbers up.
VnomadIronically the six dozen T1’s could come at a price competitive to 36 brand new Rafales.
Au contraire. I expect them to be much cheaper.
The Spanish T1s were being offered to Peru for $60 mil apiece. Or $4.3 billion for six dozen. Seeing as they’re headed for the boneyard, the ex-RAF fighters will probably be cheaper still.
Add in another billion for weaponry and misc expenses, and it’s still less than 70% of the Rafale contract.
VnomadPersonally, I think that the “made in India” requirement is going to restrict India to the same 4th+ gen contenders… wash, rinse, repeat!
On the contrary, LM will likely be able to create a new assembly for a lower cost than EF or Dassault. Its still in the process of building not just new F-35s but also a new FACO line, unlike the Eurocanards who made their fixed investments over a decade ago. EF is something of a dark horse, in that while its expensive, the program does have four assembly lines and can offer to move one lock-stock-and-barrel to India, while also offering up six dozen very airworthy T1s to supplement that.
Vnomadanother possibility is to say to Dassault to go ahead with their initial proposal (Reliance and so on) and proposed price… after all, they proposed it in their MMRCA offer in the first place. maybe, if they are given freedom to organize their stuff in India their way, they may provide the aircraft at an acceptable price for India as well (while keeping the “made in India” sticker on them 😉
Apparently Dassault’s previous proposal (for 126 aircraft) was priced at an eye-watering $30 billion.
If they pick either they haven’t learned their lesson. Neither aircraft is affordable, the most recent offer for 36 Rafales proves that… even without local production.
Precisely. If the news were true (and its really not), it would come down to a F-35A/Rafale question (if current Rafale purchase is sanctioned) or an outright FMS buy (if the deal falls through).
VnomadYou guys are missing three key words: ‘Make In India’. In which case it’s between Gripen NG and Eurofighter, imho.
My money’$ on the latter.
Frankly, that’s a rather vague term. Any aircraft manufacturer can create a local assembly line in India (preferably with a private sector partner like Tata) and stamp its output as ‘Made in India’. This applies to the F-35 as well, which has an operational FACO line in Italy and another one coming up in Japan.
The IANS news report appears to be complete hogwash. The only feasible condition in which such an RFI/RFP would be released is if the ongoing Rafale negotiations are doomed, the IAF has its eye on the F-35A and the MoD is willing to oblige while giving the semblance of a competition. Possible but unlikely. At least for now.
VnomadIs this news accurate? Is India really going to add another Aircraft type to there fleet just so they can be built in house. If true then why buy the 36 Rafale’s is the first place.
‘Make in India’ for 90 medium combat jets’
Budget of $30 million. Tad optimistic I’d say.
In all likelihood its just misreporting.
VnomadWell, If you border several fanatic groups, you must imagine many groups fighting each other is preferrable than one dominating the others. Destroy ISIS and the over-religious organisation translates as “conquest army” will come into power in north west Syria. Destroy them, and Syrian Al-Qaedah will come in its place. This is not the preferrable way for Turkey.
How is this is sustainable over the long term? Not to mention Turkey’s refugee problem which will only increase with time.
We know of at least one entity in Syria-Iraq without a religious agenda. (I’m of course referring to the Kurds.)
You don’t understand. Its already allowed if elected local governors suggests such change, and people live in there votes for a change. In fact there is not even a law that forces “followed by Turkish” part, unlike Canada. Proof? Watch Suruc bombing news videos yourself, take a good to the each label on park (including park name itself) and traffic signs. They are ALL in Kurdish as local folks have decided, not one Turkish word there.
Okay then I misunderstood what you said. Can I assume that the business of the state in the Kurdish provinces, and education at state-run schools & universities is also carried out in the Kurdish language?
Anyone who defends right of Turks above others are racists. Problem is, word “Türk” means both Turkish and Turk. Due to this Kurds end up saying “I am kurd, I don’t want to be assimilated and called Turk”. This is a valid demand, and while happened due to limitation of the Turkish language this situation is NEEDS to be fixed.
Why not just add ‘vatandas’ (‘citizen’?) before/after ‘Turk’? Sounds like it would solve everyone’s problem.
VnomadPeople that have been around for a while tend to frown at vs. discussions… some of the more “serious” forums (frequented by professionals) even ban such discussions.
Then those ‘serious forums’ must involve a lot of discussions on the aesthetics of military aircraft, because any debate on application/utility/cost will inevitably result in some form of a ‘vs discussion’. The two most basic questions for any fighter aircraft program are –
1. How will it perform? (vs enemy aircraft, ground defences, static & mobile targets)
2. Is it worth the cost/should it be bought? (vs the alternatives incl. other fighter aircraft, bombers, missiles combinations, or demilitarization)
I will not spend time and effort explaining why this is so; instead I’ll just wait. As time goes by, you will grow wiser.
Me and all the (juvenile?) air forces in the world that are running open competitions for aircraft (consisting of a head-to-head technical & financial evaluation of all contenders).
Vnomaddid you miss out @sintra story how Portugal AF was sent to intercept an unknown plane when Air Force 1 was incoming ?
it turns out their interceptors was too slow, by the time they reached interception point,
the unknown plane was gone, and the US president had already landed.
Unless the ‘unknown plane’ was in a position to hit the airport or AF1, it sounds like the interceptors did their job.
interception is the hard part, you can use a cessna to drop bombs,
but it takes high performance to intercept in a timely manner
You could find situations where the Eurofighter would be capable of performing a task that the Gripen could not (IIRC something similar was identified in the Swiss competition). That does not make the Eurofighter an essential requirement for air policing.
Sign In
