Hypothetical Forces : Transformation

[B.Smitty]

GCI radars would be among the first targets in any major conflict, and they have major horizon and terrain blind-spots. But for a country of that size and especially terrain blind-spots are a minor problem. GCI radar stations are vulnerable, but AEW&C aircraft are even times more vulnerable. They would even present the problem of diverting fighters for their own escort and that from a force that will be quite compact with no spare units. 3 AEW&C aircraft will most probably cost as much as a fighter squadron. So how does the option for AWACS force fit in your opinion not to spend much on air force? As regard to Israel, as kato said this is another case. Israel has to cover a great deal of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East in order to survive. It also has to be capable to face and top a numerous combat aviation force for the same reason.

I'm coming around to your way of thinking BuSOF. We should have a small squadron of something for airspace integrity and not worry about AEW.

Maybe we could buy a few tethered aerostats with air search radars instead? They would offer the horizon-extending benefits of an AEW aircaft at a much lower price.

I'm not a huge fan of Russian hardware. They typically have low service lives and their electronics are not up to what you can get on their Western counterparts. However in this situation, where our Air Force is essentially a speed-bump in a war with Orange, perhaps buying a small number of cheaper Fulcrums or Flankers makes some sense. They would have to undergo an upgrade program similar to what EADS did for Poland and Germany to meet NATO/EU standards.

Our primary, wartime air defense would then have to be SAM-based. Perhaps acquiring those I-Hawks would be a good idea. If upgraded, and combined with a significant number of MANPADs and other small, mobile SAMs and radars, we could play a cat-and-mouse game with Orange air as the Serbs did with NATO.

 

[kato]

The problem with AEW is actually even a bit wider than you may realize...

Only Non-US AEW systems in the mid 90s:
UK: Sea King AEW.2/AEW.5 (helo-based)
CIS: Ka-29RLD/Ka-31 (helo-based) - operational debut in '95
CIS: A-50 Shmel
IL: B707 w/ Phalcon - aircraft can be sourced commercially

Not available yet:
S-100B Argus / Erieye - not introduced until 1999 (!) in Sweden

 

[B.Smitty]

The problem with AEW is actually even a bit wider than you may realize...

Only Non-US AEW systems in the mid 90s:
UK: Sea King AEW.2/AEW.5 (helo-based)
CIS: Ka-29RLD/Ka-31 (helo-based) - operational debut in '95
CIS: A-50 Shmel
IL: B707 w/ Phalcon - aircraft can be sourced commercially

Not available yet:
S-100B Argus / Erieye - not introduced until 1999 (!) in Sweden

Hmm, I thought I saw references indicating Erieye was available earlier.

1999 is still within our 5 year plan, though we wouldn't be able to get them for some years later.

Phalcon would be a good choice too, but I'm leaning towards no AEW.

On the political front, do we think we can use the purchase of fighter aircraft to speed our acceptance into the EU? What nation do we wish to be beholden? The Russians? The French? The Germans/UK?

I think this question, as much as anything technical will drive our fighter choice.

If we were to buy Russian, is the Su-30MK really the poorer choice? A large, long-ranged aircraft isn't necessary for us, but there doesn't seem to be much of a price difference between it and the Mig-29SE, and it is a more capable aircraft.

 

[kato]

What nation do we wish to be beholden? The Russians? The French? The Germans/UK?

There should be one thing to consider in any case: We also need a supply of nuclear fuel (prepared HEU) to keep our nuclear plants going. Might be an argument for either France or Russia for example, i think. Primarily France, as our reactors use a "Western" fuel mix.

If we were to buy Russian, is the Su-30MK really the poorer choice? A large, long-ranged aircraft isn't necessary for us, but there doesn't seem to be much of a price difference between it and the Mig-29SE, and it is a more capable aircraft.

Would necessitate a closer comparison especially regarding the jobs we'd need it for. The MiG-29SE has, for example, a far faster climb rate (325m/s vs 230m/s), which might be interesting with regard to quick-reaction interception.

Erieye - first production system delivered for testing in '96, squadron complete and operational in '99. For Swedish version on SF340. The version of Erieye on EMB-145 was in wind-tunnel testing in '96.

 

[B.Smitty]

There should be one thing to consider in any case: We also need a supply of nuclear fuel (prepared HEU) to keep our nuclear plants going. Might be an argument for either France or Russia for example, i think. Primarily France, as our reactors use a "Western" fuel mix.

Good point. I'm just not crazy about buying the same aircraft as our most likely adversary. France might decide to start playing favorites.

Would necessitate a closer comparison especially regarding the jobs we'd need it for. The MiG-29SE has, for example, a far faster climb rate (325m/s vs 230m/s), which might be interesting with regard to quick-reaction interception.

Very true. OTOH, the Su-30MK has longer endurance, allowing it to perform longer CAPs. It also has a more capable sensor suite, and can carry more AAMs.

On the downside, the Su-30 undoubtedly has higher operational costs.

 

[kato]

Good point. I'm just not crazy about buying the same aircraft as our most likely adversary.

Hm?

Orange uses Tornados and F-4F. Pink uses Dassault aircraft, and is mostly neutral towards the whole situation.

See Post #9.

 

[BuSOF]

Tell you why the MiG-29 is the best solution:
1. It's the cheapest option.
2. It's the otpion with the best weaponry for air defense.
3. It's is great for wartime dispersion.
4. It's unmatched in dog fighting.
5. It is a fighter, which could be used as fighter-bomber, the Mirage 2000 is the other way around and air defense is our major concern now.
6. Russian military hardwre being inferior is just stupid prejudices. Ask USNavy pilots, who flew training missions against malaysian MiG-29s (which is exactly the type I sugest BLUE buys for the start). Think of something else. Our air force flies MiG-29s (izdelie 9-12A) and Su-25K. The first time american fighter pilots came to Graf Ignatievo to practice with our pilots they were so impressed both by the planes and the combat abilities that our pilots possess with so low flight hours per year that now american fighter planes come three-four times a year for that opportunity. Pilots came from Aviano (several times), Lakenheath, Spangdahlem, even guardsmen from Oregon (we also have sent pilots there), New York (I think). French pilots came with the Mirage 2000N, brits came with Jags, in th enear future there will be a joint exercise with the greeks. EVERIONE IS IMPRESSED by our MiG-29s, even if they are the basic modification. And I am suggesting that BLUE buys the upgraded version. Same thing goes to the missiles. R-73 is far superior to both american and french short-range air-to-air missiles and has a shooting range of 30kms. Only the latest israely Python missiles are somewhere near that. Even the AIM-9X cannot outmatch the R-73. and here we are talking about 1995. And kato emphasized that the US will not supply advanced weaponry. So the best we can hope for is AIM-9L (if even that variant will be supplied to BLUE Air Force). About Medium range missiles things don't look prettier. R-77 has better maneuverability that the AIM-120. Not only that. Analysis show the AIM-120 has a range of 50-55km, the R-77 has a range of 60-65km. And once again, we cannot hope for AMRAAMs for us at that moment.
The MiG-29 was made as a frontline fighter. That means it was made to operate from airfields near the line of battle in rudimentary basing conditions. For that reason it CAN GO INTO DOG FIGHT AS SOON AS IT"S AIRBORNE. The Sukhois you sugest are different. They are developed for dog-fighting after a long flight of 1200-1500km. Sure they could be supplied with lesser fuel in order to make them lighter, but I read pulications that operating them like that ruines the engines.
And the MiG-29 has an action radius of 500km. BLUE has a radius of less than 100km. For the MiG-29 it takes less than a minute from lift-off to positioning for fire. About the service life of russian hardware this is not true. The difference comes from operational doctrine, which doesn't require say 6000 flight hours. That doesn't mean that a russian airplane cannot survive that. A typical mission of a MiG-29 is around 30min., that of an F-16 or a Mirage 2000 is around 1h15min - 1h30min. I agree that mobile SAMs are needed. But not to play cat-and-mouse. That is the way air defenses should operate. fixed western missile air defenses are not a solution. They are a defficiency.
In western doctrines fighters take the bulk of air defense missions. In our instance Buk is the best solution. Hawk is extremely low-mobile and that makes it vulnerable. I am thinking of th epolish PZL Loara as a replacement of the Gepards.
The question about our major foreign partner is relevant for the rearmament programme, that will follow in say 10 years. It is not a relevant one right now. Hungary acquired MiG-29s and SAMs from Russia and that didn't prevent it from entering either NATO or the EU. That acquisition will not speed the acceptance of our country in NATO in any way. NATO is concerned whether one candidate can defend itself and to what extend. Just before Poland entered NATO Brussel's greatest concern wasn't that WLiOP flew MiGs but that according to Polish General Staff estimates in case of war the armed forces could not defend more than 25% of the whole territory.
Of course linking BLUE to France is a very prudent and needed step, but the question about nuclear fuel is not connected to th equestion about a fighter plane. On the contrary - this could be used to buffer french pressure: "What do you want more? We are buying nuclear fuel from you, aren't we? What more do you want?" One of the greatest advantages is that te french are practical people in situations like that.
As to playing favourites every arms supplier can play that game whenever it suits him, no matter are the two sides in a conflict his customers or just the one of them.

 

[B.Smitty]

Hm?

Orange uses Tornados and F-4F. Pink uses Dassault aircraft, and is mostly neutral towards the whole situation.

See Post #9.

Yep, sorry, I was confused.

 

[B.Smitty]

Tell you why the MiG-29 is the best solution:
1. It's the cheapest option.
2. It's the otpion with the best weaponry for air defense.
3. It's is great for wartime dispersion.
4. It's unmatched in dog fighting.
5. It is a fighter, which could be used as fighter-bomber, the Mirage 2000 is the other way around and air defense is our major concern now.

Do the Mig-29s of our era have Zhuk-Ms? Or are we stuck with N-019/N-019M? If so, doesn't that older radar have severe limitations using BVR missiles? Can we even use R-27s effectively with it?

I thought the Mirage 2000's role was primarily a high-altitude fighter first, not a bomber.

I agree that the R-73 plus HMD combo makes the Mig a terror in WVR, but if the models we can get now can't effectively use BVR missiles, perhaps we should consider another aircraft, or wait for the SMT-2.

 

[kato]

Do the Mig-29s of our era have Zhuk-Ms? Or are we stuck with N-019/N-019M? If so, doesn't that older radar have severe limitations using BVR missiles? Can we even use R-27s effectively with it?

Belarussian MiG-29SE had N-019, Russian models had N-019M (and could therefore use R-77). I think N-019 also has severe limitations in the number of targets it could track.

I thought the Mirage 2000's role was primarily a high-altitude fighter first, not a bomber.

Depends on the version, but the most likely model would at this time be some variant of the Mirage 2000-5 Mk 1 - which is primarily a air superiority fighter. The Mk 2 upgrade later on gave it full multi-role capability. Mk 1 could operate MICA EM, but not MICA IR.
The Mirage 2000N/D is the dedicated bomber version.

 

[B.Smitty]

Belarussian MiG-29SE had N-019, Russian models had N-019M (and could therefore use R-77). I think N-019 also has severe limitations in the number of targets it could track.

I've also read that the Mig avionics (at least in older models) made BVR a real pain compared to Western designs.

Given the size of our country, however, I wonder how much BVR we really could expect?

If we had aircraft airborne and at altitude, perhaps.

But by the time we scramble and climb, enemy aircraft will be on top of us.

OTOH, if we had a doctrine of preemptive strike, perhaps we would find more use for BVR.

Depends on the version, but the most likely model would at this time be some variant of the Mirage 2000-5 Mk 1 - which is primarily a air superiority fighter. The Mk 2 upgrade later on gave it full multi-role capability. Mk 1 could operate MICA EM, but not MICA IR.
The Mirage 2000N/D is the dedicated bomber version.

Ahh, right, I forgot about the N/D models.

 

[kato]

If we had aircraft airborne and at altitude, perhaps.

Looking up Orange's airbases... mostly between 200 and 300 km away.
200 km dist - 2 bases - 36 Tornado, 34 F-4F
350 km dist - 2 bases - 50 Alpha Jet, 34 F-4F
500 km dist - 3 bases - 30 RF-4E, 74 Tornado

Although they could move closer of course. There are airfields available within 100 km of Blue in theory.

 

[B.Smitty]

Looking up Orange's airbases... mostly between 200 and 300 km away.
200 km dist - 2 bases - 36 Tornado, 34 F-4F
350 km dist - 2 bases - 50 Alpha Jet, 34 F-4F
500 km dist - 3 bases - 30 RF-4E, 74 Tornado

Although they could move closer of course. There are airfields available within 100 km of Blue in theory.

Their bases are fairly far away, but we likely wouldn't detect a low-altitude, inbound raid until they were almost on top of us.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if we had Phalcon, we could detect aircraft from the closer bases as soon as they took off (assuming no terrain masking).

 

[kato]

Summary, Airforce Issues

Fighters:
- Shortlist down to: MiG-29SE, Su-30MK, Mirage 2000-5
- issue of medium range air superiority vs straight intercept remaining so far
- AEW support to be considered, but unlikely (also cost issue: Phalcon is around 200 million per unit; Erieye around 70-80 million later on)
- Strength: 1/2 squadrons? (ie 12-16 or 24-32 units?) - presumably also cost issue; suspect one squadron with the pricier stuff or two squadrons with MiGs.
- not discussed so far: multirole aspect (ground attack)? EW considerations?

SAMs:
- necessary?
- At which layer (medium/long)?
- Systems? Get the I-Hawks? (probably best Western system we'll get for a while, since no Patriot or NASAMS)
- number of possibilities, e.g. Skyguard w/Aspide, also of course Russian path
- cost issue in this rapidly rising with capability

Helicopters:
- taking 10-12 Bo-105 seems to be relatively unanimous here; keep the 30-year-old Alouette-IIs?
- potentially a few more for police/borderguard "civilian" function
- heavier helos? Super Puma / Cougar / IAR-330 / Mi-17? how many?
- squadrons?

Utility/Liaison/Light Transport:
- Take up Do-28D-2 for such functions?
- Alternatives? New Do-228? Defender BN2P/BN2T? An-3T?
- other aircraft? maybe a Gulfstream or two?
- Note: could also be used as base aircraft for light AEW with Erieye, should fit in a Do-228 rather well

Transport:
- used C130 have been mentioned
- Alternatives (used C160, used G.222, CN-235, An-24/26) ?
- Numbers?
- Airfield support? (C-130 is about the maximum supportable at the moment)

Training:
- L-39? Hawks? Alpha Jet?
- must-have or should other countries be approached for joint training?
- light prop trainers? needed? SF.260 / G-115 / Saab Safari ? doubt we'd ever need them for patrol/combat role.

 

[kato]

Summary, Ground Force Propositions

Overall:
- rebalance to medium/light (B.Smitty)
- peacekeeping equipment pool for heavy units (Jon K)
- SF btl (Jon K, BuSOF) - transform from existing light inf unit?

Armour Brigade:
- more/less Leos?
- transform to MechInf Brigade?
- new IFV/APC?

ADA Regiment:
- merge with SAM structure, if those procured? (Air Defence Command)
- reduce assets? (reduction to one SPAAG btl)
- note: MANPADS are present within this unit, i'd say around 70-80 teams

Artillery Regiment:
- expand?
- extended recon capability? UAVs?
- replace MLRS? with what? (Astros-II up to SS-40? Russian?)

Border Guard:
- expand to 3-5 btl?
- keep/merge MP?
- merge with some security assets?

Engineers
- pretty much keep as is?
- expansion of bridging capability? LCUs?
- reduction of NBC capability?

Territorial Defence
- keep as is?
- transform into National Guard essentially? (own medical/eng assets)

 

[BuSOF]

Not to beat a dead horse, but if we had Phalcon, we could detect aircraft from the closer bases as soon as they took off (assuming no terrain masking).

Yes, but show me a country other than Israel and Singapore (two of the wealthiest nations on the planet) of th esize of BLUE that has an AEW&C capability.
As for the Mirage 2000, it has never been developed for an air superiority fighter. Firstly only heavy fighters such as the F-15, Su-27, F-14 and MiG-31 are capable providing air superiority, otherwise it could also be won by a huge force of light fighters, but that will be only temporary and superiority would be very fragile. The Mirage 2000 is not a heavy fighter, it is even lighter than its counterparts. The 2000-5 is NOT an air superiority fighter, it is a multirole fighter with extensive fighter capabilities. It is NOT a high altitude fighter, this is where it stands a chance against F-16 for example. The greeks have proven that at their Air Combat Tactics Center.
As for th ecapabilities of the MiG-29 radars this is another nonsence. Tell me, how could anybody say it is better or worse when there are no great quantities (if there are any) in operational service? But there comes someone form, say Raytheon, or EADS, or whatever and says: "Why buy russian? It's cheap but doesn't worth a damn." And that's it it is not even proven but everybody takes that statement for granted.

As for the fighter competitors shortlist and the issue about operational doctrine:
Main Orange air bases are 200-300km away. When forward deployed for war aircraft will use bases 100km away from BLUE territory.
Erieye has a declared detection range of 350 km. I wouldn't bet on that. When it comes to marketing EVERYBODY exadurates. Nevertheless 270-280km is more probable. So you got a valluable asset which needs protection. You cannot divert fighters for that purpose, so the other option is to keep it away from the border, say 150km away. Wartime Orange bases fall on the edge of its capabillities that way. So anyway when Blue Air Force is capable to take actions the attackers will be around 50km from our capitol. Either way. In that case what do we need the AEW&C for?
In order to face that threat we need more units and airborne patrols even in peacetime. That means 2 squadrons. Ground attack capability doesn't stand a chance and will be moled by the superior Orange fighter numbers.
History shows that when a country chooses a fighter type for its multirole applications but chooses to put an emphasys on air defense and leaves the development of the ground attack capability it takes a military defeat for its planners to remember that. EW is needed, but I say we keep up to 5 business-jets stuffed with that equipment.

SAMs are definitely needed and that is the mobile type, as only it has survivability in the circumstances BLUE is put into.
The type I suggested has a firing range of 30km. As I recall types fyring over 50km are prohibited by treaty. So Patriot i snot an option. Hawk is far inferior compared to the Buk, but if you insist on it and put it on an MBT chassis I might settle for that option. Aspide does not provide u swith the same range, the same mobility and is a lot more expensive.

Take the Bo.105s. Yes, but we gotta keep in mind that they are a stopgap until something better comes down the road.
Medium transport helicopters: yes, up to 20 Mi-17-1V
It has unmatched capabilities and is a lot cheaper:
32 fully equipped soldiers or 12 casualties and medical staff or 4000 kg (onboard or on external load)
Armament 12,7mm MG
1500kg of ordnance on 6 pilons
up to 6 rocket launchers for 16x55mm rockets or 32x57mm
or 6 250kg bombs (could be flown in CAS)
or 2 gun-pods with 23mm guns
or 4 ATGM (a unique anti-tank capabillity)
Thus an airmobile capability is existant.
If russian avionics bother you in 1995 a westernised variant is in the making. We buy them and equip them with navigation system EDZ-756, meteoradar P700, altitude radar AA-30, combined radio-navigation complex VG/DG 14 and Primus II, Transcoil engine control system, Marconi doppler navigation system etc. IAR-330 is the absolutely lowest possibillity of the four here. Cougar is good, but it is not superior than the Mils. It is 2008 and I still don't see cougars deployed to Afghanistan for example. If it is really that good, how come? As for the Mi-17 it's combat proven all around the globe.
So I say a utility squadron of Bo.105s, a transport squadron of 6-8 Mi-17s and an airmobile operations squadron of 12-14 Mi-17s. I would like to see a squadron of AH-1Ws around 2005 if embargo is lifted. Just the way I voted for that aircraft in another hypothetical thread I vote for M-28 Bryza as a light transport. Cessna 650 is also an option but we're talking about a really small country here. As for an improvised AEW it takes a whole lot more to develop such a type than just fit the system into the hull.

2-4 Hercules planes, aided by 3-5 CN.235. C-27J would be nicer but still it's 1995 for us. Some 10 M-28s to be used for transport, utility and liaison. Chartered heavy Antonov aircraft to bring in weapons when needed, I guess the IAP can support their operations once to three times a year.

Alpha Jets are old, Hawks are costly. Hawks are something like fighters and something like fighter-bombers and something like air interdiction aircraft, but not quite. So they definitely don't worth their money.
A joint training program with Green 1 and 2, which will include PC-9s, SF.260, AS.550 and Be.200? Any thoughts? It seems feasible to me.
After that Blue Air Force will take care of its pilots on the L-39s or 59s or 139s at home.


Ground Force Propositions

Overall:
- rebalance to medium/light - too dangerous as all our neighbours have mechanised forces, and our terrain is not that adverse to help us out in that.
- peacekeeping equipment pool for heavy units - agree
- SF btl (Jon K, BuSOF) - transform from existing light inf unit? - No, i'd say send the perspective young officers to the UK, RSA, France, Russia, Israel etc. for special operations training and then after the infantry veterans from bosnia come use them to form a new unit. Officers will also be used as instructors that way.

Armour Brigade:
- more/less Leos? - more if possible. Overall up to 180
- transform to MechInf Brigade? - name doesn't matter. You could have an armoured brigade with 2 tank and 2 mechanised infantry units, you could have a mechanised brigade with the same composition. As for the brigade structure you posted it looks OK to me.
- new IFV/APC? - yes, all amphibious and miltirole, to be used in a series of tasks.

ADA Regiment:
- merge with SAM structure, if those procured? (Air Defence Command) - absolutely
- reduce assets? (reduction to one SPAAG btl) - insanity
- note: MANPADS are present within this unit, i'd say around 70-80 teams - we need at least three times as much

Artillery Regiment:
- expand? - you've read my prepositions
- extended recon capability? UAVs? - would be quite handy
- replace MLRS? with what? (Astros-II up to SS-40? Russian?) second hand russian Uragan, if not available, then RM-70.

Border Guard:
- expand to 3-5 btl? - 4 field and 1 special is optimal number to me
- keep/merge MP? - If border guard expands fusion is OK, if not I wouldn's recommend that
- merge with some security assets? - military should eb kept aside from civil law enforcement

Engineers
- pretty much keep as is?
- expansion of bridging capability? LCUs? - tank landing craft, so we could save the tanks if Orange pushes us to the river
- reduction of NBC capability? - keep an understrenght battalion

Territorial Defence
- keep as is?
- transform into National Guard essentially? (own medical/eng assets) - I agree on that[/QUOTE]

 

[kato]

Some Cost Calculations.

We have 1.1 billion Dollar available annually, 5.5 billion total for first 5-year-plan.

Shortlisted Aircraft Possibility, offer for 900-million-dollar contract:

- 20 Mirage 2000-5 (Mk1 standard) (one squadron)
- 24 Su-30MK (electronics modded) (one squadron)
- 48 MiG-29SE (electronics modded) (two squadrons)

Contract includes system-specific maintenance systems, maintenance initial training, some spare parts.
Also, with each offer, a certain proportion (20%) are two-seater weapon training aircraft.

Estimated upkeep is an annual 18% of procurement cost (ie 162 million).
Estimated personnel needs is 32 soldiers and 14 civilians per aircraft, when calculated over the whole squadron. This includes airfield operational staff. Resulting personnel cost is 2.9 million Dollar per aircraft.
Standard Operation cost (fuel, ordnance etc) is set at 2.1 million per aircraft per year.

ESS below: equivalent single squadron, standardized at 24 aircraft

Cost over 5-year-plan:
40% budget, 2.21 billion (20 Mirage 2000-5) => ESS: 2.652 billion
42% budget, 2.31 billion (24 Su-30MK) => ESS: 2.320 billion
53% budget, 2.91 billion (48 MiG-29SE) => ESS: 1.455 billion

Cost equivalent to 24-unit Su-30MK squadron: either 21 Mirage 2000-5, or 38 MiG-29SE.

Hence cost-wise close run-off between Mirage 2000-5 and Su-30MK. MiG-29SE would be the cheap runner, if we only took one squadron.

MiG-29SE as offered:
- N019ME radar, R-77 capable; 10 tracks, 2 engagements simultaneously
- Fighter standard fit: 4 R-77 + 2 R-73
- Strike fittings: max 4,000 kg on 6 pylons, possible: B8M1 20-cell S8 rocket launchers; S-24B rockets; BKF CBU dispenser; FAB-250, FAB-500 freefall bombs
- Possible Strike Upgrade: KAB-500L, KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs

Su-30MK as offered:
- N011M radar; 15 tracks, 4 engagements simultaneously
- Fighter standard fit: 6 R-77 + 6 R-73
- Strike fittings: max 8,000 kg on 12 pylons, possible: B8M1 20-cell S8 rocket launchers; B12L 5-cell S13 rocket launchers; BKF CBU dispenser; FAB-250, FAB-500 freefall bombs
- Possible Strike Upgrade: KAB-500L, KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs; Kh-29L missile

Mirage 2000-5 as offered:
- RDY radar; 24 tracks; 8 track-and-scan, 4 engagements simultaneously
- Fighter standard fit: 4 Mica EM + 2 Mica ER
- Strike fittings: max 6,300 kg of : LR F4 18-cell 68mm rocket launcher; 250kg freefall bombs; (16x) Durandal anti-runway bombs, BGL-1000 laser-guided bombs, Belouga CBU
- Possible Strike Upgrade: AS.30L missile; Armat anti-radar missile

 

[B.Smitty]

Interesting analysis kato.

Where did you get the cost figures for the various aircraft?

I need to do some more research, but I was under the impression that the Su-30MK and the Mig-29S(+) weren't all that different in flyaway price (surprisingly), at least based on what is known about the actual sales of those aircraft.

Of course determining actual aircraft prices is more art than science.

 

[B.Smitty]

From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm,

"Sukhoi has a $1.5-$1.8 billion deal to supply 40 Su-30MK to India" (1997)

$37.5-45 million each, program price.

If found this posting on aircraft prices to be useful. It just tries to list program prices based on known sales.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-30304.html

 

[kato]

Where did you get the cost figures for the various aircraft?

Lots of guessing, rounding, "making it look nice". By including maintenance training, spare parts and such, there's a good way to smoothen the numbers somewhat. E.g. MiG-29SE don't necessarily have to be sourced entirely from Russia.

The numbers are actually rather optimistic. Also, the prices for these aircraft have been fluctuating extremely in the last 15 years.

Mirage 2000 : ROC price, slightly rounded down (was: $3.8 billion for 60 aircraft in 1992).
Su-30MK : Went by the MKI effective price, pretty much, since we'd need similar "Westernization".
MiG-29SE : There have been a couple fire sales for considerable less even, see e.g. Ecuador ($4 million per aircraft!!!). With somewhat better electronics, i'm aiming for a price between SE and SMT version (see below).

Some contracts upon which i've based it (decisive in cursive):
- The Su-30 MKA cost $1.5 billion for 28 aircraft, in 2006 prices.
- Malaysia got 18 Su-30MKM for $900 million in 2003.
- The MKI cost $35 million apiece minimum.
- Vietnam's Su-30MK2V cost $28 million apiece, in 2007
- Russia offered Egypt 40 MiG-29SMT for 1.5 billion in 2006.
- Sudan ordered MiG-29SE for 10 million apiece in 2001.
- Malaysia got 18 MiG-29SE in 1995 for roughly 500 million (debt repayment by Russia, so i doubt these were exactly cheap at the time).