TeerIf you had any idea how Saudis operate you would not have spent all the time drafting your long response.
I know the Information about Indians setting up a Mountain warfare is false becuase I am in touch with the Pakistanis who are running the mountain warfare school in Saudi Arabia. There are two nations that the Saudis cannot deal with i.e. Israel and Iran and Indians are in bed with both. Do you think Saudis will let in a Trojan horse by getting Indians to set up operations in thier country.
So far, all I hear is “you know how the Saudis operate”, sorry but that combined with the hyperbole about India & Iran & then extending that to Saudi Arabia, makes your statements a bit overwrought. As things stand, Saudi Arabia happens to have a pretty ok relationship with India, which treats most countries in the ME with a balanced approach. Unlike Pakistan, India is not dependent on Saudi Arabia for aid & the Saudis work with India as an economic partner. If your somewhat lurid descriptions were true, that would hardly be the case. And as it suits them, the Saudis deal with every nation, based on their calculus of national interests. They are hardly beholden to Pak. for guidance on their foreign policy.
In 2006:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jan/04look.htm
So contrary to your claims, the Saudis seem perfectly happy in dealing with India.
Pakistani special services are not only guarding the Saudi Royal family but also the Qatari and Bahraini Royal familes.
Any more royal families left? You left out the UK, the Swedes, the Spaniards and who knows how many others. At this rate, every royal family would have the Pakistani special services guarding them. Are the Pakistani special services so manpower a plenty,that these forces, meant for combat operations can act as bodyguards for multiple royal families, a function which can be better served by locals or even others worldwide.
The Saudi tribe number a million or so and they control a country of 28 million. There are issues within the Saudi tribe/royal family. So yes they do not trust their own people to protect them.
Great, so now the Saudis are so incompetent that they need the Pakistani special services to protect them from their own people. Do the Pakistanis secretly run their armed forces as well? Sorry, but more evidence is required.
Check Pakistani media especially Urdu and you will find enough evidence.
The Pakistani Urdu media, often resorts to lurid, cooked up stories, and extreme jingoism. Depending on such sources would lead to flawed conclusions.
When I say Royal Family I am talking the top members. They have multiple layers of security and one layer is Pakistani and these multiple level counteract each other in case loyalty one layer is compromised. There is a whole Pakistani brigade. Read the section on Military Cooperation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan-Saudi_Arabia_relations See the section under deployment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Service_Group See the language about deployment of personnel to the Amiri Guards i.e royal body guards http://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-press_release&id=1351&search=1
The first link is Wiki, which anybody can & does edit. The second link merely mentions training, which is what I also pointed to. Indian, US, UK operators have been involved in training assignments for Middle Eastern states as well. Does that mean we extend that to say they run the entire security ring or take part in a byzantine structure, where each of these “multiple levels counteract the other”? I am sorry, but these sound more from a novella than facts.
OK I stand corrected. Foreign expertise was brought in on the indigenous LCA but despite that it didn’t change the fact that it still doesn’t meet IAF requirements and is being inducted as political face saver in other words a failed program so I am still partly correct.
You would be mistaken again, because the LCA is not being inducted as a face saver, but because it still offers valuable combat punch with a 2.5T payload & better performance than the aircraft it replaces.
And the second tranche of aircraft have been already firmed up with an improved engine to rectify the shortfall in thrust from the F404IN20, with funding assured all the way to 2018. The program would be failed, if it were dropped & also, if it did not contribute anything to local industry, which was its other prime motive. As things stand, India is busy adding LCA technology to all its frontline aircraft including the Su-30 MKI & proceeding with the program.
Did you really believe that I was saying that the US wrote the check for Erieyes? but they did pay for them in addition to many other goodies especially the quantum jump in Pakistani strategic assets in recent years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8254360.stm
Well, if you didn’t mean what you wrote, perhaps you should have phrased it better. That you are alluding to diversion of funds is not a big deal, but then again, it only points to the systemic weakness in the Pakistani defence calculus, that it has to divert funds to field a force of AEW&C aircraft. What happens tomorrow, when India fields a new capability & Pak has to follow suit & if the US gravy train closes? Ultimately, these efforts are limited as Pakistan, according to you, seems critically dependent on the largess of the United States, which is increasingly impatient with Pakistan.
On India indigenous AEW&C program I am aware of the Airawat program which started in 1984 and ended in 1999 with the crash and also the new Aesa initiative. So the Indian AEW&C program did start in 1984 it failed in 1999 and then Indians started a new program in 2002 which has yet to reach it logical conclusion. So I simply stated the facts.
You were mixing up two separate programs, one of which was to explore the technology & which may have led to an operational AEW&C, vis a vis a stated program. which from day one is around fielding an operational AEW&C with a predecided platform & full mission suite. Both programs are different, and actually have different project names and are as different as chalk and cheese, so no, you did not state the facts.
Also why does India has so many technology demonstraters. Its seems every thing that doesn’t become operational becomes a technology demonstrater?
India uses technology demonstrators to mature technology for packaging into operational systems. The process, though time consuming, works for it.
There are multiple systems, strategic and tactical that have gone via the TD route into limited series production & then series production. Case in point:
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/12/13/India-to-boost-its-Akash-missile-arsenal/UPI-76971292241000/
Pakistan is yet to adopt this process since it mostly imports or customizes imports & has now moved to license manufacturing. Once it too attempts to start on programs of similar magnitude, it too will have to proceed on a similar path.
TeerThe first programme was killed – literally- by that crash, because the technical leaders were in the aircraft, & died with their radar.
There was a lot of speculation that the crash was caused by a faulty mounting of the radar, or maybe just because the rotodome & mounting was too heavy & draggy for the airframe – it certainly looked remarkably large in proportion to the aircraft. Whatever the reason, with the loss of both the radar & four leading members of the development team, progress was set back so far that it was deemed essential to import something to provide a capability.
Part of the answer, but not all. The import was not only because the Avro based EW program would be delayed but also to a large extent because the IAF decided that it wanted the very best in terms of technology, which was AESA. Hence the Phalcon procurement. India also trialled the A-50 from Russia and found it unsuitable for its requirements. Basically, the revisit rates for conventional MSA radars & their long term growth potential being limited, ruled against them.
The crash was reportedly because a bracket on the pylon gave way & the aircraft lost altitude & hit power lines. The choice of aircraft was regrettable but in a resource constrained era, it was apparently all that was available.
Even so, the radar achieved credible performance & gave a lot of valuable performance to the CABS team. Ranges of upwards of 200 km were obtained against fighter targets, IFF was developed & demonstrated as well as several air to air radar capabilities. These have helped in developing the current program, but which is far more capable, in terms of having a complete ESM/CSM suite plus a battle management role with dedicated onboard operator work stations.
As far as the HS.748 being the only available airframe – well, “available” must have meant ‘only airframe already owned by the government of India that the department responsible for would release’, since there were many airframes in existence which would have been more suitable for a rotodome that size.
Exactly. The only airframe that was sanctioned was the dated Avro.
The government could have authorised the purchase of a secondhand airliner, or ordered the IAF to release a larger transport. Even an An-32 (of which the IAF had very many) would have been a significant improvement, & if one of the An-12s retired from the IAF while radar development was in progress could have been refurbished (cannibalising other retiring aircraft) & transferred instead, there would have been no worries at all about radar mount size, weight, & drag.
Unfortunately, in the mid-80’s to late 90’s, the GOI was always a tad short of foreign exchange & the IAF was often, least bothered about local programs. They were & to some extent still are, enamoured of the best and brightest (though things are far better today, with the current AEW&C program getting a pretty senior IAF team deputed to work alongside) and hence tended to regard local TD programs as not worth their investment in scarce assets.
TeerKumar,
Who?
Now there is a funny thing that I must share here. Indian Express recently reported that Indian Army is setting up a mountain warfare school in Saudi Arabia but the reality is that it was Pakistan Army who has already set up such a school which is up and running and training Saudis. I found the Indian Express news to be really baffling. What were they trying to gain by planting such false information, a one up on the Pakistanis or band aid for a bruised ego?
How do you know the information is false? Saudi may well be tapping India & Pakistan for assistance. They have a fairly ok relationship with India.
And if the story is mistaken, has it struck you that in a democracy, the media can & does come up with stories on its own which is not necessarily planted? Errors are made all the time, some are corrected, some aren’t. You seem to be reading conclusions into something fairly innocuous & then applying your own feelings into the matter vis a vis ego & what not. India or the average Indians really do not care that much about Saudi Arabia, that for the Indian Army to not train the Saudis, they’d have to plant reports which would “be a band aid for their bruised ego”. I mean, energy, usual economy related stuff apart & the fact that a lot of expats are there, KSA does not really figure that much in the average journalists worldview.
However, the reverse is more possible, that it would offend Pakistanis if India were to train the Saudis, since the average Pakistani, if one goes by online discussions at least, for a variety of reasons, for better or worse, identifies closely with Saudi Arabia. Simply put, IMO you are projecting your feelings onto the matter onto the average Indian, most of whom would think differently. The Govt of India also has a fairly ok relationship with the Saudis & so far it has not needed military ties to have them progress as well.
To summarize, I or Kramer or most of the folks here dont particularly care about Pak & KSA ties, whatever they may or may not be. Its just that using Sengupta as the source for stating this event occurred would be unwise, as Swerve also pointed out. Thats about it.
An indication of the level of military cooperation between Saudis and Pakistanis is that the Saudi Royal Family is guarded by Pakistani special forces.
Evidence? I keep hearing about this from Pakistanis but little exists in the way of any official confirmation & it seems to be more urban legend than fact, given the fact the Saudis have enough loyal troops of their own to do the job. A few instructors, sure, but lets not go overboard in stating that the Pak SF guard the Saudi family in entirety. And btw, what exactly is the Saudi Royal family supposed to mean, its so large with so many princes and what not, that the term is again hard to define.
The reason I brought LCA into the discussion because it is poster child for a failed program becuase the sponsors were not willing to leverage other peoples experience and expertise the way Saudis might have done in their decision to acquire the Erieyes.
This is lack of knowledge at best, and an absolutely flawed apples to oranges even otherwise. Because the one thing its sponsors did not do, was to be unwilling to leverage other peoples experience.
Why, when the LCA was started, Dassault was roped into consult around aerodynamics, Martin Marietta around FBW, the glass cockpit & navigation were from the United States, the landing gear was to be either from Dowty or Goodrich, the radar was to be codeveloped with Sweden & consultancy was later to be sought from the US as required, the engine for the development version was to be from the US, actuators likewise…hardly a case of “not leveraging other peoples experience & expertise”.
What put paid to this approach was the dual issue of cost (funding was not available till 1986 & that too, in a limited fashion) & second, sanctions once the FSED (Full Scale Engineering Development) Program, Phase-1 took off in the mid 90’s with system development to be continued into the early 2000’s.
With most of the US suppliers dropping out, India had no alternative but to go it alone on a majority of these systems – eg cockpit, landing gear, finish the FBW work, develop the radar on its own & then bring in the Israelis for A2G etc, develop actuators locally.
Wherever possible & required, once FSED Phase 2 funding was cleared, consultancy has been brought in to speed up the process & make up for lost time. Eg EADS for reducing the number of test flights required, JV with Snecma proposed to finish the Kaveri etc.
Second, your comparison of the LCA vs the Erieye itself is incorrect, because the Erieye is an induction, its not a development. If the Saudis were to be developing their own AEW&C, aircraft, platform and all, then the comparison would be somewhat germane.
The LCA is about developing the entire aircraft, down to each system, and associated industry, versus this case, which is about procuring an aircraft, however customized, and inducting it.
BTW if you are intersted in who paid for Pakistani Erieyes I can tell you that also. They were courtesy of Uncle Sam. Don’t you just love that.
Evidence, please. I sincerely doubt the US would pay for any Pakistani Erieyes, when it would rather provide its own gear & help its own industry in return.
As far as the Indian AEW&C program is considered it has been going on since the 80S. I’ll believe it when it becomes operational.
Again, mistaken. The Indian AEW&C program has been started only recently over the past few years & it uses an AESA. There was another program to field a techology demonstrator eleven years back, which had a prototype MSA (Mechanically scanned Array) which was rigged onto the only available airframe (Avro) & which had a crash. The program was dropped thereafter, and India went for the Phalcons.
The second time around, with sufficient funding available, India went for a more comprehensive effort with Embraer providing the flight platform.
You are welcome to believe it when its operational but it does speak volumes that given the progress so far, the Indian Air Force has already asked for doubling the initial order of 3. Other reports 9 are now being procured, versus 3 earlier. Plus, India’s large AEW&C requirements mean a continued market for the type (upto 20 total), given how expensive imports are.
TeerTeer, what is the the projected retirement date for those bisons & upg mig-27/jags?
The Bisons should start retiring around 2018 or thereabouts, and the upgraded MiG-27s thereafter. Thats the same timeframe, actually a couple of years later, than the projected arrival of the LCA MK2 & around 3-4 years after the MMRCA start arriving (2014-15). Jags will remain for longer, with a new engine being procured for the same, all the way into the 2020s timeframe.
Also, does anyone have any credible figures for LCA flyaway unit cost?
Around $30 Million for the first 20, but may include a portion of the infrastructure expense to build those aircraft. We’ll get a truer estimate when the costs for the second squadron of MK1s is released. For the record, a former chief of the Integrated Defense staff Vice Admiral Raman Puri, recently noted the LCA cost was $26 Million.
TeerAh, 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.
Entirely plausible, that the older 2 seaters are in reserve, with the newer ones pulling more hours.
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.
I am reasonably certain that the package includes an A2G component, looking at the price & the role of the Mirage 2000, plus past acquisitions. The IAF is very wary about releasing any munitions or upgrade details in recent years. Most public information comes from the manufacturer, or trade journals citing the same, or from pics at air shows etc.
TeerNo need to pester, I know one very big military that paints
Seeing this is the right thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakhont
Everyone copies to some extent of another no? 😉
Not really. Brahmos is a JV, funded by India & Russia.
Brahmos has an Indian Navigation system, Indian seeker software, FCS, TEL, C3I system & is partly manufactured in India & even integrated in India.
Yakhont is an all Russian missile, with Russian hardware – though technology developed via the Brahmos on the Russian side should flow back to the Yakhont derivatives.
Unlike imports rebranded locally.
The most recent development in Pakistan’s ballistic missile program was the flight testing of the Ghauri (Hatf-V) missile in April 1998. The Ghauri is liquid-fueled and is Pakistan’s imported version of the North Korean Nodong, itself a fancy Scud.
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/missiles.html
TeerMr Sengupta does not have a good record in this respect. I always ignore his opinions, & have never had reason to regret it.
Well said, Swerve, to take whatever Sengupta says with a general dose of table salt works well. His record in terms of copy paste, weird conclusions, and all sorts of unproven allegations (most of which turn out to be false) is remarkable. Yet people wish to believe in him, since it plays to their self beliefs. I’ll stick to how bad he has been about India, for example:
– Plagiarized an article on the Hornet & Gripen and used it for the Su-30 MKI
– Claimed LCA MK1 had a secret Israeli AESA imported from Israel (it actually had some Elta assistance for the existing mechanical radar)
– Claimed all sorts of systems had been secretly acquired – they hadn’t
– Copy pasted brochures from different companies and tried to pass them off as Arihant SSBN. Didn’t work
He has some degree of access to companies, but takes their brochures and mangles it with wishful thinking to come out with bizarre claims & statements. In 1 statements out of ten, would he be somewhere near the mark, and even that is not a given.
TeerYes, 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.
Well, you said it when you mentioned self protection, I was too lazy to type out what I was thinking.
Basically, with the upgrades, the IAF is creating mini flotillas of multirole fighters, beside the existing Su-30 MKI. What this does is add tremendous flexibility. In other words, if the IAF wants to hit a heavily defended target, they no longer need to mission plan a complex attack involving MiG-27s, with Mirage 2000s for EW & MiG-21 Bisons or MiG-29s or more Mirage 2000s for escort, with tanking from an IL-78.
Now, the Mirage 2000 squadron or the MiG-29 squadron itself, can conduct a strike, without relying on another squadron for any specialist role. The aircraft are basically getting integrated modern EW upgrade for each aircraft so the need for EW support is correspondingly reduced, both the MiG-29s and Mirage 2000’s with SAR capability will be able to conduct all weather strikes, and they can even do buddy refuelling, escort & Air dominance sorties, since they will have BVR, modern radars and new missiles/helmet sets for air to air.
This is substantial force multiplication.
Basically, with the upgrades, the IAF is “adding/enhancing”, around 111+ aircraft (MiG-29 & Mirage 2000) to full multirole standards, and with the Jaguar upgrade (3 squadrons, ~65 aircraft) are getting full all weather strike capability since they are getting an Elta radar plus a substantial avionics upgrade, whereas another 4 squadrons worth (2 each of Jaguar & MiG-27) have PGM strike capability with Litening 2 pods or designated by a UAV, with Griffin, Paveway & French LGBs and in the near future, the local Sudarshan as well.
The Bisons are already multirole, albeit with a smaller weight/payload. They can carry KAB-500 bombs, Kh-25 ARMs, R-73/R-77 missiles and ECM pods.
Even a 30 combat squadron force by 2017, with some 22 squadrons fully multirole (11 Su-MKI, 3 MiG-29 and 3 Mirage 2000, five Bison) & the remaining all PGM capable (five squadrons of Jaguars, two of MiG-27s), will pack a lot of firepower and flexibility. This even while, disregarding new inductions, like the LCA & MMRCA.
TeerThe 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.
Its interesting to see the IAF go for such advanced niche weapons and capabilities. With the success of the Sudarshan, they now have a local LGB to deploy & more advanced variants are being developed. The next series of systems are clearly going to be Glonass guided systems either developed inhouse, or as a JV with the Russians, the guidance package work has already been demonstrated with the Brahmos, so the capability does exist.
TeerI think it’s safe to suppose that India will buy both versions (we did the same, in equal numbers 150-150).
…..
The thing is I am not too sure whether these Mirage 2000s will be used for air dominance. I think they’ll pick up more & more air to ground work as well, if the news that the remaining MiG-27s are being retired is correct.
Basically, these aircraft will be used for every conceivable mission, and their strategic role (as part of India’s triad) will be further enhanced thanks to the modernization. What we are seeing is a substantial portion of the IAF fleet becoming multirole (MiG-29 Upgrade) or getting more capabilities (Mirage 2000 upgrade) and a substantial portion of the strike fleet being made all weather strike capable (Jaguar IS upgrade with Elta FCR) and substantial survivability upgrades to the rest.
TeerDo they have (block 50/52) MAWS.
So far I havent found a single source that says the PAF is getting MAWS for its Block 50/52s, glad to be corrected though. Without MAWS, they will indeed be pretty vulnerable to the Mica-IR.
Teerthe attitudes prevailing here are certainly interesting and if anything can be learned.. it is that you have strong confidence in the capabilities of your newest F-16s! This may not have happened if it were J-10s being received.
But.. what if the IAF fields F-16INs? :diablo:
Its pretty funny actually, as by the time the upgraded Mirage 2000’s arrive (say 4 years from now), the Su-30 MKI Upg would be underway, the Upg MiG-29s would be in service & the MMRCA delivery pipeline would have started.
And to see the fuss, its some insult that the Mirage 2000 Upg to Dash 5 standards is equivalent to the Viper Block 50.
When well referenced articles clearly make the case it is a very credible platform (though expensive).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_655_56/ai_n28851433/
Relevant excerpts
Last year, during the biannual Tactical Leadership Programme exercise, which saw the Mirage 2000-5 of the French Air Force lined up against several NATO aircraft, the superiority of the French armament was clearly demonstrated. The Mirage 2000-5s, armed with Mica, emerged as easy winners in combat scenarios with AMRAAM-equipped F-16s and F-4s, and Sky Flash-equipped Tornado ADVs, thanks to their multi-targeting capabilities.
The Mirage 2000-5 is also equipped with a new Thales/Matra countermeasures system designed and integrated with the new radar to protect the aircraft without interfering with its mission. Totally built-in to the fuselage, but betrayed by small antennas on the fin, under the nose and on the wingtips, these EW systems are managed by a common electronic system, with several sub-systems including Serval (systeme d’ecoute radar et visualisation de l’alerte), Sabre (systeme d’autoprotection par brouillage electromagnetique) and Spiral (systeme de protection infrarouge et radar par leurrage). The cockpit of the Mirage 2000-5 has been totally redesigned, based on development of the Rafale. The instrument panel is essentially occupied by the five colour LCD screens providing information on flight parameters and weapons status. These are complemented by a head-up/head-medium display which presents flight, navigation and mission data, including weapon status and firing. This is the display for short-range engagements. The pilot has available a further two lateral screens for the management of systems and the presentation of sensor information and the display of EW data. Finally, a head-down display presents the tactical situation. In addition all operating systems are designed on the HOTAS principle (hands on throttle and stick).
While the argument that the Mirage 2000-5 fuselage design goes back to the 1970s may live on, nobody contests that this aircraft employs a weapon system among the most modern on the market. The system was fully rethought at the beginning of the last decade to give the aircraft a multitarget capacity with the MICA missile. Thanks to the use of a fully digital architecture, the 2000-5 is today at the head of a new family, which has transformed a thoroughbred interceptor into a multirole aircraft, offering various levels of strike performance according to the variant (Mk2 or Mirage 2000-9).
The heart of the weapon system features the Thales Airborne Systems RDY radar, 200 of which have been ordered to date. With an average power of 800 watts, obtained by pairing two travelling-wave tubes, and a range estimated at 70NM (130 km) in air-to-air mode, the RDY in pure performance terms equals and exceeds American radars of the same generation (the F-16’s APG-68 and the F-15’s APG-70).
However, in the case of the RDY, this capacity is genuinely available to the pilot, since the tracks are positioned automatically. Once the track-while-scan mode is engaged, the radar evaluates the threat represented by each track (according to its range and speed), in order to produce a firing scenario for the pilot. For the four tracks with the highest threat priority, antenna scanning is configured automatically to avoid losing these tracks in the event of evasive manoeuvres or closing, which could move them out of the angular detection field.
Read the whole thing, it clearly shows its a very capable weapons platform.
TeerOK, funny, I am accused of being insulting but have actually gone out of my way not to be offensive at some highly dubious claims.
If this is you going out of your way not to be offensive and yet using repetitive insults galore, I really don’t know what to say.
I do hope though that your real world persona is not as abusive & abrasive as the internet one.
I will state this once and again, I am not getting into a paragraph by paragraph debate with Teer, Kramer, Boon (any other Indian poster)
Who cares?
Make your points simple or complex, but rely on facts. BTW, TR1 is not an Indian poster.
Seems to me you are focused more on nationality versus the argument itself.
A MICA armed Mirage 2000 upgrade does not compare to a Block 50 F-16 with the latest US equipment.
That is quite simply a statment of fact.
Sniper V Litening
JHMCS V Top Owl
AMRAAM V MICA
JDAM V any other equivelant
Sniper What vs Litening What? You don’t even have any data here to claim superiority or otherwise.
JHMCS versus Top Sight I. No clear advantage for the JMHCS, other than the fact the PAF is getting it.
AMRAAM vs Mica – Amraam does not come in a passive IR variant
JDAM vs any other equivalent – whats so special about the JDAM? The Israelis offer Spice, the French have the AASM/Hammer. But with the reliance on GPS it may actually be a problem. Which is why the Indians have tied up for Glonass & the Chinese are pursuing the Beidou.
You can type what you think MAY be in the IAF upgrade.
The truth is no one actually knows, but is happy to make a hypothetical comparison anyway.
LAST POST
We already know a fair bit of whats in the upgrade, more details will be known over time.
Hardly a big deal. Plus, whats so special about the Vipers anyhow.
Even the DSCA when announcing the PAF notification thought likewise.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article1878.html
The DSCA counters that release of the F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft to Pakistan “will neither affect the regional balance of power nor introduce a new technology as this level of capability or higher already exists in other countries in the region”. India does operate more advanced SU-30MKI aircraft with R-77 “AMRAAMski” missiles, advanced avionics, et. al.; these are superior in range, armament, and maneuverability to Pakistan’s F-16s and will remain so. Meanwhile, India’s $7-10 billion MRCA competition is certain to introduce 125-200 aircraft that are certain to be more advanced than the F-16 Block 50/52.
Teerlike wise a AMRAAM equipped F-16 cued by a Erieye will be able to attack most enemy fighters before they can even get within range. It works both ways.
No, read what I said again.
A Mirage 2000 cued by AWACS could conceivably launch a Mica-IR on a purely passive intercept, with the targeted aircraft absolutely unaware that it has a missile heading its way, till MAWS kicks in & by which time it may already be too late.
A Mica IR won’t trigger the RWR or ESM & the Mirage 2000 does not even need to use its radar, with the only active system being the aircraft/missile datalink.
Plus, it won’t be decoyed by the usual flares as the Mica is stated to have an IIR class seeker, with very high immunity.
Active homers, like the AMRAAM, R-77, give away their launch in a more predictable fashion.
TeerThere 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.
Thing 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.
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.
There you go again with the facts, numbers and stuff like that.
66 hours a year, not really NATO standard is it?
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.
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.
Sign In
