Scorpion82another point of view obviously pro greek and with less credibility :
It’s not necessarily contradicting depending on how the kills were counted. If the Germans played red air as well and were killed, while the 13 missions in which they scored 48:0 were flown as blue air then it’s possible. This may also explain the white “kill” marks on the aircraft next to the red ones. Maybe those white stars represented the kills as red air, but that’s just a guess and could have another meaning.
The article itself sounds grossly over exaggerated in general. I somewhat doubt that they were flying so much against each other at all, though participations can join as red air, the latter is often represented by Spanish AF assets. The participations are mostly flying COMAOs on the blue side. But who knows without any further details it’s difficult to say.
Scorpion82According the current FlugRevue issue the 3 Eurofighters from JG74 participating in this May’s TLP at Albacete achieved a kill ratio of 48:0 in 13 missions flying fighter escort missions most of the time. Not necessarily that special but still a good performance for the first time.
Scorpion82There are nonetheless implications that some customers might buy fewer aircraft than expected. Consider that the US alone had an original requirement for ~3100 JSF which is now down to 2443. The UK planned 150 and may end up with as few as 40. IIRC the Netherlands once intended to purchase up to 100 F-35s and won’t buy more than 85 from the current point of view. The Israelis reduced their first batch from 25 to 19 and the Danish will probably buy no more than 30 instead of 48 new aircraft, though in the latter case no final decision on the type has been made. IIRC the Australians and Canadians planned to buy more aircraft as well in comparison to what is currently planned. Only Norway has indicated an interest in rising its figure from 48 to 56 aircraft and the Turkish which initially stated 100 aircraft have indicated their interest in purchasing 116. In the end of the day it remains to be seen as the procurement schedules will run over the course of many years and changes, both up and down could occur, though the latter is usually more likely.
Scorpion82@JSR
If you consider that a number of pilots were trained and the 100 flights is the number of total flights for all pilots it makes sense.
Scorpion82It might be one of the MiG-29s the US bought from Moldavia!
Scorpion82LPI means low not no probabilityof interception. It’s rather optimistic to believe that LPI signals won’t be detected by advanced RWR/ESM. Every transmission can be detected and if a radar wants to detect something it must receive strong enough returns to make sense of them. The waves have to travel to and from the target and will be much stronger when hitting the target than at the time they are received by the source of origin. It’s nonetheless problematic to obtain a firing solution from the RWR only while a radar will offer much better data. IRSTs have their own limitations and MCG is yet another issue. You can also expect any aircraft operating at least in pairs and cooperative targeting would likely be employed by the F-22’s for example with one aircraft staying at a safe distance forwarding its radar data to a silent shooter in front of him. In the end of the day its not necessatily as easy as it seems!
Scorpion82Indeed a great display, I like the combination of dynamic and post stall manoeuvres. This display looks without doubt smoother than that of the Su-30MKI.
Scorpion82The original HOPE tested by the Luftwaffe was a rather large and heavy weapon, bt it’s possible that Diehl and Rafael will offer the Pilum as a kit for differently sized bomb bodies, if the don’t design an all new family of weapons.
Scorpion82Stations: 0-12
Right wing from outboard to inboard: 1, 3, 5, 7
Right forward fuselage: 9
Right rearward fuselage: 11
Centreline: 0
Left forward fuselage: 10
left rearward fuselage: 12
Left wing from inboard to outboard: 8, 6, 4, 2
Scorpion82FADEC could still be the issue switching lanes is quick, but may not prevent some sudden event from happening.
Scorpion82Is this the new Id 127 engine ?
Certainly not, they are talking about the AL-41F1 aka Article 117. The new engine is still years away from becoming a reality.
Scorpion82Perhaps Dassault can assemble Rafales at three times the current rate. Can the dozens of different suppliers involved all (and I mean ALL, without any exceptions) increase production threefold? To me that would be a challenge.
I think of the recent RR problem with the Qantas A380. Assembly of A380’s was severely disrupted due a lack of RR engines.
It only needs one manufacturer of Rafale sub-systems to decline to triple production rate for financial reasons or to fail to reach the intended target of tripling the rate and Dassault will not be able to do what it could otherwise do.
It’s certainly a process which may take some time, but there is definitely spare capacity as per Dassault and I doubt that subcontractors would be sad about increased production. In general it was meant to point out that production rates aren’t running at max, neither for the Eurofighter nor the Rafale programme. There is some room and that’s the point.
Scorpion82We will only know that if India decides to go along that path. The Ex-Algerian SMTs for example are probably in good shape.
And that’s the problem you are speculating with a lot of assumptions. Who says Russia would be interested in selling its just inducted MiG-29SMTs or selling any aircraft at all?
What about the first MRCA what if its Rafale for instead with their awful production rate, suppose the tender is decided by middle of 2012, the first MRCA will only come by 2015, and then there is a problem of establishing local production etc.
Rafale production is only slow due to the lack of orders. According Dassault it would be possible to ramp up production and increase numbers by about 3 times the current delivery rate per year which should be sufficient!
I know the Emirati deal may be a bit more complex, depending on how they are willing to deal and in what time frame the MIG/Mirage mix in the deal can be altered, Fulcrums are much easier to procure. As for difference of equipment I would say the HMDS/IFF etc. The M2K upgrade deal unlike the Mig deal doesn’t have many Indian components.
You say it’s much easier to procure without any evidence that any current MiG-29 operator wants to get rid of its Fulcrums anytime soon.
Yes and also suspect is HALs ability to assimiliate technology, they have been making MKIs but the Euro canards are much more advanced interms of construction, avionics etc.
That could be a problem yes.
Is that not revised to 30% for the MRCA tender ? And it also depends on where it goes whether to civilian or defense industry. EADS for example can easily setup up some Airbus stuff and meet the offset requirements.
Whether it’s for the civilian sector or not your argument was centred around keeping money in country and unless we know more details about the offsets one can only speculate about civilian/military share in the offsets. 30% was the original requirement which has been increased to 50% due to the size of the deal IIRC.
Considering how cheap the LCA is compared to a western fighter of its class the Gripen C/D I have no doubts about it.
But we are comparing the purchase price of the Tejas+used MiG-29s/M2ks+overhaul and upgrades vs Rafale/Typhoon!
Fingers crossed on the LCA MK2, but the PAK FA seems to be making decent progress, the only problem that I can see with it is it may be half cooked when it enters IAF service (current engines instead of next gen ones, all weapons not qualified etc.) then again Typhoon has some way to go in this regard as well.
The PAK FA is still in a very early developmental and testing stage, thus far it is progressing well, doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be problems in the future and it’s quite a bit far stretched to compare T-50’s maturity with that of the Typhoon.
They must have enormous faith on the LCA MK2 otherwise I cannot see why the Gripen NG did not make the cut.
Not necessarily and confidence in meeting requirements and schedules are yet two different pairs of shoes.
We need more reports to clearly identify how much the Flanker costs now. What it doesn’t need however is infrastrucutre and maintenance facilities as well as newer weapon purchases. When considering the two MRCA contentors we must calculate the price of the whole package and not just the fly away cost.
Agreed
Yes 2017-2018 is short-medium term as we are past Mid 2011. Even if both FGFA and MK2 are delayed till early 20s and AMCA till 25, one could agument the fleet by an additional lot of MKIs and Tejas MK1s.
Just that there is an even greater risk for the AMCA and FGFA.
You could atleast agree that the MRCA is awfuly delayed (because of our own incompetence) and that every passing year its need is becoming less and less.
It’s certainly latter than expected yes.
Scorpion82Malaysian ones come to mind. I am sure as RuAF gets more streamlined and based on Su 35/Su 34/FGFA/Su 27 upgrades they will be willing to part with some 29s which can be bought to UPG standards rather easily because the infrastructure for it is already being set up.
And in what condition are these aircraft, how many flight hours are left and how long would it take to materialise a deal?
All those mentioned like Qatari and UAE Mirages are of 2000-5/9 standards which only require slight changes to bring them to the IAF standards. Some of the UAE mirages are not that old either.
What are the differences in the equipment of the IAF’s planned M2k upgrade and M2k-5Mk2/9? Are Abu Dhabi’s M2k-5 Mk2s even for sale? There is still no agreement on the buying back of the UAE’s M2k-9s and the UAE AF is certainly not going to sell all its M2k-9 back at once, they have their own time lines and will require the Rafale deal to materialise. Forget about a fast delivery! The M2k-9s won’t be returned anytime before first Rafale’s would be delivered and with no deal being signed by now who knows how long this would take. We are possibly looking at a time frame of 4+ years from now before the UAE would START transferring M2ks back to France, add the time for the possible upgrades and the IAF would be lucky to see first ex Arab M2ks in service by 2015, probably latter!
Indeed the point we are making, the shortfall is going to be felt severely in the medium term and not long-term the MRCA delivery will only start from 3 years of signing the contract and setting up local infrastructure and production can mean further delays.
Sure local production etc. could translate into further delays I agree.
As for the argument that they need to be replaced yes and thats good for us. When India spends on Tejas or AMCA or to a lesser extent FGFA a significant amount of the money remains with in India rather than going to the coffers of foreign companies.
India would receive quite a great offset value which will bring back at least 50% of the investment.
Looking at the price of Typhoon, buying Mirages and MiGs now and replacing them with Tejas MK2/AMCA is likely to cost less than buying 126+ Typhoon right now.
That’s pure speculation and to be honest I doubt it, especially if we consider the AMCA.
Smaller and lighter and much more expensive while being slightly more capable, being twin engined not that cheap to operate either.
It’s being stated that the Su-30MKI costs India some 100 mln $ per ac these days, that’s hardly cheaper, let alone much cheaper.
You are saying that the new MRCA can be delivered as quickly as buying already upgraded Mirages and buying and Upgrading MIG 29s (the MIG 29 upgrade is moving along rather swiftly). I disagree with it totally may be in the case of the Typhoon if India relaxes on the requirement to build all but the first 18 airframes at home. I cannot see MRCA being churned out in respectable numbers in India till the end of the decade. LCA MK2 and PAK FAs can be made just as fast as well.
As aforementioned there is much more to the purchase of additional aircraft from foreign operators! Russia might be able to deliver upgraded MiG-29UPG from its stocks quicker, who knows, but the M2k is much more at risk. France don’t have current M2k-5/9 for sale all these aircraft are operated by other nations, which may or may not sell these aircraft sooner or later.
And the LCA Mk2 and T-50 are years away from becoming operational platforms and there is a greater risk for further delays wrt their development than is for either of the MMRCA contenders.
2. Heavy in what way again I ask. Su 30 MKI is cheaper than the Typhoon and Rafale. Even with the latters lower operating costs it will take years if not decades recuperate the price difference at the time of purchase. India is still flying the MIG 21. India also has a high level of experience with the flanker and can be guaranteed Russian help in extending the life of the Flankers if needed.
As per reports the Flanker is hardly much cheaper, if cheaper at all these days! But that’s not the matter at all.
3. By skipping the MRCA India has a great chance to streamline its fighter force to just 3 fighters in the future. The FGFA, AMCA and LCA MK2.
Sure all of which are in a risky state, especially the AMCA followed by the FGFA/PAK FA and to a lesser extend Tejas Mk2. The AMCA as of now is a pure paper project, T-50 is flying with two prototypes since 1.5 years and the Tejas Mk.2 is not expected to become available before 2018 IIRC (correct me on that if I’m mistaken here).
Scorpion82Some thoughts wrt recent arguments put forward here.
Some claim that the IAF would be better off with additional MiG-29UPG and Mirage 2000 to fill the gaps. The first question to ask here is, is it a viable option?
Unused and stored MiG-29 airframes are reportedly exhausted by now, so from where should these airframes come from?
The situation looks better for the Mirage 2000, but the examples on offer may require further upgrades/changes to be similar in configuration to the Mirage 2000 upgrade envisaged by the IAF. One of the questions here is how long would it take and how much would it cost?
What people ignore as well is the fact that all these aircraft are used, it could be an intermediate solution, but not a long lasting one and sooner or latter these aircraft must be replaced as well with a new type, that means a much sooner acquisition of new aircraft as would be required for the MMRCA. You can hardly expect upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s to last much beyond 2025 or 2030 at all, the MMRCA would be in service for 3-4 decades or up to ~2050!
Add the fact that offsets or useful ToT would be lost and this is also one of the reasons for the interest in the MMRCA.
I don’t share the “heavy” argument either, while aircraft like the Typhoon or Rafale offer a similar or even better payload capacity in comparison to the Su-30MKI they are still much smaller and lighter. Payload is not the determining factor for heavy, medium or light. It’s the basic airframe and its weight which are of relevance here.
The question is what does the IAF need in the face of its potential enemies, especially China!? The IAF’s current fleet of MiG-27 and Jaguar strike aircraft becomes increasingly vulnerable in high threat environments, even in their upgraded form and they won’t last for an eternity either. Introducing yet other used and old aircraft and upgrade them might be a quick solution at the first glance, but I in fact believe that new MMRCAs could be delivered just as quickly if not quicker. Consider the capability gaps vis a vis an ever stronger China and one must wonder whether such a solution would be a wise choice in the medium term.
Tejas Mk.2 is yet at risk for further delays, the AMCA is a long time away from becoming an operational reality and even the FGFA’s schedule is still quite optimistic. Purchasing additional Su-30MKI’s could be a solution but how many heavy fighters can the IAF afford to pay for? Comparison of the operating costs between the Su-30MKI and the ECDs would be interesting and we must take into account that the Flanker has still a rather limited life time. What some appear to forget as well is that the FGFA will in fact replace the Su-30MKI. At the time the former is introduced the first examples of the latter will be some 15+ years old and that considers the rather optimistic schedules envisaged now.
Sign In
