Alternatives to MMRCA - News & Discussion

[Viv S]

All that works onlee when you have a nice, clean set-piece battle where the pilot can leisurely pull out his iPad and stylus; debate with the computer as to which target is really an enemy, which one is a friendly, and which one is a burnt out hulk; and go about designating targets one by one while the troops on the ground sip another Diet Coke in exasperation. Great if you are a superpower attacking an uppity little third-world pretender. Nor so in a battle between equal opponents.

You could throttle back at 60 km and survey the zone, identify targets and do a sweep at high altitude. I suppose it might be easier to distinguish friendlies and hostiles with 'Eyeball Mk1' doing 600kph at 500 ft, dodging AAA and MANPADS, while still keeping a lookout for hostile enemy fighters entering the FEBA at 30,000 ft. After all, the Russians only had 17 Su-25s shot down in Afghanistan, and lost only 7 more to Chechen militias.

Quite often, one has to count on nothing more than a pilot with a working Eyeball Mk.1 and a radio link between him and the commander on the ground to get the job done. Days of CAS over indeed. Wonder when the experts will start claiming that the days of dogfights are also over.

It was abundantly clear in my post that the reference was to A-10/Su-25 type low level firing runs and not the CAS mission altogether.

[arthuro]

Each one of the alternatives had attendant risks to go with them. The MoD being a fundamentally risk averse organisation (perhaps predictably) opted to stick with the expensive but reliable French option. But there's more than adequate evidence to prove that it was less than delighted with the proposed cost. (ref 1, ref 2).

funny from your own link :

"But the project cost has not exceeded our planned estimates. The Mirage-2000 has had a very good track record in IAF. After the upgrade, we will get a very capable, state-of-the-art fighter, which will serve for another 15-20 years," said a senior officer.

MoD and IAF, however, say the Mirage upgrade's scope is much bigger and sophisticated than the MiG-29 one.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... integrator
(thanks for the sources !)

As for your "no other alternative argument" you obviously can't provide a single serious source. in fact in your second link you can quote this:

A section of the IAF top brass feels that the upgrade cost is too high as the officers say that buying a new fighter would work out cheaper.

More LCA or Mig-29 would have been indeed a possibility but the IAF eventually decided to buy the mirage 2000 upgrade and they are satisfied with it (performance vs costs).
And for your information another less costly mirage 2000 upgrade was available fitted with the RC400 a simpler version of the RDY radar which is in service in moroccan AF mirage F1. So plenty of other option available.

And again if the IAF/MoD would have forced to upgrade mirage 2000 on Dassault's conditions and if they were dissatisfied with the cost and/or performance the rafale would have never been selected for MRCA. The fact that the rafale was selected means india is ok with the mirage upgrade.

[Philip]

Every aircraft is a resource and the fact that the IAF have chosen to upgrade both M-2000s and MIG-29s indicate their worth to the force.The issue here is an upgrade adding X amt. of years to the bird,as opposed to a new bird which would give double the lifespan at lesser cost.
The CAS aspect has been mentioned because it is and has been a bone of contention with the IA,that it has had inadequate support from the IAF,why it wants all attack helos transferred and under its control.This is borne out by the large numbers of LCHs that is being ordered by the IA. In the fog of war,as envisaged between India and either Pak or China,it is not going to be a leisurely stroll in the park disposing off Talibunnies or other ungodly species,either by manned aircraft or drone strikes by DJs ("Drone Jockeys").From past experience,aircraft made several sorties each day especially for GA and CAS ops in our wars with Pak,esp. in the "bulge".There were losses mostly due to ground fire.There's ample historical evidence to underscore this pertinent requirement by the IA.

Here is a 2009 IT report on the differences between the IAF and IA on "Cold Start".


http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Army ... 74898.html

Army and IAF face off over new war plan
Pinaki Bhattacharya

The army and air force are battling it out over how to beat Pakistan in a flash war if and when that happens.

The Indian Air Force is not convinced about its role in the army's "cold start doctrine" for a future Indo-Pak war.
The strategy envisages the air force providing "close air support", which calls for aerial bombing of ground targets to augment the fire power of the advancing troops.

The growing tension between the two services is evident in a statement of air vice-marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, deputy director of the air force's own Centre for Air Power Studies.

"There is no question of the air force fitting itself into a doctrine propounded by the army. That is a concept dead at inception," Kak said.

A senior army officer disputes the notion of a conceptual difference between the two services. "The air force is supposed to launch an offensive under the doctrine by hitting targets deep inside enemy territory," he said. But he admitted the air force was hesitant about 'close air support'. 'Cold Start' is a post-nuclearised doctrine that envisages a "limited war" in which the army intends to inflict substantial damage on Pakistan's armed forces without letting it cross the threshold where it could think of pressing the nuclear button.

The doctrine intends to accomplish the task before the international community led by the US and China could intercede to end hostilities. Kak said, "The air force has the primary task of achieving 'air dominance' by which Pakistan's air force is put out of action allowing the army to act at will."

But he sees little necessity for the air force to divert frontline fighter aircraft for augmenting the army's fire power, a task that, in his opinion, can be achieved by the army's own attack helicopters and multiple rocket launchers that now have a 100-km range.

But he agrees the two services should work according to a joint plan. It means the air force would launch 'battlefield air strikes' to neutralise threats on the ground based on an existing plan. But that would be different from an army commander calling for air support on the basis of a developing war scenario.
That is not the only problem facing the doctrine. In the past few weeks, many have expressed doubts about the army's ability to launch operations on the basis of the new doctrine.

There are also apprehensions about the army's incomplete deployment of forces, lack of mobility and unattended infrastructure development.

But senior officers say the army has identified the units, which would constitute the eight division-strong independent battle groups out of its three strike corps. These battle groups would comprise mechanised infantry, artillery and armour.

"The forces have exercised as constituted battle groups at least six times since 2004. Each of the identified unit knows where they will be deployed," a senior General said.

According to him, the time for deployment has been cut down to "days". "No longer will the movement of troops require three months like it did when Operation Parakram was launched after the attack on Parliament in 2001," he said.

The army also debunks the idea that the troops lack mobility. Some armed forces observers have said only 35 per cent of the army is mobile inside the country.

They have, thus, concluded that even less numbers would be mobile inside the enemy territory.

The army officials, however, pooh pooh the criticism claiming 100 per cent of the Indian troops are mobile

Remember Von Moltke's famous comment that "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy",quoted even by Gen.Colin Powell!

[Mihir]

You could throttle back at 60 km and survey the zone, identify targets and do a sweep at high altitude. I suppose it might be easier to distinguish friendlies and hostiles with 'Eyeball Mk1' doing 600kph at 500 ft, dodging AAA and MANPADS, while still keeping a lookout for hostile enemy fighters entering the FEBA at 30,000 ft.

Or maybe, just maybe, you could use specialist aircraft to provide air cover while your CAS birds concentrate on, well, CAS. Tell me, kind sir, how do you provide CAS from high altitude while there's a in a fast moving armoured clash happening on the ground or friendly infantry is being run over by enemy mechanised forces?

Sometimes i wonder whether you apply solutions to commonly seen battlefield problems, or simply assume that the F-35 is the solution to end all solutions and then go looking for problems for it to solve.

After all, the Russians only had 17 Su-25s shot down in Afghanistan, and lost only 7 more to Chechen militias.

So CAS is dangerous business? Whowouldathunkiteh? But never mind. Let us extend your logic further, shall we?
- The Serbs shot down one F-117 over Yugoslavia. The days of stealth are over.
- The Georgians shot down a Tu-22M. The days of long-range bombers are over.
- The Pakistanis shot down an Mi-17 during Kargil. The days of helicopters delivering CAS are over.
- Two Apaches were lost and 29 damaged during the attack on the Medina division in Karbala. The days of Apaches are over.
- India lost 500+ soldiers in Kargil. The days of infantry fighting wars are over. We should convert all our infantry to snipers to take out enemy forces from hundreds of metres away.

[NRao]

I am inclined to believe that in 2040-45 that France will buy 250 AMCA, the cheapest Gen 5++ option then on the market.

India will provide complete ToT, all source code (written in ADA, not French), all jigs, and complete support. Participating companies would be HAL, ADA and GTRE.

[kit]

As a footnote,since some think that the JSF is a good alternative to the Rafale,some interesting details about the JSF's fatal flaw,details posted in the JSF td.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’
By David Axe
03.07.13

How's the F-35's cockpit visibility any worse than that the PAK FA's?

And unlike the PAK FA, the F-35 has the advantage of an HMDS allowing the pilot to look 'through' the aircraft's body, and DAS allowing target acquisition in any sector.

These suggestions of flaws keep getting more and more stilted.

that article is dubious at best . The F 35 DAS with its highly advanced sensor fused helmet gives the pilot 360 degree vision all around him as if 'the plane doesn't exist' and fire literally at will.Future updates include sensing tech that will interpret the pilot commands right from his brain ! The tech is literally the epitome of sensor fusion. the raptor s tech is even a generation behind this in this particular area.

[Mihir]

On paper yes. In reality, it simply doesn't work. And when an untested system -- one you pinned all your hopes without the benefit of a fall back option -- fails, you see this sort of stuff:

The pilots, who formerly flew A-10s and F-16s, didn’t seem interested in excuses. Their comments, quoted in the report, are scathingly direct.

“Difficult to see [other aircraft in the visual traffic] pattern due to canopy bow,” one said.

“Staying visual with wingman during tactical formation maneuvering a little tougher than [older] legacy [jets] due to reduced rearward visibility from cockpit,” another added.

Said a third, “A pilot will find it nearly impossible to check [their six o'clock position] under G [force].”

“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” one pilot reported.

Most damningly: “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time” during a dogfight.

[Viv S]

Or maybe, just maybe, you could use specialist aircraft to provide air cover while your CAS birds concentrate on, well, CAS. Tell me, kind sir, how do you provide CAS from high altitude while there's a in a fast moving armoured clash happening on the ground or friendly infantry is being run over by enemy mechanised forces?

Ah, CAS birds? You meant the sort that India doesn't operate, has never operated and will never operate (unlike those Ipad-doodling yuppies in the USAF) ?

Setting aside the fact that such an aircraft always needs supporting aircraft(s) to fly top cover, there still remains the explanation as to how target acquisition, while supposedly hard with an LGP, becomes so much easier flying nap-of-the-earth through a hail of enemy fire.

Sometimes i wonder whether you apply solutions to commonly seen battlefield problems, or simply assume that the F-35 is the solution to end all solutions and then go looking for problems for it to solve.

I'd be no happier sending a Mirage 2000H headlong into the MANPAD/QR-SAM envelope. The RAF for example, paid a heavy price flying low level strike in 91, before altering the Tornado's standard flight profile to medium altitude.

- The Serbs shot down one F-117 over Yugoslavia. The days of stealth are over.
- The Georgians shot down a Tu-22M. The days of long-range bombers are over.
- The Pakistanis shot down an Mi-17 during Kargil. The days of helicopters delivering CAS are over.
- Two Apaches were lost and 29 damaged during the attack on the Medina division in Karbala. The days of Apaches are over.
- India lost 500+ soldiers in Kargil. The days of infantry fighting wars are over. We should convert all our infantry to snipers to take out enemy forces from hundreds of metres away.

Simply repeating your denunciation of 'CAS being over' doesn't change the fact that it was a straw man in the first place. The reference was to the mode of CAS that the A-10 was designed for, no one (including me) has ever claimed that CAS was redundant.

[Viv S]

On paper yes. In reality, it simply doesn't work. And when an untested system -- one you pinned all your hopes without the benefit of a fall back option -- fails, you see this sort of stuff:

The pilots, who formerly flew A-10s and F-16s, didn’t seem interested in excuses. Their comments, quoted in the report, are scathingly direct.

The pilots quoted were flying without HMDS imagery. To add to which, the cockpit visibility, while not nearly as good as the F-16's or F-22's, is still comparable to most Russian types in service and on the way.

[Viv S]

funny from your own link :

"But the project cost has not exceeded our planned estimates. The Mirage-2000 has had a very good track record in IAF. After the upgrade, we will get a very capable, state-of-the-art fighter, which will serve for another 15-20 years," said a senior officer.

MoD and IAF, however, say the Mirage upgrade's scope is much bigger and sophisticated than the MiG-29 one.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... integrator
(thanks for the sources !)

Yes indeed.

Under it, the multi-role fighters will get new avionics, radars, mission computers, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare suites, jam-proof communication with data links, weapon delivery and precision-targeting systems, including the all-weather, fire-and-forget MICA (interception and aerial combat missiles) systems.

Outstanding, considering that the MiG-29 upgrade only included... well... all of the above (minus MICA) as well as substantial air frame modification. Hmm..

As for your "no other alternative argument" you obviously can't provide a single serious source. in fact in your second link you can quote this:

A section of the IAF top brass feels that the upgrade cost is too high as the officers say that buying a new fighter would work out cheaper.

I've talked repeatedly about the risk-reward matrix but the implication has clearly missed you. Every option (including the Mirage 2000) has attendant risks that go with. And here like elsewhere in life, the risk is proportional to the RoI. The upgrade offer from Thales while the most expensive was also the least risky and therefore opted for.

More LCA or Mig-29 would have been indeed a possibility but the IAF eventually decided to buy the mirage 2000 upgrade and they are satisfied with it (performance vs costs).
And for your information another less costly mirage 2000 upgrade was available fitted with the RC400 a simpler version of the RDY radar which is in service in moroccan AF mirage F1. So plenty of other option available.

You're clearly not getting the point at all. The fact is that the upgrade cost nearly $50 million per aircraft. It is therefore hardly a stretch to presume that the cost of a more thorough Rafale MLU will be in region of at least $100 million (at current day prices). And despite your attempts to suggest alternatives, I think we can safely say that the MoD will be opting for a French MLU to the Rafale too, for better or worse.

In which case, it is but fair that we should keep the cost of the MLU in mind while examining the Rafale's suitability.

And again if the IAF/MoD would have forced to upgrade mirage 2000 on Dassault's conditions and if they were dissatisfied with the cost and/or performance the rafale would have never been selected for MRCA. The fact that the rafale was selected means india is ok with the mirage upgrade.

There are degrees of 'satisfaction' gleaned from any negotiations, and the result is not black or white regardless of your attempts to portray it as such.

Secondly, the Rafale's actual cost is still being negotiating after which the MoF and cabinet (of a new govt) will weigh in (I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the cost raises more questions in Parliament as well). The longer the deal takes, more the questions that will be asked of it. There are many months if not years to go yet. I suggest you wait until the contract is signed before breaking out the champagne.


Also, I'm still awaiting the references to back your claim about the Rafale having a higher payload, higher range and more powerful radar than the Su-30MKI.

[Karan M]

Ah, CAS birds? You meant the sort that India doesn't operate, has never operated and will never operate (unlike those Ipad-doodling yuppies in the USAF) ?.

MiG-27.

[arthuro]

Yes indeed.

Under it, the multi-role fighters will get new avionics, radars, mission computers, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare suites, jam-proof communication with data links, weapon delivery and precision-targeting systems, including the all-weather, fire-and-forget MICA (interception and aerial combat missiles) systems.
Outstanding, considering that the MiG-29 upgrade only included... well... all of the above (minus MICA) as well as substantial air frame modification. Hmm..

Let me re-quote your own link, it's my pleasure :

"But the project cost has not exceeded our planned estimates. The Mirage-2000 has had a very good track record in IAF. After the upgrade, we will get a very capable, state-of-the-art fighter, which will serve for another 15-20 years," said a senior officer.

MoD and IAF, however, say the Mirage upgrade's scope is much bigger and sophisticated than the MiG-29 one.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... integrator

everything else is baseless anonymous internet arguments from someone who does not admit he was caught red hand posting sources that simply contradict the point he was supposed to defend. I don't care about opinion only about quoted facts.

Your "no other alternative" for mirage 2000 argument is also baseless and simply undocumented. Funny that the second link you provided debunked your very own claims. Unfortunate. I guess that some will never admit they were wrong to avoid to lose face. They will prefer keeping arguing for ages to hide the debacle.

Also, I'm still awaiting the references to back your claim about the Rafale having a higher payload, higher range and more powerful radar than the Su-30MKI.

Just a quick google check would have answered your doubts:

range :

3700 km for the rafale (1850*2 = rayon d'action)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale

SU-30: 3000Km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30
http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Milita ... 0-Flanker/

Payload:

rafale : 9,5 tons
same link as above

SU-30 : 8 tons
same link as above

radar range:

rafale AESA : estimated at more than 200 Km as its range is doubling compared to its previous PESA radar which range was between 100km and 130km depending on sources. Read carefully all links of the post 4899.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ws/page327

SU-30: french air force officer estimated SU-30 radar range at 100NM (roughly 180Km) against an armed mirage 2000 RDI in an interview in Air et Cosmos about Garuda Exercise.

In short the rafale while being smaller, stealthier, smarter and more survivable than the SU30 mki it packs more punch, than a SU-30mki. A big leap forward in capabilities and efficiency.

[Karan M]

I'd take those radar ranges and range figures as estimates only and not reflective of max performance. There is much to doubt about the IAF having used all their available radar modes in a foreign country that too a NATO one.

It must also be understood that the Rafale is now getting to a level Bars achieved several years back itself, and that variant of the Bars was not the definitive one.

The definitive Bars variant has been implemented in service only recently, after Garuda. NIIP mentions the same in their recent reports and mentions hardware and software improvements, both.

Plus, the Super-30 upgrade is at advanced stage of fitting out - deciding exact workshare agreements etc. That will definitively dwarf the Rafale AESA performance in some parameters such as range (it anticipates doubling the existing Bars range).

As mentioned before, with the iterative upgrades going on, the IAF can afford to move to the Super 30 in a more deliberate manner. (Plus with reduced airframes pulling them out and sending for a gilt edged upgrade does not confer that much of an advantage as numbers matter too).

In the same vein, those range figures for instance need to be qualified.

Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
- at sea level, km 1,270
- at height, km 3,000

So thats basically carrying 4 AAMs, launching them and returning.

[Karan M]

MoD and IAF, however, say the Mirage upgrade's scope is much bigger and sophisticated than the MiG-29 one.

They have to say this to justify the cost. However, the details demand asking.

The only key difference between the two positive for the Mirage 2000 is the incorporation of a new mission computer from HAL in phase 2 of the upgrade. Otherwise, the MiG-29 has additional complex avionics fitted (e.g. new IRST) and even new engines. It also receives a new EW system (same as Mirage), new radar (same as Mirage), new glass cockpit (as on Mirage) and so forth. In weapons, perhaps the Mirage is receiving new Mica-IRs, but then again, the MiG-29 is being qualified for Kh-31 and Kh-35, KAB-500 as well. Not just air to air.

Net, if the IAF was not so starved of new airframes, the Mirage upgrade deal may never have gone through.

[negi]

^ Boss you too in this thread. Good luck.

[Karan M]

^ Boss you too in this thread. Good luck.

[Karan M]

BTW, Negi, spokesperson for the French govt. Any chance we can invite her to this debate. Of course to convince us all on merits of Rafale.

najat vallaud belkacem

http://static1.purepeople.com/articles/ ... 37x0-4.jpg
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8717/e8to.jpg

[Viv S]

Let me re-quote your own link, it's my pleasure :

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... integrator

everything else is baseless anonymous internet arguments from someone who does not admit he was caught red hand posting sources that simply contradict the point he was supposed to defend. I don't care about opinion only about quoted facts.

Yes one 'senior officer' said 'don't worry all's well'. May I remind you what the title of the article was -

Questions of huge costs dog Mirage jet upgrade project with France

Your "no other alternative" for mirage 2000 argument is also baseless and simply undocumented. Funny that the second link you provided debunked your very own claims. Unfortunate. I guess that some will never admit they were wrong to avoid to lose face. They will prefer keeping arguing for ages to hide the debacle.

This from the fellow who's still claiming that the IAF chose the Rafale as its next fighter.

And to no one's surprise you're again wandering off on your own little tangent. The Mirage 2000 upgrade was brought up to illustrate the fact that the Rafale MLU would put the Indian taxpayer back by a considerable sum. And now you enter trying to prove that the MoD was delighted with the Mirage upgrade (which wasn't the issue in the first place) and pretending that the Rafale acquisition is all but wrapped up.

range :

3700 km for the rafale (1850*2 = rayon d'action)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale

SU-30: 3000Km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30
http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Milita ... 0-Flanker/

The Rafale employs 2000L fuel tanks to achieve that range. What is the affect on the much touted 'discrete' design?

Payload:

rafale : 9,5 tons
same link as above

SU-30 : 8 tons
same link as above

I suggest you take another look at it.

Su-30MKI: Internal fuel capacity - 9600kg, MTOW - 38800 kg
Rafale: Internal fuel capacity - 4700kg, MTOW - 24500kg

SU-30: french air force officer estimated SU-30 radar range at 100NM (roughly 180Km) against an armed mirage 2000 RDI in an interview in Air et Cosmos about Garuda Exercise.

Which would have been dandy expect for this minor hiccup; the IAF operating the MKI only in 'training mode' when operating with foreign forces. Not to mention, yet again, that its being upgraded with an AESA as well. If the RBE2 AA's range is twice that of the PESA, want to hazard a guess as to the range of a mature 1m dia. Zhuk AE?

In short the rafale while being smaller, stealthier, smarter and more survivable than the SU30 mki it packs more punch, than a SU-30mki. A big leap forward in capabilities and efficiency.

It does some of that, costs an arm and a leg, and provides no new capability; deep ingress into PLAAF air space still remains out of reach with the Rafale.

[Mihir]

Or maybe, just maybe, you could use specialist aircraft to provide air cover while your CAS birds concentrate on, well, CAS. Tell me, kind sir, how do you provide CAS from high altitude while there's a in a fast moving armoured clash happening on the ground or friendly infantry is being run over by enemy mechanised forces?

Ah, CAS birds? You meant the sort that India doesn't operate, has never operated and will never operate (unlike those Ipad-doodling yuppies in the USAF) ?

Gee, I didn't know that India never operated the MiG-27. Or that the Hunters went to Longewala just to sightsee in 1971.

Setting aside the fact that such an aircraft always needs supporting aircraft(s) to fly top cover, there still remains the explanation as to how target acquisition, while supposedly hard with an LGP, becomes so much easier flying nap-of-the-earth through a hail of enemy fire.

How about the fact that the pilots can actually see what's going on, instead of looking at a bunch of fuzzy black blobs on a white background and trying to figure out which one is an enemy and which one a friendly.

The USAF had similar arguments regarding the A-10 -- their brass hated it. It was only the forcefulness of the Army that prevented it from being withdrawn from service prematurely. Even now, the Army is worried that the USAF will forsake dedicated CAS birds, and is threatening to raise its own air wing equipped with such aircraft.

[Victor]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... lind-spot/

Test Pilots: Stealth Jet’s Blind Spot Will Get It ‘Gunned Every Time’
By David Axe
03.07.13

that article is dubious at best . The F 35 DAS with its highly advanced sensor fused helmet gives the pilot 360 degree vision all around him as if 'the plane doesn't exist' and fire literally at will.Future updates include sensing tech that will interpret the pilot commands right from his brain ! The tech is literally the epitome of sensor fusion. the raptor s tech is even a generation behind this in this particular area.

That hit piece admits this about the "test pilots" but it's not mentioned up front:

“All four student pilots commented on the out-of-cockpit visibility of the F-35, an issue.."

The author also writes comic books apparently so its no surprise that he adds this flippantly:

"..he Pentagon admits it is more or less hoping that the problem will somehow go away on its own.."

Obviously, he also conveniently fails to mention that the very gut of the aircraft is the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) which gives pilots 360 degree situational awareness in all regimes along with warning, tracking and targeting of missiles, aircraft and ground objects.

The old-style rubber necking to "check your six" doesn't work a lot of the time because of the age-old trick of attacking out of the sun but the DAS solves the problem entirely and is a 100-fold improvement. Rubber necking is becoming extinct and in fact, it is reasonable to expect that when the system becomes mainstream, we won't even need a canopy. The pilot can simply recline in a digitally connected armored bubble within the plane, that too only as long as pilots are deemed necessary.

While the futuristic helmet mounted display system (HMDS) which uses DAS output is not 100% yet, it is definitely getting there very soon and the govt has stopped development of a just-in-case alternative helmet based on "safer" tech. In any case, I suspect that a rear-view-mirror DAS output is also going to be streamed into the cockpit display screen on demand simply because it should be very easy to do this just for redundancy.

The Americans are determined to have platforms that are at least 2 generations ahead of anything being developed and will do whatever it takes to get there. They have succeeded most of the time but folks are free to bet against this happening with the JSF I suppose, like they did for the Osprey. But India is best served in revisiting the JSF and the MMRCA concept IMO.

[Victor]

^^ There's a huge difference between "ground attack" and "close air support" (CAS). The latter requires, as the name suggests, very close quarters bombing and ground strafing that was difficult with fast jets like the MiG-27 and Hunter. Hence CAS planes tend to be subsonic like A-10 and Frogfoot but are usable only in environments that are relatively free of anti-aircraft missile defenses. That's doable to a large degree in the anti-jehadi bush wars that the US has been fighting and we (CRPF/BSF) can similarly use CAS too against maoists and jihadis. The US did seriously consider bringing back propeller CAS aircraft like the 1970s Bronco (even the P-51 Mustang was mentioned only half-jokingly) for Afghanistan because while precision-bombing could do some CAS duties, it was too expensive. In missile-rich environments against the pakis and chinese, CAS would be foolhardy, which of course is why the IAF doesn't have CAS aircraft.

[Karan M]

Point is the CAS role in IAF was one of those performed by MiG-27 and thanks to its swing wings and heavy armor, one which it could do reasonably well. It was one of its roles. Still will be for any aircraft if the situation so demands. You are mixing up the difference between the role for which some aircraft may be specialized and the role itself which remains necessary and which can be accomplished by a range of aircraft, despite the threat.

[Victor]

The Hunters at Longewala has no option as you say but were operating in a missile free era and at slow subsonic were capable of accurately picking out the tanks one by one with cannons in true CAS. AFAIK, the MiG-27 was never used in close air support and it's operations in Kargil were ground attack, ie. not in close proximity to our own troops. We don't know how they would have performed if they were called to hammer the Stinger armed pakis at 100 yds or less from our troops. Today we have helicopter gunships that can do this far better. OT for this thread so no more on it from me.

[SaiK]

^what is the range of DAS?

[Victor]

^ greater than 800 miles.
Link

[NRao]

^^^^^

That is for ballistic missiles. It is much shorter for other threats. It has been able to detect a tank firing and artillery too. Do not know the distance, but it has got to be much, much less.

Nonetheless it is the best out there. And with all other gizmos the F-35 is formidable.

[abhik]

^what is the range of DAS?

Claims to have "20/20 visual acuity", so as good as normal human vision. Though it can detect ballistic missile launches from 100's of miles away. Could make it a good boost phase ABM platform.

[srin]

IAF sees its mission as deep strategic strikes and air superiority. They would prefer to do that rather than CAS, given that the risk-benefit ratio isn't too good for CAS missions.

From an army perspective, if the soldiers on the ground are getting killed, then air support would be exceptionally beneficial. That is why army getting attack helos makes a lot of sense. Now, that the proverbial camel's nose is inside the tent and IAF is using that as an argument, would the army pitch for fixed wing assets - maybe even modified trainers. I'm fantasizing each division being equipped with squadron of armed IJTs ...

[Karan M]

The Hunters at Longewala has no option as you say but were operating in a missile free era and at slow subsonic were capable of accurately picking out the tanks one by one with cannons in true CAS.

But that was CAS nonetheless.

AFAIK, the MiG-27 was never used in close air support and it's operations in Kargil were ground attack, ie. not in close proximity to our own troops. We don't know how they would have performed if they were called to hammer the Stinger armed pakis at 100 yds or less from our troops.

The MiGs - not just MiG-27s did operate in close proximity to own troops. In the mountains, that 100 yd stuff is pretty meaningless, because any miss can be dangerous. The reason i mentioned the MiG-27 previously was because it was the one Indian aircraft, definitely tasked for ground attack in the tactical space, which includes CAS (Jag was more DPSA) and also better suited for the role than the delta winged MiG-21s (which too carry dumb bombs and rocket pods).
However, depending on the situation ANY frontline Indian aircraft can be tasked to do CAS, same as USAF F-15s and F-16s have pulled CAS duty in recent years.

Today we have helicopter gunships that can do this far better. OT for this thread so no more on it from me.

Again, you are mixing up things. CAS does not mean that you must and should go low and slow. A fast moving aircraft can accomplish CAS as well, as matter of fact thanks to better sensors (LDP) and weapons (PGMs), it may be able to pull it off even from higher altitudes. While a low and slow aircraft is optimized for the CAS role, it does not preclude other aircraft from taking up that role and doing it well. Even fast movers can and do go low.

[Karan M]

IAF sees its mission as deep strategic strikes and air superiority. They would prefer to do that rather than CAS, given that the risk-benefit ratio isn't too good for CAS missions.

From an army perspective, if the soldiers on the ground are getting killed, then air support would be exceptionally beneficial. That is why army getting attack helos makes a lot of sense. Now, that the proverbial camel's nose is inside the tent and IAF is using that as an argument, would the army pitch for fixed wing assets - maybe even modified trainers. I'm fantasizing each division being equipped with squadron of armed IJTs ...

Agreed, that the IAF would prefer not to spend its resources on CAS and focus on high value targets (which AF wouldn't? The US Marines managed to parlay that perception into their own mini CAS airforce).. but push comes to shove, they will assist, and they do train for that role.

[member_20453]

^^^^^

That is for ballistic missiles. It is much shorter for other threats. It has been able to detect a tank firing and artillery too. Do not know the distance, but it has got to be much, much less.

Nonetheless it is the best out there. And with all other gizmos the F-35 is formidable.

True, with DAS and F-35 we should be abke to pick out missle launches from MRLS and more importantly missles like NASR, BABUR etc With such ranges entire Paki airspace can be monitored for any ground missiles launches. This also makes it easier to direct counterfire since missile launchers are often the most difficult targets to find. I think F-35 should be acquired asap, around 300 would be an ideal force and with 130 for IAF, 60 for IN (2 squadrons deployed on IAC 3 & 1 Squadron dedicated to Amphi assault ships) and 60 for IA

[member_23455]

^^^^^

That is for ballistic missiles. It is much shorter for other threats. It has been able to detect a tank firing and artillery too. Do not know the distance, but it has got to be much, much less.

Nonetheless it is the best out there. And with all other gizmos the F-35 is formidable.

True, with DAS and F-35 we should be abke to pick out missle launches from MRLS and more importantly missles like NASR, BABUR etc With such ranges entire Paki airspace can be monitored for any ground missiles launches. This also makes it easier to direct counterfire since missile launchers are often the most difficult targets to find. I think F-35 should be acquired asap, around 300 would be an ideal force and with 130 for IAF, 60 for IN (2 squadrons deployed on IAC 3 & 1 Squadron dedicated to Amphi assault ships) and 60 for IA

Since this thread is headed OT...the myth that cruise/ballistic/tactical SSM/various unguided rockets on the battlefield can be taken out by an Air Force in near real- time continues to persist, despite all the fancy claims of GW-I having been debunked in the years since.

Even a tiered defence which depends more on ground-based systems like recent Israeli experience with Hezbollah is being questioned by their own analysts (though some of that analysis has its own agenda).

On paper all these things look "feasible" - suggest people have a look at the billions spent by the Americans on something called JIEDDO, correlate it with on-ground efficacy, and draw conclusions from that parallel.

[NRao]

Since this thread is headed OT...the myth that cruise/ballistic/tactical SSM/various unguided rockets on the battlefield can be taken out by an Air Force in near real- time continues to persist, despite all the fancy claims of GW-I having been debunked in the years since.

Even a tiered defence which depends more on ground-based systems like recent Israeli experience with Hezbollah is being questioned by their own analysts (though some of that analysis has its own agenda).

On paper all these things look "feasible" - suggest people have a look at the billions spent by the Americans on something called JIEDDO, correlate it with on-ground efficacy, and draw conclusions from that parallel.

That Israeli article deal with missile-on-missile technologies - and they are right (simple math, where attacking missiles overwhelm the system).

The DAS (F-35) has nothing to do with countering missiles. All it says is that it can locate sources *of various hostile fire*. How one deal with these sources and attended missiles is a different story. So, unless there is some other concern, I do not see the correlation.

Do not confuse detecting and tracking (ballistic) missiles, with dealing with them (which is what the Israeli is talking about).

The only 360 degree, spherical situational awareness system

[NRao]

On Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), true, the US has been fishing. But that was the need of that hour. They sunk some $45 billion into the replacement for the Humvee and are now selling them for scrap. They solved the problem - that is what counts first. Not the associated cost. And, many a times this diktat comes from the politicians - save the lives of those boys.

Although the costs associated with Iraq and A'stan were insane, I would not really bring up the cost aspect of those two wars. They were not really well thought out operations, else they would have had a solution for IDEs before they walked into those wars.

[member_23455]

That Israeli article deal with missile-on-missile technologies - and they are right (simple math, where attacking missiles overwhelm the system).

The DAS (F-35) has nothing to do with countering missiles. All it says is that it can locate sources *of various hostile fire*. How one deal with these sources and attended missiles is a different story. So, unless there is some other concern, I do not see the correlation.

Do not confuse detecting and tracking (ballistic) missiles, with dealing with them (which is what the Israeli is talking about).

The only 360 degree, spherical situational awareness system

Really? Are you going to quote the brochure of a vendor selling the technology over empirical evidence from the battlefield?

I was responding to a post which is quoted which had missile defense as the theme--please read again and review your comments about who is confused here.

They solved the problem - that is what counts first.

So, JIEDDO solved the problem...eh? This is not the thread for it...which has gone OT enough, but feel free to believe in what you wish to.

[Victor]

JSF and its associated technologies is a valid subject in this thread. Its technologies are game changers in every sense and even one squadon can turn the equation upside down. If we need a "cheap" system, this is it. Even if it seems counter intuitive on the surface. For example, it is easy to see DAS ported to the Apache in the near future, completely transforming that weapon.

[Viv S]

Gee, I didn't know that India never operated the MiG-27. Or that the Hunters went to Longewala just to sightsee in 1971.

The MiG-27 isn't a CAS bird, its a strike variant of the MiG-23. Only two fixed wing aircraft have ever been developed for CAS; A-10 & Su-25.

As for air operations at Longewala, (the majority of which were air interdiction not CAS), they were carried out in an era before MANPADS and mobile air defences.

How about the fact that the pilots can actually see what's going on, instead of looking at a bunch of fuzzy black blobs on a white background and trying to figure out which one is an enemy and which one a friendly.

You think the pilot can see what's happening on ground zipping along at tree-level with every AAA gun and SAM in the vicinity trying to nail him?

The USAF had similar arguments regarding the A-10 -- their brass hated it. It was only the forcefulness of the Army that prevented it from being withdrawn from service prematurely. Even now, the Army is worried that the USAF will forsake dedicated CAS birds, and is threatening to raise its own air wing equipped with such aircraft.

The A-10 has played a stellar role in Iraq and Afghanistan where it did not face any significant air defences. Regardless, its almost certainly on the way out, being retired early as a result of the sequestration.

[Mihir]

Gee, I didn't know that India never operated the MiG-27. Or that the Hunters went to Longewala just to sightsee in 1971.

The MiG-27 isn't a CAS bird, its a strike variant of the MiG-23. Only two fixed wing aircraft have ever been developed for CAS; A-10 & Su-25.

In the IAF context, the MiG-27 is very much a CAS bird. Its pilots train extensively for CAS and have nothing but praise for its ability to fly and fight at low and medium altitudes.

As for air operations at Longewala, (the majority of which were air interdiction not CAS), they were carried out in an era before MANPADS and mobile air defences.

Air interdiction?
I didn't know the Longewala ops involved striking Pakistani POL dumps and supply lines.

You think the pilot can see what's happening on ground zipping along at tree-level with every AAA gun and SAM in the vicinity trying to nail him?

You think the pilot can see what's happening in a confused melee on the ground from more than 30k feet and accurately hit enemy targets?

The A-10 has played a stellar role in Iraq and Afghanistan where it did not face any significant air defences. Regardless, its almost certainly on the way out

"Did not face air defences" is not the same as "will fail against air defences". You seem to imagine that air defences are this magic weapon that will sanitize the airspace and prevent aircraft operations. They are nothing of the sort. People tend to forget why strike aircraft started flying low in the first place -- the intent was to avoid medium-range air defences that were taking a heavy toll on incoming flights. Short-range defences were developed to counter this tactic. They work fairly well when there is advance warning of an air attack and knowledge of what direction it is coming from. But they also have plenty of weak spots that can be exploited by skillful pilots and planners to deliver effective fire support. A good pilot exploiting these loopholes and using terrain to his advantage will be done with his attack run before the enemy knows what hit him.

Yes, British Tornadoes did suffer from attrition when flying low. But they could choose to fly higher and avoid them only because the Iraqi medium-range AD system had been rendered completely ineffective by a concerted SEAD campaign. India won't have that luxury anytime soon.

Your point that CAS is inherently *very* dangerous business and will lead to losses against any well-equipped opponent is valid. I just happen to think that bombing from high-altitude, while keeping pilots safer, will not help provide ground support in the Indian context.

It's a pity those A-10s are on the way out. But then again, the USAF won't be fighting the Red Army anymore, so there's that as well. They have very few opponents remaining that have the ability to use massed mechanised forces, organic air defences, and air cover to achieve tactical (or even operational) superiority on the ground. India does, and IMHO, still needs specialist CAS aircraft.

For the record, I don't think the Rafale or Tejas will be good solutions to the CAS problem either. The MiG-27s and Jags will be sorely missed when the are retired. Unfortunately, this is one of the side-effects of the transition to a multi-role force. You run short of specialist aircraft, and have to force platforms that are ill-suited for some roles to fulfill those roles anyway, with less than stellar results.

[vic]

Hawk, IJT and HTT can be used for CAS

[Mihir]

The moment you press Hawks, IJTs, and HTTs into CAS duties, you compromise on the training of new pilots. They will be brought into play only as a last resort. IAF Hawks don't even come with a CMDS, as far as I know, so their utility in providing CAS is highly suspect.