SEPECAT Jaguar in IAF Service

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

SEPECAT Jaguar in IAF Service

Postby Kersi D » 17 Jun 2006 20:13

IAF has ordered some 17 / 20 new Jaguars from HAL. These are quite different from the exisiting models

The existing models are
Jaguar IS. Single seat ground attack with 2 x 30 mm Aden cannons
Jaguar IM. Single seat maritime strike with 2 x 30 mm Aden cannons
Jaguar IB. Twin seat trainer with 1 x 30 mm Aden cannons

The new Jaguars are twin seaters. They are NOT trainers. They do not have any gun. One of them was dispalyed at Mumbai air show in Oct 2004. Any idea what is this mode ? I understand that IAF has ordered (and received ) 17 such aircraft. IAF has also ordered another 20 a/c. What is their configuration ?

Kersi

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 261
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Postby Raman » 17 Jun 2006 21:10

Any idea what is this mode ?


These correspond to the IAF's relatively recent emphasis on precision strike. Target identification and designation is too much of an additional burden on the pilot --- hence the addition of a WSO. Don't know anything about thier configuration, but you can probably count on litening.

BTW, shouldn't this belong in the general Indian Military Aviation thread?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 17 Jun 2006 22:02

Also Why is this need to know everything?

Let it comeout when it does.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 18 Jun 2006 00:07

Anybody has any idea on the total number of jags now?


I think around 108 were purchased or produced in initial run followed by 17 which were received recently and now another 20 are on order??


Of these 108+17=125 around 20 have been lost leaving 105 flying and attrition reserves (?).

Pls correct if the aforesaid figures are wrong?

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Postby Jagan » 18 Jun 2006 00:42

Raj Malhotra wrote:Anybody has any idea on the total number of jags now?


I think around 108 were purchased or produced in initial run followed by 17 which were received recently and now another 20 are on order??


Of these 108+17=125 around 20 have been lost leaving 105 flying and attrition reserves (?).

Pls correct if the aforesaid figures are wrong?


I can only add that the attrition figures are supposed to be slightly above 35 lost till date.

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 18 Jun 2006 01:19

Would it be feasible to add a digital fly-by-wire to the Jaguars (either existing fleet or newly manufactured ones)? I know the RAF experimented with this.

The controls would become sharper, something especially useful in low altitude flight; and the range would increase as well.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Postby Sanjay » 18 Jun 2006 02:21

The numbers are as follows:

116 purchased and/ or HAL produced: 4o from UK & 76 HAL.

Then in 1988 an order for 15 more was placed, but these were not confirmed until 1993.

Thereafter, we have a batch of 17, then 20 and now it appears 20 more.

Re-engine and put radars on the lot I say !

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 18 Jun 2006 02:50

Loaned and returned Jaguar - JI001-JI018

Jaguar GR.1s assembled at BAC Warton JS101-JS135
Jaguar T.2s assembled at BAC Warton JT051-JT055
HAL manufactured Jaguar-IS(first batch) JS136-JS193
HAL manufactured Jaguar-IB(first batch) JT056-JT065
HAL manufactured Jaguar-IM JM251-JM262*

HAL manufactured Jaguar-IB DARIN-II JT066-JT082
(c/ns, JR-014 onwards)

An order for an additional 15 Jaguars was placed with HAL in 1993 and fulfilled in 1999 followed by the latest order for another 17 two-seat Jaguar-IBs and 20 Jaguar-IS. I think yet another order for a 20 single seaters was placed. These are to include IM airframes.

*Many sources indicate 17 Jaguar-IM deliveries. This could mean 12 inital production variants followed by 5 others included in the 1993 order. Janes AWA indicates 2-4 additional IMs ie JM-263, 264 (Jagan, can you please recover the original post I made on that circa Feb 2006? )

The search facility on BRF sucks **s.

Oh yeah, the standard pic,

Image

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Postby Sanjay » 18 Jun 2006 03:54

Harry, by your calculations that could mean somewhere near 192 aircraft either delivered or on order ?

Wonder how many MiG-27s were delivered then ?

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Postby Jagan » 18 Jun 2006 04:20

Sanjay wrote:

Wonder how many MiG-27s were delivered then ?


165 - though there is some popular notion that more were delivered, no evidence has surfaced till date that there were more than 165.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 18 Jun 2006 06:50

Here are some clues,

- 300 R-29B-300 engines were ordered in 1984 alone.

- 100th MiG-27ML delivered on 2 May 1992.

- TS 665 was the last MiG-27ML delivered, in March 1997.

- The peak production rate for both airframes at Nasik and engines at Koraput, was 24 units per year.

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 18 Jun 2006 07:07

Harry wrote:Here are some clues,

- 300 R-29B-300 engines were ordered in 1984 alone.

- 100th MiG-27ML delivered on 2 May 1992.

- TS 665 was the last MiG-27ML delivered, in March 1997.

- The peak production rate for both airframes at Nasik and engines at Koraput, was 24 units per year.


The original agreement agreed for license production of 188 MiG-27s with an option for 50 more to be taken up. But IAF/HAL stopped its requirement after producin 165.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 18 Jun 2006 07:27

appuseth wrote:Would it be feasible to add a digital fly-by-wire to the Jaguars (either existing fleet or newly manufactured ones)? I know the RAF experimented with this.

The controls would become sharper, something especially useful in low altitude flight; and the range would increase as well.


I don't know. I'm no expert - but I have opinions and questions

1) Non FBW aircraft have cables and rods and hydraulic power to operate them. In order to make an aircraft FBW those cables and rods have to be removed (or at least replaced) by wires leading to actuator motors that then control the aerodynamic surfaces (apart from the software and the electronic abacus to work that software). This is not possible without wholesale redesign. It might be feasible, but not simple.

2) What makes you say that FBW makes controls "sharper" and therefore "especially useful" for low altitude flight? I can see how FBW could aid low altitude flight - but the connection with "sharp controls" escapes me because I dont know what that means.

3)The Jaguar was designed in the era before FBW and was therefore designed to be as stable and economical in low flight as is technically feasible with conventional controls. Your quesion raises another question in my mind - i,e, what aerodynamic features would made a plane fly steady at low levels in the absence of FBW? I suspect a low response to gusts and an engine optimised for low level fight would be two essential features. That begs the question "What specific airframe and engine features would translate to advantages of high subsonic very low level flight?"

4) I know that the Jaguar is not a greatly maneuverable aircraft (at altitude at least) from two sources of information. The first is public statement that the Jaguar was ineffective for a Kargil type role, and the second is my personal observation that Jaguars in flight demos in Aero India typically circle the entire state of Karnataka after taking off before returning to the flight display area, unlike the Su 30 that seeemingly starts and finishes its entire display without leaving the bounds of the airfield. I wonder if this behavior of the Jaguar indicates something about built-in airframe/engine features?

5) I guess a super accurate altimeter and a sensor to sens that mountain ahead of your and a computer to make sure you start climbing soon enough so that you can avoid hitting the mountain would be useful features apart from a tendency to not be affected by sudden gusts or by eating more dust and smoke than is usual for higher altitude flights. What does the Jag have?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 18 Jun 2006 12:38

So we are taking of around 40+76+15+17 purchased and produced = 148

20+20 on delivery and order schedule

2 to 5 doubtful

So at present we have 148-35=113 flying or on attrition reserves with 40-45 in the process of joining

Total Jags that will go through Indian hands will be atleast 188-193

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 18 Jun 2006 12:39

If HAL produced around 165 then some were also purchased (40?)

CPrakash wrote:
Harry wrote:Here are some clues,

- 300 R-29B-300 engines were ordered in 1984 alone.

- 100th MiG-27ML delivered on 2 May 1992.

- TS 665 was the last MiG-27ML delivered, in March 1997.

- The peak production rate for both airframes at Nasik and engines at Koraput, was 24 units per year.


The original agreement agreed for license production of 188 MiG-27s with an option for 50 more to be taken up. But IAF/HAL stopped its requirement after producin 165.

Ajay M
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 13:07
Location: Goa

Postby Ajay M » 18 Jun 2006 13:38

can any one tell me how many naval jaguars are there ?? is navy is getting some new jaguars for them also

ameyk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 16:55

Postby ameyk » 18 Jun 2006 15:20

ajaymki wrote:can any one tell me how many naval jaguars are there ?? is navy is getting some new jaguars for them also

As of now the navy does not operate any jaguars .The 1M naritime version is operated by the IAF.These were supposed to be upgraded with elta radar .Dont know if this has been done or not though,perhaps harry sir could through more light on this.Also the sea eagle has reached the end of its operational life.Perhaps a weapon change is also called for.

Once the mig29k's arrive i suppose the jags may well be retired

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Postby Kersi D » 18 Jun 2006 17:18

ameyk wrote:
ajaymki wrote:can any one tell me how many naval jaguars are there ?? is navy is getting some new jaguars for them also

As of now the navy does not operate any jaguars .The 1M naritime version is operated by the IAF.These were supposed to be upgraded with elta radar .Dont know if this has been done or not though,perhaps harry sir could through more light on this.Also the sea eagle has reached the end of its operational life.Perhaps a weapon change is also called for.

Once the mig29k's arrive i suppose the jags may well be retired


Amey
I do not think that Jaguar IM will be retired on the arrival of MiG 29K. Strictly speaking MiG 29 and Jaguars have different roles. MiG 29 will be a carier borne aircraft. Jaguar is not carrier borne at least not on Gorshkov or ADS. The Jaguar can be best replaced by SU 30MKI. Just imagine, a dozen of SU 30MKI, based on Andaman Islands can cut off 25-50 % of oil supply form Mid East to Far East !!

Incidentally the Jaguar was considered for carrier borne operations by French Navy, way back in the 1970s. They were tried on the French carrier Foch or its sister Clea@#$%$@$, i just cannot pronounce or remember her name !! The French Navy finally chose the Etendard over the Jaguar

Let us start one more discusion on Jaguars.

The RAF is phasing out its Jaguars. Do you think IAF should buy these Jaguars and upgrade them, with Israeli help as usual ?

Kersi

Ajay M
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 13:07
Location: Goa

Postby Ajay M » 18 Jun 2006 18:48

thanks for your quick response sir i live in goa and almost see sea hariers and kiran fly over my house every day even seen il38 and tu 142 flying low level had talk with many harrier pilots i do think naval aviation wing has been neglected they do need better fighter plane hope they do get mki if govterment can agree to it it will be a deadly combination of sea mki and airforce mki and waiting for the mig 29 to arrive in ins hansa (goan naval base )

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Postby CPrakash » 18 Jun 2006 18:55

Raj Malhotra wrote:If HAL produced around 165 then some were also purchased (40?) .


The original MiG-27 agreement came in a very novel way.

The actual license production option was for the MiG-23BN. Some were procured straight away and it was assumed that License production was the next logical step. Then the ruskis came out with the improved BN which is the MiG-27ML and India took up the option of directly building them without any direct procurement from them. So in effect the MiG-23BNs were the direct procurement for the license production of the MiG27s.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 18 Jun 2006 19:42

Kersi

why would you want old Jags when we can build newones.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63366
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 18 Jun 2006 19:43

the RAF/FrAF jaguars were already at the level of our new Jags.

ameyk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 16:55

Postby ameyk » 18 Jun 2006 20:19

Singha wrote:the RAF/FrAF jaguars were already at the level of our new Jags.

do these have the darin 2 suite.I always thought that the newer (17) 2 seaters were far more advanced then the raf jags

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7345
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Postby krishnan » 18 Jun 2006 20:34

In recent years, as India has acquired a nuclear strike capability, the Jaguar is believed to be the primary platform for delivery of free-fall nuclear weapons. Another rumor is that IAF Jaguars have been given a low-cost "stealth" upgrade, featuring such simple items as anti-radar engine intake screens, that cuts their radar cross section by more than half.


In addition, the IAF has 20 more Jaguar IS single-seaters on order, with an improved nav-attack system and modernized displays and processor. Similar avionics is also being refitted to older Jaguars, a welcome upgrade in particular for the surviving British-built Batch 2 aircraft as they retain the original NAVWASS system. Ten Jaguar IMs, apparently all that remain in service, will be refitted with an improved Israeli Elta EL/M-2032 multimode radar.


Further improvements are believed to be in the works, such as increased cockpit automation that will allow single-seaters to carry and use the Litening targeting pod. Given the new production and the improvements to older aircraft, it seems like the Jaguar will remain in IAF service for a good time to come, a tribute to the basic soundness and capability of the design.


http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avjag.html#m8

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 19 Jun 2006 03:54

shiv wrote:4) I know that the Jaguar is not a greatly maneuverable aircraft (at altitude at least) from two sources of information. The first is public statement that the Jaguar was ineffective for a Kargil type role, and the second is my personal observation that Jaguars in flight demos in Aero India typically circle the entire state of Karnataka after taking off before returning to the flight display area, unlike the Su 30 that seeemingly starts and finishes its entire display without leaving the bounds of the airfield. I wonder if this behavior of the Jaguar indicates something about built-in airframe/engine features?

5) I guess a super accurate altimeter and a sensor to sens that mountain ahead of your and a computer to make sure you start climbing soon enough so that you can avoid hitting the mountain would be useful features apart from a tendency to not be affected by sudden gusts or by eating more dust and smoke than is usual for higher altitude flights. What does the Jag have?


  • Low aspect ratio wing performance in boundary layer air show very small changes in lift vs large changes in AoA.
  • Low gust response and no/few G-bumps.
  • Ideal for high speed (low drag)
  • Rugged airframe and engines optimised for boundary layer flight

Jaguars, have to be one of the most impressive display aircraft I've seen, coming in low at really high speed, rolling all the time and making some nice turns. The other fighters put in some tight turns but at very low speed. The display itself should really depend on whether the pilot has practised a scripted routine for the airshow and this is why the Mirage Aerobatic team and a standard Mirage's performance can't be compared. An Su-30MKI is impressive, no matter what little it does, but many thought that the MiG-29M2 was more impressive. This was because the Russians were trained airshow pilots.

A Jaguar should be able to match most fighters (MiG-29, Su-30MKI etc excluded) at low altitude and kick them but with highly loaded wings, will get eaten at higher altitudes. Low aspect ratio wings are bad for slow speed.

An ordinary DARIN-I Jaguar has a better INS (Uliss 82) than the Mirage-2000. Asked why the performances of the Jaguar and the Mirage-2000H differed so much at Kargil, the CO (2005) of the Flaming Arrows remarked that it had a lot to do with the Mirage's ability to carry and deliver massive (6000+ kg) amounts of ordinance (ADA should take note). Besides which, Jaguars are designed for low altitude penetration and not high altitude bombing.

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 19 Jun 2006 03:59

ameyk wrote:
Singha wrote:the RAF/FrAF jaguars were already at the level of our new Jags.

do these have the darin 2 suite.I always thought that the newer (17) 2 seaters were far more advanced then the raf jags


RAF upgraded Jaguars to GR.3 standard. The most impressive of this is the addition of a HMS and ASRAAM capability. Overall, it falls quite short of DARIN-II standards.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Postby Sanjay » 19 Jun 2006 04:33

Harry, given the fact that it appears that the R-73 will be integrated into the MiG-27, why not the Jag ?

BTW, these new weapons spoken of by HAL for the Jag and MiG-27, other than LGBs, what are they talking about ?

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 19 Jun 2006 04:42

Sanjay wrote:Harry, given the fact that it appears that the R-73 will be integrated into the MiG-27, why not the Jag ?

BTW, these new weapons spoken of by HAL for the Jag and MiG-27, other than LGBs, what are they talking about ?


Answers for both, I don't know. They could've integrated the R-73E with the SHAR, Jaguar, MiG-23BN/27 and MiG-21bis/M long ago but I don't know why they did'nt or if they actually did? Might be that these weapons are expensive

appuseth
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 10 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: United States

Postby appuseth » 19 Jun 2006 05:16

In response to Shiv:

2) What makes you say that FBW makes controls "sharper" and therefore "especially useful" for low altitude flight?


Got it from the following: SEPECAT Jaguar ACT Demonstrator

Test pilots were impressed by the crisp control responses and smooth flight. The aerodynamic instability of the aircraft enhanced maneuverability, but the computer-controlled flight commands provided split-second corrections to compensate for the unstable configuration.


Also:
The aircraft's normal control rods were replaced with a 'fly-by-wire' (FBW) control system, which used four independent computer-controlled electrical channels to relay instructions to the flight surfaces. The aircraft was further modified by fitting large leading edge strakes (wing extensions) to move the centre of lift forward and adding ballast to the rear fuselage to move the centre of gravity aft. This enhanced lift and drag characteristics and made the tail plane more efficient thereby allowing smaller lighter engines with greater fuel efficiency to be used, decreasing overall weight by 15%.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1388
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Postby Kersi D » 20 Jun 2006 14:25

Surya wrote:Kersi

why would you want old Jags when we can build newones.



SIMPLE

Time and Money

If we can get say 2 sqdns of Jaguars within one year at the price of say half or one third of what a new a/c will cost, it is worth giving a closer look. Of course the most importnat thing is to see the residual life.

The "older" Jags for RAF would have to be re-fitted as the brits will remove a lot of electronic stuff, as what they want to do with the old Sea Harriers. After modifications we can use them for perhaps less demanding task like maritime patrol. Take the ex RAF Jags. Refit them with ELTA radar and systems. Refit them for Sea Eagle or say Kh 31, hey presto you have a damn good amritime strike aircraft at a attractive price

Kersi

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 20 Jun 2006 16:58

Kersi

We do not need them any faster.

If we do thn ramp up local Jags - longer air frame life and work for Indians


And the maritime role is more demanding

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 451
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 20 Jun 2006 17:34

Harry wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Harry, given the fact that it appears that the R-73 will be integrated into the MiG-27, why not the Jag ?

BTW, these new weapons spoken of by HAL for the Jag and MiG-27, other than LGBs, what are they talking about ?


Answers for both, I don't know. They could've integrated the R-73E with the SHAR, Jaguar, MiG-23BN/27 and MiG-21bis/M long ago but I don't know why they did'nt or if they actually did? Might be that these weapons are expensive

Integration of R-73 is a bit fishy ... I mean without an IRST (or Radar) the near-BVR capability is gone and thus limits it to WVR envelop only. If thats the case, integration of R-60MK would've made more sense isn't it?

Actually, a huge "upgrade" to both Jaguar and 27 capability would've been addition of a two colour combined FLIR and IRST/LR - and if they could've fused the EW gear with them, nothing like it!! :twisted:
But seriously, they should've atleast attempted integrating an OLS-30 - that'd have taken care of the near-BVR AA capability with R-73s - plus when combined with the FLIR capability of litening (sys int would have been a nightmare though, IMO) would've been quite handful actually.

Sigh!! Maybe the cost was not worth it ... :(

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 20 Jun 2006 22:28

maitya wrote:
Harry wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Harry, given the fact that it appears that the R-73 will be integrated into the MiG-27, why not the Jag ?

BTW, these new weapons spoken of by HAL for the Jag and MiG-27, other than LGBs, what are they talking about ?


Answers for both, I don't know. They could've integrated the R-73E with the SHAR, Jaguar, MiG-23BN/27 and MiG-21bis/M long ago but I don't know why they did'nt or if they actually did? Might be that these weapons are expensive

Integration of R-73 is a bit fishy ... I mean without an IRST (or Radar) the near-BVR capability is gone and thus limits it to WVR envelop only. If thats the case, integration of R-60MK would've made more sense isn't it?

Actually, a huge "upgrade" to both Jaguar and 27 capability would've been addition of a two colour combined FLIR and IRST/LR - and if they could've fused the EW gear with them, nothing like it!! :twisted:
But seriously, they should've atleast attempted integrating an OLS-30 - that'd have taken care of the near-BVR AA capability with R-73s - plus when combined with the FLIR capability of litening (sys int would have been a nightmare though, IMO) would've been quite handful actually.

Sigh!! Maybe the cost was not worth it ... :(


Even so, the R-73E offers a much wider engagement envelope and flexibility than anything else in IAF inventory.

The MiG-27ML and Jaguar upgrades like the SHAR LUSH are "limited" as per their own words. It would have been nice to see a datalink, 2-3 6x6 inch MFDs (full glass cockpit), a HMS, single piece windsheilds (the MiG-27ML needs it), SATCOM and MAWS. They should've also "experimented" with a possible nose radar config for the MiG-27ML.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63366
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 20 Jun 2006 22:32

the OLS-30 is a modified seeker of some IR missile iirc, its not that great. the Roosies need to come up with something to replace this alongwith the work on IIR-K74 mk1 and mk2 missiles. the F-14D IRST below the nose was supposedly a lot better. the YAL-1 also has a sensor on the roof.

George J

Postby George J » 20 Jun 2006 22:42

OEPS-30 (whichis made up of OLS-30 + Ts100(?) + HMS (?)) is a pretty big set up. For the MKI they threw out the OEPS computer (along with some other russian clunkers) to replace them with RC1/2.

I really dont think there is enough space in the existing Mig-27 nose cose to accomodate the OEPS-30 set up.

Also why do folks believe that the rusians system is junk? Is there emperical evidence to support the same? Or you guys have been watching way too much history/military channel.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7345
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Postby krishnan » 20 Jun 2006 22:43

They read too many online stuff

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12885
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 20 Jun 2006 22:59

why do we want any air-air capability in a mig 27? if we have to spend on it, lets give it better night attack and stand off attack capabilities, there will always be a Su30 to watch its back :twisted:

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 20 Jun 2006 23:10

Singha wrote:the OLS-30 is a modified seeker of some IR missile iirc, its not that great. the Roosies need to come up with something to replace this alongwith the work on IIR-K74 mk1 and mk2 missiles. the F-14D IRST below the nose was supposedly a lot better. the YAL-1 also has a sensor on the roof.


Claims about the F-14D's IRST are just made by American nationalists.

Now for all this talk about "IIR" IRSTs, they can only image at very short ranges. If they zoom, the FoV is greatly reduced. At long ranges, the contacts are nothing more than blobs. With heat dissipiation into the atmosphere, it would only be effective against clear sky. I don't believe that the any of the latest IRSTs have any great range anyway.

The signal processing on the IRSTs have little in common with radar. While the RCs may coordinate them, they are not the main SP unit for the OLS-30. Even so, control of the IRST should really be an MC function.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 20 Jun 2006 23:21

George J wrote:Also why do folks believe that the rusians system is junk? Is there emperical evidence to support the same?


That's exactly the point. There is hardly any empirical evidence on Russian stuff, either one way or the other. All we have to go on are brochures and the Russians.

George J

Postby George J » 20 Jun 2006 23:50

Umm the same can be said about any USAF stuff, sure its been used in "wars and conflicts"..........against Bedouins, rag tag militia and tin pot dictators who have been pre-pulverzied. So its not really seen much if not any action.

The OLS-30 family (OEPS-27) has been used in Ethiopia-Eritria:
... Interesting is also, that most - if not all - Eritrean MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights, where MiGs were supposed to have some advantages over larger and heavier Sukhois. Finally - except one - all the air-to-air kills were reportedly scored by R-73, even if quite a few (up to 24) R-27s were fired, pointing to some possible problems with R-27s......


So I really wouldnt be too quick to dismiss the OLS-30 family just yet. There are brouchers on boths sides.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests