Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2008 19:48

Raj Malhotra wrote:The traditional type of CAS in which the aircrafts circle overhead and go for repeated passed/dive bombings are over due to manpads.So even CAS will be single pass, heavy bombing type. In this role the jags are good.The point is that among the types in production in India what choice do we have?

Dhruv-too vulnerable, it won't get up, too slow, light weapon load etc.


Objection your honor. Objection.

It is only fixed wing aircraft that are forced to overfly the battle zone while firing or dropping unguided munitions because the whole damn aircraft has to be aimed at the target and that means the aircraft has to fly AT the target and overfly it. Its exhaust forms a nice hot ass for a manpad to lock on to as it passes over.The helo need not do that at all.

Combat helicopters can be be used in a manpad environment by taking terrain features into consideration. The Helicopters use mounds, dunes or low hillocks or even forested areas to just pop up and pepper an area with unguided rockets or guided hellfire type munitions. Even strafing can be done in a pop-up, fire and vanish mode without giving the man with the manpad to raise his head get a bead and fire. And even loose shots he gets may miss because the helo is not visible for more than 10 seconds or 15 seconds at a time.

Even the much critcised "under the chin" sighting apparatus of LCH is easily used behind terrain features by hovering in a chin up- tail down mode so the profile of the helicopter visible to a person wanting to get it is too small and too transient to get a bead.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2008 19:59

Video showing IAF helicopters using low altitude "nap of the earth" flying to remain unseen and safe. They can actually hide behind trees while hovering.
[youtube]Bx8DpE9AiTI&feature=related[/youtube]

This video shows heliborne IAF/Indian army ops but OT as it is not CAS

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

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Raj Malhotra » 17 Aug 2008 20:29

Re Shiv

Helos in J& K and NE mountains are non-starter. There are lot of articles on net including I think from Air Chief.

Low level fast flying is still safe with flares/chaff. Reason is that on single pass the aircraft are exposed for such a small time and moving so fast that it is "impossible" to orient the missile. And did you know that even manpads have heating up time? Radars will off course have to be quietened by SEAD/EW

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2008 20:33

Raj Malhotra wrote:Re Shiv

Helos in J& K and NE mountains are non-starter. There are lot of articles on net including I think from Air Chief.


Not mountains. Low hillocks, undulating terrain - ordinary terrain features. All you need is a hillock that is 30 feet difference in height serving as obstruction to line of sight. Not 3000 or 15000 feet. Even Dilli will have that much difference in height between one area and another.

Check the following video at 2min 57 seconds to show tanks "rising up" from behind undulating terrain. No mountains here (Punjab)

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=qHSVJNNsQ4U

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 17 Aug 2008 21:07

Rupak wrote:Rahul
The list of losses you have posted is not just aircraft flying CAS missions. In fact very few CAS missions were flown in GW1.

that is precisely my point !
the GW losses were mostly sustained by a/c flying fast and low, the profile we expect a jag to operate in. just the sheer # of AAA/IR(MANPADS) losses confirms this.
I know most of those were on strike missions but even those were accustomed to fly low and fast.
The RAF and USN flew strike missions in the lo-lo-lo profile (jags,tornadoes,A-6 and a few harriers IIRC) while USAF flew at a higher altitude and depended on PGMs.
Now, considering the much larger no of missions flown by USAF as compared to RAF, we find that RAF has a much higher attrition rate in GW1.
the reason is the lo-lo-lo mission profile.
Conclusion, in a dense AAA/MANPADS environment, a fighter flying lo-lo-lo has low (no pun intended) survival rate.
Rupak wrote:For an attacking force in the Indian context, where opposing forces are more or less evenly matched in numbers, the biggest threat will be enemy fighters rather than MANPADS or SAMs.

I don't agree, the IrAF had quiet a large # of fighters flying, how many actually managed to down coalition a/c ?? how many were killed by AD ? granted, their training was nothing great and US had overwhelming EW superiority.
In the Indo-pak context, I would expect IAF to achieve partial air-superiority in a few days time, w/o major losses, given our our advantage in quality and also quantity. it would be the ADGES that would still be around to do the damage.
Rupak wrote: Recall the strikes flown during the latter part of the Kargil Ops, where Mirage and Jaguar sorties were flown well outside the effective envelope of MANPADS. In fact several pilots one has spoken to over the years remember seeing MANPADS being fired and then falling away like diwali rockets

exactly, lo-lo-lo missions are not survivable anymore. one has to fly high enough to avoid the AAA/MANPADS.
my question is, the jag is optimized for low level strike, how good would it be in a different profile ? On the answer to this question rests the answer to the original question of this thread.
added later: I don't think the jag was used in any strike role in Op Safed Sagar, it was only photo-ops.

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

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Raj Malhotra » 17 Aug 2008 23:33

CAS is a reality and may be disliked but cannot be avoided. Hi-hi-hi is only possible when you are dominating the aerospace. In India-Pak-China scenario lo-lo-lo will be necesary evil which will be compounded when we do CAS. Whatever we use for CAS will incur losses. So I ask again what indigenous product will be best for CAS? I say Jag.

Re Rahul:- What is the huge number of Jags UK lost in GW1? IIRC that they flew 600 combat sorties and losses were NIL .They were doing day time low level dumb bombing in earlier part of conflict which is as tough as it can be. What do you want to use as an alternative Dhruv?

Now Pls specify the total number of sorties flown by coalition and also how many aircraft were lost due to CAS which is the toughest part of any air action? or just give the percentage of losses viz a viz sorties flown.

Note:- Cost of an attack helo is US$ 20-60 million while the cost of Jag is US$ 18 million
Last edited by Raj Malhotra on 17 Aug 2008 23:48, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 17 Aug 2008 23:48

Raj, I don't have the processed numbers but you can check the # of a/c lost in low level flying (to AAA/MANPADS) as compared to the # lost to CAP a/c and MSAMs(which can be assumed to be at higher levels though would have a few low level kills in all probability) here :
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/atrition.htm

BTW, I haven't said that about the jags specifically, it is true for any a/c doing low level ops.

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

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Raj Malhotra » 17 Aug 2008 23:54

I am sorry, you are making a strong argument of heavy losses without checking numbers??? :) I am saying Jags flew 600 combat sorties for NIL Loss, it flies in the face of your argument. I think we are too enamoured by Hi-hi of GW1. Do you expect IAF to fly hi-hi against sophisticated radar coverage and Long range SAMs? 10 losses say in 10,000 sorties actually support my argument rather than yours. You need to do some number crunching before you take this stand that lo-lo is done for and Jags are passe!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2008 00:21

nil loss ?? did you at all check the link ?? there are at least four jag kills mentioned there.
and numerous other AAA and MANPADS kills. I'm sure those are not hi level kills.
why not click the link ?
anyway, only time will tell who is correct. for the time being I'll just say this, every SAM system will be susceptible by some degrees to ECM, you don't have ECM for AAA. :wink:

added later : may I clarify that all these arguments are in the Indian context only. pakistan, having a relatively limited # of assets to protect can concentrate low tech AD assets around these to very high densities. the added factor will be the fact even these assets are spread around in a handful of cantonment towns, mostly in pakjab and sindh.

Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 322
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rupak » 18 Aug 2008 01:10

Rahul
If you recall, at the first sign of trouble, scores of IrAF's best aircraft (MiG-29s, Su-24, Mirage F-1, Adnan, etc.) headed for Iran. That is unlikely to happen in Pakistan. Also note that Iraq's holding of medium SAMs (and density of deployment) far exceeded that of Pakistan. That aside, yes GW1 and Kargil validated the need for PGMs, but there will be certain operations that will continue to be flown in the lo-lo profile. BTW, the first PGMs used during Safed Sagar was Jaguar delivered. In addition to its handling characteristics, the Mirage was chosen for because it had the most sophisticated countermeasures in the fleet.

The Jag has been trialled and flown successfully in other profiles including EW and Martime Strike, and with newer avionics it is a potent bomb truck with PGMs.

But to return to the question of should the line remain open... I believe we should standardize on aircraft in the years to come. The IAF was reliant on manned fighters for many tasks that are better taken over by other types of aircraft...including UAV, helicopters for CAS, etc. So my answer would have to be that given limited resources we should concentrate these on the production of multi-role aircraft with a hi-lo mix. So the Su-30/Tejas/Hawk will be a good combination to fill our needs in the years to come.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby PaulJI » 18 Aug 2008 01:14

Rahul M wrote:nil loss ?? did you at all check the link ?? there are at least four jag kills mentioned there.

Two Jaguars to AAA, one to MANPADS, one cause unknown.

Total 34 AAA, 24 short-range IR-guided SAM (including MANPADS), 15 radar-guided SAM, 1 small arms, 1 Iraqi fighter, 8 unknown.

Of 75 losses for which a known or suspected cause is given, 59 were lost to short-range, low-level-only systems, & 16 to medium to high-level systems.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2008 01:19

Rupak wrote:Rahul
If you recall, at the first sign of trouble, scores of IrAF's best aircraft (MiG-29s, Su-24, Mirage F-1, Adnan, etc.) headed for Iran. That is unlikely to happen in Pakistan.

True.
Rupak wrote: Also note that Iraq's holding of medium SAMs (and density of deployment) far exceeded that of Pakistan.

again true, but the majority of coalition losses were to unsophisticated AD equipments. moat of the MSAMs were taken out/rendered ineffective at the start of the war.
Rupak wrote:That aside, yes GW1 and Kargil validated the need for PGMs, but there will be certain operations that will continue to be flown in the lo-lo profile. BTW, the first PGMs used during Safed Sagar was Jaguar delivered. In addition to its handling characteristics, the Mirage was chosen for because it had the most sophisticated countermeasures in the fleet.

I won't have believed that coming from anybody else ! really, none of the kargil literature I've come across mentions that. jags are mentioned only in recce roles.
Rupak wrote:The Jag has been trialled and flown successfully in other profiles including EW and Martime Strike, and with newer avionics it is a potent bomb truck with PGMs.

agreed. the only question is the handling of the jag at high altitudes. I'm ignorant on that, btw. :)
_____________________________
thanks Paul. what IR guided SAM is that other than the MANPADS ?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2008 01:36

jamwal wrote:Can Jaguars be used in Tibet and carry Brahmos?

sorry for the late reply.
they can certainly be used in tibet although there may be performance issues.
and no, brahmos is too big and heavy a missile to be carried by the any IAF a/c other than the mki. but don't worry, the army will use it.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby PaulJI » 18 Aug 2008 01:44

Rupak wrote:Rahul
If you recall, at the first sign of trouble, scores of IrAF's best aircraft (MiG-29s, Su-24, Mirage F-1, Adnan, etc.) headed for Iran.

Not at the first sign of trouble, but after a week in which air-air losses were 38-1 in the Coalition favour, plus numerous Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their shelters. The odds in favour of India vs Pakistan wouldn't be so high (& I'm sure the Pakistanis wouldn't decide to donate a large part of their air force to Iran), & losses could be expected from Pakistani fighters, but one can set against that Iraqs large inventory of medium/high altitude SAMs, vs Pakistans lack of similar weapons. High up, there would only be fighters over Pakistan. Over Iraq there were also SAMs, some of which remained operational, though degraded in effectiveness, throughout the war.

Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 322
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rupak » 18 Aug 2008 02:03

Rahul M wrote:I won't have believed that coming from anybody else ! really, none of the kargil literature I've come across mentions that. jags are mentioned only in recce roles.


http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... PCamp.html

"The two seater, which would be filming the whole affair from behind, would only use the LGB if required to do so. Only 9 LGB’s were dropped during the whole war, 8 by the Mirage fleet and one by a Jaguar. "

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2008 02:05

:oops:
thanks !
P.S. any details available of that incident ??

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5403
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby niran » 18 Aug 2008 09:43

Rahul M wrote:nil loss ?? did you at all check the link ?? there are at least four jag kills mentioned there.


Two Air forces used Jags in GW1
AdA (French Air Force for the uninitiated)Jaguars, painted in two-tone sand camouflage, also served very well in the Gulf War, with the AS-30L laser-guided missile proving lethally accurate and effective. AdA Jaguars performed over 600 combat sorties during the active air war. No air-to-air kills were scored. One AdA Jaguar was damaged by a surface-to-air missile; it limped back to base but had to be shipped home on a cargolift aircraft.


RAF Jaguars thoroughly proved their worth in the Gulf War in 1991. They were painted in a very businesslike overall "desert pink" (actually sand) color scheme. The RAF had obtained two Vinten VICON 18 Mark 600 Long Range Optical Pods (LOROP) for reconnaissance in 1990 and these pods were used in the conflict.

Over 600 combat sorties were performed by RAF Jaguars during the active air war, roughly the same number as AdA Jaguar sorties.No air-to-air kills were scored, no Air crafts was lost


matter of fact, this "high number of lo-lo-lo- losses by Raf, AdA during early phase of war" was written
by whathisname author in his whatitsname novel. Owing to high readership of his novel,
this myth was created.
Jags is needed in greater numbers. order 200+ more of them.

oops! forget to add a picture(pictures save me from typing)
here are external stores(usually) during GW1



Image

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 18 Aug 2008 10:00

ajay, may be you haven't noticed PaulJI's post or the link I posted ??
Of 75 losses for which a known or suspected cause is given, 59 were lost to short-range, low-level-only systems, & 16 to medium to high-level systems.

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

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Raj Malhotra » 18 Aug 2008 23:17

The link seems to say that 4 jags were damaged not lost.

Rahul M wrote:Raj, I don't have the processed numbers but you can check the # of a/c lost in low level flying (to AAA/MANPADS) as compared to the # lost to CAP a/c and MSAMs(which can be assumed to be at higher levels though would have a few low level kills in all probability) here :
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/atrition.htm

BTW, I haven't said that about the jags specifically, it is true for any a/c doing low level ops.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5403
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby niran » 19 Aug 2008 00:01

Yes sir, have read it, and some others. most losses/damages were of Tornado GR 1.
AFAIK now Tornado is upgraded to GR3/GR4. therefor it might have to do with
unsuitable avionics. non of the Jags were lost, testimony in it self of the aircraft design
and proper use. hence the days of "Samsher" ain't over yet.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 19 Aug 2008 00:08

rana pratap sahab, I'm questioning the survivability of any low altitude attack a/c in a dense AD environment. the jag is undoubtedly a very capable asset now, question is will it remin so in the future ??

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2202
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby vivek_ahuja » 19 Aug 2008 02:00

Rahul,

The survivability of any low altitude attack aircraft in a dense anti-air network is in jeopardy. That's just the law of probability and statistics. Fly too many times through the same mess and you will get hit sooner rather than later. But having said that, you have to consider whether the ends justify the means. In other words, how many of the aircraft are likely to be shot down in return for the damage that the rest of the fleet that wasn't hit will cause.

And the problem for India only gets worse given that the Medium to High level AA systems of the Chinese and Pakistanis won't be suppressed so easily as seen in wars between US and other smaller nations. In the meantime then, what is the other option for deep penetration strikes? Let's face it, any war between India and its neighbours will cause massive damage to IAF aircrafts flying in all altitude levels, and in my personal view there is no way of saying whether one is worse than the other.

As a result, in my view, if the Jags can get results with low cost dumb bombs, cluster munitions and napalm without using PGMs then that is certainly an option that a poorer country such as India should consider. Again, having said this, the Jag can deliver PGMs if necessary, either alone or in joint ops with other aircraft types lasing the target. In other words, depending on the type of AD systems available to the enemy, the roles can vary in times of war. The Jags won't always be flying low. But the question of risks always remain.

IMHO and all that.

-Vivek

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 19 Aug 2008 02:07

thanks vivek for the POV. could you throw some light upon the jags flight characteristics in high altitude missions ??
thanks.
p.s. how's the article going ?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Surya » 19 Aug 2008 02:16

After Kargil, a lot of IAF tactics now involve higher altitudes.

Lo Lo will still be used but by and large the IAF revised its tactics as Rupak mentioned. With EW, and ARMs and 29s and SUs to clear the way out , the med or hi alt attacks are more feasible and less risky. And controlling attrition rates is important in modern ari warfare and lo lo increases that probability

I had interesting conversations along these lines with friends who were getting ready during Parakaram but cannot mention it here.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2202
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby vivek_ahuja » 19 Aug 2008 02:26

Rahul,

The flight characteristics of the Jaguars is not a problem, at least not the payload issues, since airfields are available at sea level nearby. But Kapil has said it before: the aircraft is underpowered. Even that can be offset if the missions are planned properly. The main issue is that all Jag strikes in the Tibet region will have to be at high altitude levels since targets like Chinese airbases among others are located along relatively narrow valleys with fixed lines of approach during an unguided weapons delivery. And those approaches are sure to be a convention center for the PLA's MANPAD teams. Not only is any aircraft coming down that valley a clearly visible target to even machine gun fire, there is not much the pilot can do in terms of maneuverability. If he's committed, he's committed down that one approach line unless he aborts the approach itself and pulls out, and the latter defeats the purpose of the strike.

Based on what I can say right on the spur of the moment, the fully laden Jaguar is definitely far far less maneuverable than what you might think. I can probably whip up some numbers later, but they are essential bomb delivery trucks on the way in, and a race car on the way out. Either way, not designed to be maneuverable during fast and low approaches. In that aspect it is definitely vulnerable to ground fire. The idea is to use speed to escape, not maneuvering. A properly planned mission would involve a ingress and egress at low altitudes and weapons delivery from high altitudes, kind of like a Lo-Hi-Lo.

-Vivek

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Lalmohan » 19 Aug 2008 02:48

from memory, the RAF tornado's abandoned Lo-Lo-Lo in GW1 due to the high hit rate of AAA during airfield attacks. however, if there was no air superiority, it would remain lo-lo-lo

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby PaulJI » 19 Aug 2008 04:03

ajay pratap wrote:Yes sir, have read it, and some others. most losses/damages were of Tornado GR 1.
AFAIK now Tornado is upgraded to GR3/GR4. therefor it might have to do with unsuitable avionics. non of the Jags were lost, testimony in it self of the aircraft design and proper use. hence the days of "Samsher" ain't over yet.

Four Jaguars were listed as damaged. Three to low-level, short-range only weapons, one to an unknown cause.

The Tornado GR.1 losses were to a variety of causes -
AA - 2
IR SAM - 1
Radar-guided SAM - 4 (one to a US Patriot) plus 1 damaged
Unknown - 2

Damage

8 Tornados (not counting the one shot down by the Yanks as it was returning from a mission) lost & 1 damaged vs 4 Jaguars damaged probably reflects the greater numbers of Tornados in action (RAF, Saudi, & a few Italian), & their tasking with deep penetration strikes, entailing more exposure to air defences, rather than any greater vulnerability of the Tornado than the Jaguar. The Saudis & Italians lost one each, the RAF 6, plus one to a US SAM. The Jaguars operated in daylight & clear weather only - the Tornados day, night & all-weather.

Most damaged but not lost aircraft seem to have been hit by AA. The damaged Jaguars were all early on. I think they switched to high-altitude bombing after that.

BTW - I was careless in my earlier post, failing to distinguish between damaged & lost. Mea culpa.
http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2008 08:12

The MRCA will reduce the importance of Jaguar in many ways.

If we continue the Jaguar line too long - we will have a generation gap that we be forced to bridge 15 years from now. better to think of that now and move on.

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

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Raj Malhotra » 19 Aug 2008 09:26

10 Tornads were lost from 2000 combat sorties flown by Tornads and Jags in one of the most hostile envoiment in early days of combat,lot of day time and most of them lo-lo.

Hence Lo-lo "fast" flying aircraft are vulnerable to manpads is a 'misconception'. I repeat they are many times more survivable then helos. And even with some losses are more cost-effective then Hi-hi aircraft using PGMs. Manpads and AAA take time to orient and fire, by that time lo-lo aircraft are gone. jags were built for DPSA against Soviets in Central Europe, they are NOT easy to shoot down.

MRCA flying high high will be 3 times more costly than Jags and would be using costly million dollar PGMs. Not cost effective to build numbers compared to Jags.

Jags are underpowered for take off, aircombat and dive bombing but are super excellent for single pass low level high speed bombing, calling them underpowered for this role is again "misconception" even in Tibet. They take time to accelerate when they get going, there is no stopping. So that they are unsuitable for Tibet is third "misconception"


Rahul M wrote:rana pratap sahab, I'm questioning the survivability of any low altitude attack a/c in a dense AD environment. the jag is undoubtedly a very capable asset now, question is will it remin so in the future ??

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 19 Aug 2008 15:48

Jags are underpowered for take off, aircombat and dive bombing but are super excellent for single pass low level high speed bombing, calling them underpowered for this role is again "misconception" even in Tibet. They take time to accelerate when they get going, there is no stopping. So that they are unsuitable for Tibet is third "misconception"
Raj, FWIW while we may have our opinions, vivek does these things for a living. I for one won't be eager to contradict him on a technical matter ! :wink:
I repeat they are many times more survivable then helos.

agreed. I have my own concern with the helos, that I've mentioned in an earlier post.
for the moment it has to be the jags and they are excellent platforms IMHO. however, in the future, it just may be necessary to use a combination of manned and unmanned high level strike a/c.

I just want to point out that 59 of 75 coalition air "incidents" were at low level, even though the iraqis had one of the most potent MRSAM cover in the world. and it has been widely reported and PaulJI also mentions it, that the coalition changed tactics to high altitude bombing within a few days of the start of GW1, that is as soon as the MRSAM threat was brought under control. Remember that pakis have no MRSAM threat worth mentioning and even if they manage to get one, it would be better to conduct high alt ops after a full blown SEAD ops rather then try an SAM avoidance bombing campaign.
bottomline : SAMs can be jammed/destroyed. it is impossible to take out MANPADS/AAA threat by an air offensive alone.
moreover, coalition forces could plan to attack from multiple directions, enabling them to avoid the densest AD cover, an advantage that we are unlikely to have.
even if the MANPADS and AAA fail to hit an a/c during ingress, they would be better prepared during the return leg. the relatively low no of areas to protect for the pakis mean they can jack up the # of low tech AD assets to cover all possible ingress/egress routes. it would be harder than iraq, IMHO.
MRCA flying high high will be 3 times more costly than Jags and would be using costly million dollar PGMs. Not cost effective to build numbers compared to Jags.

agreed, but for the moment. it may become cost effective once we start producing our own stuff. also, AFAIK, the conversion kits aren't too costly.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1098
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rishirishi » 19 Aug 2008 17:58

Raj Malhotra wrote:10 Tornads were lost from 2000 combat sorties flown by Tornads and Jags in one of the most hostile envoiment in early days of combat,lot of day time and most of them lo-lo.

Hence Lo-lo "fast" flying aircraft are vulnerable to manpads is a 'misconception'. I repeat they are many times more survivable then helos. And even with some losses are more cost-effective then Hi-hi aircraft using PGMs. Manpads and AAA take time to orient and fire, by that time lo-lo aircraft are gone. jags were built for DPSA against Soviets in Central Europe, they are NOT easy to shoot down.

MRCA flying high high will be 3 times more costly than Jags and would be using costly million dollar PGMs. Not cost effective to build numbers compared to Jags.

Jags are underpowered for take off, aircombat and dive bombing but are super excellent for single pass low level high speed bombing, calling them underpowered for this role is again "misconception" even in Tibet. They take time to accelerate when they get going, there is no stopping. So that they are unsuitable for Tibet is third "misconception"



Rahul M wrote:rana pratap sahab, I'm questioning the survivability of any low altitude attack a/c in a dense AD environment. the jag is undoubtedly a very capable asset now, question is will it remin so in the future ??


The pilots are humans and usually like to return alive. The Aircraft may be able to withstand the AAA, but not all pilots may want to fly such dangerous missions.
High tech equipment is a safe and secure way to succeed in the mission objectives. It is good for the morale execuation of strategy

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

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Raj Malhotra » 19 Aug 2008 19:30

Re Rahul, I am not contradicting Vivek, I am contradicting you!! The post was in a context, the word "underpowered" is used to compare it to say a helo, not a Su-30MKI. Vivek has given a reasonable picture of a reasonable aircraft which jells well with my stand.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 19 Aug 2008 20:04

Raj Malhotra wrote:Re Rahul, I am not contradicting Vivek, I am contradicting you!! The post was in a context, the word "underpowered" is used to compare it to say a helo, not a Su-30MKI. Vivek has given a reasonable picture of a reasonable aircraft which jells well with my stand.

:D
of course you are free to contradict me but the point is I haven't ever argued that the jag is underpowered in the first place !
to clarify again, if an alternative is available, IMHO, IAF would do well to get out of the business of low level ground attack ops, especially against heavily defended targets.
That, I feel is true for any a/c flying low, not necessarily the jag.
Vivek's post does bolster this argument.

regards.
Rahul.

p.s. could you explain this phrase a bit ? used by whom ?

the word "underpowered" is used to compare it to say a helo, not a Su-30MKI.

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

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Raj Malhotra » 19 Aug 2008 22:18

Rahul M wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote: if an alternative is available, IMHO, IAF would do well to get out of the business of low level ground attack ops, especially against heavily defended targets.
That, I feel is true for any a/c flying low, not necessarily the jag.
Vivek's post does bolster this argument.

regards.
Rahul.

[/b]


Perhaps I misunderstood and we were talking at cross purpose. Your aforesaid sentence makes your position more clear. But if you read my posts and also of Vivek then you will note that lo-lo continues to be relevant-important-needed. In any case you have not been able to sustain your argument about heavy losses of lo-lo aircraft in GW1. Did i read that also incorrectly?

And what do you mean by "if alternative available". The whole purpose of this thread is to say, AS THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE alternative therefore build up the numbers by Jags. When LCA kicks in, I say order 500 LCA and also another 250 Su-30MKI.

Note-I know numbers seem excessive but to face China either have boots on ground or Jags in air or perhaps both.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 19 Aug 2008 22:54

Raj, let me repeat that 59 of 75 incidences of coalition a/c in GW1 were at low altitudes. that is a whooping 78.66 % of the total. if that does not sustain my argument, I don't know what will.
as further proof, coalition air forces halted lo-lo operations within a short time of the start of the campaign. this, I believe is well known.

I've already agreed that the jags in lo-lo are important for the moment (please do read my posts before making comments on them).
but this thread talks about the future since it concerns future jag production. IMHO, lo-lo ops is not the way to go in the future.
DRDO et-al are already working on PGMs (and possibly on conversion kits for dumb bombs) and it is a matter of time before they are available to IAF at a relatively cheap price.
Of course, those will never be as cheap as a dumb bomb but restricting IAF to dumb bombs because of that reason is akin to restricting them to aerial cannons because AAMs are much costlier. it doesn't address the change in the battlefield requirements due to technological advances.
....When LCA kicks in, I say order 500 LCA and also another 250 Su-30MKI.

I don't think IAF can afford another 250 mki's from the manpower perspective and probably also from the resources POV. had they been able to, they would have, in all probability gone for the mki's instead of the MRCA. note that the India's FGFA is also a twin seater and that the IAF runs a large officers deficit.

all in all, I think the IAF should (and probably would) get out of low level ground attack doctrine as soon as possible. the future lies with PGMs(some of them stand-off) and armed UAVs.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2008 07:29

What does "lo" mean in Tibet?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rahul M » 20 Aug 2008 07:36

^^^
hugging the ground. medium height when measured from sea level. tibet is at about 5000m from SL on an avg. lo at tibet would come out to about 17-18000 feet roughly.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Singha » 20 Aug 2008 07:56

the altitude of the brahmaputra valley in tibet, perhaps the lowest region near us is
still > 4000m.

with new CAS weapons like gliding wcmd dispensers, helina, litening pod & NVG for night
flying etc the Jags can easily do a better job than the old Mig27s did except the huge
cannon ofcourse. the thin air at such altitude might make warthog type low level
tactics very risky, so new cheap, medium range weapons for delivery at low
level are the key.

there will be concerns about using super-uber $100mil MRCA for CAS when it finally arrives.

its either that or beef up on 50km range SP howitzers, MLRS and prithvi type missiles
which need road and other infra while Jags can sortie cheaply over all terrain.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Singha » 20 Aug 2008 07:59

the Jag production line being fully tooled up and 39 new airframes flying around, it makes sense
to build another 35 for two more squadrons. such a chance will not come again.

Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 863
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

Postby Rupesh » 20 Aug 2008 18:59

more Jags will definitely help especially since HAL will be having spare capacity until MRCA gets into production, the worforce can be used for building 2-3 more jag sqns.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests