Indian Military Aviation

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 28 Dec 2011 05:42

according to my noob knowledge and my internet info our jags are advanced than our mig 27 both are for the same role ground attack and does have limited air to air capability . Also i think Mig 27's have more attrition rate than jags . where as jags have twin engines which has higher rate of survivability than single engine mig 27 . Jag has far better situational awareness as compared to the MiG-27. IAF Jaguars have a HDD with moving map. COMED-2035 on DARIN-I. They have far better range and endurance plus integral IFR. Jaguars have MIL-STD-1553B. Jaguar over-wing rails for the Magic-2/R-60MK which is a Big advantage . All our MiG-27MLs eventually got Tranquil RWR. couldn't remember i read some where that The Tranquil display however, blocked some of the forward view. is that true happy to be corrected . The Jaguar has superb control and maneuverability at low level and there are instances of it bettering the MiG-21 and Mirage-2000 in close-combat. couldn't find any info for similar cases for the MiG-27ML but they're not unlikely. The Jaguar has a computer controlled auto-stabilizer. any info about mig 27 in this regard

can any body please explain why we went for two type of ground attack aircraft when we have the license production rights for jags ? i don't know about migs . when both the jets almost can do the same job

thank you

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 28 Dec 2011 07:49

Acharya wrote: India has been under watch since 1955 with which country it collaborate. Other powers have made sure that India does not get into any deep relations for Industrial and tech collab.
This has been a covert plan and the way the NSG, and MTCR regime came in - this is due to carefull monitoering of the Indian capability.

Acharya ji i believe that only made us strong and self reliant inspite of lagging in couple of sectors

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2011 09:04

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2011/12/b ... -test.html

Indian Air Force (IAF) has appointed Air Cmde Raghunathan Nambiar as the Commandant of Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE), Bangalore. Nambiar is likely to take charge today as the 20th Commandant of ASTE, picking up his next rank as an Air Vice Marshal (AVM).

meaning he will head ASTE in the rank of AVM ? if so, this is an upgradation of ASTE's profile.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2011 09:39

VinayG wrote: can any body please explain why we went for two type of ground attack aircraft when we have the license production rights for jags ? i don't know about migs . when both the jets almost can do the same job

thank you

Interesting question and I don't know the exact answer.

The IAF's page on history lists the Jaguar as a "Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft"(DPSA) and the MiG 27 as a tactical strike aircraft (TASA). I suspect the latter was intended for loitering over a battlefield while Jags were intended for longer range low level single pass precision attacks.

http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_page.php?pg_id=98

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 28 Dec 2011 09:50

The Jaguar has superb control and maneuverability at low level and there are instances of it bettering the MiG-21 and Mirage-2000 in close-combat

Better control and stability at low speed I can understand (that's what they are designed for) but to out-maneuver a mig or a m2k at any altitude by a Jag?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Dec 2011 10:10

shiv wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:^^^ not sure about that

Indian approached US for F-104 starfighter and US arranged for us Lightening with some payment terms. Instead we went for Mig-21. Jags were chosen against Tornadoes (correct me). Viggen we rejected.
Good god no Chacko mone. The Jaguar competition was between Jag, Viggen and Mirage F1. Tornado was not yet there in those days.

Shiv. Tornadoa was flying in those good old days but was not in the race. I heard that IAF did send some feelers but the whiteman said that the brownman cannot handle such a sofistikated aeroplane.

Kersi

PS
Today the same whiteman is telling the brownman thAt he must buy the Tifun as it the THE MOST SOFISTIKATED
AEROPLANE. Interesting eh....

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 28 Dec 2011 10:14

Yogi_G wrote:
The Jaguar has superb control and maneuverability at low level and there are instances of it bettering the MiG-21 and Mirage-2000 in close-combat

Better control and stability at low speed I can understand (that's what they are designed for) but to out-maneuver a mig or a m2k at any altitude by a Jag?

yogi i never said at any altitude but i said in close combat and not all the migs its mig 21 and m2k in close combat only in few scenarios that's why i quoted instances

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2011 10:32

VinayG wrote:
yogi i never said at any altitude but i said in close combat and not all the migs its mig 21 and m2k in close combat only in few scenarios that's why i quoted instances

Vinay I don't think Jag will even beat the MiG 21 in close combat. However it might be able to outrun the MiG while flying 50 feet above the ground leaving the MiG gasping to get to that speed 1000 meters higher

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 28 Dec 2011 10:48

shiv wrote:
VinayG wrote:
yogi i never said at any altitude but i said in close combat and not all the migs its mig 21 and m2k in close combat only in few scenarios that's why i quoted instances

Vinay I don't think Jag will even beat the MiG 21 in close combat. However it might be able to outrun the MiG while flying 50 feet above the ground leaving the MiG gasping to get to that speed 1000 meters higher

thank you shiv and also is there any credible reason or logic behind the idea of having two different ground attack jets by IAF i mean the mig 27 .where jag was introduced in 1979 couldn't find the exact date for the Mig 27 but it was introduced in soviet airforce in 1975 . i think we may have introduced the mig 27 in 1976-77 and jags in 27 July 1979 . just wondering why we got two different jets which serves the same objectives in the same time period

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Dec 2011 15:21

IIRC,
The MiG27 entered Indian Air Force service around 1985/1987. The role envisaged for this bird was to provide short range tactical air support and to carry out BAI just behind theforward edge of the battlefield.
Gurus, please correct me if I am mistaken.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 28 Dec 2011 15:53

Bala Vignesh wrote:IIRC,
The MiG27 entered Indian Air Force service around 1985/1987. The role envisaged for this bird was to provide short range tactical air support and to carry out BAI just behind theforward edge of the battlefield.
Gurus, please correct me if I am mistaken.

Vignesh ji if the mig 27 was inducted in 1985/87 then we already have jaguars in our inventory since we inducted them in 29th july 1979 which is also capable of tactical air support now i am more curious to find out why we went for mig 27 in-spite of having more jags which is capable of maritime strike, ground support and limited air support

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 28 Dec 2011 15:56

Yes Bala, the Jaguar was inducted around 78 as the Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft (DPSA) & the Mig-27 ( actually initial two squadron were equipped with MiG-23BN ) was inducted around 85-87 as the Tactical Air Strike Aircraft (TASA). Two slightly different requirements.

So the DPSA, needs a good range, meaning more fuel & low level flight characteristics for deep strike in enemy territory. The TASA, needs good loiter. I guess Swing Wing capability provides the Mig-27's with low stall speed & good loiter, even though it has a lower range compared to the Jaguar. I must say I am not sure on this and just guessing here. If that's not the case then the Jaguar with its better range, should have better loiter time, carries more ordnance too, twin engined hence more survivable in case of a hit on the engine, should be the better platform. In fact the Jaguar was initially designed "to replace the McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR2 in the close air support, tactical reconnaissance and tactical strike roles, freeing the Phantom to be used for air defence in the RAF". So unless the Mig-27 gave better loiter capabilities or much faster response time or lower maintenance hours, the Jaguar should have been the better bet.

Also considering that we had already started the license production of Jaguar, maybe the IAF should have stuck to the Jaguar in the Tactical role, so as to reduce the types of aircraft's in the service. Was good prudent decision taken? I would leave it to the judgment of the IAF and say that they know more about the situation, hence whatever decision they took must have been in the best interest of the IAF and the country.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2011 17:04

bmallick wrote: Swing Wing capability provides the Mig-27's with low stall speed & good loiter, even though it has a lower range compared to the Jaguar. I must say I am not sure on this and just guessing here.

Exactly - this what my guess too. In the partially swept wing position I guess the MiG 27 would have a better low speed handling and turning radius than a Jag which was once jokingly described as having done a complete chukker of Karnataka state to turn around each time it flew past the Yelahanka air strip as part of the Aero India show. In other words my guess is - MiG 27 spots tank, turns returns to take out tank. Jag cannot do that as quickly and is more suited to penetration and single pass attack ona pre planned target rather than repeatedly swinging around in tight circles.

haryanvi · Post by **haryanvi** » 28 Dec 2011 17:48

VinayG wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:IIRC,
The MiG27 entered Indian Air Force service around 1985/1987. The role envisaged for this bird was to provide short range tactical air support and to carry out BAI just behind theforward edge of the battlefield.
Gurus, please correct me if I am mistaken.
Vignesh ji if the mig 27 was inducted in 1985/87 then we already have jaguars in our inventory since we inducted them in 29th july 1979 which is also capable of tactical air support now i am more curious to find out why we went for mig 27 in-spite of having more jags which is capable of maritime strike, ground support and limited air support

The Jaguar deal was mired in controversy. The deal was signed by Janta Party Govt. and there were allegations that Jagjivan Ram, the then Defence Minister had taken kickbacks. Even some retired IAF experts were against the aircraft on the ground that it was a case of too little, too late. The original deal called for 40 British-made aircraft to be inducted followed by license-production of 110-160 planes by HAL. The general perception about the Janata Govt. was that it was pro-US (or less pro-Soviet than the outgoing Congress). It is noteworthy that Morarji Desai visited US soon after taking over as PM and Jimmy Carter also visited Delhi during Janata regime.

The Janata Govt. could not complete its full term and fell down in 1979. When Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, she curtailed the Jaguar deal (the new figures were 40 outright purchase, 45 assembled in India and 31 local manufacture) and the pro-Soviet tilt in India's foreign policy again bacame apparent as manifested by the US $ 1.3 billion defence deal that was signed with USSR soon after her return to power (the deal covered MiG 23, T-72 and BMP-1 among other things). It is noteworthy that in those days the exchange rate was US$ 1 = Rs. 8.00.

The final figure for Jaguar in IAF is somewhere between the originally planned 200 and the Indira-dictated figure of 116.

So politics had a big role to play in the entire episode.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 28 Dec 2011 18:05

thank you haryanvi Ji that answers all my questions so it was more of politics for going for two types of jets hope history don't repeat in MMRCA

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2011 19:00

read this along with it.
http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2010/03/0 ... rin-story/

haryanvi · Post by **haryanvi** » 28 Dec 2011 19:31

VinayG wrote:thank you haryanvi Ji that answers all my questions so it was more of politics for going for two types of jets hope history don't repeat in MMRCA

I don't know whether there was more of politics or less but yes, politics was definitely involved.

Looking back, I feel Mig 23/27 was a bad choice. It would have been better to induct Jaguar in bigger numbers and have it perform both the TASA and DPSA roles. In the UK and France, Jaguar performed the TASA, not DPSA role. Mig 23/27 have had a lack-lustre career in the IAF, much like their predecessor the Su 7 of which 140 pieces were bought from 1968 onwards for gold (that's right, India paid for them in gold!) on the ground that our home-grown HF-24 wasn't good and fast enough. The Soviet lobby was at its peak in those days. We even made the mistake of inducting two squadrons of MiG 23's interceptor version, the unsophisticated MiG 23 MF which was also the first to be retired out of IAF. Imagine Pak buying 40 F-16s and India responding by buying 40 MiG 23MFs! No wonder, its purchase had to be followed by the purchase of Mirage 2000 and MiG 29, given MiG 23's obvious lack of superiority over F-16, a fact that was common knowledge and ought to have been known to the decision makers.

haryanvi · Post by **haryanvi** » 28 Dec 2011 19:47

haryanvi wrote:The final figure for Jaguar in IAF is somewhere between the originally planned 200 and the Indira-dictated figure of 116.

It seems sometime in the 1990s, IAF placed additional orders (partly to replace lost planes) and that's how the figure moved beyond 116.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2011 19:55

the Mig23MFs sole claim to fame in a lacklustre career might be shooting down a paki F16 that had crossed the Af border.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2011 20:07

haryanvi wrote:
Looking back, I feel Mig 23/27 was a bad choice. It would have been better to induct Jaguar in bigger numbers and have it perform both the TASA and DPSA roles. In the UK and France, Jaguar performed the TASA, not DPSA role. Mig 23/27 have had a lack-lustre career in the IAF, much like their predecessor the Su 7 of which 140 pieces were bought from 1968 onwards for gold (that's right, India paid for them in gold!) on the ground that our home-grown HF-24 wasn't good and fast enough. The Soviet lobby was at its peak in those days. We even made the mistake of inducting two squadrons of MiG 23's interceptor version, the unsophisticated MiG 23 MF which was also the first to be retired out of IAF. Imagine Pak buying 40 F-16s and India responding by buying 40 MiG 23MFs! No wonder, its purchase had to be followed by the purchase of Mirage 2000 and MiG 29, given MiG 23's obvious lack of superiority over F-16, a fact that was common knowledge and ought to have been known to the decision makers.

Haryanvi while I am in general agreement with your post I am not sure that the ultimate performance of the Su-7 was "lacklustre". It developed a reputation for taking a hard beating and coming back.

The MiG 23/27 of course had the highest accident rate but it was the MiG 21 that took the blame unfairly. The MiG 23 interceptor was a knee jerk response to F16 as far as I know. I can think of no other earthly reason for buying it.

As for France/UK they had no artificial definition like DPSA. The DP in DPSA is "deep penetration" - only into Pakistan. Nowhere else. The Jaguar was a fighter designed to fly under the radar in an era when it was still possible to evade detection at low level due to relative lack of good low level AWACS cover, and the theory was the single pass attach. It was supposedly capable of hitting its target with great precision in one single high speed pass avoiding multiple passes that would put the aircraft at greater risk from air defences. The MiG 27 OTOH apparently had a great cannon - one that could be lowered and was devastating - making it more suitable for an A-10 like role. I am not certain of this latter information though.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Dec 2011 20:19

memories of IAF firepower demos seem to indicate the Mig21/27 would make a overfly of the target, climb steeply and turn around, in the second pass it would launch bombs/rockets/cannons in a shallow dive.

the Jags would come in low, use the LRF to get some ccip data and unleash bombs in the first pass and never return.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Dec 2011 21:11

shiv wrote:The MiG 23 interceptor was a knee jerk response to F16 as far as I know. I can think of no other earthly reason for buying it.

MiG-23 was the direct replacement of MiG-21. MiG-23 was a good plane and the flight characteristics led to the demand for a ground attack version. Logically, MiG-23 were purchased as a counter for F-16 and Mig-27 was offered, which IAF accepted. MiG-29 then as it was in infancy and MiG-23 was "interim" measure. Since, there was nothing coming from Soviet Union to counter F-16, M2K's were bought. Then MiG-29 were offered to India and India grabbed it with both hands. I clearly remember, 1 M2K + 1 MiG-29 for taking care of 1 F-16 was the equation.

Jaguars were purchased as DPSA, which could act as a nuclear weapon delivery channel.

Jags were a nearly failure as a nuclear delivery vehicle, but, were found excellent in terrain hugging flights. Since Western border was more pressing, it was deployed in that direction. MiG-27 was found to be good for Northern border (there is a famous story about its deploy-ability due to its air duct mod) and it was deployed in that direction. However, there is no proof that it wouldn't have been deployed in west when situations arose and it was indeed deployed in Kargil.

MiG-27 + Jag upg's happened because the a/c are good at their roles or IAF wouldn't have wasted their time and money.

It will be wrong to say that MiG-27's were a waste, because, they aren't. They just didn't seem to get a chance to be employed in full scope.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Dec 2011 21:30

chackojoseph wrote: It will be wrong to say that MiG-27's were a waste, because, they aren't. They just didn't seem to get a chance to be employed in full scope.

Chacko Sir,
Very well put, sir. Absolutely true.. The MiG 27, AFAIK, is a very capable platform.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 28 Dec 2011 22:29

Wasnt there this article quoting the Def min saying to the air chief or someone that "if you want more mig23s you can have them they are practically free gifts from the SU, they are cheaper than a scooter"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Dec 2011 22:30

haryanvi, Any insight into special weapons delivery role for both those planes?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2011 22:37

Can anyone confirm that Indian Mig 27s had that awesome cannon? I read it on here recently somewhere or heard someone say it.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 28 Dec 2011 22:47

shiv wrote:Can anyone confirm that Indian Mig 27s had that awesome cannon? I read it on here recently somewhere or heard someone say it.

I remember from my visits to HAL nashik that it had a 30mm six barrel rotary gun. Which would have provided awesome rate of fire.

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 28 Dec 2011 22:50

Interesting video on Mig 27. Touches upon some of the things discussed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUHsx0aFx6c

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Dec 2011 23:22

Gentlemen, I clearly remember reading an article which lamented the induction of Mig-23BN as TASA - Tactical Air Support Aircraft. It was written by a senior ex-IAF fellow and he mentioned that how it was something which came our way from USSR. Having said that, AFAIK, MiG-23MF was the first BVR fighter in the sub-continent and its turn rate matched that of F-16. Mig-27 was a simplified version of Mig-23BN with better features for mud-moving role. If one sees the IAF of that decade, Mig-27 and Mig-23BN fitted perfectly between Jaguars and Mirages at the top of interdiction role and Mig-21 at the bottom. The price at which they came meant that we could build a fairly large number in inventory. And them birds have been deployed from East to South.

And that R-29 was a beast of a engine. After all, MFs were the first fighters to be deployed north of Srinagar.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Dec 2011 23:26

rohitvats wrote:
And that R-29 was a beast of a engine. After all, MFs were the first fighters to be deployed north of Srinagar.

This could have been a consideration vis-a-vis the Jag. One reason why both were bought. Maybe the Jaguars cannot be used from some of the forward northern bases like Leh. I remember seeing someone mention it here that one joke in the IAF is that the Jaguar takes off because of the curvature of the earth.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Dec 2011 00:08

rohitvats wrote: Having said that, AFAIK, MiG-23MF was the first BVR fighter in the sub-continent and its turn rate matched that of F-16.

The History page on the official IAF website says that the MFs were an interim measure until something better could be found. While the Mig-23 may not have been an equal of the F-16 in dogfights, it still had a better radar than any other IAF fighter, BVR missiles and simply was the closest we could get to the F-16 till the M2k came along.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2011 00:33

I did read in Vayu that Mig-23MF was a panic buy to have something versus F-16 than not have any thing at all to defend and they were quickly bought , Mig-27 was a well thought out buy including lic prod deal for CAS and Air interdiction role while Jags were pure DPSA in Indo-Pak context.

M2K was again a well thought out buy to deal effectively with F-16 and for nuclear delivery role though for its time it was the most expensive deal , much like in todays context MMRCA would be.

Mig-29 was again a short sighted buy to deal with F-16 in a decisive manner and to maintain Air Superiority if required to aid the Mirage/Jags in Nuke DPSA mission , Mig-29 just turned out to be good in a specialised role and was an expensive bird to maintain something we realised when SU broke up and chips were down.

But considering all Soviets buy at that tine came with soft credit and very attractive interest rates spread over decades and they accepted part barter payments , it was considered a good deal always becuase any western deal involved only forex which were always in short demand then.

There was this famous word of IG when M2K was purchased at great price and we were criticized by some section in west for expensive buy , she said something like even poor country like india has the right to defend { not a exact word but something similar }

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Dec 2011 02:09

The BN pilots however were a happy lot.

Drop bombs, sweep wings back drop down and scooot

and nothing in either air force could catch them.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Dec 2011 02:53

Surya wrote:The BN pilots however were a happy lot.

.....

and nothing in either air force could catch them.

The Mig-23's variable intake ramps were removed in the 27 however, so the top speed must have reduced considerably.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2011 06:07

nachiket wrote:
Surya wrote:The BN pilots however were a happy lot.

.....

and nothing in either air force could catch them.
The Mig-23's variable intake ramps were removed in the 27 however, so the top speed must have reduced considerably.

That probably mattered only for hi alt supersonic flight. Not for the low level CAS/interdiction that the 27 was intended for.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2011 06:12

rajanb wrote:
shiv wrote:Can anyone confirm that Indian Mig 27s had that awesome cannon? I read it on here recently somewhere or heard someone say it.
I remember from my visits to HAL nashik that it had a 30mm six barrel rotary gun. Which would have provided awesome rate of fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Yes. Someone did mention to me that this was a deadly cannon. Here is a video although the explosion is fake (for Rajiv Gandhi). But this is a MiG 23 BN with 23 mm cannon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHV_I47uSHQ

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2011 06:20

Sriman wrote:Interesting video on Mig 27. Touches upon some of the things discussed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUHsx0aFx6c

Nice - there is mention of the 6 barrel Gatling type 30 mm cannon. At 4-11 the man speaks of cannon gas ingestion into the engines. Isn't that what happened to Nachiketa?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 29 Dec 2011 06:40

shiv wrote:
That probably mattered only for hi alt supersonic flight. Not for the low level CAS/interdiction that the 27 was intended for.

True. I was referring to Surya ji's comment about Mig-23 pilots being happy because nobody was fast enough to catch them. The Mig-27 didn't have that advantage.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 29 Dec 2011 07:35

Mig27 was bought for TASA - It can have taken many hits and still bring the pilot and plane back to base. The pilot and the avionics sit in a titanium bath tub. For it's role, CAS for moving column or advancing enemy column - it had all that it takes (low range, swing wing, drop bomb and scoot at high speed, great canon). Put a jag or LCA in that role and some ground fire will simply disintegrate these planes (in all fairness, they are not meant for that).
There have been snippets that IAF is not very much interested in CAS, it sees itself as a strategic force, and CAS is something that can be taken care of by artillery, Helis and occasional smart bomb from other planes. We don't see any replacement of Mig27 or one even talked about. This should be one plane that should be very doable for ADA - SU25 used MIG21 engines. The requirement for these kinds of plane is not great, except for surviavibility requirement is many times more than other planes.
Thanks,
fanne

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 29 Dec 2011 08:55

weirdly most of my friends served in 23 BN, the next lot in 27s, odd ones in Jags, m2k and later Su 30s(of course they started with 21s)

I was surprised when they explained how they gave the 29s a run for their money in DACT.

There was a lot of sadness when the 23s were shutdown.

maintenance became just too expensive and the upgrades were not cost effective

Because of their speed they were also called up to give practice to Air Defence Units. The details of those are a story for BR meets