RayRHere is some information from the annual issue of Janes Book of Aircraft 2003/2004 Pages 121 to 126;
“Mirage 2000-5 (2nd generation Mirage 2K started production in November 1995), can carry MICA active missile on 4 hardpoints (rated up to 400 kilograms each). The MICA missile weighs 243 pounds (100Kg). Indian AF name for Mirage 2000-5 is Vajra (Divine Thunder).”
Adrian
Wrong again.IAF Mirages arent Mirage 2000-5.They are mirage 2000H and TH versions.They dont have the RDI either.
RayRLook at the date of the article, June 18, 2004. The time when the USAF was still ‘milking’ the results of Cope India in an effort to get more funds for the F-22 program.
They might have been milking that,but it did happen.
BTW..it has been debated endlessly in this fora and elsewhere,so lets not go there again.There were other Cope India exercises too,where equal number of aircraft were pitted against each other.
Yes, the USAF was surprised by the performance of the MiG-21BIS but
Wrong.They werent Mig 21Bis,but Mig-21 Bison.World of difference between the two.
, if you are engaged in ACM with an Su-30MK and you have a chance to disengage to engage a MiG-21…. which would you make as priority number one?
I dont think its known under what circumstances what happened.
The ROE’s revealed plus the little information that the F-15C’s in another exercise with the HMDS/”-9X” missile, APG-63(V)2 AESA radar would go to Singapore, not Cope India. (SEE NOTE) The F-15C’s in Cope India used a generic SARH (Sparrow type) missile, Sidewinder-9M missile and, AN/APG-63(V)1 (non-AESA) radar while the Su-30MK’s used Adder Missiles and
the Mirage 2000 used MICA Missiles. The USAF pilots at Cope India had not practiced against the ARH missile threat.
See 21Ankush’s post that report is full of mistakes.For eg the report says:
The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range
So I guess Amraam has gone SARH or IR then?:rolleyes:
While Snowden just said this:
They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s.
And that was within the quote.The following part is outside the quote,and most probably is addition by the reporter.
Fact is both sides used active missiles and in both cases missile range was limited to 20 miles.
The main point that Snowden was making was this:
“We generally don’t train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage’s Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems.”
NOT that they used SARH missiles and IAF got to use ARH ones.
The reporter also adds:
Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there
Where as anybody with even a little knowledge about the IAF would know that IAF Mirages are not equipped with Mica.
NOTE;
We never have heard any results of the exercise in Singapore that year.
We pretty much know what happened in the RSAF exercises.
I found the second article about Cope India 2005 interesting, the first time I saw an article about the ROE’s of that exercise. Again no, “-9X” / HMDS for the F-16C’s, Link-16, BVR combat or, the latest aerial combat doctrine of the USAF. The Indian AF again wants no BVR combat, why??
There was BVR combat in Cope-2005.Funny both sides used AWACS but there wasnt any BVR dont you think?And the F-16s which participated werent equipped with Aim9X and also probably Link 16.
Again, no mention of the usage of the ACMI, most likely they used a PC again to verify the percentage of a kill.
Wrong.See 21Ankush’s post.
RayROriginally posted by Nick_76
Dont be funny and argue just for the sake of arguement. Are you aware of whats discussed in these seminars? They discuss many real specs, from the flight profiles and performance restrictions on fighters to operational issues at airbases. As Ankush said, its real data all throughout and you can gain a lot of insight into many parameters, from training profiles, to aircraft performance and even crew and airfield usage by trawling through the information.Its definitely a case for concern unless the IAF sanitizes everything. If they do that, then its ok but they lose out on free and frank interaction with the other worldclass AFs whom the IAF is not going to engage in conflict with.
Otherwise, this is more politics than common sense. And I wish the IAF leaves politics to the politicians and concentrates on warfighting and warfighting alone.
Maybe they will discuss the Mig-21 data only..:p
I agree seems like a wave of dhimmitude.I mean this is ridiculuous.
“ India and Pakistan have agreed to cooperate in combat flying and flight safety.“
New ROE=Even though you will fly missions against each other,you should ensure the safety of your opponent under all circumstances!!:rolleyes:
Link to previous thread:Click
RayRHas the JV for maitri been signed?
I thought that the purchase of Spyder, LR-SAM with Israel and even Maitri are all at advanced negotiating stage but the deals itself have not been signed especially for Maitri?
I am not sure really.Would be nice to have some confirmations.
RayRIn all cases, the US aircraft work to charge head-on and kill the Soviet designed aircraft before the merge. In all the cases since the mid-1980’s, none of the Soviet designed aircraft fire a missile prior to the merge which is where they died, never getting to the merge. It doesn’t matter whether it was an F-15’s versus a MiG-29’s, F-16’s versus the MiG-29, the F-16 versus the MiG-25 or, F/A-18’s versus MiG-21’s. It all plays out the same way, the US aircraft charges head-on and fires missiles and kill before the merge and no missile is fired Soviet designed aircraft. As though they are waiting until after the merge to start combat.
The most probable reason for that should be jamming.Unless the Russian aircrafts get to see the target they cannot track/lock on let alone fire the missile.I thought I read somewhere[maybe ACIG,I forgot]that the radars of the Syrian Mig-23s went blank due to heavy Israeli jamming.And when that happens the only way they could do something is to close in,visually detect them and acquire a lock by the IR missile.And in the process they got killed before they could close in by the sparrows.And those older Russian radars were not very high on EW resistance.
RayRSo…the ressurection is firmly back on track then…
RayRBy life cycle cost, I ‘personally’ meant everything including upgrades, maintenance, flying etc. As you have pointed out the figure of 2-4 times might be too high for newer fighters. Whereas this may have been the figure a few years ago, new figures should take into account the excruciatingly high unit prices for modern fighters as well as better techniques (ont forget the inflation though) and very high fuel costs.
It certainly doesnt include flying costs!The company accepting that is going to go broke.And about the upgrade,I guess upgrade costs will vary based on what systems the upgrade includes and that cannot be determined from now.So the costs cannot be calculated.
Say if the market price of a fighter is 70 m USD,then even if I add say 1/10th of that price as life maint. costs,it will be 77 m USD.So for a hundred airframes that will be about 700 m USD.With a budget of 10 billion USD I guess thats acceptable,and you wont have to spend more on them later.Considering later prices may go up band end up costing more than 700 M USD in the long run.
It gets more and more complicated.
Fortunately I am not the MoD babu in charge of calculating those!:rolleyes: 😀
You mean Qatar?
Yeah I meant those.Its 2:00 am here.Getting very sleepy!:o
RayRSo why are no new M2k’s coming? Saudi’s having typhoon increases the chance of paf getting access to it. I would be very surprised if IAF ever went for that. If Rafale has already given up then its battle between mig-35 and F-18.
Because now the MRCA stuff has blown way out of proportion with multiple contenders,thats why.ALSO UAE was asking for far too high price for those and negotiations broke down.
Similarly why did IAF go for MKIs.Pak has access to China’s sukhois.
Yes I agree that Saudi=PAF.But i dont think that would worry the IAF too mcuh.Because they will have different configs with variations in sensitive parts.
btw..dont discount Gripen.
RayRI have never really understood this inclusion of ‘life cycle cost’, i.e. how does GOI plans to handle it. Over the entire life of a fighter, its life cycle (depending on the source/size) is likely to cost probably 2 (probably more) to 4 times as much as the initial procurement cost. Based on that Gripen/F-16 would probably be biggest bang for buck.
It wont be that much[2-4 times].For eg.take the example of say M2K.India acquired the M2K at 30 million USD a piece[current valuation at 45 m USD].And the upgrade package announced is worth about 5 million USD/plane iirc.
Having said that,neither do I understand what they actually mean by “life cycle costs”
It should include the routine maintenance costs.Nowadays due to excellent servicability and reliability [BITE,health usage monitoring systems]of the equipments the maint. costs are not that much.Whether they also include one midlife upgrade i cant say.Anyway,even if it is,I cant see it being 2-4 times.
Considering all that has been going on for time and is still happening, when do yous think GOI is likely to sign a contract for MMRCA and when would the first machine arrive in India. My personal opinion is that signing of contract would take place definitely beyond 2010 (probably 2012) with first a/c arriving in 2015 or so.
1st deliveries by 2013 for me.
RayRAlso remember that the MRCA aircrafts would have to be inclusive of something called “life cycle costs” which will probably increase the cost of individual aircraft further.
RayRPlease let them get Kaveri 1 online first onlee…
RayRI wonder where the MCA would fit in into the picture here..
I think IAF has already learnt its lesson.Thats why they are putting their weight behind the LCA at this moment[remember the chief saying about the three structure force with the LCA included] and in future MCA will be there.
Looking further towards the future,say when the MKI is getting long in the tooth and PAKFA is established as the principal air superiority type,the MCA will have an important role to play as the principal strike aircraft type.
RayRThe pictures are cool,particularly the first one,although it makes it seem less manoeuvrable than it finally turned out to be.
Now corelate between the speculative picture and the actual aircraft and then extrapolate those results to the PAKFA diagrams>>get an idea about the actuall PAKFA:D
One think is certain the PAKFA’s vertical fins are way too short as depicted in the pictures[as is the Mig-29’s in the first pix]
RayRA pity they didn’t take the opportunity to put an EJ200 in the NG. OTOH, Saab would probably be willing to do it, if India asked – and right now Tejas has almost the same sanctionable US content.
Very good point you are making about the US content.But with Gripen there will also be the weapons.Unless you are saying that SaaB will be willing integrate Russian and Israeli weapons.
RayRNever the less, Saudi’s buying typhoons and F-16’s with PAF and UAE will certainly dampen any IAF interest in these planes. Thats why I think Rafale has the greatest chance of winning. Of course Mig-35 and F-18 can gate crash if politics take precedence.
Why?UAE having M2Ks didnt dampen IAF interest in those.
Sign In
