Can IAF Mig-27s do high-altitude bombing?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 18 Jul 2000 13:35

I'm a little confused by the specifications on BR's IAF section regarding the Mig-27. In particular: The stub-shaped nose has an in-built laser guidance system for accurate bombing.This is vague. Is there more info on this "system"? Are we talking about a pod with a laser designator and a long-range IR or TV camera? I mean, when he's firing an Kh-29L or dropping a laser guided bomb, how does the Mig-27 pilot guide it in? Just kind of wondering what the Mig-27 is capable of. Can it do hit a target with precision from 20,000 feet? Or does it have to go in low, even if it's using LGB's or ASM's? This may not sound that important, but actually, it is. The Mig-27 is India's most numerous attack fighter. The difference between being able to strike from 20,000 ft. or having to go in low where the Stingers and AAA can get you...well that makes a huge difference if we're talking about being able to use airpower or being afraid to use it.

neil · Post by **neil** » 18 Jul 2000 13:50

The Mig-27 was used in the Kargil conflict and had to fly in acess of 20,000 feet so i think they should be able to fly high enough and carry out strikes. How precisely i am not sure but with the upgrade going on the capabilities will be improved. But service ceiling is quoted at 45,930ft in the " International Directory ofMilitary Aircraft"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2000 23:18

There are two aspects to the question area targets and point targets. Area targets accuracy is based on the a/c navigational and guidance systems being tied to the weapon release system and how accurate are those. The later is based on avialablity of the precision targeting systems- laser designator etc. The Mig 27 upgrades are to take care of both aspects. Rupak had written an excellent article on this in the last issue of the BRM and should be reread in this context. url: <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... rupak.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... ak.html</A> I have a question for LNS. Does IAF have the KABL 500 and 1500 kg weapons for a/c delivery? Or what range of Russian PGMs do they have or in process of acquiring? Also is the laser in the Mig-27 used for range finding or designation? The reason is there are many flavors of lasing and just curious. This has impact on a spreadsheet I am working on. Neil no one is asking about operating height. Michael's question is deeper and very important in context of the Kosovo ops and the May 98 tests. [This message has been edited by ramana (edited 18-07-2000).]

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 18 Jul 2000 23:57

Micheal, The question that you are asking is not only a technological question but also of tactics.First at the technical aspect, Mig27 does have laser ranging (the easier one) and various versions of Mig27 have the laser designator also. The Indian plane has it or not is not known, though BR says it has. If the Indian plane has a designator, then there are really two ways to use it. Since the target has to be continuously illuminated till impact, we MIGHT be following the American way, one plane lights the target, releases the bomb that follows the reflected laser and maintains the lock till impact. For this the plane has to be near the hostile target for long, so flying high does help. We can also follow the British model, where one plane ahead and near the target releases the bomb and take evasive action, while the other plane at some distance and height maintains the lock till impact. In this scenario the Mig27 can really go low.This brings the question of how does IAF plans to fight the war. The pakistani have adequate low level SAM coverage for low flying plane, but except for f-16's none of their plane have real look down shoot down capability. The planes can however use their radar (at short range) rather effectively against plane flying above them. So what would be easier to defeat, the SAM and MANPADS or paki fighters (That's why they are not investing on high altitude sams).I guess tech wise we should be capable of doing both and if Mig27 does get some decent AA capability, flying hi-hi would make more sense.Niel - Flying at 53000 ft is under ideal condition with no loads. Above this height the plane cannot maintain enough thrust to go high. This means at considerably lower level, the plane loses its ability (maybe around say 25000 ft) with load to gain height. Area targeting (that is that planes should reach Lahore instead of rawalpindi) is quite good for Mig27. With differential GPS/GLANOSS and laser based inertial navigation system (all easy tech's already available with the DRDO), this should not be a problem. Point targeting is more a function of training and integrating this with a computer to compute release points for bomb is a big deal. I don’t think the Mig27 does the last thing.Thanks, Fanne

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 19 Jul 2000 05:17

You're talking about CCRP (Continuously Computed Release Point) delivery which allows aircraft like the F-16C to hit targets with precision using unguided bombs. Instead of placing the guidance burden on the bombs themselves, the aircraft becomes the aiming device. Basically you lock onto a ground target with radar, hold the bomb release, and fly over the target. The computer releases the bombs at the exact right moment based on closure, your angle of attack, speed, etc. Some CCRP systems even factor in wind conditions. I think we can be pretty sure the Mig-27 doesn't have this, but I don't know about the Mirage-2000. What I really want to know is, right now, today, as we speak, can an IAF Mig-27 fly over Islamabad at 20,000 feet and put an LGB into ISI headquarters?

With the Litening Pod the IAF Jags and Mirage-2000's already have this ability...I was just wondering if the Mig-27's do as well, since they are more numerous.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 19 Jul 2000 05:31

By the way Fanne, with regards to hi-vs.-low altitude tactics, in practice I can guarantee you that the IAF would be better off staying at high altitude. Yes, it's true this makes it easier for PAF fighters to spot you, but this is more than outweighed by the advantage of not being in range of Pakistan's hordes of Stingers, Anzas, Crotales, AAA, and other air defenses. It's a lot more feasable to protect a strike package at 20,000 from PAF fighters using escorts than it is to send planes down into the SAM/AAA envelope. For one thing, a PAF fighter can be shot down, preferably at long range. But IR SAM's and AAA cannot be surpressed. Jamming and anti-radar missiles have no effect on them. Flares help sometimes with the SAM's, but Stingers are notoriously good at ignoring them, and there is no defense against AAA except luck and maneuvers. PAF fighters are not nearly as dangerous as all this stuff on the ground.By the way I should also mention Pakistan has SA-2's that can reach 20,000 ft. and beyond, but these are primitive and easy to spoof with chaff, ECM, and evasive maneuvers.

vverma · Post by **vverma** » 19 Jul 2000 08:43

Can anybody explain what's the actual purpose of a Laser Rangefinder? I believe that is what the Mig-27s are currently equipped with. The rangefinders probably provide a semi-CCRP capability by allowing the pilot to drop the bomb at a certain distance according to speed,etc. [This message has been edited by vverma (edited 18-07-2000).]

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2000 09:20

"By the way Fanne, with regards to hi-vs.-low altitude tactics, in practice I can guarantee you that the IAF would be better off staying at high altitude."During the Kosovo conflict there were some reports of differing tactics preferred in the air attack doctrines of the US and European air arms.The US favours high altitude attacks - but "sterilizes" the environment around its fighters with EW - a tactic that it started in Vietnam. In addition it is adding stealth to all its aircraft enabling them to be even less visible at height.I think non-US NATO air arms have low level attack tactics - in fact the Jaguar is said to be a superb low level attack platform - perhaps also the Tornado. In WWII Britain favoured night raids at lower levels, while the US was doing high level, fighter escorted day raids.The IAF, with its inability to put an electronic bubble around its aircraft probably feels that a low level attack is better, given that low level detection is still difficult for the air arms opposing the IAF. It is not easy to take out an aircraft flying at 200 metres at 900 Kmph (600 feet, 550 mph) with a stinger or AD gun - unless you have a wide open area (not many trees/hills, good weather, daylight) to see the plane quickly and get a bead on it. A plane at 900 kmph is doing 250 metres per second and may give you only 2-3 seconds reaction time - and you are likely to hear it and see it only as it passes over you doing its one-pass attack. An AD gun firing a projectile at a muzzle velocity of 800 metres per sec will need to be aimed fairly precisely 60 or more metres in front of an attacking aircraft (depending on the airspeed, wind velocity, and real range and elevation) for shells to hit it, and chances of hitting it are best if you have a doppler radar guided gun aimed by computer in large numbers firing at a high rate. If the plane is belching flares as it passes it makes life tough for the Stinger aimer - who anyway has to be swivelling on his feet at 60 degrees per second (10 RPM) to keep the plane in the cone of his sensor.High level and low level attacks have their advantages and disadvantages. there is no such thing as "this is best, or that is best" - one needs to see what one has got, what the other guy has got and do what suits the particular situation.[This message has been edited by shiv (edited 18-07-2000).]

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 19 Jul 2000 20:47

A single Krypton should be enough to take out ISI hq from 200km away.MB,India used Sa-2s during 1971 and they were so crap that they all missed!Also,stingers are not that good either.Pukis must have fired hundreds during Kargil.Also,let's not forget that it took 10 stingers to bring down a single Mi-17.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 20 Jul 2000 03:37

How do you use a laser range finder if you don't have a viewer to aim it with? There has to be come kind of magnified IR or TV camera slaved to the laser, so you can see what you're lasing. From a plane it would be impossible to lase anything without that. So, what do the Mig-27 pilots see on their MFD when their using the laser pod?

Div · Post by **Div** » 20 Jul 2000 07:58

Don't expect the Kh-31s to be able to destroy buildings or fortified targets. They only have a 90kg warhead and are best left for the ARM role (and ofcourse the AShM model).

shiva · Post by **shiva** » 20 Jul 2000 09:47

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ramana: Neil no one is asking about operating height. Michael's question is deeper and very important in context of the Kosovo ops and the May 98 tests. [This message has been edited by ramana (edited 18-07-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>are you suggesting use of sub-kiloton nuclear weapons from a stand-off distance (to deter a Kosovo type intervention from the seas)

VivekT · Post by **VivekT** » 20 Jul 2000 11:13

Michael & harry,Operational experience has shown that the Stinger is a far worse performer than expected. For example, just look at Kargil, of the many Stingers fired at Indian AF aircraft, only two scored hits. When the IAF downed the Atlantic 1 aircraft in the Rann of Kutch, helicopters carrying newspersons were fired upn by Stingers which missed a Mi-8 WITHOUT the ability to fire countermeasures.The SA-2 performed quite well in indian service during 1971. I know for sure that they shot down at least ne B-57 and badly damaged one USAF RB-57 (the model with the larg span wings for high altitude flights. One aircraft was used on loan by the PAF from the USAF.) The aircraft was damaged but landed safely and wa repaired and sent back to the US.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 20 Jul 2000 11:46

The Pakis fired RBS 70 in the Rann of Kutch, not Stingers.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2000 12:18

No shiva. What I am saying is that the use of PGMs on civilian infrastructure in Kosovo built up pressure on Yugoslav govt. After the May 98 tests it is very difficult to have a direct war with the TSP lest it escalates due to certain defeat for RATS. I am suggesting that PGMs used in Kosovo mode are a way out for the situation as it does not mean confronting the enemy in his own battlefields. Kapisch!

vverma · Post by **vverma** » 20 Jul 2000 13:02

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Guru Dronacharya: Only the 40 M2000s & 70 Jags can do LGB night bombing currently using Litening pods. The number of Litening pods is the critical factor. They are hugely expensive and even USAF has very limited numbers. Only the F-15Es get 1 each (night-hawk/lantirn) and the rest like F-16s/F-18s have to fight and squeal for their meager share.My *wild* guess is IAF would be having 15-20 such pods now with 20 more in pipeline.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Guru D, I don't know whether you have any solid backup info or you're just blowing hot air. The point about USAF giving out Lantirn on a ration card, one per F-15 Strike Eagle and the poor F-16s, etc. squealing because they don't have any ration cards is incorrect. In every picture I've seen of the Strike Eagle or the Falcon in dressed up for a strike mission(and I've seen a lot of pictures), there is a pod on each side of the aircraft. I don't know where you got your information about a shortage of Lantirn pods in the USAF, but there is no such thing. Although, I do concur that they are expensive. As far as the number of LGB kits in IAF's posession, of course if the IAF had an overwhelming number w.r.t Pak and China, they'd be more than happy to advertise. I believe the number of kits are in a few hundreds. An interesting point to talk about would be whether DRDO can now develop PGM kits a la JDAM since USAF has now lifted the restriction on the accuracy of civilian GPS devices. BEL makes GPS devices and how hard could it be to integrate it with the dumb bombs developed by the ordnance factories?

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 20 Jul 2000 19:54

Let BEL first develope hand held GPS sets for the Infantry and particularly the CI ops troops. They have to procure these sets from the open market through their regimental funds. LEt BEL also develope Platoon level comm equipment.

Div · Post by **Div** » 20 Jul 2000 20:43

Vivek,I have heard a bit about the pod shortage as well. The ANG units are being forced to get Israeli equipment. I will try to look for where I read this...but don't count on it.

vverma · Post by **vverma** » 20 Jul 2000 21:07

Guru D, Again, where does it say that the USAF feels that it's short of pods? You're way over generalizing. Out of the 900 combat-code F-16, not all are meant for precision bombing. They also include the F-16CJ wild weasel aircraft, F-16s that are stationed forward to call in the strikes, etc. In the end you might be correct, but I find it very very hard to believe that USAF is short of these measly pods. Are you sure it wasn't a temporary shortage until the next order came in from the Israelis?

Div · Post by **Div** » 20 Jul 2000 21:12

I just made a quick visit to FAS and have a question.Is the Sharpshooter the targetting version of the Lantirn (Lantrin has seperate nav and targetting pods)?

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 20 Jul 2000 21:13

The Aviation Week cover story on the IAF a few years ago said that 315 Paveway II laser kits had been ordered. So we have a minimum of 315 laser guided bombs. Other sources like Russia and France have certainly been tapped. French Matra BGL-100 LGBs were apparently used in Kargil, according to this article in <A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/31tara.htm" TARGET=_blank>Rediff.com</A>.

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 20 Jul 2000 21:15

Yes, I realize the debate is over pods, not LGBs! I just threw that in to add to vverma's comment about IAF LGBs.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 20 Jul 2000 22:24

Interesting thread

Div · Post by **Div** » 20 Jul 2000 23:50

Spinster...you mean RAAF instead of RAF, right?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 21 Jul 2000 06:27

Yes, but does anyone know what kind of aiming system the Mig-27 laser pod has? This is the question. It has to be some kind of camera slaved to the laser. There is no other way to "lase" a target without being able to aim at it. I'd like details on this system. I just want to know if the Mig-27 can lase a target and drop an LGB on it from high altitude. Anybody know?

shiva · Post by **shiva** » 21 Jul 2000 06:44

I agree with ramana that a "Kosovo mode" operation is important in the Indo-Pak context. One needs to keep in mind the nature of TSP state. The military is more interested in keeping itself at the helm of affairs and would react "more sanely" to attacks on civilian infrastructure. TSP is basically a state attached to an army. Hence ability to attack "critical points targets" accurately is important. We could be fighting a defensive war against their RAT and attacking their infrastructure to build up pressure on the RAT generals. Keeping civilian "casualties" low is also important to blunt TSP propaganda. Night operations can help here. [This message has been edited by shiva (edited 20-07-2000).]

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 21 Jul 2000 22:52

If I correctly recall a World Air Power Journal article a few years ago on the MiG-23 and its ground attack variants, the IAF MiG-27s are given the same designation as Russian MiG-27s (i.e. MiG-27ML) but are in fact inferior in a couple of aspects.One of these is the type of laser ranger in the aircraft's nose. Russian MiG-27s have a better laser ranger, although whether it works as a laser designator I do not recall.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2000 23:42

Shiva, Am glad you see the point. I hope more members understand the importance of this aspect of the role of PGMs. My thinking is if there is local pressure than the main ingredient of the TSP logic is removed- threat of survival or existence. They are self defeated. Folks Rupak's article says clearly the idea is to integrate the Litening with the Mig-27 upgrades. He even has picture of that pod for god sakes! I heard that Israeli PGM kits are very affordable and were the ones used in Kargil. The French ones are very expensive and not expended. They are waiting with hope for repeat orders! I wouldnt be surprised if a local version is made using Nag sensor an wing kits from these imported models. The guidance is not so dificult and can use the Nag's package with minor mods. Soon after the Gulf War there was a small item about a lab in Dehra Dun (DEAL) working on something along the lines of a LGB. Never heard again. Might not have shown results or the acquisition of the US PGMs might have snuffed out that project. Any insight? I would like one of these kits to be adapted to the 450 kg FAE and see some results.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 24 Jul 2000 12:56

So basically, no one knows whether IAF Mig-27's can do precision bombing from high altitude or not.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 24 Jul 2000 13:29

The MiG 27s were designed and developed keeping the Soviet OMG doctrine in mind. This calls for using these aircraft as short range artilery pieces along-with massive helo support. These a/c and the helos were meant to be the air elements of the OMG, along with the artillery, para and tactical missile forces acting in support of the OMG. This also meant that they had to have an overwhelming number of a/c to support their offensive manouvers. I think even the IAF doctrine places these a/c in the lo-lo-lo or hi-lo-hi strike role.ASIDE: The early MiG 27 were developed without a gun, and they had under-belly pods on their centerline hardpoint carrying the GSh 23 cannon if required.For DPSA and interdiction strike the Soviets relied on the Su 24s and MiG 23 derivatives, with MiG 23/25/29 and Su's running top cover. Based on this concept of using the MiG 27 as ground support equipment, I do not think that it has 'high altitude' capability. Now this opinion is only derived based on my understanding of the development of the MiG 27 and the Soviet strategies for a European war - which was always their main concern anyway.

Aditya Vikram · Post by **Aditya Vikram** » 24 Jul 2000 19:44

while on the topic of mig-27's how about also considering what sort of air to air ability does the mig-27 has and will have after it's avionics upgrade(50 aircraft)and how good it is for dogfightng once it moves its wings into swept wing position?

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 24 Jul 2000 23:04

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aditya Vikram: while on the topic of mig-27's how about also considering what sort of air to air ability does the mig-27 has and will have after it's avionics upgrade(50 aircraft)and how good it is for dogfightng once it moves its wings into swept wing position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ZIP / NADA / ZILCH / ZERO... It was developed for ground attack, with no radar avionics. If you put it up against an air-to-fighter, it will LOOSE. With its wings in any position. Forward / Med / Back. Its only option is to turn and burn. Reasons, no radar. Therefore if it goes against a fighter with radar, it will probably be dead, before it even knew about the threat. This is the most important. The wings are swept back to decrease drag for high speed flight. In ACM the wings would have to be swept forward again in order to gain lift. Then making these planes slow and awkward to handle. BTW the hardpoints on the Wings of MiG 27 are not swingable. ie once the ordinance is loaded the wings have to remain in the same position till ordinance release. This is so the weapons are pointed in the right direction. For Deep Strike roles it would probably load only the centreline and the swing-wing sleeve hardpoints. The F14 or the F111 have swingable hard points under their wings. ie the angle of incidence of the wing can be set as desired and the hardpoints will keep pointing forward.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 25 Jul 2000 04:03

This is all very interesting and informative about the Mig-27 and its features. Always a learning experience on BR!However, we're still left wondering if the Mig-27 can actually guide an LGB from high altitude. There has to be specs on this somewhere. It all depends on the type of pod used. Equipped with a designator pod which has a high power laser and a decent camera on it, any aircraft can use LGB's from high altitude, though of course accuracy varies. Some pods have a "track" or "ground lock" feature where you can put the laser on the target, then lock it there, and it will do a reasonably good job staying on the target even if you do some maneuvers. Others require the operator to fly straight and true and manually keep that laser on the target until impact. This requires some skill. Some older systems have a regular TV camera on them, making them useless at night. And of course resolution varies. Many of the older systems don't give you good picture at all. If the target is not very distinct you may not even recognize it on the screen. So the real question is, what type of designator pod do the IAF Mig-27's use (looking for a model name here)? If this can be found out, then we would know whether the Mig-27's can be used in a high-altitude bombing strategy or not.Sorry to beat this point to death; just looking for info to update my site.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jul 2000 02:48

After some digging in Janes old copies here is what I came up with. The Mig-27 has an integral laser designator called Kaira-27. It is used to guide a KABL-500. This puppy has tail fins unlike the Paveway 2 which has controls on forward fins. In all purposes it is similar to Paveway 1 & 2 level of fuctionality. This has been there since 1977 according to Janes. So I guess it has the capablity. I do know the HAL had changed the navigation and avionics for the Mig-27 making it similar to Jaguar in the late eighties. How does this play into all this I dont know. And also if it has a built in designator then why go for the Litening unless it doesnt work that well.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 26 Jul 2000 04:13

ramana - They're going to equip all the Mig-27's with Litening pods? I didn't know that. Thanks for the info on the Kaira-27, by the way. I guess this would also be used to guide the Kh-29L laser-guided ASM. Do you know if the Kaira-27 has an infrared camera or just a regular daylight camera? And any idea what is the max altitude it can be used from?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jul 2000 04:27

As LNS says the Litening maybe for other uses as well. From Rupak's article in the BRM the chosen pod is the Litening. I guess they will be available at a certain rate per squadron but all aircraft will be upgraded so they can use them. Gives flexibility.From what I read the Kaira- 27 is the designator and the sensor or camera is on the KABL or what ever payload. Will see if anything else can be dug up on Kaira. BTW, even Jags were supposed to get this pod. Wonder if there are palns to set up assembly line in India.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 26 Jul 2000 04:34

Found an interesting link on the Mig-27. <A HREF="http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... index.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... ex.html</A> According to this, there is a Mig-27K variant of the Mig-27 family which is equipped with "the PrNK-23K integrated navigation and aiming system which consists of an Orbita-20-23K digital computer, an optical television indicator and a Kaira-1 laser and television sighting system". The Mig-27K can do high altitude precision bombing with the laser-guided KAB500L or the TV-guided KAB-500KR. It can also fire anti-radar missiles as well as various laser-guided ASM's. The Mig-27K sounds like a real workhorse. Again though, we don't know how much these have in common with IAF Mig-27ML's. I should also point out the IAF Mig-23BN has some kind of laser pod as well, but again, we have no specifics.There seems to be a lot of ambiguity regarding the Mig-27ML's and Mig-23BN's of the IAF's attack fleet. We really have no idea what these aircraft are capable of. Did Mig-27ML's or Mig-23BN's drop any LGB's or fire any laser-guided ASM's during the Kargil fighting?

Aditya Vikram · Post by **Aditya Vikram** » 26 Jul 2000 18:19

originally posted by shalav >> IP / NADA / ZILCH / ZERO... It was developed for ground attack, with no radar avionics. If you put it up against an air-to-fighter, it will LOOSE. With its wings in any position. Forward / Med / Back. Its only option is to turn and burn. well,here what was posted on BR sometime backMiG-27ML FLOGGERType: Variable wing attack fighter.Design Features: Has a shoulder wing variable geometry configuration. Two hydraulic wing sweep motors driven seperately by main and control booster systems. If one system fails, wing sweep system remains effective at 50% normal angular velocity. The wings can move back to 72º to perform fast low level attacks. The rear fuselage is fully detachable between the wing and the tailplane for engine servicing.Accomodation: Pilot only on KM-1M ejection seat in an air-conditioned and pressurised cockpit. Has a bulletproof windscreen.Avionics: One transponder and a 16-item vocal warning system. Also has an automatic flight control system, an angle of attack indicator, a radio altimeter, a navigation and attack system, a fone rangefinder and a bullet shaped antennae above each pylon associated with missile guidance. The stub-shaped nose has an in-built laser guidance system for accurate bombing.Engine: One R-29B-300 turbojet rated at 25,353 lbs. of maximum thrust.Maximum Speed: Mach 1.7Service Ceiling: 14,000 metres (45,000 feet).Combat Radius: With 2 Kh-29s and 7% fuel reserves - 121n miles (225km; 140 miles). ........................With 2 Kh-29s, 2 R-60MKs and 3 790L fuel tanks - 291n miles (540km; 335 miles).G limit: +7.0Armament: One 30mm GSh-30 gun in the fuselage belly pack with 260 rounds. A bomb rack is fitted on each side of the rear fuselage. Five other pylons can carry AAMs, ASMs, 57mm & 240mm rockets, napalm and even a tactical nuclear payload.Maximum External Stores Load: 4000kg (8818 lbs.)Self Defence: Infra-Red jammer and radar warning reciever.Comments: Known as the Bahadhur (Brave) in the IAF, the MiG-27s form eight operational squadrons. An upgrade is on the cards, as announced by former Air Chief Marshal S.K. Sareen. A news report in December 1998 stated that EW systems from the Israeli AF's F-16s will be used on the MiG-27. That is yet to be confirmed from reliable sources. The news article is featured in BHARAT RAKSHAK's IAF news archives. well,even the jaguar does not have radar but carry 2 mantra magic missiles overwing ,can the mig-27 do the same???

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 27 Jul 2000 04:42

Aditya Vikram - actually the question was whether IAF Mig-27's can use LGB's or ASM's from high-altitude, not its air to air capability.I'm surprised with as much as we know about the IAF, this question remains unanswered. Isn't there a real IAF pilot (or ex-pilot) on this forum?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jul 2000 19:50

Mig-27 as I understand were built by Soviet for high altitude tactical bombing of targets with Tactical nuclear device.Accuracy of the bomb dropped was not a major factor.So the convential bomb dropped by it will/was not very accurate. Any way since IAF has decide to upgrade this fighter the main emphasis will be accurate bombing of targets with precision wepons-LGB-Cluster etc.I think the upgrade should be more or less on the line of MIG-21 upgrade with emphasis on attack of ground targets on this since the upgrade will also be carried out with ISRAIL/RUSSIA help. Israil PGM wepons should also be considered since IAF dosent uses Israil PGM They are accurate have long range and also not costly compared to western wepons.Even US uses these wepons on their F-16/18 as well as B-52 bomber.[This post has been edited by Austin on 27-07-2000]