Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JF-17 vs Mirage F-1 ASTRAC

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nicolas10
    Senior Member
    • May 2005
    • 4523

    #21
    Originally posted by Tempest414 View Post
    How about taking the ASTRAC upgrade for Mirage F-1 and fitting it to Gripen A replace the RDY-3 with the RDY-2 its not a true upgrade but it dose open up the Rafale toy box for the bargain price of 15 million dollars
    Indeed. Thalsing the Gripen A to make it ITAR free could make for a great update on the cheapo. IIRC RDY-2 is much more expensive than RDY-3 though.

    Nic

    Comment

    • swerve
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2005
      • 13610

      #22
      Originally posted by Nicolas10 View Post
      The advantage of a russian upgrade would be better politically, as you wouldn't be dependant on the US to get weapons & avionics. You'd get the modern equivalent of a Mig21 Bizon with a combination of russian, french & israeli avionics and weapons in a top notch airframe. What's not to like?

      Nic
      Er - but the main American equipment in Gripen A is the engine (built in Sweden, but American basic design & a lot of US parts), not avionics, & one could reduce the US content of the avionics by using parts of Gripen Demo - which are already tested in the airframe. The radar is ITAR free anyway. And why fit RDY-2, when you can have Raven?

      As for US weapons - you mean such as Meteor & IRIS-T? You'd still have to integrate weapons, whatever their origin. And Israel is very susceptible to US pressure even when its weapons are ITAR-free - which many aren't. I wouldn't fit anything Israeli if I wanted to be free of US political influence.
      Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
      Justinian

      Comment

      • H_K
        H_K
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2007
        • 630

        #23
        Given that airfield to the east of Argentina that belongs to you know who, this would settle the argument easily enough... if Apache was still in service!


        Comment

        • Sheogorath
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Feb 2010
          • 177

          #24
          Originally posted by PLA-MKII View Post
          The word DSI has been used only twice, once by you. :-)

          An old design like the F-1 only has limited upgrade potential. There is only so much you can do. I am still waiting for:
          Considering the design, size, weight and class of the JF-17 I would say that despite being newer, is also quite limited when it comes to future upgrades.

          Comment

          • Y-20 Bacon
            Senior Member
            • Apr 2013
            • 2176

            #25
            Originally posted by Trident View Post
            Also, the Mirage F1 might look deceptively straight-forward (like the archetypal "supersonic combat aircraft"), but it's actually hideously complex mechanically - it could hardly have more moving parts if it had variable sweep or variable incidence! In fairness, among most of its contemporaries (F-4E, MiG-23, F-8 etc.) it fits right in, but it's not exactly a simple airframe by modern standards.

            The French price premium does raise an interesting issue though, with the ASTRAC upgrade mentioned so often over the past few weeks it has occurred to me that the Russian aerospace industry has pretty much all the building blocks in place to offer a very interesting alternative.

            - They have designed upgrades for second-hand aircraft before (MiG-29SMT), including some of similar vintage (MiG-21 Bison, MiG-23-98)
            - They have successfully implemented at least a few of them (MiG-29SMT, MiG-21 Bison)
            - They have a unique selling point in having an excellent engine upgrade option (SMR-95, with tech insertions from the RD-93 and RD-33MK durability should now at least match the ole ATAR)
            - They have a competitive, off-the-shelf radar (Kopyo-M as in the Bison) that is easily light and compact enough to fit the Mirage's rather cramped nose (85kg vs <120kg for RDY-3)
            - They have superior anti-ship (Kh-35) and anti-radar missiles (Kh-31P) which fit in the AM.39 Exocet envelope
            - Iraq pretty much demonstrated that the Kh-29 AGM can be carried
            - They have counterparts available for pretty much every other aspect of the ASTRAC package (ARH AAMs, agile SRAAMs, new ejection seat, new INS/GPS, new HUD/MFDs, new RWR/ECM, perhaps now even an LDP as on the MiG-35)
            - Maybe they could even fit a single piece windscreen, as on the MiG-21 Bison (South Africa and Israel certainly did so on late-model Cheetahs and Kfirs)
            - Replace 2 DEFA guns with one GSh-301? Stronger recoil than an individual DEFA, but *much* lighter and still plenty adequate in terms of fire power. The internal volume gained, combined with that used for the LRMTS in the F1CT, might just suffice to fit OLS-UEM.

            Come to think of it, practically all of this could also be done to the F-4E. Iran, are you listening (setting aside for a moment the question of why they would prefer to stick with Western airframes that will always be hard up for spares, rather than just buying MiG-29s and JF-17s)?
            there is a russian ugprade to Mirage F-1 .
            in South Africa!
            i dont know what it has other than RD93 engines

            Comment

            • Y-20 Bacon
              Senior Member
              • Apr 2013
              • 2176

              #26
              Originally posted by Nicolas10 View Post
              The advantage of a russian upgrade would be better politically, as you wouldn't be dependant on the US to get weapons & avionics. You'd get the modern equivalent of a Mig21 Bizon with a combination of russian, french & israeli avionics and weapons in a top notch airframe. What's not to like?

              Nic
              what would be the technological advantages of a Russian upgrade in the Gripen over a French or Israeli one?

              Comment

              • swerve
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2005
                • 13610

                #27
                Originally posted by H_K View Post
                Given that airfield to the east of Argentina that belongs to you know who, this would settle the argument easily enough... if Apache was still in service!
                Please don't be so simplistic! If Argentina could get aircraft within range (note that they'd have to overfly parts of the Falklands to get within Apache release range, they'd take losses, & I don't think Argentina currently has any aircraft which could carry it), they'd have a good chance of damaging the runways. How completely, & for how long, would depend on how many hits were achieved. Note that for local air defence operations, one runway, or even part of a runway, is enough.

                You see? It's a very useful weapon, but mere possession of it doesn't guarantee victory.

                There's also the question of whether it would be sold. It falls foul of agreements regarding cluster munitions, which is why Sweden withdrew the DWS-24 from service (in storage, last I heard), so I doubt Germany would sell the proposed (but I think cancelled) dispenser version of Taurus, for example. Also, the British government's lobbying to block it (on the grounds that its sole purpose would be to attack MPA) would probably be successful, even without the cluster munition ban.
                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                Justinian

                Comment

                • swerve
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2005
                  • 13610

                  #28
                  Originally posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
                  there is a russian ugprade to Mirage F-1 .
                  in South Africa!
                  i dont know what it has other than RD93 engines
                  It was a South African initiative, carried out jointly by Aerosud & Klimov. It wasn't a general upgrade. No other Russian systems were fitted, though it was shown with the R-73 under its wings. The engine fitted was the SMR-95.

                  It was cancelled in 1995. The performance improvements weren't thought worth the cost, increased maintenance requirements (flight hours between major engine overhaul was reported to be reduced by 75%), & dependence on Klimov for major engine overhauls.

                  The only converted Mirage was taken out of storage & refurbished for participation in MAKS 2001, at Klimov's request. It was kept flying as a company demonstrator for Aerosud.
                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                  Justinian

                  Comment

                  • H_K
                    H_K
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2007
                    • 630

                    #29
                    Originally posted by swerve View Post
                    Please don't be so simplistic! If Argentina could get aircraft within range (note that they'd have to overfly parts of the Falklands to get within Apache release range, they'd take losses, & I don't think Argentina currently has any aircraft which could carry it), they'd have a good chance of damaging the runways. How completely, & for how long, would depend on how many hits were achieved. Note that for local air defence operations, one runway, or even part of a runway, is enough.

                    You see? It's a very useful weapon, but mere possession of it doesn't guarantee victory.

                    There's also the question of whether it would be sold. It falls foul of agreements regarding cluster munitions, which is why Sweden withdrew the DWS-24 from service (in storage, last I heard), so I doubt Germany would sell the proposed (but I think cancelled) dispenser version of Taurus, for example. Also, the British government's lobbying to block it (on the grounds that its sole purpose would be to attack MPA) would probably be successful, even without the cluster munition ban.
                    My comment was tongue in cheek - looks like you missed that part!

                    I agree of course that no European government is likely to sell an anti-runway weapon to Argentina. It's a quasi-strategic weapon - very hard to stop a surprise low-level attack. Even if you detect the launch aircraft before it reaches its release point (which probably requires an AEW platform), you won't have time to vector in interceptors unless they're already in the air... and AFAIK the RAF doesn't keep a permanent CAP at MPA.

                    My point was just that when comparing aircraft types, we need to remember that some come with strategic capabilities (typically: standoff strike, SEAD, reconnaissance, and/or anti-shipping). Others don't. And that's often a bigger decision factor than the inherent performance of the aircraft itself.

                    (BTW, the cluster munitions ban doesn't apply, since anti-runway submunitions - the French ones at least - are >20kg)
                    Last edited by H_K; 5th June 2013, 17:31.

                    Comment

                    • seahawk
                      F-4 Phanatic
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 4612

                      #30
                      And you would find suitable Mirage F1 airframes exactly where?
                      Member of ACIG

                      an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20C you have to deploy the F-4F."

                      Comment

                      • halloweene
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2012
                        • 4350

                        #31
                        Hmmm 10k hrs in a certain french squad for ex.

                        Comment

                        • palembang
                          Senior Member
                          • Apr 2013
                          • 186

                          #32
                          french upgrade is very expensive!! ask indian, upgrade cost more than the plane itself!!
                          for the same money you can make super jf17 with aesa and all the other stuff.

                          Comment

                          • Tempest414
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Oct 2012
                            • 975

                            #33
                            The Mirage 2000-9 is in a different league to JF-17 much more capable in all areas and all upgrades cost more the original sale price

                            Upgrading JF-17 with AESA would put the cost up to round 35 million mark and put it to close to Gripen and Mig-29M and once there anyone with half a brain will go with those airframes

                            When looking at the F-1 if you were starting with a ex French air frame a just over a third of ASTRAC program has already been done so if you leave out the engine mod you will probably find you have 5-6 million to spend on a airframe life extension program

                            Comment

                            • MSphere
                              Senior Member
                              • Feb 2010
                              • 8983

                              #34
                              Originally posted by palembang View Post
                              french upgrade is very expensive!! ask indian, upgrade cost more than the plane itself!!
                              ASTRAC upgrade - 27 Mirage F1CH/EH upgraded to Sagem-Thales ASTRAC worth $420 million = $15.5mil a pop

                              Originally posted by palembang View Post
                              for the same money you can make super jf17 with aesa and all the other stuff.
                              Pakistan alone have expressed interest to integrate European rather than Chinese avionics. The deal fell thru due to external pressure applied on France via India but it still speaks volumes:

                              Beyond the initial 50 PAF JF-17s, the remaining production aircraft may feature European avionics, radars and weaponry. Pakistan has been negotiating with British and Italian defence firms regarding avionics and radars for the JF-17 during development. Some of the radar options include the Italian Galileo Avionica Grifo S7 and the French Thomson-CSF RC400 (a variant of the RDY-2), along with the MBDA MICA IR/RF short–medium range AAMs. The Vixen 500E Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar has been offered to the PAF by the British company SELEX Galileo, but the PAF may be looking for a more advanced AESA radar for the JF-17.

                              In early 2010 it was reported that ATE Aerospace Group had been selected by the PAF to integrate various French avionics and weapons systems which would be supplied by other partners including Thales, Sagem and MBDA. Rival bids from Astrac, Finmeccanica and a Thales-Sagem joint venture were beaten by the ATE bid to upgrade 50 JF-17, with 50 more optional, at a cost of up to 1.36 billion dollars. The upgraded aircraft would go into production in 2013. The Thales RC-400 radar and MICA AAMs, as well as various air-to-surface weaponry, are believed to be included in the contract. The PAF is also in contact with South Africa for the supply of Denel A-darter AAMs.
                              Last edited by MSphere; 6th June 2013, 09:38.

                              Comment

                              • swerve
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2005
                                • 13610

                                #35
                                Originally posted by H_K View Post
                                My comment was tongue in cheek - looks like you missed that part!
                                Ooops! My mistake. I should have paid more attention to who was posting. I'm afraid I've got used to simplistic arguments from people who think that X or Y is a panacea.

                                Originally posted by H_K View Post
                                My point was just that when comparing aircraft types, we need to remember that some come with strategic capabilities (typically: standoff strike, SEAD, reconnaissance, and/or anti-shipping). Others don't. And that's often a bigger decision factor than the inherent performance of the aircraft itself.

                                (BTW, the cluster munitions ban doesn't apply, since anti-runway submunitions - the French ones at least - are >20kg)
                                Both good points. I'd forgotten that the Kriss submunitions are (or were) much bigger than those in the DWS 24.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment

                                • swerve
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2005
                                  • 13610

                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by seahawk View Post
                                  And you would find suitable Mirage F1 airframes exactly where?
                                  The Jordanian aircraft were reported to be in storage, & available for sale, at the beginning of last year. I don't recall hearing that anyone has bought them, or that they've been scrapped. Would they have enough hours left to make the ASTRAC upgrade worthwhile?

                                  And are there any ex-SAAF airframes still available? Gabon bought several in 2010, refurbished & modernised.
                                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                  Justinian

                                  Comment

                                  • swerve
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jun 2005
                                    • 13610

                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by Tempest414 View Post
                                    Upgrading JF-17 with AESA would put the cost up to round 35 million mark ...
                                    Depends on the AESA. Vixen is supposed to be quite cheap - depending on how big an array you want. US Customs & Border Protection bought the Vixen 500E in preference to mechanically scanned radars on grounds of both performance & cost. Much less maintenance - brings the lifetime cost down. It's been in service for a while now.
                                    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                    Justinian

                                    Comment

                                    • MSphere
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Feb 2010
                                      • 8983

                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                      Depends on the AESA. Vixen is supposed to be quite cheap - depending on how big an array you want. US Customs & Border Protection bought the Vixen 500E in preference to mechanically scanned radars on grounds of both performance & cost. Much less maintenance - brings the lifetime cost down. It's been in service for a while now.
                                      Info from June 2009:
                                      The US Customs and Border Protection agency recently built on this success, with the European supplier landing an almost $10 million subcontract to supply an initial two Vixen 500E AESAs to be integrated with its Cessna Citation Tracker aircraft.

                                      Comment

                                      • MSphere
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Feb 2010
                                        • 8983

                                        #39
                                        Update:
                                        SELEX Galileo Receives $9.2 Million Radar Contract Wednesday, March 25, 2009 | SELEX Galileo

                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        SELEX Galileo is pleased to announce that it has been awarded a $9.2 million contract from TKC Aerospace, Inc. to upgrade the Customs and Border Protection C-550 Citation Tracker Aircraft with its Vixen 500E intercept radar and associated mission management system. This contract is for the first two radars and mission management systems, with options for additional systems to upgrade the remainder of the fleet.

                                        This success represents a further step into the U.S. market for the SELEX Galileo E-Scan technology, following last year $32 million contract extension for the next phase of the supply of the Seaspray 7500 E to the US Coast Guard for its HC-130 H fleet.

                                        Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operates interceptor aircraft to detect, deter and mitigate threats to the United States homeland such as terrorists, acts of terrorism, drug smuggling and other unlawful movement of people, money, and goods across U.S. borders.

                                        According to Patrick Geraghty, Executive Vice President Radar Systems for SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems US Inc, said, "This upgrade program will not only improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the C-550 Citation fleet, but it will lower life cycle support costs, primarily due to the order-of-magnitude improvement in system reliability compared with equivalent conventional radars.

                                        This contract confirms E-scan technology as a mission critical asset in highly demanding, long endurance, surveillance and intercept missions."

                                        Comment

                                        • PLA-MKII
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Mar 2005
                                          • 1649

                                          #40
                                          Chinese aesa likely to be about a third or a fifth of that price... remember the cost also subtracts the cost of a conventional radar set, about 1.5-3 million. That is assuming new build jfts

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X