High cost of Indian Mirage 2000 fighter upgrade causing a rethink

[jagjitnatt]

mica has a maximum range of 60km..
AIM 120C has a maximum range of 120km..

This my friend is the biggest mistake you're making. Two missiles can never be compared with their ranges.

AIM 120 doesn't have a range of 120 kms. Period. Its range can be as low as 5 kms on a chase at sea level. Head on, its range varies from 15 kms to 100 kms depending on altitude, temperature, humidity, wind, and load of other factors.

The 100 km range is usually at a height of 12-15 kms or more, with other factors favoring the missile.
Its just like Honda City delivering 35 km/l. Only under optimal conditions, and under normal conditions it drops to 13-14 km/l

AIM 120C in a normal engagement won't have a range of over 50-55 km. And its not too tough to lose lock on AIM 120. Evasive maneuvering is very effective against AIM120 and other active radar guided missiles at longer ranges, which is why these missiles are launched at only distances upto 40 kms.

MICA too has its limitations but instead of optimal conditions, its specs are more based on real life conditions. I am not saying it would hit its target 60 kms, but that it falls in the range of AIM120, and would be effective from a distance of 40-45 km.

 

[kingdurgaking]

We could have bought Rafale, fine, but how many mate?
Even after selling all of our Mirages, we would have been able to buy no more than 10-15 Rafale.

This is because there is no commonality between our Mirages and Rafales. Upgrading the Mirages is a wise choice, it will extend their life by 15 years at least, so they will serve till 2030.

And the upgraded Mirages would be more than a match for PAF F-16 block 52. The MICA is a more capable missile than the AIM 120C.

IAF is happy with Mirages and I see no reason to replace them so soon.

But Sirjee wont a squadron Rafale cant do the job of 50 Mirages?.. i Think Rafale is more capable than upgraded Mirages and can peform the work twice effectively than Mirages(if we see the payload and mission performance and other war suite).. A squadron Rafale will be enough for Missions like Kargil and can effectively do A2G roles in Western Command.. To say upgraded Mig29 with Rafale is enough for PAF adding to it MKI can supplement the work by flying from its respective base.. Further we are seeing the life for 15 yrs... But with Rafale we can have them for another 40 yrs(Means $2.1 bill for 40 yrs is good compared to 20 yrs right?)... To see Mirages dont have that future compared to the new fighters.. there wont be any takers for the Mirages as compared to the Rafale..

 

[kingdurgaking]

Inducting the Rafale means training air crews, maintenance crews, getting new supplies, new simulators, new weapons, infrastucture, etc. It would be much more expensive. Take care.

Inducting these new mirages is also same.. everything is going to change except for Airframe and engine with some sub system... There will be new training altogether.. so training with Rafale can have some deviation but i dont except it is going to be that hard and expensive as the parents are same..

 

[jagjitnatt]

But Sirjee wont a squadron Rafale cant do the job of 50 Mirages?.. i Think Rafale is more capable than upgraded Mirages and can peform the work twice effectively than Mirages(if we see the payload and mission performance and other war suite).. A squadron Rafale will be enough for Missions like Kargil and can effectively do A2G roles in Western Command.. To say upgraded Mig29 with Rafale is enough for PAF adding to it MKI can supplement the work by flying from its respective base.. Further we are seeing the life for 15 yrs... But with Rafale we can have them for another 40 yrs(Means $2.1 bill for 40 yrs is good compared to 20 yrs right?)... To see Mirages dont have that future compared to the new fighters.. there wont be any takers for the Mirages as compared to the Rafale..

I understand what you are thinking.
But look at it this way. Rafale is a great aircraft for now. But what happens 20 years from now? Will it still be that awesome? No.
It will be old, and we would be inducting much better aircraft in those days. Then we will be at the same stage with Rafale, as we are with Mirages today. Will be upgrade the Rafale, or dump it for a new aircraft?

And if we do dump it, doesn't the whole point of opting for Rafales shatter? We want something to last us at least 15-20 years. Rafales can last us 40 years, but they will also require upgrades. When we bought Mirages, we knew we will have to upgrade. And without the upgrade, our Mirages are useless in today's scenario.

$2 billion will ensure we have 51 excellent aircraft serving us for another 20 years from now.

In 2030 when these aircraft do need to be replaced, we will have much better alternatives like MCA.

And a squadron of Rafale can not counter 3 of Mirages. Rafale is good but just like 30% better than the Mirage 2000-9. Its not a huge difference.

 

[graphican]

I understand what you are thinking.
But look at it this way. Rafale is a great aircraft for now. But what happens 20 years from now? Will it still be that awesome? No.
It will be old, and we would be inducting much better aircraft in those days. Then we will be at the same stage with Rafale, as we are with Mirages today. Will be upgrade the Rafale, or dump it for a new aircraft?

And if we do dump it, doesn't the whole point of opting for Rafales shatter? We want something to last us at least 15-20 years. Rafales can last us 40 years, but they will also require upgrades. When we bought Mirages, we knew we will have to upgrade. And without the upgrade, our Mirages are useless in today's scenario.

$2 billion will ensure we have 51 excellent aircraft serving us for another 20 years from now.

In 2030 when these aircraft do need to be replaced, we will have much better alternatives like MCA.

And a squadron of Rafale can not counter 3 of Mirages. Rafale is good but just like 30% better than the Mirage 2000-9. Its not a huge difference.

Regarding your point of keeping airframe for another 15-20 years, it would have been better if IAF would decide when to lay-off some fighter and when not instead of fighter living out its life and deciding. In my opinion, 1-2 squadrons of Rafael would have given an edge to IAF having one of the best 4.5 gen fighter and an extended period of 40 years of operational life which it missed.

Regarding Rafale, its not just 30% better. Considering other dimensions, it could have proven a lot helpful in other ways too. Induction of Rafale as compared to Mirage 2000 would have given India an opportunity to study yet another top-notch fighter and hence MCA would have gained out of it.

In my opinion, India doesn't seem to gain anything out of this deal.

 

[kingdurgaking]

I understand what you are thinking.
But look at it this way. Rafale is a great aircraft for now. But what happens 20 years from now? Will it still be that awesome? No.
It will be old, and we would be inducting much better aircraft in those days. Then we will be at the same stage with Rafale, as we are with Mirages today. Will be upgrade the Rafale, or dump it for a new aircraft?

And if we do dump it, doesn't the whole point of opting for Rafales shatter? We want something to last us at least 15-20 years. Rafales can last us 40 years, but they will also require upgrades. When we bought Mirages, we knew we will have to upgrade. And without the upgrade, our Mirages are useless in today's scenario.

$2 billion will ensure we have 51 excellent aircraft serving us for another 20 years from now.

In 2030 when these aircraft do need to be replaced, we will have much better alternatives like MCA.

And a squadron of Rafale can not counter 3 of Mirages. Rafale is good but just like 30% better than the Mirage 2000-9. Its not a huge difference.

I am still in go for Rafale because i can list lot of advantages than this upgrade but i am flattered on 30% so in money vs performance vs numbers ratio.. as per your view Rafale doesnt fare much on performance against the upgraded Mirages.. now i am convinced behind the calculations on IAF on this costly upgrade

 

[GORKHALI]

Welcum back jagjit ji,am a fan of ur posts before i joind this forum a month bck.....

 

[kingdurgaking]

Regarding your point of keeping airframe for another 15-20 years, it would have been better if IAF would decide when to lay-off some fighter and when not instead of fighter living out its life and deciding. In my opinion, 1-2 squadrons of Rafael would have given an edge to IAF which it missed.

Regarding Rafale, its not just 30% better. Also induction of a generation ahead platform would have given India an opportunity to study yet another top-notch platform and hence MCA would have gained value out of it.

In my opinion, India doesn't seem to gain anything out of this deal.

but sirjee if we have 2 squadrons your argument is true....

but with the same money and buy selling Mirages we can have only 1 squad of Rafale.. If you take a mission and if Rafale is 30% better than Mirages then the usage of Rafale will be more / mission than that of Mirages.. which means Rafale will have end of life sooner than it is supposed to have.. which will be a huge asset loss on IAF inventory ... Secondly MMRCA is there to study some good technologies and AMCA will not be benefited from this but from
PAK FA..

 

[jagjitnatt]

Welcum back jagjit ji,am a fan of ur posts before i joind this forum a month bck.....

Thank you kapoor. I am back now, and I hope you enjoy my posts.

I am still in go for Rafale because i can list lot of advantages than this upgrade but i am flattered on 30% so in money vs performance vs numbers ratio.. as per your view Rafale doesnt fare much on performance against the upgraded Mirages.. now i am convinced behind the calculations on IAF on this costly upgrade

Lets see. If you break down the upgrade deal, you'll see that $800 million are for the MICA missiles. Only $1.3 billion is for upgrading the aircraft.
List some of advantages you think Rafale has, and I'll try to counter them, if possible.

Regarding your point of keeping airframe for another 15-20 years, it would have been better if IAF would decide when to lay-off some fighter and when not instead of fighter living out its life and deciding. In my opinion, 1-2 squadrons of Rafael would have given an edge to IAF having one of the best 4.5 gen fighter and an extended period of 40 years of operational life which it missed.

Regarding Rafale, its not just 30% better. Considering other dimensions, it could have proven a lot helpful in other ways too. Induction of Rafale as compared to Mirage 2000 would have given India an opportunity to study yet another top-notch fighter and hence MCA would have gained out of it.

In my opinion, India doesn't seem to gain anything out of this deal.

You're right. 2 squadrons would have been great. But sir two squadrons would have cost us around $5 billion at least. We are in no position to invest that kind of money, when we have an aircraft that still has 20 years of more life, and can be more than a match for PAF F16s. After all, the radar on upgraded Mirages is similar to the one on Rafale, they both operate the same missiles, have low rcs.

 

[notorious_eagle]

I understand what you are thinking.
But look at it this way. Rafale is a great aircraft for now. But what happens 20 years from now? Will it still be that awesome? No.
It will be old, and we would be inducting much better aircraft in those days. Then we will be at the same stage with Rafale, as we are with Mirages today. Will be upgrade the Rafale, or dump it for a new aircraft?

And if we do dump it, doesn't the whole point of opting for Rafales shatter? We want something to last us at least 15-20 years. Rafales can last us 40 years, but they will also require upgrades. When we bought Mirages, we knew we will have to upgrade. And without the upgrade, our Mirages are useless in today's scenario.

$2 billion will ensure we have 51 excellent aircraft serving us for another 20 years from now.

In 2030 when these aircraft do need to be replaced, we will have much better alternatives like MCA.

And a squadron of Rafale can not counter 3 of Mirages. Rafale is good but just like 30% better than the Mirage 2000-9. Its not a huge difference.

Indeed very well said. Let me add something else besides the monetary aspect.

IAF has been operating the Mirage 2000 since the 80's, this means experience IAF pilots of Mirage 2000's have thousands of hours clocked in. They are experienced, they have developed their tactics around this plane. Inducting a brand new machine like Rafale will mean retraining of maintenance crews and the pilots from the scratch. Not only is this a costly affair but it will take years before the IAF can fully bring out the full potential of the Rafales. Retiring the Mirage 2000's would have been indeed a very stupid move, IAF did the right thing by upgrading these machines because even to this day they are very potent especially in the subcontinent arena. I am willing to bet that after these aircrafts go through these upgrades and experienced pilots operating them, they will be more than a match against the Mig 29's and SU30MKI's in mock combats. Introducing a brand new platform is not only a very costly affair but very time consuming, its not plug and play. It will take years before the IAF gets a full grasp of the MRCA.

 

[sancho]

Indeed very well said. Let me add something else besides the monetary aspect.

IAF has been operating the Mirage 2000 since the 80's, this means experience IAF pilots of Mirage 2000's have thousands of hours clocked in. They are experienced, they have developed their tactics around this plane. Inducting a brand new machine like Rafale will mean retraining of maintenance crews and the pilots from the scratch. Not only is this a costly affair but it will take years before the IAF can fully bring out the full potential of the Rafales. Retiring the Mirage 2000's would have been indeed a very stupid move, IAF did the right thing by upgrading these machines because even to this day they are very potent especially in the subcontinent arena. I am willing to bet that after these aircrafts go through these upgrades and experienced pilots operating them, they will be more than a match against the Mig 29's and SU30MKI's in mock combats. Introducing a brand new platform is not only a very costly affair but very time consuming, its not plug and play. It will take years before the IAF gets a full grasp of the MRCA.

Not exactly, because the Rafale is based in many fields on the Mirage 2000, be it weapons, systems, even maintenance, all further developed from the M2Ks. So if someone would want to replace the M2Ks with another fighter, Rafale would be the best choice for ease of training, logistics...
..., but like jagjitnatt just instead of upgrading M2Ks it doesn't make sense, because it would be too costly and the capability difference is not that big (at least to present F2, or F3s), because the M2K-5 will use the same weapon package, targeting pods and has a lot of other commonalities that makes it very capable. Also we can't only take the $40 millions as a yardstick, but have to keep in mind that we procured M2Ks with spares...for a service life of 30-40 years too. Replacing them at half their life, would make the price we paid then useless also.
Replacing Jaguars with MMRCA instead of upgrading all of them would make much more sense, because they are limited to the ground attack role only, so have a way bigger capability difference than M2Ks have.

 

[Storm Force]

IMO

I cant see the point of maintaining such a small fleet of 51 fighters. Worse stil to spend $2 billion on a upgrade and new weapons.

THE INDIANS have too many combat types.

Why do they stil operate 63 mig29 and spend $1 billion on smt upgrade.

$3 billion wasted.

This money should have gone on a MMRCA order in 2008.

Today IAF could have looked forward to future fleet based on 3 types only

This motley make up of 6 types many with only 50 or 60 planes is so inefficient and real lack of planning

 

[jagjitnatt]

IMO

I cant see the point of maintaining such a small fleet of 51 fighters. Worse stil to spend $2 billion on a upgrade and new weapons.

THE INDIANS have too many combat types.

Why do they stil operate 63 mig29 and spend $1 billion on smt upgrade.

$3 billion wasted.

This money should have gone on a MMRCA order in 2008.

Today IAF could have looked forward to future fleet based on 3 types only

This motley make up of 6 types many with only 50 or 60 planes is so inefficient and real lack of planning

It is inefficient. Yes. But it also is diverse and allows us to carry out diversified tasks in a more specialized manner.
There's balance between specialized and inefficient air force that India is managing. The only deal is money, and we have enough.

I feel the upgrade is worth it. With just $3 billion, we are extending life of 120 aircraft for 20 more years. Compare that to the $13 billion, that the new 126 aircraft require for the same 20 years, after which they too will require upgrades.

 

[deckingraj]

Not exactly, because the Rafale is based in many fields on the Mirage 2000, be it weapons, systems, even maintenance, all further developed from the M2Ks. So if someone would want to replace the M2Ks with another fighter, Rafale would be the best choice for ease of training, logistics...
..., but like jagjitnatt just instead of upgrading M2Ks it doesn't make sense, because it would be too costly and the capability difference is not that big (at least to present F2, or F3s), because the M2K-5 will use the same weapon package, targeting pods and has a lot of other commonalities that makes it very capable. Also we can't only take the $40 millions as a yardstick, but have to keep in mind that we procured M2Ks with spares...for a service life of 30-40 years too. Replacing them at half their life, would make the price we paid then useless also.
Replacing Jaguars with MMRCA instead of upgrading all of them would make much more sense, because they are limited to the ground attack role only, so have a way bigger capability difference than M2Ks have.

Still a new platform is a new platform....Ideally it takes 4-5 years(very optimistic estimates) to master a plane. Decades of experience of Mirages should not be ignored especially when money is not a problem for us....If Mirage can serve the purpose i will not go for a new platform because my pilot would be more comfortable going for a mission on a platform he has been training for years vs a new comparable platform like Rafael....

 

[sudhir007]