Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 23 Aug 2008 19:34

Tornado vs Jaguar

the Tornado replaced Jaguar as an all-weather day/night deep strike bomber - to interdict Warsaw Pact rear area targets lo-lo-lo below the Soviet air defense network, and originally as a multi-role aircraft that could double up in air/air. The Jaguar was daylight only and not considered viable in air/air roles even for self defense - particularly against a Soviet style air defense grid. Whilst the navwass system on jaguar was good for its time, it was no match for the Tornado's terrain mapping radar for precision nav/attack at low level. However, this big huge transmitter is now a liability given the state of ECM and the Tornado's role has evolved.

The Darin II equipped IAF Jaguars should still be highly capable of all weather day/night lo-lo-lo penetration, for either iron bomb or PGM delivery. Infact I believe that a batch of 2 seaters is being configured for this role at the moment, with a possible 'special mission' of the Smiling Buddha variety in mind.

Hawk vs Jaguar

Hawk does not have the high speed lo-lo-lo ride, nor the nav attack system, nor the range and payload of the Jaguar. However, for daylight light strike roles, the Hawk is still very potent, perhaps close to or better than the Mig21. It is no deep strike platform. In the air/air role, Hawk is a good little dogfighter and will give a good account of itself against quite a few aircraft. It has very low BVR survivability and no BVR capability. You wouldn't put it up against Su27's and expect any to come back.

The Jaguar therefore remains in the Indian context a highly useful airframe for interdiction roles and CAS only where targets can be properly designated and the laser ranger used effectively for high speed single pass attacks. Jaguars should not loiter in the battle area and try to acquire targets visually. They'll be vulnerable for all the reasons listed in previous posts about manouverability and excess thrust limitations.

Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 30 Jan 2005 12:56
Location: Cardiff, UK

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

Postby Singh » 23 Aug 2008 21:12

Well summed up Lal...
That answer's a few question's atleast

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

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

Postby Rupak » 23 Aug 2008 21:49

The point is not Hawk vs Jaguar or Trainer vs DPSA.

It has everything to do with what you can do with the airframe and how you optimize it. No matter what you do to the Jaguar airframe you will never turn it into a multi-role aircraft. The Hawk airframe offers many other possibilities. Remember that the Hawk 200 derivitive using the 871 Adour is in service as a multi-role light weight fighter - and certified for both AA and AG work. With a suitable radar the Hawk can effectively perform BVR work.

The other item against which capability might be measured who will you be sending the Hawks against. With the right kind of optimization, your Hawk is offers a very potent capability against any Grifo equipped F-7 or A-5.

All you will need is a switch of crew and ordnance to move from flying strike missions to CAPs.

I am NOT arguing that the Hawk is a better strike aircraft....I am arguing that the Hawk is a more versatile aircraft, and given human and other resource constraints it makes no sense to build any more Jags, if we want to keep numbers.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 24 Aug 2008 00:00

Few questions and observations:
1. The logic of increasing DPSA aircraft to compensate for constricting number of Mig21 squadrons, seems to defy reason. OTOH longer legs of IAF with Jaguar or Hawk or MKI vs the useless Mig21 range is of value and welcome change.

2. If the HAL's problem is skill/manpower resource contrained (and I think that is a correct and key situation) then fixing that is key no matter what airframes HAL produces in qty. Again it comes to pay packet (GoI issues) and work culture (organizational leadership issue), that people beat around the bush rather than handle it fair and square. HAL's Su-30MKI production rate IMHO is a cruel joke. Lesser said of HAL's technology transferred production of SU's engine the better.

3. Can I request someone to pls document the range of so called DPSA Jaguar for 1.5 tonne payload versus Hawk? and CAS Mig27 for 1.5 tonne payload versus Hawk?

If anyone cares for IAF squadron strength, then the easy fix is to give the money to IAF, and let IAF decide; let it be the slave master to HAL and foreign vendor import. Tying IAF hands by linking the MRCA with geo-political decisions in the hands of politicians and balbus is the worst prescription for IAF and Indian defense.

I am of view that HAL should be under IAF command.

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

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

Postby Rupak » 24 Aug 2008 00:18

Arun_S wrote:Few questions and observations:
1. The logic of increasing DPSA aircraft to compensate for constricting number of Mig21 squadrons, seems to defy reason.


Thank you for being more lucid than I was.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 24 Aug 2008 00:36

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=535

a su-25 takes a missile hit and survives for BoB. shows the need for specialized CAS birds.

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 24 Aug 2008 03:44

Jag cannot be Mig-21 replacement. I am talking about increasing DPSA and CAS resources while Mig-21 replacement goes on as usual. The idea is to increase numbers/additional airframes - not replacement airframes

Rupak wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Few questions and observations:
1. The logic of increasing DPSA aircraft to compensate for constricting number of Mig21 squadrons, seems to defy reason.


Thank you for being more lucid than I was.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

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

Postby John Snow » 24 Aug 2008 06:30

Singha wrote:panda sniffing around as usual. israel could well have sold this tech
before big-G clamped down

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/ ... ilah2.html

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/ ... lilah.html


Forgive the slight detour here to start with, but will connect to Jaguar in a minute.

We have made HF-24, Gnat, Ajeet, Jaguars of british origin, and a number of Russian made a/c and continue to do so, Hawk (also).

We made the following jet engines





look at this.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence_aerospace/products/uav/default.jsp



1955
Dart is the first gas turbine into commercial service in India in the Vickers Viscount.

1956
Rolls-Royce starts a licence production partnership with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Bangalore, signing a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) for the Orpheus.

1959
Dart engine TAA signed with HAL.

1960
Conway powered Boeing 707 enters service with Air India, first turbofan in Indian commercial service.

1973
Avon engine TAA signed with HAL.

1978
Adour engine TAA signed with HAL.

1979
Rolls-Royce India Limited was established in Delhi.
Adour enters service in Indian Air Force Jaguar aircraft.

1981
ONGC installed its first Avon industrial gas turbine on a Bombay High platform. This was a gas compression unit to transport natural gas.

1983
The first vectored thrust turbofan in the world, the Pegasus, enters service with the Indian Navy Sea Harrier aircraft.

1994
The ONGC SHG platform is commissioned with seven RB211 powered gas compression units and three Avon powered generating sets, the world's largest offshore platform in terms of installed gas turbine horsepower.

1999
Rolls-Royce Energy Systems India Private Limited launched in Delhi.

2003
HAL becomes a supplier to Rolls-Royce with steel ring rolled forgings.
Adour powered Hawk ordered for IAF Advanced Jet Trainer.

2004
Rolls-Royce Marine India Limited launched in Mumbai.

2005
Embraer Legacy VVIP aircraft ( AE 3007 engine) enter service with IAF.
Rolls-Royce Operations India Private Limited launched in Bangalore to coordinate sub-contract engineering.

2006
Rolls-Royce celebrated 50 years of partnership with HAL.



Image

Sometime back I had posted (IIRC 2002) why cant India make UAVs with small piston engine aircraft to start with and then go into ALCM with turbofan engines?
To which JC cage garu was kind enough to post a PPt with ADA efforts in small piston engines for UAVs. But so far I have not seen anything come out of it.

We have seen news reports in BR that India is buying from Israel UAVs.


Now the question, with the shutting the Jagaur lines why cant we use our rxpertise in building UAVs wwith same engines derated to susbsonic, By the current standards GTRE if they attempt to make a supersonic engine with single crystal blade yada yada they may end up with a sub sonic engine of sub prime life which meets exactly the requirements of ACLM. By nature ACLM is a fire and prey weapon, the engine need not survive the mission, If the engine surrives and falls into enemy hands all the more better, they will also end up with sub performing engine.

With fifty yeras of partnership we cant still make the engine like the ones Israelis are making?

all we need is nene engine
Image

Image

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 24 Aug 2008 06:33

Rupak wrote:
It has everything to do with what you can do with the airframe and how you optimize it. No matter what you do to the Jaguar airframe you will never turn it into a multi-role aircraft. The Hawk airframe offers many other possibilities. Remember that the Hawk 200 derivitive using the 871 Adour is in service as a multi-role light weight fighter - and certified for both AA and AG work. With a suitable radar the Hawk can effectively perform BVR work.


Somehow the argument forgets that you can do pretty much the same thing with jaguar airframes as well. Jag-IM's have radar installed and can be multi-role as well. By the time you finish adding radar to hawk, you would have increased the weight of the frame by 400-500 kgs thereby reducing range or payload. It may still be better than mig-21 ( if it ever happens) and that may be okay, but it certainly doesn't seem like its multi-role when compared to the jag at front lines as it stands now.

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

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

Postby Rupak » 24 Aug 2008 07:23

Cybaru
Multirole is not maritime strike vs. DPSA. Multirole entails A2G as well as A2A capability. The Jaguar is too sluggish to perform A2A work. And as Arun said, the wisdom of procuring single-role aircraft to replace multi-role squadrons is questionable at, best. If we really wanted to optimize the Hawk for combat all that would have to be done is move to the Hawk 200 baseline model. Single-seat, BVR capable and versatile. Even without radar, the Hawk 132 fills our needs more comprehensively than the Jaguar (training and light fighter) and is more economical to operate. Although light fighter may be a bit misleading since its payload of 3000kg is significantly greater than that of any MiG-21 variant and on par with the MiG-23BN.

rachel
BRFite
Posts: 143
Joined: 17 Jan 2008 01:27
Location: www.canhindu.com

don't rule out Mirage 2000s, Qatari or otherwise

Postby rachel » 24 Aug 2008 07:38

One thing about the M 2000 is that it can be upgraded to a very very high standard. The French Air Force itself has NO plans to replace Mirage 2000s and create an all-Rafale force anytime soon: the French punch will be a combo of Rafales and M2000s for some time to come.

A highly upgraded M2000-5 or -9 is almost as good as Rafale. We should really look seriously at upgrading all our M2000s as much as possible, then grabbig any and all other M2000s (Qatari or otherwise), and upgrading them .. to fill in numbers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 24 Aug 2008 08:30

John Snow garu, For ALCM you need a turbo-fan as it has low fuel consumption for long range. So nene is out though not Madhuri!

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 » 24 Aug 2008 09:51

Cybaru wrote:
Rupak wrote:
It has everything to do with what you can do with the airframe and how you optimize it. No matter what you do to the Jaguar airframe you will never turn it into a multi-role aircraft. The Hawk airframe offers many other possibilities. Remember that the Hawk 200 derivitive using the 871 Adour is in service as a multi-role light weight fighter - and certified for both AA and AG work. With a suitable radar the Hawk can effectively perform BVR work.


Somehow the argument forgets that you can do pretty much the same thing with jaguar airframes as well. Jag-IM's have radar installed and can be multi-role as well. By the time you finish adding radar to hawk, you would have increased the weight of the frame by 400-500 kgs thereby reducing range or payload. It may still be better than mig-21 ( if it ever happens) and that may be okay, but it certainly doesn't seem like its multi-role when compared to the jag at front lines as it stands now.


Several problem here.

For air defence - such long ranges are unnecessary - because deep penetration, time over target and return is not needed. The airspace defence is over your own territory. However a true "Multirole" combat aircraft will have Multimode radar that is good both for air air and air ground missions, and it will also have the agility of an interceptor, long range and heavy payload carrying capacity.


Secondly the Jag just cannot do some things.

The jag is just not made for quick agile turns that an air defence role requires. Jaguar displays in Aero India were described by one pilot as follows, "He flew past the audience and then did a circuit around the whole of Karnataka before returning". Compare that to the agility of the Hawk or F 16 or even the heavy Su 30 and you find that you cannot do the same things with the jag.

A famous Jaguar crash that went into a hill near Ooty was because the pilot was unable to pull up fast enough to avoid the mountain. In Kargil too the Jags 9and other aircraft) had the same problem. Why do you think that article posted earlier praises the Hawk for being able to turn within its own length in mountainous terrain?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 24 Aug 2008 10:41

Rahul M wrote:http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1288924&postcount=535

a su-25 takes a missile hit and survives for BoB. shows the need for specialized CAS birds.

I hope its not out of context, but Reader's Digest carried one story about 7-8 years back about midair collison of two F series fighters. F-14 or F-15s if I'm no wrong.
One plane had its nose totalled and one wing partially broken while other had its tail and wing damaged. Still managed to land safely.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5404
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

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

Postby niran » 24 Aug 2008 10:59

Nah, It was between F18 and F14 during an exercise, that too a decade plus ago, in the last century.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9965
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

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

Postby sum » 24 Aug 2008 11:09

A highly upgraded M2000-5 or -9 is almost as good as Rafale. We should really look seriously at upgrading all our M2000s as much as possible, then grabbig any and all other M2000s (Qatari or otherwise), and upgrading them .. to fill in numbers.

Isnt that what we are doing with our Mirage upgrades,i.e, upgrading all of them to 2000-5 standards?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 24 Aug 2008 11:18

I hope its not out of context, but Reader's Digest carried one story about 7-8 years back about midair collison of two F series fighters. F-14 or F-15s if I'm no wrong.
One plane had its nose totalled and one wing partially broken while other had its tail and wing damaged. Still managed to land safely.
there is a difference b/w mid-air collisions and a MANPADS hit.
in the former case an a/c remains under ctrl if it still has enough ctrl surfaces intact and if the FBW can compensate for the damage. IIRC a model f-18 flew recently after half its wing and tail was blown off after it became airborne.
now there is no telling which part of an a/c will get damaged in a collision, and therefore, surviving a mid air collision is more luck than anything else. you can't design an a/c to survive a mid-air collision. head-on collision with another a/c is potentially the most destructive phenomenon an a/c can face up in the air, considering the speed and weight of a fighter. even a full fledged SAM hit would seem kindly by comparison.

MANPADS OTOH, being IR guided tend to impact the tailpipes. given the low mass of the warhead in a MANPAD missile, the only way it can hope to incapacitate an a/c by damaging some vital subsystem, it doesn't carry enough firepower to ensure destruction. unless some fuel pipes gets blown up and the fuel catches fire, a MANPADS hit a/c is unlikely to be blown up.

you can therefore, in fact design your a/c to survive a MANPADS hit, by armour plating the relevant areas so that the basic subsystems don't get damaged to a degree such that the a/c gets beyond control.

hope that helps.

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 24 Aug 2008 12:04

1. Large Airforces (Read US, Russia, China & India) can afford to have aircraft for dedicated roles.

2. I posted a rudimentary cost analysis to show that imported multi-role aircraft would be 2-5 times more costly than Jaguar as Jaguar has been indigenised.


3. Jaguar has been indigenised to the extent of 70-80% and LCA will achieve that status only in 2015 or so. At the moment Jaguar is very cost effective airframe which can be produced to add numbers on our eastern front.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 24 Aug 2008 13:33

Rahul M wrote:

you can therefore, in fact design your a/c to survive a MANPADS hit, by armour plating the relevant areas so that the basic subsystems don't get damaged to a degree such that the a/c gets beyond control.

hope that helps.


Isn't is possible to camouflage IR signature of Jaguar like US does it with her stealth bombers?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 24 Aug 2008 15:45

not much. IR suppression (which is basically cooling the exhaust gases efficiently and rapidly so as not to have a high temp differential with surroundings) has to be built into the design, an ad-hoc attempt will have only minimal improvement not worth the cost and effort, that is if one can be done in the first place.
deploying counter measures to fool IR seekers is a better option tho' by no means very effective.

another thing you have to keep in mind is that operating altitude of a jag is pretty close to the ground and even considerable IR suppression (if possible) won't make it invisible/indistinguishable to a MANPADS with a sensitive seeker.

even the B-2's IR suppression measures are geared to fool the airborne IRST devices at tens of kms, it won't fool an IR missile 500 m away ! why do you think the B-2 flies high in spite of stealth and all that ? WTH, do you think a B-2 would survive a low level attack?? :wink:

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 » 24 Aug 2008 17:47

going with this new Hawk as a A2A mobthink what are the realistic radar and
missile combos that are already integrated and paid for by another sugar daddy?

asraam + blue vixen ?
asraam + selex500 ?

will the el2032 fit as is ? what bvr missile is in use ?

which AF is using Hawk today for A2A ?

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 » 24 Aug 2008 17:57

our Hawks would have 7 hardpoints. and nobody seems to have
purchased hawk200 yet. all current deals seem to be versions
of the Hawk100. the CAS/BAI payloads and ranges look very weak.
the A2A patrol they have not specified what kind of supersonic
dash or number of missiles - expect it to be nothing much beyond
4 sidewinder types :((

and the APG66H is unlikely to be even compatible with amraams,
derby or mica if I am not mistaken.

from af technology dot com

HAWK 200

The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft for air defence and ground attack missions. On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refueling.

WEAPONS

The Hawk 200 has 11 external store points with four underwing pylons, an under-fuselage pylon, and wingtip air-to-air missile stations. The range of external stores includes air-to-air missiles, a gunpod, rocket launchers, reconnaissance pod, retarded and free-fall bombs up to 1,000lb, runway cratering, anti-personnel and light armour bombs, cluster bombs, practice bomb and rocket carriers and external fuel tanks.
"The Hawk light aircraft has been developed in four configurations: the Hawk 50, the Hawk 60, the Hawk 100 and the Hawk 200."

The electronic warfare systems include a radar warning receiver and automatic or manually operated chaff and flare dispensers.

SENSORS

The Hawk 200 is equipped with a Northrop Grumman APG-66H multi-mode radar, LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system, air data sensor, display processor and mission computer. The systems are interconnected by dual redundant digital bus.

The radar has ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation fixing and weapon aiming.

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

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

Postby Rupak » 24 Aug 2008 20:35

Singha
The Hawk 200 purchasers are:
* Hawk 203 - Export version for the Royal Air Force Of Oman. (12)
* Hawk 208 - Export version for the Royal Malaysian Air Force. (18)
* Hawk 209 - Export version for the Indonesian Air Force. (32)

The AN/APG-66H (98-135 kg) was used in the 200 series.

Consider the other options we may have:
EL/M-2032 (72-100 kg)
Kopyo+ (80-110 kg)

These will certainly qualify the aircraft for BVR. Although the AMRAAM was considered for the Hawk, the Malaysian and Indonesian requirement was that the Hawk be qualified for the Skyflash (since Malaysia was looking at buying Tornados) and for the AIM-7 Sparrow (in order to be compatible with Indonesia's F-16s).

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

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

Postby Rupak » 24 Aug 2008 20:44

Singha
Here is another estimate of the Hawk's endurance:

Hawk 100/200
Combat radius
1,223 km with two 454 kg bombs
510 km with seven BL755 cluster bombs
259 km on a CAP with one 30 mm cannon and two AIM-9 Sidewinders for 3 hours and 30 minutes.
1.234 km with one Sea Eagle missile and two drop tanks or
945 km on a lo-lo-lo reconnaissance mission with one reconnaissance pod and two drop tanks.

http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/BAe%20H ... %20200.htm

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 » 24 Aug 2008 20:51

quite respectable....I am all for it. potentially 66 new planes with a wso at the back
is not to sneeze at.

but an additional $5 mil per plane is likely to be needed so we are looking at $400 mil
capex and purchase of derby & python5 atleast since aim7 is out of question.

at the same time, unless a regular sqdn takes ownership of the planes and trains
with it, they cannot take over any cas/a2a/bai role. but what then will happen to
IAFs training curriculum ?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

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

Postby jamwal » 24 Aug 2008 21:20

Thanks for the gyan Rahul sir

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

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

Postby Lalmohan » 25 Aug 2008 00:49

is the hawk lantirn compatible?

Sontu
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 06 Aug 2008 19:32

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

Postby Sontu » 25 Aug 2008 01:19

Lamohan said
>is the hawk lantirn compatible?

I understood that HAWK 100 series has a OPTIONAL FLIR and Laser Range Finder capability.

HAWKs (100 series) are dual purpose A/C as Trainers and Close Air Support .
Even though HAWKs are very agile (one of the very basic reason why it is a very successful trainer aircraft).
Still they are purchased for trainer and CAS role only, because lack of sensors and other electronics,that are packaged into a modern full fledged fighter today.

HAWK (200 )are better optimized for a dedicated CAS and fighter role like AMX .

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 25 Aug 2008 04:17

Rupak wrote:Singha
Here is another estimate of the Hawk's endurance:

Hawk 100/200
Combat radius
1,223 km with two 454 kg bombs
510 km with seven BL755 cluster bombs
259 km on a CAP with one 30 mm cannon and two AIM-9 Sidewinders for 3 hours and 30 minutes.
1.234 km with one Sea Eagle missile and two drop tanks or
945 km on a lo-lo-lo reconnaissance mission with one reconnaissance pod and two drop tanks.

http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/BAe%20H ... %20200.htm


Saar, that only tell half the story (or rather hides half of the truth). At MTOW of 9.1 tonne compared to a light weight composite body LCA of MTOW 12.5 tonne, the Hawk performance are too spiced up to be true in realistic application. I am very sure these long ranges were all for Hi-Hi-Hi profile.

Hawk 200 is essentially very similar in aerodynamic terms to Hawk 100 and here is what the same site reports for Hawk-200:
- range 2.428 km without drop tanks.
    - ferry range 3.610 km with 3x 864 liter drop tanks.
    - combat radius 1.234 km with one Sea Eagle missile and two drop tanks or 945 km on a lo-lo-lo reconnaissance mission with one reconnaissance pod and two drop tanks.


For a craft that small and made of aluminum I can believe more of Singha's reference. Note that the stated combat-radius from the two source is not even in the same ball park "1,223 km with two 454 kg bombs" vs :"2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm"
from af technology dot com

HAWK 200

The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft for air defence and ground attack missions. On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refueling.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

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

Postby ranganathan » 25 Aug 2008 04:50

I believe the new specs of LCA put MTOW at 13.5 tonne.

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

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

Postby Rupak » 25 Aug 2008 08:06

I think I should take responsibility for the Hawk tangent. That certainly wasn't my intention. The only point I was trying to make is that the single-role Jaguar has outlived its design.
The Hawk is quite far from ideal, BUT is a more credible type if it was numbers that we were after, in light to a ~10 sqn MiG-21 "gap" and I was certainly not a proponent of the type when it was bought.

However, I strongly believe that between the Jaguar and Hawk, the latter is a better investment because of economy of operation and versatility. Really what we should be doing is building up LCAs to fill the role they were intended for....to be the backbone of our fighter force.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

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

Postby andy B » 25 Aug 2008 11:00

Now take this idea with a pinch of salt but reading all the different posts I could not help but to think of this:

How viable would the Jaguar fleet be to be converted into a UCAV. The Israelis are already collaborating with us to develop the rotor UAV. I am sure we should be able to develop a unmanned control system for this jet with Israeli technical assistance.

If all the pilot neccessary equipmt is removed then there will be a lot more room that can then be uses to beef up the armour, fuel, payload etc.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 25 Aug 2008 12:01

it is impossible for Hawk to have 1223km combat radius with One ton payload.I think 223km radius is more likely. To this I must add:-

This version of Hawk is not made by India.

This payload will not include gun ammo and 2 WVR missiles which are required for self protection.

We don't know about advanced ground attack navigation system or self protection systems, which when added will reduce range/payload


Hawk will not be able to go supersonic while getting away




Arun_S wrote:
Rupak wrote:Singha
Here is another estimate of the Hawk's endurance:

Hawk 100/200
Combat radius
1,223 km with two 454 kg bombs
510 km with seven BL755 cluster bombs
259 km on a CAP with one 30 mm cannon and two AIM-9 Sidewinders for 3 hours and 30 minutes.
1.234 km with one Sea Eagle missile and two drop tanks or
945 km on a lo-lo-lo reconnaissance mission with one reconnaissance pod and two drop tanks.

http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/BAe%20H ... %20200.htm


Saar, that only tell half the story (or rather hides half of the truth). At MTOW of 9.1 tonne compared to a light weight composite body LCA of MTOW 12.5 tonne, the Hawk performance are too spiced up to be true in realistic application. I am very sure these long ranges were all for Hi-Hi-Hi profile.

Hawk 200 is essentially very similar in aerodynamic terms to Hawk 100 and here is what the same site reports for Hawk-200:
- range 2.428 km without drop tanks.
    - ferry range 3.610 km with 3x 864 liter drop tanks.
    - combat radius 1.234 km with one Sea Eagle missile and two drop tanks or 945 km on a lo-lo-lo reconnaissance mission with one reconnaissance pod and two drop tanks.


For a craft that small and made of aluminum I can believe more of Singha's reference. Note that the stated combat-radius from the two source is not even in the same ball park "1,223 km with two 454 kg bombs" vs :"2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm"
from af technology dot com

HAWK 200

The Hawk 200 is a single-seat, lightweight multi-role combat aircraft for air defence and ground attack missions. On air defence missions, the Hawk 200 can attain two hours on patrol 100nm from base when fitted with underwing fuel tanks. In a close air support role, the Hawk 200 has a radius of action of over 100nm. For the interdiction role, Hawk 200 can deliver 2,000lb of ordnance at a range of nearly 300nm when fitted with external fuel tanks. The range can be extended by air-to-air refueling.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 25 Aug 2008 13:35

The more I read the posts in this thread,the more I feel that the proposed improvements for the Hawk is getting too close to the LCA's ground attack/strike role! The Hawk is a subsonic trainer,wheras worldwide air forces are developing supersonic trainers.We were perhaps the past country to buy it after two+ decades of procrastinence.The Jaguar is far superior in the strike/GA role and a question I asked some time ago was why wasn't the Jaguar developed further could be answered by the advenmt of the LCA. The "multi-role" LCA was meant to replace both the MIG-21 (interceptor) and also perhaps the Jaguar (Strike/GA).With the LCA's engine underpowered and the aircraft unable in its MK1 configuration to perform all the tasks envisaged,especially that of strike/GA,it can be commissioned as a pure fighter for batch 1,while more Jaguars are built for the GA role.

We do not have the equivalent of the SU-25 in service and the number of attack helos is also small.The Jaguar today can't be truly labelled any longer as a "deep-penetration" aircraft and will be vulnerable to improved air defences at enemy air bases and other heavily defended centres and positions.These positions can be attacked by longer ranged aircraft with better EW and all-round performance like the MMRCA ,with long-range stand-off missiles.Jaguars with PGMs and a variety of anti-armour strike munitions will be most welcome in a secondary strike role and supporting ground forces in the battlefield,as the Army has for a long time,most recently in Kargil, felt that the IAF has not been sensitive enough to its close-support needs.We have to induct a large number of attack helos,both light and heavy,apart from having the required number of squadrons for GA and counter strike.With the LCA's delays,more Jaguars would be very welcome.

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

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

Postby PaulJI » 26 Aug 2008 03:39

Philip wrote:...The Hawk is a subsonic trainer,wheras worldwide air forces are developing supersonic trainers.We were perhaps the past country to buy it after two+ decades of procrastinence....

Worldwide? S. Korea & China? Two aircraft, down from three a few years ago (one died due to lack of interest), with (so far) one customer. There are more new subsonic than supersonic trainers on the market, & they're selling better so far.

The RAF ordered new Hawks several months after India placed its order.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2477
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 26 Aug 2008 07:20

Rupak wrote:Singha
Here is another estimate of the Hawk's endurance:

Hawk 100/200
Combat radius
1,223 km with two 454 kg bombs
510 km with seven BL755 cluster bombs
259 km on a CAP with one 30 mm cannon and two AIM-9 Sidewinders for 3 hours and 30 minutes.
1.234 km with one Sea Eagle missile and two drop tanks or
945 km on a lo-lo-lo reconnaissance mission with one reconnaissance pod and two drop tanks.

http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/BAe%20H ... %20200.htm


1223 Kms with 2000 pound payload ? on 1304 Kgs of fuel ?? Thats quite simply impossible.

Again the fuselage of hawk 200 series is much different than the 100 series, this would require quite a bit of modification. If you plan to add the radar, you will need to add computing hardware to process all that information and that is going to be more than 100 kgs. Also, does it have the other paraphernalia like ECM/IFF/Chaff/flares etc, to fly into battle conditions ?

If you add all that, where is the price point going to be per hawk. Is the range still going to be useful ?

Even if IAF decides that it wants to task these for A2A duties, making a podded system would be the most sensible option. One could task each plane as it wanted to different duties and fixing things if they break would be a breeze. But even this would have its cons, as wouldn't we need to worry about beam formation so as not to zap our own pilots by constant radiation if you stuck such a pod on the wing pylon. Would such a system not cause excessive radiation exposure ?

I think Hawk will be useful in sanitized airspace for mud-moving role and thats about it.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3444
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 28 Aug 2008 18:58

Forgive me if i am wrong.Wont a customised MKI with extended range stand off smart AGM s make the DPSA relatively obsolete.These planes can very well use the next gen pods (am talking not about the lantirns currently in service)for long range standoff attacks beyond the range of antiaircraft defences.Isnt jaguar/tornado/f15 /mig 27 obsolete in their traditional concept

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
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 Nov 2008 21:16

this thread had had some useful discussions.
should it be archived now or should it stay open ?
what do people think ?

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

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

Postby K Mehta » 17 Nov 2008 21:27

archive it please. I dont think the issue can be further debated without lowering the quality of the thread. And no matter what we discuss, the line has been closed.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 Jun 2010 10:43

RahulM we should archive but get rid on non sequitor posts to save bandwidth.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests