The Mirage 2000 Upgrade: What Makes India's Fighter Jet Better

[DeathInvader]

They were purchased for a a ground attack role. Maybe they wont need any escorts !

 

[Rau]

They were purchased for a a ground attack role. Maybe they wont need any escorts !

Its standard norm for SEAD operation to assist specialty ground aircraft with Air superiority aircraft , to protect them from enemy fighter plane.

 

[DeathInvader]

Its standard norm for SEAD operation to assist specialty ground aircraft with Air superiority aircraft , to protect them from enemy fighter plane.

With this upgrades, it would be of no need to send any escorts if they are carrying A2A missiles! Other aircraft can stay in stand by mode until threats appears.

 

[Rau]

With this upgrades, it would be of no need to send any escorts if they are carrying A2A missiles! Other aircraft can stay in stand by mode until threats appears.

with its upgrade too it cannot comparable to air superiority aircraft ,for contingency plan its ok but its safe to escort it with SU-30.

 

[gambit]

Its standard norm for SEAD operation to assist specialty ground aircraft with Air superiority aircraft , to protect them from enemy fighter plane.

Some clarifications are necessary...

Air superiority = Basically, dominant control of an airspace.

Close Air Support (CAS) = Support the Army.

Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (S/DEAD) = Air defense protects the other army from your army. It means they go after YOUR air superiority and CAS fighters whenever you are available. It means they deny YOUR ability to attack their army from the 3rd dimension. Therefore, YOU need to develop S/DEAD platforms and tactics. If you can either suppress or destroy enemy air defense, then your army can receive CAS and you can achieve air superiority.

Take US, for example...And we will keep it simple.

The F-15 is for air superiority. The A-10 is for CAS. We use the smaller and agile F-16 for S/DEAD. Can we use the F-16 for S/DEAD and CAS ? Yes, we can and we do. Can we use the F-16 for all ? Yes, we can and we do. But each time we use a platform slightly different than what it was originally designed, we will not be as efficient in that mission as when we use a dedicated platform for that particular mission. The key words here are 'as efficient'. Can we use the A-10 for air superiority ? Yes, we can but we do not. We can deploy the SR-71 for air superiority and the WW I Sopwith Camel for CAS if we want to be that absurd.

The goal in war is to win. The more dedicated a platform, whether it is to deliver large quantities of bombs to a troop formation or a precision bullet to a general's head, the better. However, the more dedicated a platform, the less flexibility it has. Can you use large quantities of bombs to kill the enemy general ? Yes, you can, but not in every situation or environment. Can you use a sniper, a la 'one shot one kill' against a battalion of troops ? Yes, you can but it would take you a very long time. Can you develop a battalion of 'one thousand meters' snipers ? Yes, you can but how long will that take ?

Final note about S/DEAD. Suppression is not the same as destruction. Suppression means to deny its usage/deployment, which means less efficiency. Destruction means exactly that. It is easier to suppress than to destroy. Fear is a component of suppression. If the enemy air defense is fearful of being killed and rarely poke its heads, then it is SEAD, not DEAD.

 

[Srinivas]

Nice analysis Gambit, what is your take on Mirage Vs F16?

assuming both are latest variants integrated with latest electronics and radars.

Some clarifications are necessary...

Air superiority = Basically, dominant control of an airspace.

Close Air Support (CAS) = Support the Army.

Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (S/DEAD) = Air defense protects the other army from your army. It means they go after YOUR air superiority and CAS fighters whenever you are available. It means they deny YOUR ability to attack their army from the 3rd dimension. Therefore, YOU need to develop S/DEAD platforms and tactics. If you can either suppress or destroy enemy air defense, then your army can receive CAS and you can achieve air superiority.

Take US, for example...And we will keep it simple.

The F-15 is for air superiority. The A-10 is for CAS. We use the smaller and agile F-16 for S/DEAD. Can we use the F-16 for S/DEAD and CAS ? Yes, we can and we do. Can we use the F-16 for all ? Yes, we can and we do. But each time we use a platform slightly different than what it was originally designed, we will not be as efficient in that mission as when we use a dedicated platform for that particular mission. The key words here are 'as efficient'. Can we use the A-10 for air superiority ? Yes, we can but we do not. We can deploy the SR-71 for air superiority and the WW I Sopwith Camel for CAS if we want to be that absurd.

The goal in war is to win. The more dedicated a platform, whether it is to deliver large quantities of bombs to a troop formation or a precision bullet to a general's head, the better. However, the more dedicated a platform, the less flexibility it has. Can you use large quantities of bombs to kill the enemy general ? Yes, you can, but not in every situation or environment. Can you use a sniper, a la 'one shot one kill' against a battalion of troops ? Yes, you can but it would take you a very long time. Can you develop a battalion of 'one thousand meters' snipers ? Yes, you can but how long will that take ?

Final note about S/DEAD. Suppression is not the same as destruction. Suppression means to deny its usage/deployment, which means less efficiency. Destruction means exactly that. It is easier to suppress than to destroy. Fear is a component of suppression. If the enemy air defense is fearful of being killed and rarely poke its heads, then it is SEAD, not DEAD.

 

[DeathInvader]

with its upgrade too it cannot comparable to air superiority aircraft ,for contingency plan its ok but its safe to escort it with SU-30.

I never said that it was suitable for any air superiority. It doesn't need any escorts until there is imminent threat.

 

[truthseeker2010]

17500 crores for upgrading 51 mirages, shit man french are milking the cow too much.......

 

[gambit]

Nice analysis Gambit, what is your take on Mirage Vs F16?

The Mirage is deployed as a multi-role multi-missions platform by just about every air force that bought it.

Let us go back to Close Air Support (CAS) for a moment.

Close Air Support (CAS) have a long history going back to WW I and it was actually initiated by pilots, not ground troops, and the first attempts at CAS involved paper messages, not munitions. Basically, pilots dropped hand written notes to friendly ground forces on what they saw of enemy ground forces and hope the friendly army would make good use of that intelligence.

Close Air Support (CAS) is not Deep Air Support (DAS). Close Air Support (CAS) is about attacking enemy ground forces from the 3rd dimension at the immediate points of contacts between the two ground forces. Deep Air Support (DAS) is about attacking ground enemy forces not yet at the battle fronts. Destroying a bridge is usually considered DAS because the denial of that structure could at best prevent reinforcement to the enemy at the battle fronts, or at worst delay said reinforcement. The further away from the battle fronts, the further the move from DAS towards being strategic bombings.

CAS and DAS should have separate platforms.

US fighter pilots are trained in both aerial combat and surface attacks maneuvers/tactics. Experience taught US that in surface attacks in CAS, the second pass is when the odds of survival dramatically decreases. It make sense. If air defense survived the first attack wave, it would be aware of the airborne threats and reposition itself to meet those threats. For the attackers, either enemy air defense is suppressed/destroyed in the first pass, or risk decreased odds of survival in the second pass. If the second pass is necessary because friendly ground forces requested it, the attackers are morally compelled to respond to support one's own troops.

The A-10 was designed not just for the second pass but for multiple passes against enemy ground forces. The key here is enemy ground forces and that is why the A-10 designed with that heavily armored cockpit area, unique engine placements, redundancies in the flight control system, and low speed capability to allow the pilot time to assess ground situations. Low and slow. The Mirage is clearly not designed for 'low and slow' multiple passes attacks against enemy ground forces. The Mirage is more suitable for S/DEAD and DAS than for CAS.

In S/DEAD, the goal is to either damage or destroy enemy air defense units as soon and as severe as possible in the first pass. That is why the F-16 so quickly became the ideal Wild Weasels because of its ability to accelerate and make tight turns to escape in the first pass. Precision munitions helps in those first passes as well. If the F-16 pilot have to make repeated passes to support friendly ground troops in the immediate battle fronts, he should do it at higher altitudes. Either you are built to take hits (A-10) or you move so fast (F-16) that bullets and small missiles cannot hit you. The problem with high escape speed is distance, meaning speed create distance. By the time you turned around, the ground situations may have changed against friendly ground forces. This is why the 'low and slow' A-10 proved so valuable back in Desert Storm and later air campaigns in Iraq.

So the question is rather how is India going to use the Mirage ?

Like it or not, India is moving towards US, meaning the Indian AF is training its pilots in multi-roles multi-missions tactics. Pretty much all air forces are moving in that direction. If an air force can afford the luxury of a dedicated CAS platform -- great. But if not, then any purchase will have to consider how capable is the candidate in multi-roles multi-missions demands. For the American F-16 Wild Weasels pilots, air-air combat is something they may have to engage while on their way to support friendly ground forces. Is India thinking the same, meaning what kind of opponents India may encounter that would sway India which way to deploy the Mirage ?

Will India restrict the Mirage to air superiority missions ? Air superiority is about going after enemy air, not enemy ground troops and air defense assets. So any air-air avionics advantages the Mirage have over the F-16 will be desirable. But since India will be like US in having her pilots be multi-roles multi-missions capable, it will be tough for the Mirage to go against the combat record of the F-16 in those same multi-roles multi-missions demands.

The technical differences between the Mirage and the F-16 are not that great, and just because the USAF F-16s have distinguished combat record in those multi-roles multi-missions capabilities, that does not mean those experiences somehow magically transferred to the Pakistanis, presumably India's highest threat. But what it does mean is that the Pakistani Air Force will study the American F-16 experience and see how much the PAF can apply those experience to its F-16 pilots. If the Pakistanis are successful, the technological parity between the Mirage and the F-16 will be meaningless. With the F-16 alone, the PAF will achieve CAS, S/DEAD, and overall air superiority.

 

[Donatello]

Depends, both the M2K and F-16 have slightly different strengths. The Mirages makes the initial turn faster but cant keep the turn for long.. whilst the F-16s makes the initial turn slower but can constantly keep it as long as it has fuel.. something that the M2K cannot do. Avionics wise the M2k-I is probably going to have a slight edge in some cases apart from a few really neat ground modes on the radar that the Americans put into the Block-52.
The Mirage is more stable as a ground platform than the Block-52(As in its a great level bomber that can get more accuracy out of unguided Iron bombs than a F-16 due to its planform) but in today's day and age of LGBs and accurate guidance that is becoming less and less relevant.
However, as much as clear that neither is there to counter anything. Each has a specific purpose within the force its part of and on and off they may or may not tangle.

The latest DARIN upgrade is really impressive as it brings what was essentially a tactical CAS aircraft into a really potent strike platform.

Oscar,

Since it's F-16 vs Mirage 2000, adding a bit further, how does the JF-17 KLJ-7 compare with the RDY-2/3? They seem to have similar detection and tracking ranges. Also, wasn't it the RDY that PAF was interested in for JF-17 avionics....or rather the smaller version of RBE?

 

[Srinivas]

The Mirage is deployed as a multi-role multi-missions platform by just about every air force that bought it.

Let us go back to Close Air Support (CAS) for a moment.

Close Air Support (CAS) have a long history going back to WW I and it was actually initiated by pilots, not ground troops, and the first attempts at CAS involved paper messages, not munitions. Basically, pilots dropped hand written notes to friendly ground forces on what they saw of enemy ground forces and hope the friendly army would make good use of that intelligence.

Close Air Support (CAS) is not Deep Air Support (DAS). Close Air Support (CAS) is about attacking enemy ground forces from the 3rd dimension at the immediate points of contacts between the two ground forces. Deep Air Support (DAS) is about attacking ground enemy forces not yet at the battle fronts. Destroying a bridge is usually considered DAS because the denial of that structure could at best prevent reinforcement to the enemy at the battle fronts, or at worst delay said reinforcement. The further away from the battle fronts, the further the move from DAS towards being strategic bombings.

CAS and DAS should have separate platforms.

US fighter pilots are trained in both aerial combat and surface attacks maneuvers/tactics. Experience taught US that in surface attacks in CAS, the second pass is when the odds of survival dramatically decreases. It make sense. If air defense survived the first attack wave, it would be aware of the airborne threats and reposition itself to meet those threats. For the attackers, either enemy air defense is suppressed/destroyed in the first pass, or risk decreased odds of survival in the second pass. If the second pass is necessary because friendly ground forces requested it, the attackers are morally compelled to respond to support one's own troops.

The A-10 was designed not just for the second pass but for multiple passes against enemy ground forces. The key here is enemy ground forces and that is why the A-10 designed with that heavily armored cockpit area, unique engine placements, redundancies in the flight control system, and low speed capability to allow the pilot time to assess ground situations. Low and slow. The Mirage is clearly not designed for 'low and slow' multiple passes attacks against enemy ground forces. The Mirage is more suitable for S/DEAD and DAS than for CAS.

In S/DEAD, the goal is to either damage or destroy enemy air defense units as soon and as severe as possible in the first pass. That is why the F-16 so quickly became the ideal Wild Weasels because of its ability to accelerate and make tight turns to escape in the first pass. Precision munitions helps in those first passes as well. If the F-16 pilot have to make repeated passes to support friendly ground troops in the immediate battle fronts, he should do it at higher altitudes. Either you are built to take hits (A-10) or you move so fast (F-16) that bullets and small missiles cannot hit you. The problem with high escape speed is distance, meaning speed create distance. By the time you turned around, the ground situations may have changed against friendly ground forces. This is why the 'low and slow' A-10 proved so valuable back in Desert Storm and later air campaigns in Iraq.

So the question is rather how is India going to use the Mirage ?

Like it or not, India is moving towards US, meaning the Indian AF is training its pilots in multi-roles multi-missions tactics. Pretty much all air forces are moving in that direction. If an air force can afford the luxury of a dedicated CAS platform -- great. But if not, then any purchase will have to consider how capable is the candidate in multi-roles multi-missions demands. For the American F-16 Wild Weasels pilots, air-air combat is something they may have to engage while on their way to support friendly ground forces. Is India thinking the same, meaning what kind of opponents India may encounter that would sway India which way to deploy the Mirage ?

Will India restrict the Mirage to air superiority missions ? Air superiority is about going after enemy air, not enemy ground troops and air defense assets. So any air-air avionics advantages the Mirage have over the F-16 will be desirable. But since India will be like US in having her pilots be multi-roles multi-missions capable, it will be tough for the Mirage to go against the combat record of the F-16 in those same multi-roles multi-missions demands.

The technical differences between the Mirage and the F-16 are not that great, and just because the USAF F-16s have distinguished combat record in those multi-roles multi-missions capabilities, that does not mean those experiences somehow magically transferred to the Pakistanis, presumably India's highest threat. But what it does mean is that the Pakistani Air Force will study the American F-16 experience and see how much the PAF can apply those experience to its F-16 pilots. If the Pakistanis are successful, the technological parity between the Mirage and the F-16 will be meaningless. With the F-16 alone, the PAF will achieve CAS, S/DEAD, and overall air superiority.

Thanks Gambit for the in-depth analysis CAS,S/DEAD, first pass, second pass and also explanation of scenarios.


In my view Mirages are used for S/DEAD missions as IAF already have Jaguar for close air support.

For air superiority we have SU 30 MKI.

India has two threats one is Pakistan and the other is China.

In Pakistan front we have to deal with the F16's, JF17's and at China front we have to deal with J10's, SU 30 MKK, J20 and J31.

In case of two front war most of the fighting happens on plains at Pakistani front But in case of China the terrain is mountainous.

So based on the above scenarios Mirage is clearly lacking in dogfights with F16, but because of upgrades Mirage is a good S/DEAD mission aircraft.

Gambit what is the ideal combination of fighter aircraft that India should posses in case of two front war?

India has LCA Tejas, a small delta wing single engine fighter jet which can be mass produced. Also India is planning to sign a deal for 200 odd Rafales.

 

[Rau]

Will India restrict the Mirage to air superiority missions ? Air superiority is about going after enemy air, not enemy ground troops and air defense assets.

Thanks Gambit. But as having 274 SU-30MKI is there any need of M2K for Air superiority mission against Pakistan?
and can you shade some light on what strategy will IAF use against China.

 

[SQ8]

Oscar,

Since it's F-16 vs Mirage 2000, adding a bit further, how does the JF-17 KLJ-7 compare with the RDY-2/3? They seem to have similar detection and tracking ranges. Also, wasn't it the RDY that PAF was interested in for JF-17 avionics....or rather the smaller version of RBE?

Repeating the exact words uttered to me "The KLJ-7 compares to the APG-68 in Air to Air performance, but lags in Air to Ground".

 

[NKVD]

So based on the above scenarios Mirage is clearly lacking in dogfights with F16,

I think you Mis-Understood @gambit Point he Said

Air superiority is about going after enemy air, not enemy ground troops and air defense assets. So any air-air avionics advantages the Mirage have over the F-16 will be desirable

But Since India will be like US in having her pilots Trained for multi-roles multi-missions capable,So Its About Roles in which IAF will Fit Mirage According to its Requirements.

 

[Srinivas]

I think you Mis-Understood @gambit Point he Said
But Since India will be like US in having her pilots Trained for multi-roles multi-missions capable,So Its About Roles in which IAF will Fit Mirage According to its Requirements.

Comparing both jets F16 is more manoeuvrable, with better range and weapons load.

I am only comparing the jets in dogfight.