PDA

View Full Version : Mirage 2000-5 vs F16 blk 52



gangsta540i
19 Apr 05,, 06:55
I don't know if this has been done or if it's a unfair comparison but here goes.

I know the Mirage aircraft is very capable and quite reliable and was wondering how it stacks up against the blk 52 or any other variant of the F16 family.

Comparisons regarding electronics, armament, range, and manuverability is helpful.

troung
19 Apr 05,, 07:33
Mirage 2000 costs more and the USA gives F-16s away...

Turning and such the F-16 has it low and the Mirage 2000 has it up high. It would depend on AWACs and such to tip the scales to one or the other. The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 also has a very capable ECM system and a damn capable radar.

The F-16 can carry more heavy bombs due to better/more wing loading points. It is not uncommon to see and F-16 with 4 AIM-120s, 2 GBU-10s, 3 drop tanks and 1 LDP. You can't do that with a Mirage. You can do one GBU-10, 3 MICA EM, 2 MICA IE, 2 drop tanks and one LDP. Or you can switch the GBU-10 for 2 GBU-12s and switch the F-16s 2 GBU-10s for 6 GBU-12s. I'm using the older LGBs as an example because I am lazy.

Yet the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2s stand off strike weapons come a lot easier as France is more willing to export them. The Apache (anti runway) has an 80 mile range and one can be carried with 6 MICAs and 2 drop tanks and the Scalp EG has a 155 mile range can can carry the same missile/drop tank loadout. The F-16 has better all weather ability with the JDAM as the AASM is not combat ready. But one needs to be damn close to get cleared for the JDAM. Yet when the AASM gets ready it would no doubt be easier to get.

Rather close in air to air combat. ROCAF uses the Mirage 2000-5EI as their standard intercpetor and the F-16A B-20 (B-52 avoinics) as their striker. The Mirage 2000 is a highly rated fighter by the air forces that fly it, more on that later...

----
I'm tired and lazy..... so is this about India vs. Pakistan... please be honest so I can put it maybe into a better context...

gangsta540i
19 Apr 05,, 07:55
Mirage 2000 costs more and the USA gives F-16s away...

Turning and such the F-16 has it low and the Mirage 2000 has it up high. It would depend on AWACs and such to tip the scales to one or the other. The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 also has a very capable ECM system and a damn capable radar.

The F-16 can carry more heavy bombs due to better/more wing loading points. It is not uncommon to see and F-16 with 4 AIM-120s, 2 GBU-10s, 3 drop tanks and 1 LDP. You can't do that with a Mirage. You can do one GBU-10, 3 MICA EM, 2 MICA IE, 2 drop tanks and one LDP. Or you can switch the GBU-10 for 2 GBU-12s and switch the F-16s 2 GBU-10s for 6 GBU-12s. I'm using the older LGBs as an example because I am lazy.

Yet the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2s stand off strike weapons come a lot easier as France is more willing to export them. The Apache (anti runway) has an 80 mile range and one can be carried with 6 MICAs and 2 drop tanks and the Scalp EG has a 155 mile range can can carry the same missile/drop tank loadout. The F-16 has better all weather ability with the JDAM as the AASM is not combat ready. But one needs to be damn close to get cleared for the JDAM. Yet when the AASM gets ready it would no doubt be easier to get.

Rather close in air to air combat. ROCAF uses the Mirage 2000-5EI as their standard intercpetor and the F-16A B-20 (B-52 avoinics) as their striker. The Mirage 2000 is a highly rated fighter by the air forces that fly it, more on that later...

----
I'm tired and lazy..... so is this about India vs. Pakistan... please be honest so I can put it maybe into a better context...



That's a good question

Mainly yes it is a comparison between the pakistan planes that they are aquiring from the americans and the 12 2000-V planes india might be getting from Quatar not to mention 126 mirage a/c if france wins the contract.

Anyways I thought they were a good comparison because their both single engine fighter a/c that seem to be pretty close in capabilitys but reports indicate that the mirage engines are not as powerful not to mention it is a delta wing design which might limit it's payload.

troung
20 Apr 05,, 05:04
Well it all depends what Pakistan can get cleared for and what India buys. Both planes can conduct the same roles.

SCALP EGs and APACHEs are rather expensive per shot but are important for taking out runways from a safe distance and hitting C3 sites for a long distance. I don't know how many India will buy if any. Yet Qatar had 48 or so APACHEs in service so it would be silly not to pick at least those up and put them into service. They would be sure to get the MICA EM and it seems fit the Python Mk.4 onto the planes. The AASM is not in service yet with the ADA but will be in the next few years giving a customer the option of a GPS/IR guided bomb.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2s ICMS Mk.III ECM system is touted as being able to jam the SA-10/SA-11/SA-15/SA-20 as well as the AIM-120 (we'll have to find out one day ;) ). Even the ICMS Mk.II on the Mirage 2000-5EDA/DDAs should be more then able to handle most Pakistan ground and most airbased radars. The Mirage 2000EH/DHs don't have the same ECM systems. If they shell out more money they could fit the IMEWS which offers a SEAD capability of sorts. If India throws out money the M-53 PX3 is around which boosts thrust by 15 percent, just needs some funding.

Pakistan could be put over the hump as it is rather doubtful they would ever be cleared for the JDAM, JASSM or any of the new "J" weapons. I could see them getting AIM-120s, GBUs, LDPs and such but nothing overly offensive like the AGM-88. I don't know if they would get cleared for the AIM-9X either. No idea on the ECM suite they will be cleared for either.

India would have a fleet numbers edge with 45 Mirage 2000EH/DHs (RDM-4/7), 12 Mirage 2000-5EDA/DDA (RDY-1) and 126 Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 (RDY-2). If all are brought to the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 (173ish) model that would give them the most powerful M2K fleet around. Pakistan should get up to 60-70 (number being thrown around but could be less) F-16C/D Block 52s and still have the 28 F-16A/B B-15s (which couldbe brought up to MLU). That's a sizeable edge in the numbers. Those numbers give them an edge in deployment.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 costs a lot more and Pakistan will more then likely get their F-16s for free. Niether nation has the pilot market cornered. And the planes have differences that each side would try and exploit. But being the attcker would be both good and bad, good because they know when they are to attack and bad because some would more then likely have bombs. Granted with 5-6 MICA EM/IRs a Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 could quickly turn and engage the enemy. Fighting would be rather close.

Granted I could not see Indian pilots wanting to fly low due to the fact Pakistan lacks decent high alt SAMs but has scores of MANPADs. The bigger investment in guided weapons shows they do want to stay out of range of MANPADs and "trashfire". The HQ-2 (SA-2) would be easily jammed by the ICMS Mk.II much less the Mk.III hell moving around with limited ECM is actually good enough for those.

ajaybhutani
20 Apr 05,, 07:44
Well it all depends what Pakistan can get cleared for and what India buys. Both planes can conduct the same roles.

SCALP EGs and APACHEs are rather expensive per shot but are important for taking out runways from a safe distance and hitting C3 sites for a long distance. I don't know how many India will buy if any. Yet Qatar had 48 or so APACHEs in service so it would be silly not to pick at least those up and put them into service. They would be sure to get the MICA EM and it seems fit the Python Mk.4 onto the planes. The AASM is not in service yet with the ADA but will be in the next few years giving a customer the option of a GPS/IR guided bomb.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2s ICMS Mk.III ECM system is touted as being able to jam the SA-10/SA-11/SA-15/SA-20 as well as the AIM-120 (we'll have to find out one day ;) ). Even the ICMS Mk.II on the Mirage 2000-5EDA/DDAs should be more then able to handle most Pakistan ground and most airbased radars. The Mirage 2000EH/DHs don't have the same ECM systems. If they shell out more money they could fit the IMEWS which offers a SEAD capability of sorts. If India throws out money the M-53 PX3 is around which boosts thrust by 15 percent, just needs some funding.

Pakistan could be put over the hump as it is rather doubtful they would ever be cleared for the JDAM, JASSM or any of the new "J" weapons. I could see them getting AIM-120s, GBUs, LDPs and such but nothing overly offensive like the AGM-88. I don't know if they would get cleared for the AIM-9X either. No idea on the ECM suite they will be cleared for either.

India would have a fleet numbers edge with 45 Mirage 2000EH/DHs (RDM-4/7), 12 Mirage 2000-5EDA/DDA (RDY-1) and 126 Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 (RDY-2). If all are brought to the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 (173ish) model that would give them the most powerful M2K fleet around. Pakistan should get up to 60-70 (number being thrown around but could be less) F-16C/D Block 52s and still have the 28 F-16A/B B-15s (which couldbe brought up to MLU). That's a sizeable edge in the numbers. Those numbers give them an edge in deployment.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 costs a lot more and Pakistan will more then likely get their F-16s for free. Niether nation has the pilot market cornered. And the planes have differences that each side would try and exploit. But being the attcker would be both good and bad, good because they know when they are to attack and bad because some would more then likely have bombs. Granted with 5-6 MICA EM/IRs a Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 could quickly turn and engage the enemy. Fighting would be rather close.

Granted I could not see Indian pilots wanting to fly low due to the fact Pakistan lacks decent high alt SAMs but has scores of MANPADs. The bigger investment in guided weapons shows they do want to stay out of range of MANPADs and "trashfire". The HQ-2 (SA-2) would be easily jammed by the ICMS Mk.II much less the Mk.III hell moving around with limited ECM is actually good enough for those.

1. I think the proposed number of 70 includes the upgrades done on already available F16's. Even if more F16s are procured the limited paksitani finances will stretch the induction over the years.
2. The Fighters cost isnt just the cost of purchase but also the maintenance costs flight uptime costs training costs etc.
And in all other feilds M2K will be better for india as we already ahve a capability to repair them experience to fly them adn they offer a lower upkeep cost.
3. The point to be realized is that though F16blk52 will be the strike weapon for pakistan. For india M2K is not the best it can feild. But just the plane to fil up the numbers.
4. The added support of AWACS will help India a lot.
5. Price of only the ones purchased from France will be expensive but not hte ones made in india.


Even with the F16 i wonder if the PAF will get the balls to organize a strike mission in the indian territory due the the presence of the Monsters named MKI.

gangsta540i
20 Apr 05,, 08:08
Well it all depends what Pakistan can get cleared for and what India buys. Both planes can conduct the same roles.

SCALP EGs and APACHEs are rather expensive per shot but are important for taking out runways from a safe distance and hitting C3 sites for a long distance. I don't know how many India will buy if any. Yet Qatar had 48 or so APACHEs in service so it would be silly not to pick at least those up and put them into service. They would be sure to get the MICA EM and it seems fit the Python Mk.4 onto the planes. The AASM is not in service yet with the ADA but will be in the next few years giving a customer the option of a GPS/IR guided bomb.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2s ICMS Mk.III ECM system is touted as being able to jam the SA-10/SA-11/SA-15/SA-20 as well as the AIM-120 (we'll have to find out one day ;) ). Even the ICMS Mk.II on the Mirage 2000-5EDA/DDAs should be more then able to handle most Pakistan ground and most airbased radars. The Mirage 2000EH/DHs don't have the same ECM systems. If they shell out more money they could fit the IMEWS which offers a SEAD capability of sorts. If India throws out money the M-53 PX3 is around which boosts thrust by 15 percent, just needs some funding.

Pakistan could be put over the hump as it is rather doubtful they would ever be cleared for the JDAM, JASSM or any of the new "J" weapons. I could see them getting AIM-120s, GBUs, LDPs and such but nothing overly offensive like the AGM-88. I don't know if they would get cleared for the AIM-9X either. No idea on the ECM suite they will be cleared for either.

India would have a fleet numbers edge with 45 Mirage 2000EH/DHs (RDM-4/7), 12 Mirage 2000-5EDA/DDA (RDY-1) and 126 Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 (RDY-2). If all are brought to the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 (173ish) model that would give them the most powerful M2K fleet around. Pakistan should get up to 60-70 (number being thrown around but could be less) F-16C/D Block 52s and still have the 28 F-16A/B B-15s (which couldbe brought up to MLU). That's a sizeable edge in the numbers. Those numbers give them an edge in deployment.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 costs a lot more and Pakistan will more then likely get their F-16s for free. Niether nation has the pilot market cornered. And the planes have differences that each side would try and exploit. But being the attcker would be both good and bad, good because they know when they are to attack and bad because some would more then likely have bombs. Granted with 5-6 MICA EM/IRs a Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 could quickly turn and engage the enemy. Fighting would be rather close.

Granted I could not see Indian pilots wanting to fly low due to the fact Pakistan lacks decent high alt SAMs but has scores of MANPADs. The bigger investment in guided weapons shows they do want to stay out of range of MANPADs and "trashfire". The HQ-2 (SA-2) would be easily jammed by the ICMS Mk.II much less the Mk.III hell moving around with limited ECM is actually good enough for those.


I've heard good things about the Mirage 2000-5 mk2 and I think currently the indian airforce is fielding mirage 2000H models in their inventory.

Can the current inventory of mirages in the IAF be brought to the mk2 standard or even close or is it not possible or to expensive. I was wondering what's the difference from the 2000-5 model and the 2000-5 mk2 model and if's a significant one. What do you think out of the five competitors for the contract for india is the better buy in your opinion.

Good insight nonetheless Troung.

ajaybhutani
20 Apr 05,, 08:41
I've heard good things about the Mirage 2000-5 mk2 and I think currently the indian airforce is fielding mirage 2000H models in their inventory.

Can the current inventory of mirages in the IAF be brought to the mk2 standard or even close or is it not possible or to expensive. I was wondering what's the difference from the 2000-5 model and the 2000-5 mk2 model and if's a significant one. What do you think out of the five competitors for the contract for india is the better buy in your opinion.

Good insight nonetheless Troung.
as the engines and the airframes are the same in both. So the avionics radars etc will need a change. And i guess that can be done cheap considering the fact taht most of the avionics will be produced in india.The upgrade will come but only after we know how to make most of the parts we upgraded, I think there should be no need for paying the franch for upgrades(unless theres a war time situation.).

hammer
20 Apr 05,, 10:07
An excellent analysis Troung. :cool:

some specs about Mirage2000-5 MK2

1. It can carry a max. external load of 6300 kg and a fuel load of 4000 kg

2. While earlier Mirage 2k's have two mission computers, one main and one standby, the Mirage2000-5 MK2 has a single central Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU) and one Symbol Generator Unit(SGU).It operates all the systems, such as cockpit,HMD,radio communications and navigation equipment, GPS/INS,Digital recon pod etc etc.This same MDPU is based on that of the Rafale.

3.It has a large Digital EW system which is mounted fully internally.

4.It has an anolog FBW .(troung whats the difference between analog and digital FBW?)

5.The highly accurate Totem 3000 ring laser gyro INS with embedded GPS has a terrain following capability.It incorporates a Digital Terrain system.

6. Now the Best part. The Thales RDY 2 multi mode radar gives the pilot an outstanding detection and tracking ranges.its muli target capabilities permit upto 24 targets to be displayed,out of which 8 can be tracked and four can be simultaneously attacked.

7. M2k-5-MK2's internally mounted integrated counter measures systems(ICMS) and electronic warfare suite(EW) can defeat all known threats and helps survive over any hostile battlefield.It carries a powerful jammer as well as chaff/flare dispensers.

8. It is powered by Snecma M53 P2.

9. It can fire both Mica EM and IR both which are fire and forget missiles and also carries a IRST.

10. These missiles can also be carried on the under-fuselage attachment points thereby freeing the wing points to carry more fuel. the missiles fitted under these attachment points are ejected and then ignited once away from the aircraft fuselage. :cool:

11.In Air to ground role , Mk2's can carry Scalp EG cruise missiles.

12. The two seat variant has almost the same internal fuel capacity. on 2% less than the single seater version!!.

13.Buddy-Buddy refueling system is available.

14. and finally, During Kosovo crisis, the 15 French Air Force Mirage 2000's based at Aviano Italy had achieved a 100 % availibility rate each day for a period of 3 months.!!

troung
20 Apr 05,, 19:51
I've heard good things about the Mirage 2000-5 mk2 and I think currently the indian airforce is fielding mirage 2000H models in their inventory.

They have something like 45-50 Mirage 2000EH/DH in service with the RDM-4/7, Super 530D, R-73E, R-550 Mk.2, ARMAT, BGL-1000, Paveway II Mk.13, AS-30L, LITENING II and ATLIS II.


Can the current inventory of mirages in the IAF be brought to the mk2 standard or even close or is it not possible or to expensive. I was wondering what's the difference from the 2000-5 model and the 2000-5 mk2 model and if's a significant one.

Yes a Mirage 2000E/D can be brought up to the Mirage 2000-5 or Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 model. Don'y quote me but I think its 15 million per plane to bring them up to the new model.


What do you think out of the five competitors for the contract for india is the better buy in your opinion.

Well to me it always looked like a "competition" to get India the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2. India knows the airframe like the back of their hand, the older model preformed excellent in the Kargil and France offers excellent tech support.


Now the Best part. The Thales RDY 2 multi mode radar gives the pilot an outstanding detection and tracking ranges.its muli target capabilities permit upto 24 targets to be displayed,out of which 8 can be tracked and four can be simultaneously attacked.

The RDY-2 can also track targets at around 100 miles. The RDY-1 can do "only" at 75 miles. The RDY-1/2 lose the ability to work with the Super 530D which would make India have to put them up for sale or ditch them.


It can fire both Mica EM and IR both which are fire and forget missiles and also carries a IRST.

The only difference between the MICA-EM and MICA-IR is the seeker giving them an edge over most missiles as guys on the ground can switch seekers for the missiles.


In Air to ground role , Mk2's can carry Scalp EG cruise missiles.

And the AM-39 Mk.2, APACHE, BGL-1000, GBU-24, GBU-22, GBU-12 and other goodies. Greece has ordered the French made AASM GPS guided bomb for their Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2s.


and finally, During Kosovo crisis, the 15 French Air Force Mirage 2000's based at Aviano Italy had achieved a 100 % availibility rate each day for a period of 3 months.!!

I remember readign a few years ago that the Mirage 2000EH/DH had the best ready rates of the InAF as well. Generally this plane does have the best ready rates for the air forces it flies in.


The highly accurate Totem 3000 ring laser gyro INS with embedded GPS has a terrain following capability.It incorporates a Digital Terrain system.

Which is in fact the same INS the MiG-21UPG got.


Even with the F16 i wonder if the PAF will get the balls to organize a strike mission in the indian territory due the the presence of the Monsters named MKI.

They would no doubt have to launch air strikes. They no doubt plan to launch air strikes on Indian ground units, bridges and other targets. With the ROSE Mirages and H-2/H-4 it shows they have plans to conduct air strikes on enemy units and positions.

hammer
21 Apr 05,, 14:18
The RDY-2 can also track targets at around 100 miles. The RDY-1 can do "only" at 75 miles. The RDY-1/2 lose the ability to work with the Super 530D which would make India have to put them up for sale or ditch them.

Super 530D's can't be slaved to the RDY 1/2 ?! why is it so?
Is the RDY radar so different from the older RDM's ?

and troung whats the difference between an analog and a digital FBW system?

vishv29
22 Apr 05,, 08:02
even if paf gets 80 f-16 blk 52,we have 65 mig29's,50 mki's(more induction is going on),40 miraj2000's.falcons will be their very soon.we will win the airwar very easily.
can any one tell which jets india may buy?mig29m2's or miraj2000-5's or grippens?are mig29m2's capable to fight with f-16 blk52?when we may have the delivery of 12 m2k5's from qatar?

Bill
22 Apr 05,, 19:09
The F-16CJ Block52 is a Wild Weasel.

You should be comparing the Block50 model.

highsea
22 Apr 05,, 20:16
Block 50's have the GE engine, Block 52's have the PW. Either one can be fitted for WW (CJ/DJ) ops. Not all blk. 50/52's are WW's, the designation for WW is blk. 50D/52D. Blk. 50/52+ have additional tail mounted SAR and AN/APG68 (v)9 radar for enhanced JDAM capability.

uss
28 Apr 05,, 07:17
The BIG problem with the Mirage = PRICE. especially compared to MiG29 M2. heck if we are going to spend so much, we might as well spend a few more $s and get the Rafale!

Here is a question (probly a little silly):

Can a BARS 29 (considerd 90% of big brother BARS N011M) be integrated w. the Mirage 2000 base model? I have read it being advertised for the same. It also seems to have better range than RDY2 (unsure)? I wonder if they would still be able to fire the Scalp EG though ... (perhaps a brahmos then :) ) Hell, if no Apache or Scalp, I'm sure they will have the Air to Surface 3M 24E missile slaved to the a/c (range = 130km).

Also, instead of the ICMS MkIII provided by France, can't an Indian Tarang system (same as MKI) be used?

Would this not considerably reduce the price of a new Mirage or at least make an upgrade more affordable than 15 million $s per a/c (in case we choose some other MRCA)?

Thus you will have a truly MKIzed mirage at truly indian prices - cake, icing, cherry and all :biggrin: I mean if they are going to produce them in India, why not get them just the way you want 'em?


Regards,
USS.

troung
28 Apr 05,, 19:11
I have read it being advertised for the same. It also seems to have better range than RDY2 (unsure)?

The RDY-2 in the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 not only has a SAR mode but also a 100 mile air to air range.


Also, instead of the ICMS MkIII provided by France, can't an Indian Tarang system (same as MKI) be used?

I totally doubt the Tarang has been set around dealing with the AIM-120, SA-10, SA-11, SA-15 and SA-20. And the ICMS Mk.III isn't even the best one get even get with the Mirage 2000 family. Plus they are working on a version (testing the ECM sysyem) of the Mirage 2000 to act in the EA-6s role. France is well ahead of most with the ECM.

hammer
28 Apr 05,, 20:23
I totally doubt the Tarang has been set around dealing with the AIM-120, SA-10, SA-11, SA-15 and SA-20. And the ICMS Mk.III isn't even the best one get even get with the Mirage 2000 family. Plus they are working on a version (testing the ECM sysyem) of the Mirage 2000 to act in the EA-6s role. France is well ahead of most with the ECM.

Tarang is just a Radar warning Receiver not a Jamming pod.

troung
28 Apr 05,, 21:01
Then that makes it a green bean and a mango...

The ICM Mk.III is not a jamming pod but an in built ECM suite which includes IFF, RWR, threat warning, and jamming systems. And the SAT Samir DDM missile detector is an option to include with it.

uss
29 Apr 05,, 01:57
Then that makes it a green bean and a mango...

The ICM Mk.III is not a jamming pod but an in built ECM suite which includes IFF, RWR, threat warning, and jamming systems. And the SAT Samir DDM missile detector is an option to include with it.

Agreed that the Tarang is only a part of the ECM suite. HOwever, cant they design the ECM suite as they did for the big SU using the EL ? Even if they have to keep the french ECM suite, I would still think that the Bars29 would provide a greater advantage. The big Bars has a search range of 350km (track range of 200 +). Sea targets can be detected at a range of 400km. Includes a SAR mode, doppler sharpening for ground mapping. And the Bars 29 is supposedly 85-90% as good as its bigger counterpart (admittedly this is speculation based on russian reports). the Zhuk MS has similar features (according to some reports, the IN chose this over the BARS 29 for their MiG29Ks)

Troung, where did you find a range for the RDY 2 (i have searched and searched and come up with nothing)? On the other hand with Russian radars, you come up with soo much (often contradictory statements and poor translations), its good enough to drive you nuts. :confused:

My point was, if the Mirage can be MKIzed to almost the SU 30MKI level using indian, french, russian and israeli inputs, would it not be a better and cheaper deal than the M2K -5/2? Perhaps use both western and russian missiles. It seems to me that the new M2K is even more expensive than the indian SUMKIs, so i'm just trying to bring down the cost. Also, by doing this you have commonality of part with the SU 30MKI and MiG29K.

Another point is that French BVR missiles don't seem to have the range of the Russian, which could be a deciding factor in a a2a scenario.

Just my two bits. I'm still learning.

Regards,
USS.

sniperdude411
29 Apr 05,, 02:14
I'd rather spend 100 million and get one F-22 than get 100 million worth af any other plane.

uss
29 Apr 05,, 02:43
I'd rather spend 100 million and get one F-22 than get 100 million worth af any other plane.

Whoa Sniperdude, we would all love to do the same. :biggrin: I'm sure the Indians would! But i'm not sure they are willing to spend that kind of cash (even if the raptor came so cheap - estimated costs put it upwards of $200 m).

Regards,
USS.

troung
29 Apr 05,, 02:43
On the other hand with Russian radars, you come up with soo much (often contradictory statements and poor translations), its good enough to drive you nuts

I would not bet the farm on hoping that the Russians live up to their end of the bargian ;) .


Troung, where did you find a range for the RDY 2 (i have searched and searched and come up with nothing)?

IAPR Volume 9.


Agreed that the Tarang is only a part of the ECM suite. HOwever, cant they design the ECM suite as they did for the big SU using the EL ?

The ICMS Mk.III is one of the big sales features as it offers so much. It is internal and is able to deal with a wide range of threats. The Tarang being a RWR is not even on the same page as the IMCS Mk.III.


My point was, if the Mirage can be MKIzed to almost the SU 30MKI level using indian, french, russian and israeli inputs, would it not be a better and cheaper deal than the M2K -5/2? Perhaps use both western and russian missiles. It seems to me that the new M2K is even more expensive than the indian SUMKIs, so i'm just trying to bring down the cost. Also, by doing this you have commonality of part with the SU 30MKI and MiG29K.

Yet for all the "MKI" in the Su-30MKI it still uses the Russian radar, Russian weapons and mostly Russian equipment. The only things that got changed was adding in some Israel gear. The Su-30MKI got offered to Malaysia as the Su-30MKM with the Israeli parts replaced by French ones. Nothing very India at all about the Su-30MKI other then a couple parts.

Trying to mix and match parts from a Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 would just increase the price. You have to first of all change the radar to fit in the nose, test the radar, fit new gear, test the new gear and hope it all works. All of that costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. You are talking about doing something past the MKI. The MKI just changed a few things not the radar, weapons and such. Plus the Su-30MKI moved rather slow, not the least of which because it was a paper airplane.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2's big edge is that it has so much in common with the crown jewel, the Mirage 2000EH/DH. If it wins the MRCA deal (126) along with the 12 from Qatar and 50ish already it would be in bigger numbers (188ish) then the MiG-29 for sure. The trick is not to try and make every plane use the same radar but to allow them to switch off some weapons.

uss
29 Apr 05,, 03:00
I would not bet the farm on hoping that the Russians live up to their end of the bargian ;) .



IAPR Volume 9.



The ICMS Mk.III is one of the big sales features as it offers so much. It is internal and is able to deal with a wide range of threats. The Tarang being a RWR is not even on the same page as the IMCS Mk.III.



Yet for all the "MKI" in the Su-30MKI it still uses the Russian radar, Russian weapons and mostly Russian equipment. The only things that got changed was adding in some Israel gear. The Su-30MKI got offered to Malaysia as the Su-30MKM with the Israeli parts replaced by French ones. Nothing very India at all about the Su-30MKI other then a couple parts.

Agreed. However, if you read my previous post carefully, I'm not saying that the Tarang alone is enough. The tarang Mk2 (tranquil?) is one among other parts to give the SU a fully integratd (does this mean it is internal? - i'm not sure) ECM suite. Whether the french ICMS is better than the one in the SU 30MKI, i'm not sure at all. Troung, what does IAPR stand for? I'm still v.new, so need to be told :)



Trying to mix and match parts from a Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 would just increase the price. You have to first of all change the radar to fit in the nose, test the radar, fit new gear, test the new gear and hope it all works. All of that costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. You are talking about doing something past the MKI. The MKI just changed a few things not the radar, weapons and such. Plus the Su-30MKI moved rather slow, not the least of which because it was a paper airplane.

The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2's big edge is that it has so much in common with the crown jewel, the Mirage 2000EH/DH. If it wins the MRCA deal (126) along with the 12 from Qatar and 50ish already it would be in bigger numbers (188ish) then the MiG-29 for sure. The trick is not to try and make every plane use the same radar but to allow them to switch off some weapons.

Agreed, this is indeed a strong advantage of the Mirage. and the IAF did like it a lot (esp. considering Kargil performance of the M2K), but then the MiG29M2 was not really flying then. I do wish it had longer range AAMs though and possibly better radar. :frown:

Regards,
USS.

Dima
29 Apr 05,, 03:44
I'd rather spend 100 million and get one F-22 than get 100 million worth af any other plane.

errr, $350 million, lol

troung
29 Apr 05,, 04:09
Troung, what does IAPR stand for?

IAPR is the international air power review.


but then the MiG29M2 was not really flying then.

To be bluntly honest the MiG-29M is more a TD compared to other in service fighters. None are in service anywhere. Greece and the UAE are both Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 and Mirage 2000-9 users.


Agreed, this is indeed a strong advantage of the Mirage. and the IAF did like it a lot (esp. considering Kargil performance of the M2K),

They like it a lot? It was the top preformer of the Kargil airwar and stole the show ;)

The "super" Su-30MK-I/Ks were in reality Su-27UBKs at the time. The Mirage 2000E/D really stole the show there under taking all types of missions such as escort, CAS, BAI, PGM strike (8/9s of LGBs were dropped by M2K), recce and EW.

Right after the war they wanted 126, but had to officially open a competition.


I do wish it had longer range AAMs though and possibly better radar.

The radar on the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 is very good and very comparable to other modern radars. The MICA in the real world engage targets at around the same distance as the R-77E and AIM-120B.


Hell, if no Apache or Scalp, I'm sure they will have the Air to Surface 3M 24E missile slaved to the a/c (range = 130km).

The APACHE has an 80 mile range and the SCALP EG (which saw action in OIF as the Storm Shadow) has a range of 130 miles.

uss
29 Apr 05,, 05:02
IAPR is the international air power review.

To be bluntly honest the MiG-29M is more a TD compared to other in service fighters. None are in service anywhere. Greece and the UAE are both Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 and Mirage 2000-9 users.



Hello Troung, if nobody buys the MiG29M2, it is bound to remain a TD (kind of unfortunate considering it got some pretty decent reviews and that i'm a big fan :) ). I'm guessing that a TD also provides a flexible platform for the inclusion of different technologies compared to a fully completed a/c so may be it is easier for them to give the indians exactly what they want. India as well as Russia have come a long way since the slow start of the SU 30 MKI program and the MiG is in a better stage of develpmt now than the SU 30 was when INdia took that bold step.

Also, how does the Mica match up with the R77AE or the R27in terms of range?
MICA: http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=124
R77: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/R-77.html
R27: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/R-27.html

As regards the Scalp EG, the Russian KH 59M (Kazoo) has a similar range (200 km) a2g.

Kind Regards,

USS.

troung
29 Apr 05,, 05:34
"India as well as Russia have come a long way since the slow start of the SU 30 MKI program"

The reason India went to the Su-30 was cost. Go figure but the air force had been pushing for the Mirage 2000-5. So in reality back then they did buy a paper airplane over a plane they had been pushing for.

In fact as wierd as it sounds had India picked the Mirage 2000-5 the first full spec models would have possibly entered service in 1999, they could have possibly taken part in the Kargil war. Generally the first full spec Mirage 2000s arrive within 3-4 years after being signed (took Qatar around 3 years). Just food for thought... ;)


MiG is in a better stage of develpmt now than the SU 30 was when INdia took that bold step.

The MiG company has been in free fall for awhile. The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 is ready and has been picked up by 2 customers already.


I'm guessing that a TD also provides a flexible platform for the inclusion of different technologies compared to a fully completed a/c so may be it is easier for them to give the indians exactly what they want

No it simply sits around and buzzes air shows in a hope to catch interest. Once again the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 is an in service multi role fighter unlike the MiG-29M.


Also, how does the Mica match up with the R77AE or the R27in terms of range?

The MICA-EM has around a 30 mile range as does the R-77E. The R-27R is actually next to useless againist a modern plane.


As regards the Scalp EG, the Russian KH 59M (Kazoo) has a similar range (200 km) a2g.

The Kh-59 (AS-13) has a 50km range and the Kh-59M (AS-18) has a 115km range.

That is actually shorter ranged then the SCALP EG and not as verstaile as the APACHE/SCALP EG. The APACHE kills enemy runways (something the InAF needs to do) and the SCALP EG (combat proven) hits enemy C3 sites at standoff ranges and offers a fire and forget capibility on ground targets and in fact a single seat plane can operate the missiles.

The Indian air force has been pushing again for the Mirage 2000-5 for at least 6 years. In fact they pushed for a lot more since the 1980s. Politics/money forced them to go to the MiG-29 as well. So it seems they know what they want just others get in their way... ;)

uss
29 Apr 05,, 05:55
"India as well as Russia have come a long way since the slow start of the SU 30 MKI program"

The reason India went to the Su-30 was cost. Go figure but the air force had been pushing for the Mirage 2000-5. So in reality back then they did buy a paper airplane over a plane they had been pushing for.

In fact as wierd as it sounds had India picked the Mirage 2000-5 the first full spec models would have possibly entered service in 1999, they could have possibly taken part in the Kargil war. Generally the first full spec Mirage 2000s arrive within 3-4 years after being signed (took Qatar around 3 years). Just food for thought... ;)



The MiG company has been in free fall for awhile. The Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 is ready and has been picked up by 2 customers already.



No it simply sits around and buzzes air shows in a hope to catch interest. Once again the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 is an in service multi role fighter unlike the MiG-29M.



The MICA-EM has around a 30 mile range as does the R-77E. The R-27R is actually next to useless againist a modern plane.



The Kh-59 (AS-13) has a 50km range and the Kh-59M (AS-18) has a 115km range.

That is actually shorter ranged then the SCALP EG and not as verstaile as the APACHE/SCALP EG. The APACHE kills enemy runways (something the InAF needs to do) and the SCALP EG (combat proven) hits enemy C3 sites at standoff ranges and offers a fire and forget capibility on ground targets and in fact a single seat plane can operate the missiles.

The Indian air force has been pushing again for the Mirage 2000-5 for at least 6 years. In fact they pushed for a lot more since the 1980s. Politics/money forced them to go to the MiG-29 as well. So it seems they know what they want just others get in their way... ;)

Man, if the IAF wants it so bad, they must know best (I sure hope so) I mean at best i'm an arm chair expert :) I hope they get what they want. Are you sure about the range on these missiles? I thought BR was a reputable source (I think they are referring to advanced versions and not the base versions).

Regards,
USS.

hammer
29 Apr 05,, 06:27
The reason India went to the Su-30 was cost. Go figure but the air force had been pushing for the Mirage 2000-5. So in reality back then they did buy a paper airplane over a plane they had been pushing for.

Troung,I dont think these two fighters can be compared. Su-30MKI and the M2k-5 perform different roles. While su-30MKI is called an Air dominance fighter , the M2k-5 is called MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft ). I really curious why you would compare these two different aircrafts.



The MICA-EM has around a 30 mile range as does the R-77E. The R-27R is actually next to useless againist a modern plane.

yes, MICA-Em has around 48 to 50 Kms range but the R-77 RVV-AE has got a range of 100 kms which is in service with the IAF . is the R-77E an earlier version ?
And the R-27R cant be that bad. R-27RE1 has a range of 70 km and has a semi-active radar guidance while the R-27TE1 has a range of 130 km and has an infra-red guidance system. Both the missiles can be fired in any adverse meteorological conditions.



The Indian air force has been pushing again for the Mirage 2000-5 for at least 6 years. In fact they pushed for a lot more since the 1980s. Politics/money forced them to go to the MiG-29 as well. So it seems they know what they want just others get in their way... ;)

This time it seems M2k-5 has the upper hand while its closest competitor is not the mig29M2 but F-16's! :biggrin:

troung
29 Apr 05,, 06:31
Man, if the IAF wants it so bad, they must know best (I sure hope so) I mean at best i'm an arm chair expert I hope they get what they want.

They have wanted more for a very long time ;)


Are you sure about the range on these missiles? I thought BR was a reputable source (I think they are referring to advanced versions and not the base versions).

BR has a lot of wrong data on the site.

They call the MiG-29s radar the N-109 when in the real world it is the N-019.

They list the Mirage 2000EH/DH as having the Antilope radar (used on Mirage 2000D/N) and the RDI radar (Mirage 2000C/B) at the same time along with the R-73M2 and with the ICMS Mk.II ECM suite. In reality they use the RDM-4 while the new 10 Mirage 2000s have the RDM-7, they can use the R-73E (no HMS) and have the ICMS Mk.I. Simple eye balling can tell if one has the ICMS Mk.I or ICMS Mk.II much less the fact that Indian Mirage 2000s are Mirage 2000E/D models and not Mirage 2000-5s.

They happen to put more modern things on some planes and get stuff wrong on others.

troung
29 Apr 05,, 06:41
Troung,I dont think these two fighters can be compared. Su-30MKI and the M2k-5 perform different roles. While su-30MKI is called an Air dominance fighter , the M2k-5 is called MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft ). I really curious why you would compare these two different aircrafts.

In 1996 India bought the Su-30 over the Mirage 2000-5 all said mostly due to cost. Bringing was more to show how much a favorite the Mirage 2000 has been not to compare them. The Su-30MKI has been a big step foward for India, though it took 6 years to get the first ones. Get where I was going ;)


yes, MICA-Em has around 48 to 50 Kms range but the R-77 RVV-AE has got a range of 100 kms which is in service with the IAF . is the R-77E an earlier version ?

The R-77E is the version in service with both China and India. The missile has an actual range of around 30 miles (much less in real combat of course). Russia has pushed up the range in brochures but in the real world the R-77s around have a 30ish mile range.

"And the R-27R cant be that bad. R-27RE1 has a range of 70 km and has a semi-active radar guidance while the R-27TE1 has a range of 130 km and has an infra-red guidance system. Both the missiles can be fired in any adverse meteorological conditions."

R-27R has actually failed in action. It scored a Pk similar to the Vietnam war early model AIM-7. And that is the times it had a chance to be fired.


This time it seems M2k-5 has the upper hand while its closest competitor is not the mig29M2 but F-16's!

Yeah it does seem the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 is way ahead this time around.

hammer
29 Apr 05,, 06:57
In 1996 India bought the Su-30 over the Mirage 2000-5 all said mostly due to cost. Bringing was more to show how much a favorite the Mirage 2000 has been not to compare them. The Su-30MKI has been a big step foward for India, though it took 6 years to get the first ones. Get where I was going ;)

The Mirage is still a favourite with the IAF ;) .



The R-77E is the version in service with both China and India. The missile has an actual range of around 30 miles (much less in real combat of course). Russia has pushed up the range in brochures but in the real world the R-77s around have a 30ish mile range.

Do you have any source on that Troung? Wont the Russians lose credibility if they say something and sell something?!



R-27R has actually failed in action. It scored a Pk similar to the Vietnam war early model AIM-7. And that is the times it had a chance to be fired.

When did R-27R saw action ? Can you elaborate on that ?

troung
29 Apr 05,, 07:19
When did R-27R saw action ? Can you elaborate on that ?

Well it flogged out during the Iran Iraq war (coming into combat but being unable to track the low flying plane), ODS and Kosovo. But during the Ethiopia Ertirea war Su-27s and MiG-29s armed with R-27Rs being fired by not only local pilots but Russian and Ukrainians failed. The kills had to be made mostly up close with R-73Es because the missiles missed in big numbers.


The Mirage is still a favourite with the IAF

Some food for thought.

Back in the 1980s the InAF picked up MiG-27MLs, Jaguars, MiG-29A/UBs, Mirage 2000EH/DHs, MiG-23BNs, MiG-23MFs, and MiG-21bises. All around the same time in fact.

When you get down to it an easy case can be made for the MiG-21bis to build up numbers for AD. The MiG-23MF was next to useless even as a stop gap (the PAF had no problems with more advanced MiG-23MLDs). A case can be made for the MiG-27ML. But the AD role of the MiG-29 and the strike role for the Jaguar were both easily covered by the Mirage 2000EH/DH.

Makes one wonder if the InAF would not have been much better to pick up say 40-50 extra Mirage 2000s rather then the 120-130 Jaguars and say 30-40 extra Mirage 2000s to make up for the 60 MiG-29s. Back then the Mirage 2000 was a more capable AD (RDM/Super 530D/R-550 Mk.2) plane then the MiG-29 (N-019/R-27R/R-60) and a better striker then the Jaguar (it had a bigger and more usefull payload and range). Yeah that is a cut in numbers but a boost in combat ability. And one could have just gotten more MiG-21s to play numbers and had a very balanced fleet of Mirage 2000s, MiG-27MLs and MiG-21bises. Makes logistices easier and gives more hitting power.

The problem (no offense to Indians here) was being short sighted and not looking into the future. If Pakistan had not been sanctioned they would have gotten at least 110 F-16A/B multi role fighters (that was the plan) backed by J-7P/JT-7Ps and a few dozen A-5s. So really if India had not been lucky things would have been totally different in the power balance.

I'll throw up some links on the range later. The problem is to many places took that massive range as the number. Sinodefense for example throws out 50-80kms. 60km is nowadays commonly quoted. Funny that the number should drop after the missile has been picked up ;)

As for them losing credibility really it is kind of Donald trumpish. Enough MiGs have been killed to make them look quite bad ;)

hammer
29 Apr 05,, 07:38
Well it flogged out during the Iran Iraq war (coming into combat but being unable to track the low flying plane), ODS and Kosovo. But during the Ethiopia Ertirea war Su-27s and MiG-29s armed with R-27Rs being fired by not only local pilots but Russian and Ukrainians failed. The kills had to be made mostly up close with R-73Es because the missiles missed in big numbers.

Very interesting... any news about improvements or changes in the R-27's after that?



Some food for thought.

Back in the 1980s the InAF picked up MiG-27MLs, Jaguars, MiG-29A/UBs, Mirage 2000EH/DHs, MiG-23BNs, MiG-23MFs, and MiG-21bises. All around the same time in fact.

When you get down to it an easy case can be made for the MiG-21bis to build up numbers for AD. The MiG-23MF was next to useless even as a stop gap (the PAF had no problems with more advanced MiG-23MLDs). A case can be made for the MiG-27ML. But the AD role of the MiG-29 and the strike role for the Jaguar were both easily covered by the Mirage 2000EH/DH.

Makes one wonder if the InAF would not have been much better to pick up say 40-50 extra Mirage 2000s rather then the 120-130 Jaguars and say 30-40 extra Mirage 2000s to make up for the 60 MiG-29s. Back then the Mirage 2000 was a more capable AD (RDM/Super 530D/R-550 Mk.2) plane then the MiG-29 (N-019/R-27R/R-60) and a better striker then the Jaguar (it had a bigger and more usefull payload and range). Yeah that is a cut in numbers but a boost in combat ability. And one could have just gotten more MiG-21s to play numbers and had a very balanced fleet of Mirage 2000s, MiG-27MLs and MiG-21bises. Makes logistices easier and gives more hitting power.

The problem (no offense to Indians here) was being short sighted and not looking into the future. If Pakistan had not been sanctioned they would have gotten at least 110 F-16A/B multi role fighters (that was the plan) backed by J-7P/JT-7Ps and a few dozen A-5s. So really if India had not been lucky things would have been totally different in the power balance.

I'll throw up some links on the range later. The problem is to many places took that massive range as the number. Sinodefense for example throws out 50-80kms. 60km is nowadays commonly quoted. Funny that the number should drop after the missile has been picked up ;)

As for them losing credibility really it is kind of Donald trumpish. Enough MiGs have been killed to make them look quite bad ;)

Totally Agree with you on that . But you should also remember that War doctrine of the InAF was totally different in those days. They were treated as extended artillery for the army , which is now changing for good.
126 M2k-5's , 40ish M2kH, 200 Su-30MKI's, 120 Mig21 Bisons ,
upgraded Jaguars, and 165 upgraded Mig27's would be a formidable force for sometime. Though I would like to see more than 200 sukhois in the InAF aircraft inventory.

hammer
29 Apr 05,, 08:02
The Mirage 2000E/D really stole the show there under taking all types of missions such as escort, CAS, BAI, PGM strike (8/9s of LGBs were dropped by M2K), recce and EW.

I think 9 LBG'S were dropped , of which 8 were dropped by the M2KH and one by a Jaguar(which was not successful). And Troung InAF M2KH uses Remora EW Pd for EW. and I read somewhere that a M2K jammed an AIM120 during Gulf war.
Any idea What it used to jam the AAM?

uss
29 Apr 05,, 09:06
Back then the Mirage 2000 was a more capable AD (RDM/Super 530D/R-550 Mk.2) plane then the MiG-29 (N-019/R-27R/R-60) and a better striker then the Jaguar (it had a bigger and more usefull payload and range). Yeah that is a cut in numbers but a boost in combat ability. And one could have just gotten more MiG-21s to play numbers and had a very balanced fleet of Mirage 2000s, MiG-27MLs and MiG-21bises. Makes logistices easier and gives more hitting power.


hmm, troung from what I've read the IAF MiG29 has always been superior to the Mirage 2000 a2a during DACT exercises. As regards the Jags, their performance is supposed to be excellent at mainly low level deep penetrations strikes. The Mirage on the other hand has not proved itself better than the jag on such missions. the mig 29 prior to the Su 30MKI was probly the best air superiority fighter in the IAF. It may have come up short on A2G scenarios, but it had to a2a area well covered. An

One reason the indians may not go with the mig is because they want to diversify thier def imports and not rely on just one supplier.
just my hmo.

Regards,
USS.

troung
29 Apr 05,, 16:07
Very interesting... any news about improvements or changes in the R-27's after that?

Nothing really.


But you should also remember that War doctrine of the InAF was totally different in those days. They were treated as extended artillery for the army , which is now changing for good.

And that is what the MiG-27 was for. If they had upped the numbers of the Mirage 2000E/Ds, MiG-21bises and MiG-27s they could have had a simpler fleet with more hitting power that would be easier to provide for. 3 types of planes made under license (on offer for M2K) are a lot easier to support then 7 types to conduct the same missions. Just one of my thoughts.

"troung from what I've read the IAF MiG29 has always been superior to the Mirage 2000 a2a during DACT exercises."

Low level turning yes. And lets also not forget the MiG-29 pilots only train at DACT because that is the only thing the plane can do. But Indian Mirage 2000EH/DHs used the Super 530D which actually has worked in combat (Iran Iraq war) very well unlike the R-27R. And in the 1980s the MiG-29 used the R-60 which is much inferior to the R-550 Mk.2.

"The Mirage on the other hand has not proved itself better than the jag on such missions."

France has used the Mirage 2000 as a low level striker for years. Plus the Mirage 2000 actually has a longer range with weapons then the Jaguar.

"the mig 29 prior to the Su 30MKI was probly the best air superiority fighter in the IAF."

The MiG-29 was a point defense plane because that is the only thing it could do.


One reason the indians may not go with the mig is because they want to diversify thier def imports and not rely on just one supplier.

It wasn't for secuirty just basically buying mostly single role planes due to lack of vision. And in fact their arm got twisted to pick up the MiG-29A/UB. They bought the Jagaur to replace the Canberra and the MiG-27ML to replace the Hunter and so forth. Single mission planes to replace other single mission planes. At the same time Pakistan was planning to lead with a mutli role plane (F-16A/B) backed up by some point defense planes (J-7P/JT-7P).


I think 9 LBG'S were dropped , of which 8 were dropped by the M2KH and one by a Jaguar(which was not successful).

Correct.


And Troung InAF M2KH uses Remora EW Pd for EW. and I read somewhere that a M2K jammed an AIM120 during Gulf war. Any idea What it used to jam the AAM?

AIM-120s were not in service in ODS and Iraq only had Mirage F-1EQ-6s. And we did not shoot at any French Mirage 2000Cs :frown: . The ICMS Mk.III (made for Greece ;) ) is said by Dassault to be able to jam the AIM-120. Now generally I would totally discount something like that, but Greece uses the AIM-120 and has since picked up the system ;) .

hammer
29 Apr 05,, 16:34
And that is what the MiG-27 was for. If they had upped the numbers of the Mirage 2000E/Ds, MiG-21bises and MiG-27s they could have had a simpler fleet with more hitting power that would be easier to provide for. 3 types of planes made under license (on offer for M2K) are a lot easier to support then 7 types to conduct the same missions. Just one of my thoughts.

one of the possible reasons might be the price of mirage 2000 compared to other mig fighters. But yes there is no plausible explanation why they bought so many different fighters.



AIM-120s were not in service in ODS and Iraq only had Mirage F-1EQ-6s. And we did not shoot at any French Mirage 2000Cs :frown: . The ICMS Mk.III (made for Greece ;) ) is said by Dassault to be able to jam the AIM-120. Now generally I would totally discount something like that, but Greece uses the AIM-120 and has since picked up the system ;) .

Or is it AIM-7 , IIRC the USAF fired mistaking it for an Iraqi fighter and the French M2k just jammed the missile. I think the IFF system malfunctioned in the French M2k and hence the confusion.

sniperdude411
30 Apr 05,, 02:55
Hahaha. Stupid French IFF system. Maybe it didn't work on purpose, so that the French could make some scandal. Or not.

troung
30 Apr 05,, 03:35
one of the possible reasons might be the price of mirage 2000 compared to other mig fighters. But yes there is no plausible explanation why they bought so many different fighters.

It was a failure to look foward. Pakistan threw a massive monkey wrentch in India's plans by getting the F-16, so they had to scramble around. They really robotically put in single role planes to fill single missions and got caught with their pants down so to say by the multirole F-16. And after that they put in a worthless stopgap and then bought two different planes to try and counter the F-16.

Yeah but we both agree it would have been smarter to have dropped the amount on types in service. Having less types also saves money in the long run in running costs and the cost to arm and equip the planes. But hindsight is 20/20 after all ;)


Or is it AIM-7 , IIRC the USAF fired mistaking it for an Iraqi fighter and the French M2k just jammed the missile. I think the IFF system malfunctioned in the French M2k and hence the confusion.

I would like to hear where you read that as that is totally new and would have been a rather large story to say the very least. I do doubt it happened, no offense. We had the Frencn hold back some of their planes because of a fear of blue on blue and actually firing at them would have been a rather large story to say the least.


Hahaha. Stupid French IFF system. Maybe it didn't work on purpose, so that the French could make some scandal. Or not.

Do you have "I have to make the dumbest possible comment disease"? Or are you just 14?

Dima
30 Apr 05,, 06:32
"Once again the Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2 is an in service multi role fighter unlike the MiG-29M. "

Troung, the MiG-29M2 is a multirole fighter, but sadly not in service

"Troung,I dont think these two fighters can be compared. Su-30MKI and the M2k-5 perform different roles. While su-30MKI is called an Air dominance fighter , the M2k-5 is called MRCA (Multi Role Combat Aircraft ). I really curious why you would compare these two different aircrafts."

the Su-30MKI is also an MRCA, can perofmr both ground strike and air defence
missions

"Well it flogged out during the Iran Iraq war (coming into combat but being unable to track the low flying plane), ODS and Kosovo. But during the Ethiopia Ertirea war Su-27s and MiG-29s armed with R-27Rs being fired by not only local pilots but Russian and Ukrainians failed. The kills had to be made mostly up close with R-73Es because the missiles missed in big numbers."

actually Troung, ALL kills were made by the AA-11, lol, i think it was 4-6 MiG-29's without a single Flanker loss i believe

didn't the AIM-7 Sparrow have a 50% suuccess rate?

wow, Troung, you're too intelligent, where do you get your information from? i'm going to start visiting those sites, thanks man, good job, kp it up, how old are you, maybe this comes with age

Bill
30 Apr 05,, 06:49
"didn't the AIM-7 Sparrow have a 50% suuccess rate?"

Depends on the model. Early models were closer to 25%, but during ODS Sparrow had a greater than 50% kill rate IIRC.

hammer
30 Apr 05,, 07:04
the Su-30MKI is also an MRCA, can perofmr both ground strike and air defence
missions

AFAIK , only the 10 or so InAF SU-30k's which were orginially destined for Indonesia, have true MRCA capabilities. The other MK's would be upgraded later.

hammer
30 Apr 05,, 07:08
I would like to hear where you read that as that is totally new and would have been a rather large story to say the very least. I do doubt it happened, no offense. We had the Frencn hold back some of their planes because of a fear of blue on blue and actually firing at them would have been a rather large story to say the least.


I would try to get that link for you. LOL , it can be an empty boast from some proud nationalist but still worth looking at .

Dima
01 May 05,, 06:53
"didn't the AIM-7 Sparrow have a 50% suuccess rate?"

Depends on the model. Early models were closer to 25%, but during ODS Sparrow had a greater than 50% kill rate IIRC.

so, which one are you comparing it to? the later versions or the early models?

"AFAIK , only the 10 or so InAF SU-30k's which were orginially destined for Indonesia, have true MRCA capabilities. The other MK's would be upgraded later."

i'm talking about the actual aircraft, Su-30MKI, not what India or Indonesia has currently, i'm talking about what it's supposed to be like, also, Su-30K's are not for Indonesia only, the "K" means that it is up for export, "M" is for modernized/multirole, "I" is for Indiski

Cheap Jeep
21 Mar 08,, 16:41
My understanding of the Su-30MKI is that the original delivered aircraft were sans canards, TVC and either Zhuk or BARS weapons systems and thus to little better standard (the NO-1 radar had been upgraded to support 'dual shot' capabilities) than the Su-27PD on which the Su-30 was based. This has since changed, after a lot of delays, and the MKI-2 are basically the equivalent of the F-15E with late model APG-63V1 or V2 radar. That said what cripples the Su-30 is it's carriage mode. Huge, draggy, discrete pylons of which only a few are compatible with specific weights and lengths of ordnance really are a draw back. The aircraft has the payload capacity of an F-14 but no R-37 or K-100 to support it's radar scan volume or detection range. Bringing the aircraft in closer as an R-27 or R-77 shooter with a signature at least as large as the F-15 is not a great idea. Indeed, Indian Su-30s during the late great Cope India exercises against the 3rd TFW seemed to be used almost rather like PGW1 Iranian F-14s, employing datalink and MFFC to steer packages around the effective capabilities of the Eagles while turning MiG-21 Bison and MiG-29 Baz into them as an effective blocking force.

Such fighter direction may or may not be practical over Pakistan (range and gas) but it certainly begs the question of why a 60,000lb afterburning AWACS.

I don't think either the Iraqi or Serbian MiG-29s had working R-27 during the 1980s or 1990s. I'm pretty sure in fact that the Iraqi airframes were delivered to an '29E-xport' standard that had only basic IR weapons (Archer and Aphid) plus an older model (High Lark?) radar. The Russians tried to fob this off on the Indians and they wouldn't have it.

The Super-530D won't work with the Iraqi Mirage F-1EQ because the Cyrano-IVM doesn't have a sufficiently coherent signal source or wide open doppler gate processing to support the types full LDSD and all aspect capabilities. I would rate the Super-530F as being closer to the level of an AIM-7E4 or F on a late moderl F-4J/S with APG-59 granting perhaps 2,500ft of lookdown against /very/ limited clutter. The early model RDM is (from what I've been told) essentially a 'product improved' Cyrano IV with a new plate array instead of the cassegrain setup, I doubt if it's LDSD is much better. This crippled early French ADA Mirage 2000s even though they were issued with the S530D and by the time the RDI radar became available (effectively as an early APG-63 class system) the progress with digitization of the signal converter/processor required immediate reinvestment with the RDY series as a new-design architecture. If so, one of the things they likely dropped was the high power, pure-signal source CW or HPRF mode necessary to support SARH for the Super 530 without true, 100nm, capability the tactical (fighter:fighter) limitations of locking yourself into single target tracking are just too great while you also need a lot of cooling capacity and often a separate sub unit to get illumination. Especially for smaller sets, it doesn't make sense to stress the unit performing that kind of high duty cycle limited mission when you can stay in the MPRF range and get both better all aspect tracking and superior track while scan capabilities sufficient to support weapons like the MICA (though technically, digital modems and high gated TWS will let ANY radar aircraft steer ANY missile, including nominally SARH ones all the way through to impact). To which it must be added that the Mirage 2000C with S530D has approximately 3,000lbst less thrust than the F-16 while carrying a missile that displaces a wing tank. The ADF mod Viper behaves like it's lugging an anchor under each wing when it is equipped with the roughly similar weight class AIM-7M and has some serious assymetric restrictions maneuver restrictions deriving from this so the likelihood is high that the S530D is little missed by export operators (all of whom had early variant RDMs to start with). Of course, Magic only effectively means you are flying a high priced F-5E clone...;-)

That said even the Mirage 2000-05 with RDY and MICA is like an Eagle with it's talons tied. It can see all the bunnies it wants but unless it is willing to 'go the distance' to close within beak range it won't be able to do much without jeopardizing the airframe to secondary (mostly S2A) threats. We got a decade worth of education on this with Iraqis continually trying to draw us across the border with feinted lures into SAM traps.

Here, the absence of a dedicated EA weapon (smaller than the ARMAT) is a particularly crippling shortcoming because shy of preplanned roll back tactics along fixed penetration corridors (very predictable and easy to counter with decoys and continual site displacements), the jet is not going to be able to deliver enough punch to completely and 'for the duration' destroy even simple linear target complexes like airfields with singleshot cruise systems. The APACHE's ten KRIS are not even close to the 30 SG-357 and while APACHE may deliver them more accurately, there are no also no 215 HB.876 area denial submunitions so that (beyond time delay on the runway craterers themselves) there is no option to prevent immediate and effective cleanup. History (Falklands and Iraq) have shown, time and again, that small cratering munitions produce inadequate heave and undercut to truly put an airfield out of operation for more than a few hours, even with multiple cutlines and given the distances involved, the IAF doesn't have the numbers to take advantage of a constant sortie generation to keep the enemy CAP'd on at his own airfield beacon.

Comparitively, IAMs with range extension kits like the Longshot or Diamond Back have ranges equal to or greater than the AGM-130 when launched from altitude, subsonically. While, supersonically, even a standard GBU-32 will fly out about 20-25nm. These LARGE weapons then giving you some dynamic targeting choices (for which the SAR snapshot ability is potentially useful) including mass HAS farm kills and ramp voiding with upwards of 20-30ft craters underneath the paving.

Which is where the 'MRCA' element of the Mirage 2000 falls really short because it can either go heavy weight on the wings or lightweight under the fuselage but it can't do both fuel and X2 2Klb PGMs, period. Without serious (forward area) tanking, this tends to cripple the Mirage 2000 as you are looking at an Alkan VER-2 on the centerline with all of 2 AASM or GBU-12/22 (whose export the U.S. can and has denied) no matter what else you do. Comparitively, you can put as many as 4 GBU-12 on a paiir of F-16 midwing ITERs, 4 GBU-38 on the BRU-57 or 8 GBU-39 on the BRU-61. All without sacrificing gas, EW or radar missiles for an LDP.

Having said all of the above, the reality is in fact this: If the Indians get serious, the Pakistani's only hope is to go for dense packing the equivalent of VL-MICA or Adder along with an 'upper tier' (ASTER-30 or SA-20) to effectively keep the support missions at the border and daring the cruise attack or strike package to enter a multishot killzone if they dare. Along with AHEAD rounds for their older (mostly Soviet) AAA, the Pakistani's will need to look at some serious network defensive measures able to operate like the U.S. Mountain Top/JLENS experiments and would /ideally/ go with a turbo-SAM that can make over horizon extended pursuits possible ala MALI.

The reality then become the Indians, whatever their European or Russian flying hardware tastes, not having the signature reduction nor multi-strike munition packages to penetrate with. While their standoff superiorities in air dominance technology doesn't buy them anything because you can destroy the entire PAF and still come up shy of the having enough power to stop her Ghauri and Babur missile systems from royally messing up your day in either a cross border or deep attack scenario.

As with all conventional arms 'competitions' the real danger of excessive desire to compare and cross analyze force metrics here is that the perception that a gameable tactical (conventional) advantage will be seen as a means to ignore the threat of nuclear escalation, whether the initial gambit is successful or not. Such is simply not the case under the best of conditions and a particular tricky issue is what happens when/if Pakistan starts using SA-2 technology to lob nuclear demoltion munitions at nominally 'untouchable' strike packages. Lofted ballistically, the SA-2 will travel ENORMOUS distances (100+ miles) and if you use the simplest of command links to give it basic lead steering while accepting fallout over own-terrain as a consequence to desperation, the entire scenario must be rethought, completely.

IMO, India is wise for backing off the LCA. I'm not sure PAK-FA/MCA partnership will go anywhere effectively (the Russians will gladly eat up the money but the final platform won't be what I would call compatible with Indias long range strike needs against either Pakistan or China). If I was looking at this particular situation, I would be more interested in an F-35 customer plan as this would give me carrier compatibility, long range signature effects (at least FQ) and the U.S. support and munitions plan to enable a viable threat leverage to be maintained over Pakistan at least.

In this case, holding Pakistan hostage is the equivalent of holding the Chinese at bay for the one is the saber the other shakes to keep India constantly looking to the North and thus not paying attention to her economics and social conditions (the metrics of which will ultimately define who really owns the IO and SCS as points of commerce and industrial viability).


CJ

Tronic
21 Mar 08,, 17:13
Cheap Jeep, you have to read Cold Start to determine how India plans to use its forces. And we don't plan to only stop the Babur or Ghauri missiles, but overrun them. And IAF is built as a deep penetration force; backed with quite an arsenal of conventional weapons and strike platforms. A lot more I don't agree with, but your piece is quite huge so that for now.

Tronic
21 Mar 08,, 17:17
the mig 29 prior to the Su 30MKI was probly the best air superiority fighter in the IAF. It may have come up short on A2G scenarios, but it had to a2a area well covered. An

One reason the indians may not go with the mig is because they want to diversify thier def imports and not rely on just one supplier.

Actually, ever since India went for the Mig-29, it has always been a pain in the neck to maintain. IAF's experience with the Mig-29 is not all that good. Mirage on the other hand is simply adored by the IAF, especially after the Kargil war.

kuku
21 Mar 08,, 17:20
OMG it took you three years to type all of that, and you still could not edit the post better.
Shame shame!!!!

:))

Cheap Jeep
22 Mar 08,, 09:34
Cheap Jeep, you have to read Cold Start to determine how India plans to use its forces. And we don't plan to only stop the Babur or Ghauri missiles, but overrun them. And IAF is built as a deep penetration force; backed with quite an arsenal of conventional weapons and strike platforms. A lot more I don't agree with, but your piece is quite huge so that for now.

Tronic,

For nigh on 50 years the Russians glared at us across the IGB, trying to draw us into fighting their fight as 'honorable' maneuver warfare theorists played out their annual fall NATO wargames against an enemy that locally was thought to be able to outmass us by as much as 10:1 in tank disparity.

We never let ourselves get suckered and it was that 'at least 15 minutes before you...' willingness to turn up the Warsaw Pact Central Heating that made them finally back down.

The simple fact of the matter is that it was and always will be cheaper to add another nuclear landmine, recoilless round, battlefield rocket or (Tiger) standoff kit to an existing bomb and even shift to IRBM and Cruise like the Pershing/Gryphon (Nominally after the SS-20 threatened REFORGER SPODs but in actuality when the Russians started targeting Capitals) than it was to play 'a beat them at their own game' logistics of conventional attrition.

Not least because a 60mph railroad line out of the Asian and Arab republics will _always_ beat a 25knot RORO transhipment.

Pakistan is in the exact same situation as we were with Russian style economics and NATO style force inadequacy facing a threatfor four times her economic as much as military mass.

Stop being the elephant trying to herd the mouse.

The mouse will never eat you.

But as long as it is nuclear powered, you would do well to walk around it's posturing and wait for it to die of natural causes.

Deliberately planning for something that could solve Indias population problems permanently _even if you win_ is foolhardy in the extreme because it plants a psychological suggestion that it could be made to work. And it cannot. And your public and particularly civilian leadership must continually believe in this.

'Operating in NBC' mode in the border region will be a self defeating exercise in minimalism and with the mobilization of 100,000 troops taking over a month after the 2001 parliament attacks, you are now down to moving 20,000 men into position in Sanghe-Shakti.

That is not enough to execute a full on armored press (the only real way to transit a radiologically compromised area) through an altitude and terrain choked leapoff when the enemy is equipped _and justified_ in using battlefield nuclear forces on their own soil.

This was what made the Russians bite their nails to the third knuckle, the simple fact that they _could not know_ the level of persistent willingness 'down to the squad level' for NATO to burn our own ground to ash to stop them cold and they had only their own fight-to-the-last-man psychology in WWII to look at for comparison.

The Pakistanis are not braver than you. But they are human. Which means that once commited to something as vile as a total war with India, they will take the bit in their teeth and you will have to kill ALL of them before ANY of them surrender. And the notion of a collapsing government handing out keys to nuclear weapons on a use before lose basis to the equivalent of Madrassa'd Fedayin militias should scare the living daylights out of you.

Remember it was 'terror groups' that begat 2001 after the 1999 Kashmir heights deal. You won the first battle too. But I doubt if your _civilian_ government agrees with the 'necessary cost of doing business' consequences.

Assuming you live through the ordeal, presumably in 40-50 years, you too will realize that the waste of resources on both Nuclear and Conventional systems balancing is a waste of time. But you have to get past the rush of finding a way to win because, by definition, there will be an additive phrase 'at all costs' at the end of any sentence where you presume to try.


CJ


LINKS-
Cold Start
http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20060519/339208.html

Pakistani Nuclear Weapons (700km Babur, 1,500km Ghauri, among others...)
Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

How Martyrs Beat Armored Divisions
Davy Crockett (nuclear device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device))
YouTube - M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE)

Wombat Huntin'
http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1408/MR1408.ch3.pdf

>
a few [TELs] may have been destroyed, but nowhere near the numbers
reported during the war . . . . [T]here is no indisputable proof
that Scud mobile launchers—as opposed to high-fidelity decoys,
trucks, or other objects with Scud-like signatures—were destroyed
by fixed-wing aircraft.49
The postwar UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) established to
eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction discovered
substantial evidence that the coalition had destroyed far fewer
missiles and mobile TELs than had originally been claimed. Despite
the coalition’s Scud-hunting campaign, Saddam Hussein, according
to UNSCOM, retained a significant postwar capability of 62 complete
Al Hussein missiles, 12 MAZ 543 TELs, and seven Al-Nidal and Al-
Waleed mobile launchers.50
In the face of such skepticism about earlier claims of effectiveness,
defenders of the special operations against the Scud threat put forward
a new argument. Instead of focusing on the question of how
many Scuds or mobile TELs had been killed, supporters now stressed
the deterrent effect of coalition operations. As de la Billière explained
during a television interview after the war, the counter-Scud
missions
really denied the Iraqi Scuds the capability of deploying sufficiently
close to Israel to launch their weapons effectively . . . . I’m quite confident
that [absent such operations] the Scuds would have gone on
operating despite the massive air superiority that we possessed.”51
>