Originally posted by Victor
Hmm… replacing 300 a/c with 125. That doesn’t comply with the IAF goal of increasing its sqdn strength.

Don’t you think that with 125 mirage 2000, at any given time, you can have more plane available than with 300 outdated Mig ?

Originally posted by Harry
I’m afraid the author is merely speculating and needs to get plenty of facts straight. There’s really no real competition going on. If 125 new fighters are purchased, the Mirage-2000-5 is going to be it.

No. According to several sources, the inintial process (involving only the IAF) of buying 125 mirages without competition has been stalled and now, the gov want something pretty clear.

Originally posted by nohnaimer
I’m curious, don’t EU have some weapon restrictions on exports to countries that have poor human rights records and to countries flashpoint areas that might use the weapons for aggressions?

About human rights, India hasn’t anything wrong.
About “hot zones” well, that’s more about a joke I think.

Originally posted by m.ileduets
The Su-35 is probably the most capable of the three front runners. It’s expensive to fly and maintain, but it gives the most “bang” for the buck.

Cost of lifecycle = buying cost + cost of maintenance
If the Su-35 really reach more than 20 000$ per hour of flight and the airframe can sustain up to 8000hours of flight, the maintenance alone would be
8 000 x 20 000 = 160 000 000 dollars.

Not really a bang for the buck.

But as you said, his range and payload is really much better than Gripen or Mirage, it’s up to Brazil if the governement think that the sukhoi is a must-have or not.

Originally posted by A-29
Glitter,

I’m talking about the replacement of the Mirage 2000C and 2000-5 (The air defense versions). I read that the Rafale will replace them first and after that the attack versions (the D and N)
,

Until 2010 the RAfale will be use to replace JAguar and Mirage F1.

Originally posted by m.ileduets
Would be an interesting aspect. If he doesn’t come up with Mirage figures it can only mean that the difference is marginal.

http://www.mirage-jet.com/AIRFRAME/MAINTE_1/mainte_1.htm
“The direct operating costs average approximately US$ 2,700 per hour (compared with US$ 3600 for the F 16C Blk50). The Dash 5 requires 10 Maintenance Man Hours/ Per Flight Hour (MMH/FH). Only the Gripen does better, with SAAB quoting 7.6 hours MTBF. The Gripen requires 12 MMH/FH although this is set to come down to 10 hours. The Gripen direct operating costs average about US$ 2,000”

But remember of the M53 XP2 …

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010513/edit.htm
“The data submitted by the armed forces indicates that the cost of a Mirage-2000 aircraft is over Rs 100 crore with per hour cost of flying being Rs 9.8 lakh and a Jaguar aircraft costs Rs 26.36 crore with per hour flying cost being Rs 2.6 lakhs”

I must say that I don’t understand what Rs represent.
The problem is that I doubt a jaguar is cheaper to use per hour of flight. 😮

Originally posted by m.ileduets

Dinheiro: Is there an economic advantage of Gripen over its competitors?
McNamee: Cost of hour/flight of Gripen is extremely low. I could mention, as a reference, that Gripen costs about US$ 2,300, while this cost goes up to about US $ 8,000 for the F-16 and US $ 25,000 to Sukhoi. This means, to fly a Gripen is 10 times less expensive than a Sukhoi.

$8,000 for a F-16 ? the block 60 I suppose ?
But, why didn’t tell us how much for the mirage ?? 😀

Originally posted by m.ileduets

Dinheiro: Gripen is praised by its avionics. Please comment on its radars and other equipments.
McNamee: Everything is of latest generation. Everything is digital. The aircraft can be operated with precision in accordance with each operation. Compared with other aircrafts, our radars have more range than any other. The Swedish government delivered to the Brazilian government documents of performance of these radars and its capabilities. In comparison with the Mirage, our radar is 5 times more powerful.

5 more powerful than the mirage ? What does that mean ?
Does he send 5 more powerful waves ?
Anyway, the mirage 2000 Br has an even newer radar than the Gripen

Originally posted by m.ileduets

Dinheiro: Embraer claims that only Dassault, the manufacturer of Mirage, is going to transfer technology do Brazil.
McNamee: This is not true

Right, sukhoi too 😀

Originally posted by m.ileduets

Dinheiro: Are you willing to transfer technology.
McNamee: I want to emphasize that I don’t know exactly what kind of technology transfer Embraer is talking about. Is it new technology. Is it old? I have no idea. We are prepared to transfer the technology of the most advanced software used in the aircraft. Our proposal to the Brazilian government gives all details about everything we would like to transfer. What we are going to transfer should allow the Brazilians to control the weapon systems that they are going to use.

software only ?

Originally posted by m.ileduets

Dinheiro: With Gripen, is Brazil able to open source-codes and therefore be able to control software?
McNamee: Yes. It is part of our proposal the transfer of technology which also includes the creation here in Brazil of a Gripen Development Center.

Very good point.

Originally posted by m.ileduets

Dinheiro: What else is Gripen offering?
McNamee: our aircraft is on its early stages of life. First delivery of such aircraft started now, some 4 months ago. What we are offering Brazil is an export version of an aircraft that is likely to be in operation for the next 30, 40 years, and to be used by several countries. I don’t believe Mirage will stay in operation for the next 30, 40 years. Mirage does not simply have a path for upgrades. I would like to say that Mirage is not a bad aircraft. I just think that is it an old aircraft. It is an aircraft of an old generation.

About upgrade, that’s more a lie than a mistake I think.
In 2044, mirage 2000 or Grippen, same thing, POS.

Originally posted by Castor
Mirage 2000Br
Pro: A proven great fighter.
Con: Expensive, in the end of it’s lifecycle.

Wrong.
Very expensive to buy but much cheaper than the Sukhoi to use so that during the whole lifecycle, both are pretty close.

Originally posted by A-29
The french AF operates a few 2000-5 (around 37) is scheduled to retire from service in a near future to be replaced by Rafale.

Near future ?
the mirage 2000-5 should last until 2020 and will have at leat a last major upgrade in the 2012 timeframe.

Re: AAM fin design question

Originally posted by Indian1973
what are the pros and cons of the Mica layout ?

the mid-body fins are to strenthen the struture so that even after it has burn the combustive, the missile can have some agility.

from A&Cn°1924

For now, the AASM will be available on both the mirage 2000 ( 2 under each wing and 2 under the fuselage) and the rafale ( 2 rack of 3 bombs under each wing).

Roxel will develloped a powered version, so that the kit will reach up to 3000m if launched at low altitude and give the ability to choose how to strike the target .

That engine (which will works for several dozens of seconds) might transform the AASM as a anti-runaway bombs, able to go several meters deep before the explosion.

An IR heatseeker will back up the GPS guidance, GPS that will be replace gy Galilleo.

From the first mock-up saw at Le Bourget 2001, the kit gain a second row of tails to improve the agility of the bomb (the first immobile one will force the aerodynamic flow on the second, mobile tails).
Unfortunately, that will impact the deliveries by around a full year for the first version (expected for the begining of 2006) .

first version

New version

Sagem and Thales think of a millimetric accuracy version and a laser guided system.

And of course, the AF would like to see the anti-radar capability added.