Is it too early to end Jaguar Production line??

[chakkunny]

Looks like I did not get traction with my earlier post So let me try again.

If we want to use our exisiting inventory - look at our fleet at An32s (scratch An26s).

The USAF is now considering a Gunship lite based on the C27J, whose earlier version was similar in payload to the An26, to complement and in some cases replace the AC130s.

1. Upengine annd uparmour the An26.
2. Add a 120mm mortar and a 30mm Gatling.
3. A comprehensive ECM and defensive suite with excellent Night vision capabilities.
4. Add 3-4 consoles for UAV control
5. A litening pod.
6. Add mid air refueling


Now in a low threat anti air scenario, you can fly this bird in, and provide la Ac130 firepower

In a high threat environment, this becomes your airborne FAC with your operators feeding in the picture from UAVs/ground troops and building up an accurate picture of the situation - which is THE major challenge in a CAS operation. If necessary, it can even carry a small drone airlaunched to get close to the action scene. The empty weight of a Nishant is under 400Kg. You can getaway with something much lighter. This will allow the aircraft to stay outside any low level threat envelope. Once the targets are located and marked, pgms/helinas can be launched from any aircraft in the vicinity. It can also make the job of older mud movers doing bomb runs easier as the degree of situational awareness is much better.

We can assign a squadron of 6 for each division sized formation and an additional 6 for those earmarked for mountain warfare. We need only two transport pilots for each aircraft. So this is definitely less expensive than producing Attack pilots. The platform is proven. Any upgrades is well within our capability.

Imagine if something like this were available in Kargil. The 120mm mortar alone would have kept it beyond the range of any Manpad - not to mention being able to talk fast movers to their targets.

Think Talon - refueler and support for deep penetration spec op.

[shiv]

Chakunny what the hell does your post have to do with this thread?

[Lalmohan]

a squadron of jaguars on andaman with anti-ship and ground strike capabilities, backed by a suitable number of herons, and a refueller might be a great way to police the bay of bengal. it would also free up the Su30's to focus more on the NE and swing down south if needed

using maritime surveillance assets well with perhaps an improved podded radar or datalinks from the recon aircraft might be sufficient to really leverage the jaguars

[chakkunny]

Chakunny what the hell does your post have to do with this thread?

Agree..it is orthogonal, but not completely off topic. Why are we discussing keeping one specific line open? Is it because:
1. we have a number of exisiting frames and the ability to build more and/or
2. we would like to keep more of them for CAS/BI - ?

I'm suggesting an alternative frame for exactly the same purpose and the merits thereof.

Or would you rather me open another thread - Why can't we build anothe X numbers of Y type to do Z since we can build type Y.

[shiv]

Or would you rather me open another thread - Why can't we build anothe X numbers of Y type to do Z since we can build type Y.

1) Your post is not relevant to this thread.
2) if you are asking me "permission" to start another thread - you don't need my permission to start one, although survival of the thread will depend on its merits.

I hope you have read the forum guidelines.

[Raj Malhotra]

Rahul, this is my last post regarding your comment/s. I am not talking about distant future. I am saying that in immediate future, Jags are the only 2 engined aircraft availble to us for making up numbers and CAS is necessary evil. You are talking about xyz without offering any concrete alternative which is available.

India CAN afford additional 250 MKIs after 2014. I am saying that I think that IAF is going to prematurely kill MKI line also.


Thirdly your reliance on GW1 data is ridiculous and down right absurd. First you fail to admit that 4 jags were not lost. then you are talking about 74 "incidents" which would be out of say 10,000 combat sorties flown. IIRC in 1971 almost 90% of IAF ground attack aircraft suffered some incident (battle damage). So did IAF lose the war and are we being ruled by Pakis?

While you may "want" IAF to go Hi-hi using PGMs but which aircraft and which PGMs you recommend? What is the cost?

I think that you have not thought about the topic. You are still not thinking about it. Just trying to defend your stand. DID you take my advice and read Vivek's post carefully??

Now you can have last rebuttal and satisfy yourself, as I have said my piece

[Rahul M]

of course you can have your opinion on matters and you are also free to call others' stands absurd when they disagree with yours.(a privilege that you haven't hesitated to use)

it's true that I hadn't noticed the damaged vs lost code mentioned in that page. but that fact has been already mentioned quite clearly in this page (by you IIRC). that I was mislead(as was PaulJI) by the clutter of that page was clear to all.
I didn't realize that I had to present a formal announcement to that effect !
in any case, here goes :
"I hereby acknowledge that 4 Jags were not lost to low level AD assets in GW1, they were only damaged."
I sincerely hope that satisfies you.

Thirdly your reliance on GW1 data is ridiculous and down right absurd. First you fail to admit that 4 jags were not lost.

well, here are the figures:(a/c lost only)

Code: Select all

AAA...........11
IR-SAM........11
CAP...........1
RSAM..........12(these include a few low level ones)
Small Arms....1

this, in spite of the fact that a) coalition a/c tried to avoid low level strikes as much as possible after the first few days and resorted to bombing from higher altitudes, b) the iraqis had a capable mid level SAM cover(albeit reduced in efficiency)
this figure and the fact that the coalition itself shifted to higher level bombings point out the fact low level ground attack missions are fraught with danger and are to be avoided if possible. this is after all, what the gulf war planners thought.(I wasn't one of them !)

then you are talking about 74 "incidents" which would be out of say 10,000 combat sorties flown.

AFA I understand which proves nothing more than that the coalition had overwhelming superiority in terms of technology and tactics and most of the iraqi AF and SAM crews were supremely incompetent, especially the former.
the fact that the a/c losses are so heavily steeped in favour of the AAA/IR-SAMs shows that these are much simpler to operate (and more difficult to take out using an air offensive, I might add) and effective even in the hands of comparatively incompetent operators -- making those all the more dangerous.
in case of a Indo-pak war, you will have
a)no MR-SAM capability on the other side, at least till date
b)possibly much higher concentration of cheap AD assets
c)more competent operators than in Iraq.
d)an airborne threat that, in all probability can be handled by IAF fairly easily.and one which doesn't show any signs of escalating much in terms of capabilities in the near future.

Now, I'm not sure but it looks to me that this is an ideal condition to employ higher altitude bombing tactics.

Rahul, this is my last post regarding your comment/s. I am not talking about distant future.

in fact you are. please elaborate when the proposed jag production run will end ?
a decision to produce jags now, would go well into the late 2010s. that will be justified only IF IAF keeps them till 2035 at the very least.

You are talking about xyz without offering any concrete alternative which is available.

may I return the compliment ?
anyway, now that PGMs are increasingly available(they have been around for more than 2 decades now am I right) it is high time we move away from using dumb bombs as part of our future planning.
we should decide which would be the most ideal platform as a PGM truck in and around 2020 and make an effort to procure those only.
If the jags are good enough for this role, go for them. If not, get a platform which is.

I am saying that in immediate future, Jags are the only 2 engined aircraft availble to us for making up numbers and CAS is necessary evil.

see above.

India CAN afford additional 250 MKIs after 2014.I am saying that I think that IAF is going to prematurely kill MKI line also.

I had actually provided an argument as to why I think IAF won't be able to afford that many extra mki's.
If this is your counterargument......

While you may "want" IAF to go Hi-hi using PGMs but which aircraft and which PGMs you recommend? What is the cost?

again,
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.
to be based on the various desi/Russi SatNav systems in the works.

I feel it would be better not to respond to the rest of your post.
regards.

[vivek_ahuja]

One thing that needs to be assessed definitively on this thread is what the depth of operations for the Jaguar type aircrafts needs to be. For example, one cannot confuse CAS operations with DPS operations. And the reason IMO why the confusion exists is because everybody defines the depth of operations for each of these two categories differently. In other words, what one claims as a DPS mission, another member confuses it with their understanding of CAS missions!!! Once this doubt is cleared, then the role of the Jaguar can truly be appreciated without comments like: "Mig-27 can do a better job..." etc.

In effect, CAS operations would be limited to the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battlefield) range band. It is not defined by the national borders in that just because the FEBA is a hundred kilometers inside Pakistan, for example, it does not mean it has entered the DPS range band, but that the DPS band itself has been pushed further beyond. And classic DPS mission will always keep that kind of separation from the CAS ranges despite the back and forth movements of the FEBA. In other words, its connected to the battle lines rather than the borderlines.

In that aspect it needs to be understood clearly what kind of threats DPS and CAS operations will face individually. For example, CAS crews will spend most of their time in the vicinity of close range anti-air weapons (radar directed or manual) and will have to suit their attack profiles accordingly. However, the DPS threat environment is vastly more complex and just as deadly. This is the region of the aerial battlefield where high tech weapons will come into play on both sides. And that is where the Jaguar comes into play.

The real question that needs to be asked is how does the Jaguar (and in fact any other IAF aircraft) fit into a threat environment such as that presented by Chinese S-300 SAMs, for example. What kind of SEAD capabilities does the IAF possess? Is it enough to neutralize the S-300 threat to allow high altitude operations? If so, then in how many days will these systems be suppressed to allow DPS missions to take place? What weapons will the IAF use to neutralize the S-300 threat? And if it cannot be suppressed to a suitable degree to allow free aerial operations, what change of tactics is required to compensate for the same? These are the questions that need to be answered comprehensively to be able to answer the fundamental question asked by this thread.

With the kind of variables involved, obviously the job requires careful study. I have been struggling to create a model to fit these questions and give me an answer and I am still not able to convince myself anything either way just yet. The one thing I have been able to convince myself is that DPS threat environment in the opening days of a war are going to be more deadly high up than near the ground. The only way aircrafts are going to be able to conduct SEAD missions against top of the line enemy SAM networks is through LO-HI-LO or LO-LO-LO tactics using ARMs for the former and unguided "dumb" weapons for the latter case. Once the war progresses, the missions might change more towards LO-HI-LO and then later continuous HI type profiles. And the Jaguar fits in nicely for all these profiles, which is more than what I can say for other aircraft types in the IAF inventory. This is still open for debate here, but the Jag might just turn out to be fist behind the EW brain...

If anybody has reasonable assessments for the above questions, please do share, but in the meantime it might be worthwhile to not fix the usefulness of the Jaguar in a simple one liner answer either way. I know I present more questions than answers with this post, but in my view nobody can accept or deny the usefulness of the Jaguar without answering the above questions comprehensively, and those answers are yet to be put forward by anyone (including myself!!!), so it might be a good place to start nailing down the issue step by step.

-Vivek

[Singha]

wrt SEAD we are going to need lot of harpy drones and air launched
ITALD drones + ARMs to sanitize the cas and dps areas respectively.

this ought to be an area of great focus and funding for us. if the S-300
sams cannot be suppressed we cannot disrupt and break the chinese
logistical tail and supply nodes.

I hope indo-israeli coop is secretly going on strongly. IDF would have some
countermeasure for tor and s300 in place.

[chakkunny]

In addition to the anti air threat level in DPS and CAS situations, I think we need to highlight, the difference in how aerial platforms are employed in these two missions.

For DPS, the target is relatively well defined. More often static, and depending on its value - likely to be defended in depth. With a reasonably good intelligence, a well planned DPS mission may have high cost but minimal surprises. Most importantly, the aggressor picks the time.

For CAS the target is possibly a fluid mass of men and machines, engaging a small body of good guys. With a high probability, c*ap has already hit the fan and the defensive lines may be in tatters. The unit you are protecting may have a flawed understanding of the tactical situation. Confusion is rife. Bottom line, is that any successful platform needs to have the ability to build of cohesive picture of what is going on and then effectively bring down accurate fire, and this needs to be executed while taking cognizance of the extent of the air threat. Moreover, time is of the essence and a presence may have to be maintained until the unit is suitably relieved. Late CAS is as good as No CAS.

[I would love to hear from vets here on how this is actually done in Indian context.]

Now there is what I call the point and shoot CAS, where the good guys are concealed in close proximity and/or not in contact and able to reliably play the role of a FAC. In this case, one would think that any platform for DPS could just as well be used to come in and take a shot, if the anti air threat in the area is understood.

With this in mind, for CAS, the attributes must be - Firepower which is precise and flexible (do I need to take out a bunker, a tank troop, or a battalion sized force in the treeline), Loiter - you need to be available and stay available. Situational Awareness - you need the ability to get a clear tactical picture quickly - perhaps with minimal reliance on the people on the ground. Survivability - can you survive, low to medium air threats.

For DPS, it would be - Stealth, Survivability - in high threat environments, and Firepower - Standoff, Accuracy and Payload.

It is hard to think of one platform to do all of CAS in one package. But I think we have all the elements necessary to put together a combination that can do this - and IMHO a Jag is not the core platform that can address this.

[Singha]

Situational Awareness - you need the ability to get a clear tactical picture quickly - perhaps with minimal reliance on the people on the ground. Survivability

unfortunately a vital link in the chain is missing for IAF with no signs of
being filled in - GMTI radar.

we know the IAF is investing in a fleetwide common datalink for mutual
support and awacs feed.

but so far not even any noises about acquiring or building a jstars type
GMTI scanning radar and airborne land battle management soln.

this will fill in the vital picture for CAS and economise use of resources
in all weather.

platform could be the EMB-145 chosen for AEW with bulging side
panels as in the israeli G550 soln. UK has ASTOR.

[Sontu]

I think S-300s are better optimized for higher level interception say SRBM and Cruse missiles and fighters than tree top flying A/Cs.

Earlier i.e 1980s DPSA strategy was to use jags in very low level/tree top flying mode with mission planned for avoiding radar and SA sites for long range strikes.

Now Jags will have few Su's too (For air superiority and SEAD roles together) along with Jags for targeting High Value targets.
But now with the option of Agni 1 and 2 ..I think the Jags may not be used for long range Land Based Precision Strikes until IAF has total superiority in the enemy air space .
Possibly they will be used only for Sea and Shore based targets (to avoid land based interception and risks).

Rest of the Jags will be used for
1. Volume/Mass bombing in the not so deep targets around LOC/Border/conflict zone along with Mig-27s.
2. Close air support in and around active conflict zone along with Mig-27s and Hawks.

[Arun_S]

IMHO India does not need more Jaguars. Its role in near future warfare will continue to diminish. Better to put your money for more effective platforms. Making more Jags to shore up squadron deficiency is not wise. We should continue to flog the Jags in hand for the current role (that will continue to diminish).

Current combat aircraft count reduction is IAF's own making. If IAF cared that much there were direct ways to make political master understand in their language. Either the senior officers in command never had the spine to stand up to political masters and serve the ultimatum or it really was not an issue that effects IAFs effectiveness. IMHO it was the former.

From my limited perspective, IAF should instead put its money on SU30. Its multi-role capability where it performs near top of the line in all those roles gives its effectiveness and flexibility, & not to mention longevity. {Compared to jag, it has far better avionics, higher payload, longer range, self-defense capability}

[srai]

The current trend of the IAF is for multi-role combat aircrafts. So I doubt any more Jaguars will be ordered. It is better for the IAF to go for more Mirage-2000s from retired batches in FrAF, UAE AF, and Qatar AF as a short term (i.e. 10-15 years) measures to address depletion of its force levels. HAL can use its capacity from closed Jaguar lines to upgrade these M2Ks to the new IAF standards.

[Rahul M]

the french mirages are pretty old, as per discussion on the forum some time back.
qatari, I don't think so. I don't think GoI/IAF will swallow pride and go to them for the ten odd mirages. UAE however, is a real possibility, especially if they go for the rafales.

[srai]

This is for short-term measure for the IAF to address force levels which is for around 10-15 years till 2025. IMO, you don't need brand new planes (which have a service life of 30 years) for this.

[ranganathan]

I Think IAF has enough Jags. Its time they ordered RAFALE for MRCA and if needed 50-60 MKI's. The rest except Jags/M2k and Mig-29 should be replaced by LCA.

[Rahul M]

even the newest of AdlA mirages are supposed to be 14 years old. if you ask me, investing in such an old platform that will not be around for too long isn't very financially prudent, IMHO. that money is better served by ensuring that IAF covers the officially alloted sqdn strength with more modern birds quickly. i.e invest in the production lines so that the yearly production rate of the MRCA/FGFA/LCA/MCA is higher than the miserly 8-9.

[fanne]

We have on books order of 230 Mki's I say increase that by another 100, made at HAL. As planned by 2015 (7 years from now) we should have 230 and 5 year since then (12 years from now), 100 more at 20 a year. That way any updates to MKI like Ibris or AL 31XX etc have low depreciation cost. Maybe the MKI made after 2015 will be half generation ahead of then current serving MKI. Even MCRA if baught today (higly unlikely), the first plane would not fly untill 5 years from now and all 125 not untill maybe 15 years from now. Order more MKI (nothing to do with MCRA, but it also covers any delays there). If IAF had any imagination, they should be doing this.
Also 1 MKI will easily be multiples Jags or Tejas, so it covers some risk there as well.
rgds,
fanne

[Paul]

While I am no expert on Military aviation, but putting on my manufacturing hat and drawing on my considerable exp. in workplace budgetary battles this is what I think could happen.

Considering the cumbersome procurement procedures in Indian defence, and the good service record of the MKIs, it almost certain that IAF will not find it difficult to persuade the babus to place follow on orders for more MKIs once numbers start creeping close to 230.

Operational doctrine for MKIs will have been refined and threshed out by now. For MRCA and LCA it will take the IAF some years to define the objectives and test them out.

Most production runs at HAL factories and elsewhere run for at least 20 years. Since HAL will have well mastered the production runs they will not have probs servicing or fulfilling orders for followons.

The unknown variable in this is the FGFA. Should this enter production sooner than anticipated, a good argument can be made to stop MKI production and get the FGFA line going. As I see it, with LCA, MRCA, and MRTA lines competing for resources, it will make sense to allocate the MKI resources to FGFA once it is ready for production.

[rachel]

If the purpose of MRCA is to replace Jags plus Mig29s plus M2000s, we are talking maybe a total requirement of 250 planes... and the number ordered is only 125. And they'll take a long time to get here.

If the purpose of LCA is to replace Mig 21s, then we are talking about about 250 as well... replace the 125 older 21s first and then replace the 125 bisons. Again, it'll take a long time to deploy that many LCAs.

I see no alternative but to boost MKI production numbers until the requisite numbers of MRCA and LCA can be deployed. If we are talking about only 125 LCA and 125 MRCA, then we better have about 300 MKIs deployed.

And this doesnt even address the eventual need to replace the Mig 27, which by that time will be very long in the tooth and probably falling apart/crashing due to old age/obsolescence. We dont even have a plan for that.. no one has even thought what aircraft should or could replace the Mig 27 role.. or whether that role will be obsolete by then!

[vivek_ahuja]

wrt SEAD we are going to need lot of harpy drones and air launched
ITALD drones + ARMs to sanitize the cas and dps areas respectively.

But the fact remains that the range of the radars and missiles of some of these long range systems outstrips the ranges of the ARMs in our inventory. And we have no stealth aircraft. So how do you get close enough to attack and take down the enemy sensors without getting blown out of the sky long before? Three choices: Go low or Go high tech or both. Either mask yourself against the terrain using carefully mapped out flight paths to the target or fly high and count on your EW systems to handle the enemy in electronic space. The first option might be combined with the latter anyway, since no flight crew, even in a high tech aircraft, would like to bet their lives on EW when they can take the aircraft down into the clutter to help tilt the favor on their side. If so, then why not use an aircraft specifically designed for that job? (Not to mention cheaper in cases when going low means greater exposure to cheap enemy weapons. Why would you want to send a SU-30 through that muck unnecessarily?)

Now there is what I call the point and shoot CAS, where the good guys are concealed in close proximity and/or not in contact and able to reliably play the role of a FAC. In this case, one would think that any platform for DPS could just as well be used to come in and take a shot, if the anti air threat in the area is understood.

Incorrect. DPS aircrafts are rarely the kind suited for the CAS jobs. These are two extremely different flying requirements. They are not compatible ideally but a force short on numbers such as the IAF will have to make do, I guess.

It is hard to think of one platform to do all of CAS in one package. But I think we have all the elements necessary to put together a combination that can do this - and IMHO a Jag is not the core platform that can address this.

And what would those elements be? Care to elaborate?

I think S-300s are better optimized for higher level interception say SRBM and Cruse missiles and fighters than tree top flying A/Cs.

Exactly my assessment. This holds true even more in terrain such as those in Tibet. The mountains provide narrow valleys of approach that are good locations for low cost Triple-A and IR seeker type weapons, but rarely a good space for radar guided missile engagements. But if you choose the entry points carefully, and with proper intelligence, the AAA threat can be reduced in comparison to the S-300 kind threats.

Earlier i.e 1980s DPSA strategy was to use jags in very low level/tree top flying mode with mission planned for avoiding radar and SA sites for long range strikes.
Now Jags will have few Su's too (For air superiority and SEAD roles together) along with Jags for targeting High Value targets.

Like I said, the brain and the hammer...

I Think IAF has enough Jags. Its time they ordered RAFALE for MRCA and if needed 50-60 MKI's. The rest except Jags/M2k and Mig-29 should be replaced by LCA.

Based on what assessment or simulation? Could you elaborate please?

Also 1 MKI will easily be multiples Jags or Tejas, so it covers some risk there as well.

Now that's the kind of statement that gives me the shivers.

People, it might be a good idea to take a look at the sheer size of the border with China and try and piece together even a simple target listing, add some attrition (total loss and damaged aircrafts) reserves and calculate the rough number of days to exhaust that list (go ahead and assume hundred percent destruction in the first attack, even though that is rarely the case) to see the kinds of numbers required to achieve air superiority. Put in factors like force reconstitution capabilities of the PLAAF and the PLA as opposed to our own in terms of flight crews and machines and see for yourself how thinly spread the IAF capabilities are.

-Vivek

[Victor]

Couple of posts in page 1 suggested navy. The French tried to replace the Etendard with Jags but didn't follow through. Certainly seems like the undercarriage was designed for hard carrier landings--they look overengineered and massive.

French Jaguar M.

[srai]

even the newest of AdlA mirages are supposed to be 14 years old. if you ask me, investing in such an old platform that will not be around for too long isn't very financially prudent, IMHO. that money is better served by ensuring that IAF covers the officially alloted sqdn strength with more modern birds quickly. i.e invest in the production lines so that the yearly production rate of the MRCA/FGFA/LCA/MCA is higher than the miserly 8-9.

No one's arguing with that point. This question of more new built Jags is where the debate is in this forum topic. Obviously, the best and ideal option is the scenario you've outlined. However, the future platforms LCA, MRCA, and PAK-FA are still many years away from reaching the desired numbers and there are still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding them. So there looks to be some form of "temporary" measures may be needed by the IAF to fulfill the projected shortfalls (more retired than inducted) until 2025 or so. How IAF does that is up for debate whether it's more new MKIs, more new Jags, more old/new MiG-29s, or more "old" M2Ks. IMO, all options are on the table and the details of the cost/benefit will need to be known and analyzed.

[Singha]

imo once you get into the interior of tibet like the areas where PRC
logistics nodes, airports and railway are, the terrain seems pretty
reasonable and YLC/Gravestone type radars mounted on tops of hills will
have a pretty good fov.

EU/US are working with air launched jassm, kepd, apache, scalp
to get rid of such big static radars. low IR signature, stealth shaping,
nap of earth flying, very low cep with gps. they have the ELINT a/c
and IMINT sats to quickly pinpoint such sites from a long range.
so they are looking good wrt to tackling the S-300 threat.

Israel probably has modified popeye turbo or delilah loitering attack
missile for such a job and we should obtain these asap. their ARM
seekers fitted on air launched brahmos might also work but its preferable
to use a low flying ALCM than a fast high flyer that S300 can easily
target.

[Singha]

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

[srai]

even the newest of AdlA mirages are supposed to be 14 years old. if you ask me, investing in such an old platform that will not be around for too long isn't very financially prudent, IMHO. that money is better served by ensuring that IAF covers the officially alloted sqdn strength with more modern birds quickly. i.e invest in the production lines so that the yearly production rate of the MRCA/FGFA/LCA/MCA is higher than the miserly 8-9.

No one's arguing with that point. This question of more new built Jags is where the debate is in this forum topic. Obviously, the best and ideal option is the scenario you've outlined. However, the future platforms LCA, MRCA, and PAK-FA are still many years away from reaching the desired numbers and there are still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding them. So there looks to be some form of "temporary" measures may be needed by the IAF to fulfill the projected shortfalls (more retired than inducted) until 2025 or so. How IAF does that is up for debate whether it's more new MKIs, more new Jags, more old/new MiG-29s, or more "old" M2Ks. IMO, all options are on the table and the details of the cost/benefit will need to be known and analyzed.

I think the other thing to think about is a solution that utilizes a combination of these ideas. For example, based on detailed analysis of cost/benefit, the best option could turn out to be one new squadron of MKI, one new squadron of Jags, one new squadron of "old" M2Ks (either on a 10 year lease or outright purchase) while at the same time ramping up the production of new types (MRCA and LCA) entering service. It doesn't necessarily have to be this or that ... it can be this and that as well

[Drevin]

I think the airforce chief clearly mentioned a smaller and meaner airforce is being preferred. So maintaining squadron strength is probably not top priority. Rather getting more top quality aircraft seems to be the order of the day.

Getting 126-200 F4 RafaleB's/Tranche3 Typhoon 2-str would be like a reflection of the above philosophy. It could be a quality over quantity game here until the pak-fa and lca arrive.

Also when the Mig27 retires along with the remaining 125 bisons it is impossible to overcome this shortfall with just the mrca deal. We may be looking at a smaller but far more lethal airforce.

I am against extending the jaguar production line beyond 2010. We should move on to the mrca with full steam.

[Raj Malhotra]

It is important to notice that Tornadoes took over the role of Jags in Central Europe. These Tornadoes are supposed to do lo-lo against Soviet-Russian Air defence network which was/ (is?) way more formidable then what China or Pakistan would be ever able to muster.

The movement towards Tornadoes from Jags shows that the attack profile of Jags continues to relevant and in some situations it is preferred.

Also DPSA and CAS will always lead to losses so there is no replacement of numbers.

Even SEAD in conjunction with Phalcons need not be hi-hi, even they may have to be lo-lo or lo-ho-lo in many situations.

(I wonder whether anybody is even trying to read Vivek’s posts carefully let alone trying to understand it?)

Let me put some numbers on costs. A Jaguar is US$ 18 million. Assuming modernized Jag with latest engines, radar and some composite panels, we are looking at US$ 22million for a large order which includes modernization of old ones.

LCA will in future cost US$ 35 million (Rs 150 crore) per unit and Su-30MKI costs seem to have gone upto US$ 50million. To this one has to add extremely low cost per hour flight cost of Jags. As a thumb rule I would say that we can procure 1.5 Jags for cost of 1 LCA and 2 Jags for cost of One Su-3-MKI. Now to add the PGM costs. Assuming 30 strike packages in the war through PGMs Vs Dumb Bombs we are looking at US$ 5-10 million in additional costs. Hi-hi Profile will also call for assets like ARMs, EW, AEW etc.

So my guess is that between 2010-2015 it would be better to procure additional 100 Jags which would be equivalent to costs of 30-40 LCA or 20-30 Su-30s. Between 2015-2020 we should procure additional 250 Su-30MKI for making numbers and retirement of Jags. In any case FGFA squadron level entry seem to be in 2020.

[ramana]

Two points,
First, its good to hedge by not shutting down the line till other planes show up.
Second, there is strength in numbers.

Time and again India would close down a line after being promised the next best thing will show up and it never shows up and they are forced to go to war with what they have and limited resources.

Give order for 40 Jags to keep the line going as a limited stop gap till the others show up.

[Raj Malhotra]

Agree 1000000000000%

Two points,
First, its good to hedge by not shutting down the line till other planes show up.
Second, there is strength in numbers.

Time and again India would close down a line after being promised the next best thing will show up and it never shows up and they are forced to go to war with what they have and limited resources.

Give order for 40 Jags to keep the line going as a limited stop gap till the others show up.

[srai]

If the Jags were multi-role IAF wouldn't have hesitated to order more batches. But since these are primarily for ground attack related roles only the additional numbers ordered may be limited. I could see maybe another squadron (20 a/cs) ordered for some specialized roles but not much more.

[Rupak]

The Jag's biggest drawback is it's inability to fulfil multi-role tasks. However, consider that now that we have a production line up and running for the Hawk, we now have a rather more versatile aircraft which could be built in larger numbers.

[srai]

Here's my take on what could transpire to make up for the shortfalls in the transition period.

2010-2025 Transition Period
~20 (1 sqdn) Jaguars for specialized roles (i.e. SEAD, EW, Reconnaissance)

~20-40 (1-2 sqdns) MKIs

~20 ex-Mirage-2000s - Currently No.9 sqdn is operating below required strength with only 10 a/cs. So it will need at least 8-10 M2Ks to be at full strength which is where the Qatari M2Ks were for but it didn't materialize; however this 8-10 M2Ks (from somewhere) are still needed. And then another 10 M2Ks airframes may be needed to shore up the reserves for attrition and cannibalization for spares since part supplies are going to trickle downwards and the a/cs will be getting very old till their retirement.

~40 (2 sqdns) Hawks in dual role - AJT and limited-CAS/secondary AD.

--------------------------------
Total: 5 squadrons + 1 M2K sqdn at full strength


2025-2035
In this period, IAF will have access to 2 mature production lines in LCA and MRCA which would be ready for new orders and 1 new production line in PAK-FA which will still be fulfilling the initial orders.

Need to replace the following aircrafts with the highest priority after 2025:
~5-7 squadrons of Jaguars
3 squadrons of MiG-29s
3 squadrons of Mirage-2000s

New batches of MRCAs will most likely replace the 6 sqdns of MiG-29s and M2Ks while the PAK-FAs would begin replacing the 5-7 squadrons of Jags. New batches of LCAs will probably continue to fill up the numbers for the long retired MiG-21s/27s.

[shiv]

Two points,
First, its good to hedge by not shutting down the line till other planes show up.
Second, there is strength in numbers.

Time and again India would close down a line after being promised the next best thing will show up and it never shows up and they are forced to go to war with what they have and limited resources.

Give order for 40 Jags to keep the line going as a limited stop gap till the others show up.

I think this is a function of space and resource (human and machinery) constraints. unless one line is shut down - the other one cannot be established.

Air Marshal Rajkumar says how a sudden policy decision to push ahead with the IJT Sitara helped to delayed LCA development further in addition to existing delays. It was at least partly a shortage of manpower. At that tiem India had only one (or two) really skilled test pilots who were familiar with the partially developed LCA and pulling out part of the team for IJT hurt.

I think HAL and other Indian concerns are managing on wafer thin margins. Whether this is a poor management issue or whether it is something else I have no idea.

[Cybaru]

The Jag's biggest drawback is it's inability to fulfil multi-role tasks. However, consider that now that we have a production line up and running for the Hawk, we now have a rather more versatile aircraft which could be built in larger numbers.

Even the hawks would be limited to mud moving role at best. How would they be multi-role?

[Rahul M]

^^^
training and mud mover role. although I'm not sure if the attack role is organic to all hawk variants. may be PaulJI could answer that better.

Jagan/Rupak, if you are reading this, isn't it time we had a hawk page in the IAF part of BR mainsite ??

[Cybaru]

^^^
training and mud mover role. although I'm not sure if the attack role is organic to all hawk variants. may be PaulJI could answer that better.

Well, my question was specific to roles in case of a war. Wouldn't jag be a preferred tool versus hawk 132? They both would be limited to mud moving and jag is probably better at that than the hawk. Neither of them have a radar. I am still curious and would like to understand as to what rupak means by "The Jag's biggest drawback is it's inability to fulfil multi-role tasks".

[Rahul M]

cybaru, the jag and the hawk can't even be spoken of in the same sentence, much less compared.
the jag is first and foremost a deep penetration strike aircraft, the hawk is a trainer jet that can be used as a CAS bird. although the difference can get blurred in a
conflict, it won't be entirely wrong to say that the former is a strategic ops(not in direct support of land forces) while the later is a tactical one in support of ground troops.
vivek has explained the terms in an earlier post. please read it.

more later.

[Singh]

The Jag's biggest drawback is it's inability to fulfil multi-role tasks. However, consider that now that we have a production line up and running for the Hawk, we now have a rather more versatile aircraft which could be built in larger numbers.

I hope that was meant to be a pun Rupak.
Hmmm was quite surprised to find a Webmaster comparing a Strike aircraft to a trainer but then i read this.

http://www.aviationartgallery.co.uk/Ima ... ountry.htm

"1 v 1 combat in this aircraft is something else, - compared with the Hawk, the Jaguar is like flying an anvil"


But then i guess Jag does what it does the best.... Fly low and hard!!!