Indeed China/India cannot influence anybody’s export policy for that matter not just Russia’s. But with few big customers around, It would be interesting to see how the situation will unfold if Russia ignored India. Lots of Suppliers are waiting in line if Russia steps out of the game. I did not say India wanted to change the Russian arms export policy, its just bad business to ignore the biggest customer out of a few dozens. But of Course, Russia is always free to stick it up to India.

what is meaning of big customer in 2012? Russia strategy is to make Russian armed forces the biggest customers of its own Military industries. so it wont matter if it sale $1b here or there to any one country. It is not bad business either when you look at little bit deeper.

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.

M2k is interceptor this thing is not even suitable for ground attack. . There is not fact that M2K can do accurate bombing with light bombs from high altitude. How do u came to conclusion that bombs were accurate.

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.

There is no evidence anything on 17.500 feet. Infact no soldiers can survive for months on that altitude in war condition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QW-1
. Maximum altitude is 4km. There no chance of anything hitting above 30k feet with manpad in most optimum condition

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)

Some 60 Su-24 were used in single attack in 1984 droping bombs from above 33k feet. So atleast we know Su-24 can lift bombs above 33k feet. The only problem was those were 1940s era dumb bombs and proved not so much effective from droping from such height.

http://combatavia.info/index9afg2.html
The first rose Tu-16 , then – the Tu-22M2 , half an hour later they left vdogon 60 Su-24 . The concentration of aircraft in the skies above the Panjshir was such that fits to the point of impact “sides” include RSBN recommended only near abroad, or “choked” station at Bagram, possessing a capacity of 100 cars (higher density does not occur in the metropolitan airports). To the pilots could better focus on unfamiliar terrain, there is mounted ahead of time “beacon” for airborne radar – a farm with the type of corner reflectors were standing at the sites. “Dalnik” went on the target above the rest, dropping bombs from 9000-10000 meters through dense clouds. Especially impressive were the attacks of “twos”: each of the cars was carrying 64 OFAB-250-270, throws out a series of horizontal flight, and then boiled up dozens of acres at the bottom of a carpet breaks. To maintain the alignment of locks bomb racks were revealed in a certain order: in pairs on the left and right, front and rear.

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.

U made claim of superior ceiling of Mirage with bombs when there is no evidence.

And while you’re at it – what in your opinion is the flight ceiling of a loaded Su-24?

I already gave u the link. Of bombing on pajsher valley from 9 to 10km height in 1984. As that valley is 6.7k high.

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.

Old M2K is not true multirole. It is either a fighter or bomber can use short missiles just like Su-24. Now with huge investment it may become a multirole fighter. But with fraction of that investment there is Su-24MP Fencer F that is more effective EW platform.

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?

First you don’t even know how many fighers were involved. So we don’t know whether 10 aircraft or 50 can be supported from temporary base. There is no mention of sorties and payload carried by eash sortie. 600km at most add 1hr to fligh time and on those mounatians at 17k feet that u claim. U cannot travel too far anyway in one hr. Su-24 can lift 3000l tanks so more loiter time.

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.

If they are so close to battlefield. I expect several thousand sorties from Mirage alone. You basically exaggarting M2K contribution when there is none.

Right… so when aircraft might be needed at short notice, mission availability becomes irrelevant. :rolleyes:

It is not a short notice war. Rather a slow built up of momentum.

You didn’t include all these justifications about this era and that era, before boldly claiming and I quote –
^^ I didn’t see any riders about the aircraft’s generation in this pile of BS.
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.

All your links does not paint correct pix. Both USAF and RSAF F-15/F-16 fleet is far older and more used than IAF M2K and certainly not based from single base. Even the upgraded Mirages are falling from the sky.
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=137520

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1114841304/1114868069/UAE+owned%2C+French+Mirage+crashes+in+test+flight+in+France
French only had 6 M2K based in afghanistan and and one already fall from the sky. Which is consistent with its long term safety record.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110524/DEFSECT01/105240315/French-Fighter-Jet-Crashes-in-Afghanistan.

^^ 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.

You don’t have any data to backup M2K was droping bomb from 40k feet and nor it is realistic for manpad to hit anything above 25k feet. Not 1999 era manpad.

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.

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.

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.

From where you get this information.

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.

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.

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.

. 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.

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 it was temprorary flying from another base.

: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.

When you carry so less payload. Mission availability don’t matter. As most fuel is used in takeoff phase.

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.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90786/6705590.html

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.

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.

r 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.
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.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avsu24.html
As far as the 1,500 kilogram bombs went, they were spectacular — after one strike, a ground spotter called up to the strike element: “Holy crap! What are you guys dropping out there? It kicks the mountains right out from beneath my ass!”
No Su-24s were lost to ground fire, but at least one was lost in a landing accident. In another incident, a combat-weary crew taking off at night from Kazakhstan forgot to set the wings and flaps properly for takeoff and ran out of runway — managing to finally get airborne but taking out part of the fence and a landing beacon before doing so. The aircraft completed its mission and returned back to base safely, if a bit worse for wear. Ground crews observing the takeoff suggested the aircrew were trying to make a high-speed ground run all the way into Afghanistan

.

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.

So u think loaded M2K was droping bomb from 40k accurately?. First you don’t even know altitude of M2K fully loaded.

And there are also significant costs involved in operating an aircraft from halfway across the country.

See Soviet example of long range strikes of Su-24. It is more cheaper to fly aircraft from its home bases.

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.

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.

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.

Why not admit it that it is expensive and complex aircraft to maintain. So it cannot be moved.

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.

So all ur support assets are located just because M2K needs there support.

Every professional air force ensures that all possible measures for ensuring safety are adhered to – exercise or no exercise. No operation is taken lightly.

Just because you say so does not make it perfect. M2K maybe the only aircraft that crashes during international exercises until this point.

That article opinion from 2004 is correct. 8 years have passed and this thing is not certified let alone ready for mass production.
Even in 2006 two years passsed and still no certification. so what happened between 2004 and 2006. why it didnot got certified?. for transport not more than two years needed to certify it after first flight. when other projects come in line. there will be less and less funding for An-70. lower production rates and higher prices.

http://www.interfax.co.uk/russia-cis-military-news-bulletins-in-english/russian-indian-multipurpose-transport-aircraft-to-get-pd-14m-engines/

Russian-Indian multipurpose transport aircraft to get PD-14M engines

MOSCOW. March 6 (Interfax) – PD-14M, a new version of the PD-14 engine, could be installed in a Russian-Indian multipurpose transport aircraft, a source in the Russian defense industry told Interfax-AVN.

“PD-14M engines designed by Perm-based Aviadvigatel are offered for installation in the multipurpose transport aircraft,” the source said.

The new engine version has improved take-off traction of 15.6 tonnes. The take-off traction of the engine’s basic version, which is installed in the MS-21-300 aircraft, is 14 tonnes, he said.

“Noise levels and hazardous substances emissions of every engine of the PD-14 family comply with ICAO standards,” the source said.

The multipurpose transport aircraft is a joint project of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

The multipurpose transport aircraft is a tactical-strategic military transport aircraft. It is designed to carry personnel (up to 140 soldiers and 90 paratroopers). The aircraft may be based at mountainous airfields (up to 3,300 meters above the sea-level). The take-off weight is 68 tonnes. It can carry up to 20 tonnes. The flying range is 2,000 – 4,700 kilometers depending on the load. The ferry range is 7,300 kilometers. The aircraft’s first flight is expected in 2016.

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.

Su-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.

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.

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.

So there’s no way that an aircraft inducted in 1985 will exceed 35 years of age, by 2022? :rolleyes:

Let see how many left and in what condition. if you dont fly them they will not fall.

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.

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.

I did?

You ignore tha 98% completion in 2006. It means Ukraninas were lieing about status of An-70 programme to rest of the world. u dont need alot of money to complete the 2%. there statistics are unreliable.

Why has the Il-476 not flown after two years?

It will fly when all necessary production and test procedures are completed. Unlike An-70 which was 98% completed in 2006 and was already flying still cannot be mass produced.

Where are those An-124s?

No one has stopped there production. They will be produced around 2020. once IL-476 and than MTA production starts.

More than required to allow Yak-130 deliveries in 2009, that’s for damn sure. India received its first AL-55I, a version NOT suitable for the Yak-130, in 2008, if work on a scaled-up model started in 2005 (the Orange Revolution began in VERY late 2004) it wouldn’t be ready anywhere near fast enough. If they couldn’t get the basic design sorted out until 2008, an up-rated version would certainly not be available by 2009, even with parallel development and testing.

AL-55 started with Indian money and schedule. IF decision of AL-55 for Ruaf is made in 2005. More resources and money would have been spent on the engine so much faster certification. You dont simply undertand such simple things.

Yes, that’s why since 1994 the Il-96 has managed a higher output of scratch-built airframes. How do you explain the inability to meet Chinese demand for 38 Il-76s in 2005?

where you get this information of IL-96 higher production rate? Russia had high price dispute with China. See Gorskhov saga it took 3 years to solve the price dispute.

I’ve not dropped it, see, you just made it come back :rolleyes:

I am waiting for that Chinese transport that your claiming to be superior to IL-476.

145 – 47 – ~70 = ~28

195 – 50 – ~95 = ~50

28/50 = 56%, pretty much half the fuel capacity (forgive the massive 6% error in my estimate :rolleyes:).

3000/4600 = 65%

To get the 35% range advantage you have to burn 44% more fuel.

Ok 35% range with 44% more fuel. what does it tell. only 9% more fuel efficient but with 14% more cruising speed and 3 tons extra cargo. that 3 ton extra cargo is 6%.
so where are your 40% more fuel efficiency claims? and that is not even IL-476.

What the hell do you think they’ve been doing the past 18 years? Their specs are perfectly reliable.

They are as reliable as 98% completion in 2006.

2.7 tons has been mentioned, which is less than 3% of OEW and 1.4% of MTOW. This is the ONLY change which could conceivably make a difference in terms of fuel burn and range, and as you can probably imagine it won’t give you 15 to 18% – not even close. No change of fuel capacity has ever been mentioned and no indication of one is seen in the payload/range diagram.

There will be continous improvement in IL-476 airframe when more are manufactured. see B747-8 and B787 example when first examples are overweight by several tons. that 15 to 18% is good estimate. i am sure with enough money and time some thing will come out but it will never reach the reliability of PS-90 improvements. Those doubts are from long time.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russia-casts-fresh-doubt-over-an-70-programme-176899/
Air force to concentrate budget on upgrading strategic and tactical aircraft and SAMs

Russia has again cast doubt on the future of Antonov’s An-70 project, with a senior air force official claiming that the transport aircraft’s D-27 propfan propulsion powerplant “may never attain maturity”. The developmental system has still undergone insufficient testing, says air force commander Col Gen Vladimir Mikhailov, who adds that Western firms have also failed to perfect such an engine design.

The air force had regular contact with Ukraine on the project last year, but Mikhailov says Moscow will provide only limited funding to Russian industry to support the An-70 in 2004. A joint investment of around $80 million is needed for design development work

As opposed to? It did as well as any other fighter of that time could have done.

Because it was competing against 10 year older radar less MIG-27. (1970s technology and manufacturing standards).

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.

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.

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.

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.