If it does not exist why the hell did you bring it up? Moreover which MKI are you comparing with, The one that will be upgraded or the current one?
Simply because the LCA Mk2 will have much more advanced technologies than Mirage-2000, similar to what's on Rafale or EF. Give it sometime and you will know the actual cost of buying aircraft now. Even Mirage-2000s would have cost us nearly $80-100Million with 10 years training and support had we gone for new aircraft. Heck the PAF F-16 Block 52s, which is quite similar to Mirage-2000 upgrade in technology costs $80Million with 10 years training and support.
The $43Million is exactly half or less than half of what a new Mirage-2000 costs. This only seems expensive but is still a good deal.
I am comparing it to current MKI.
Another escapist point, the Mark-2 will have AESA, delinked does not mean a thing.
Kaveri was delinked from LCA and so is AESA. AESA will come in MLUs. ADA is probably doing this too keep the cost of LCA low.
Why cant MKI or Tejas drop it? Should it fall accurately at the bunker! Both the new MKI and Tejas can drop it. The SFC also asked for the MKI.
Datalinks and computers. The Mirage-2000 and a few jags are our only Nuclear capable aircraft. The SFC never asked for MKIs they asked for 40 new aircraft. MKIs are only an option for the SFC. Tejas isn't even operational, it is not even rigged to fire R-77s FFS.
In a Nuclear mission the aircraft will go with nothing but the bomb and the fuel to carry it, not even ammo in the gun is carried. This is to keep the RCS low and have the pilot focussed only in delivering the bomb. The MKIs RCS does not help in that purpose. I would very much prefer the SFC to go for whatever is chosen by the IAF in MRCA.
Also building a new jet is the same as upgrade!! How do you want me to argue against this? Building Pulsar and changing wiring is the same?
No. Building a new jet is not an upgrade. Mirage-2000 has 20 years left in it, and IAF will use it. It does not matter what you say. But what about the pilot? He has a lot of experience on the M-2000, that goes away if he is given an entirely new aircraft. He has to re learn and re train.
No, at 43 million the Tejas and the Mig-29 fall in the same range and you can add all those technologies like RDY Radar etc as after market fitment and the cost wont shoot up to much.
The Tejas isn't upto the mark. It is just a point defence fighter meant to replace Mig-21s. That's all there is to it. How many JF-17s has China built for itself? Both aircraft are pretty much the same in all respects. Even the JF-17 will start costing in excess of $40Million once they get new stuff on board. Mig-29 is superior to both aircraft, but it cannot replace the Mirage-2000 and the cost of building new infrastructure will double the induction costs. The Mig-29K came cheap because we bought it in a package deal with Gorky and Akula IIs half a decade back. If we buy it outside of a competition in today's prices then the cost would double.
Offcourse the engine has more time but the aircraft has reached manufacture life cycle estimates which means the efficiency will go down and attrition will increase like the Mig-21, no one will want to lose one Mirage after spending so much. You say its not expensive as if if the engine shuts down in flight would mean pilot can glide it down. Its expensive if we lose even one and thats without engine upgrade its a rip off.
From what I know the Mirage engines have another 10 years in them. The current cost of the M-53 is around $7million. If we go for a re engine then the total cost would be around $350-400Million tops and another $100Million for integration.
The Mirage is a good aircraft and it is key in nuclear weapons delivery, however other aircrafts can perform that roll as well.
Nope. Only MRCA can and even that is gone once SFC gets new aircraft by the end of the decade.
The whole point is that 43million for upgrade is not worth even for the Mirage,paying more does not mean you get the best. Even if they did not buy new aircraft's this deal could have been made cheaper. If not the Tejas is as stealthy as Mirage and ordering more will cut the manufacturing cost because of mass production.
The Tejas can never replace the Mirage-2000, Mig-29, Jaguar or Mig-27. It is first and foremost a Mig-21 replacement. It's newer electronics and design will allow decent capability over mountains in strike, but that is not it's primary role. Only MRCA and AMCA are meant to replace these aircraft. The Mig-21s are to be replaced by the MKI now and the LCA later. FGFA will start replacing the LCA and MKI after 2030. That's how it goes when role is concerned.
Finally with MKI, MRCA, LCA, FGFA and AMCA, there is no room to simply buy new aircraft of the 4th and 4.5th gen types. So, this kills the requirement for new aircraft to replace the Mirage-2000s instead of going for the upgrade. Heck we are working on 5 aircraft or will be working on 5 aircraft while most countries don't go for more than 1 or 2 at a time and only the richest going for a 3rd project.
France with only Rafale. Germany with only Typhoon. UK with Typhoon and F-35. US with F-22 and F-35, possibly some new UCAV which makes 3. Russia with FGFA and a MiG 5th gen fighter. But India with MKI, LCA, MRCA, FGFA and AMCA along with some smaller UCAV project. Even China has one less with their JF-17, J-10, J-11, J-20 and possibly another 5th gen project and even they aren't particularly bothered about JF-17.
Then you must REALLY hate the Russians, not only do they do that but they renege on contracts and up the price.
