Mig-27 and Mig-21 to be phased out in 2017

[pankaj nema]

We are using AL 31 for SU 30

Suppose if we went for AL 31 For Mig 27 First of all we will have to select the
exact variant of the AL 31

Then the time and efforts required to OPEN Up the airframe put in the Al 31
and again do all the re wiring and other necessary work will drive IAF technicians crazy

What if because of space constraints in the airframe PROBLEMS arise later on

The aircrafts will have to be grounded and the AL 31 again sent to Russia for problem solving

 

[pankaj nema]

Basic CAS is still a role in which Mig-27 excels and no point in using Rafale for them.

And by retiring Mig-27 before Rafales enter in significant numbers we are seriously hampering our capabilities.

Will the Mig 27 which has LIMITED EW protection survive the HOSTILE
Battle fields of today which are bristling with MAN PADS and SAMs

 

[pankaj nema]

Basic CAS is still a role in which Mig-27 excels and no point in using Rafale for them.

And by retiring Mig-27 before Rafales enter in significant numbers we are seriously hampering our capabilities.

Rafale will COME BACK

Mig 27 WILL Not come back

Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 CAN also be used for Ground Attack

 

[p2prada]

Basic CAS is still a role in which Mig-27 excels and no point in using Rafale for them.

And by retiring Mig-27 before Rafales enter in significant numbers we are seriously hampering our capabilities.

IAF maybe avoiding a controversy like the Mig-21 flying coffins situation before it happens.

Both Mig-21 and Mig-27 should have been replaced last decade, including the Bisons. We are the only ones left with such ageing platforms.

We can take heart by the fact that at least we have a replacement for the Mig-27.

Btw, CAS does not involve high altitude bombing, even today it involves low altitude bombing. Won't be changing anytime soon. Dumb bombs are replaced by LGBs, only difference.

 

[pankaj nema]

Even if Rafale is delayed we are doing the right thing by ADDING More and More
SU 30 Mki and NOW the Super Sukhoi 30


Rafale is for the Post 2020 scenario
It will work ALONG with FGFA for taking out the J 10 /J 11 / J 20

 

[Apollyon]

Basic CAS is still a role in which Mig-27 excels and no point in using Rafale for them.

And by retiring Mig-27 before Rafales enter in significant numbers we are seriously hampering our capabilities.

Mig-27 was a good no doubt but advancement in technology have rendered it obsolete.
LCH + Rudra and Apache will be used to provide CAS for our troops and Jaguars (replacement AMCA post 2025 ? ) and Rafale for DPS.

 

[drkrn]

Btw, CAS does not involve high altitude bombing, even today it involves low altitude bombing. Won't be changing anytime soon. Dumb bombs are replaced by LGBs, only difference.

but what about our requirements for close air support with kashmir and north east with pakistan and china.
can't cas be provided there?

 

[p2prada]

but what about our requirements for close air support with kashmir and north east with pakistan and china.
can't cas be provided there?

Jaguars with new engines. LCH. Rafales in the future.

 

[ersakthivel]

Ordering more LCA Mk-Is in rapid numbers and setting up a couple of more production lines are the only choice.Upgraded jags have next to nill ability to come back to base against even JF-17s and and the F-16s with SAAB errie eye AEW support. The LCA is well and truly capable of that job even now.The F-16s were serial produced just 3 years ater it's initial first flight. waiting forever for LCA to complete all the IOC 1,2, 3,4 and FOC and operating antiquated pieces till 2030 and wasting money on their upkeep and upgrades won't help anyone.

There is no other cost effective easily upgradable aircraft left to fill the void created by JAGS and MIG-21s and MIG-27s. Pushing the LCA will also help in it's export prospects, because it will be well supported by ADA in coming upgrades with the possibility of AMCA engine,asea ,fly by light tech,electrical actuators as and when they are available

As there will be more number of aircrafts produced per year,it will defenitely help it's export prospects, because many contries like india are looking to replace their obsolete migs and jag like models.
The chinese are already in the market with rudimental JF-17 wit not very promising avionics and engines.At least the show of faith by IAF will be a good report card on international market for LCA.

it is already doing superbly than jags and migs the extra Mk-is ordred can be converted to trainers and upgraded later.

. Expecting jags to perform wonders is misplaced optimism whatever new engines you put on them and fly by wire aids they will have the worst twr and climb rates and ineffective against even rudimentary 1990s sams.Not good to the chain the IAF fighter pilots to such obsolete planes for another 30 years.

Missile systems like pinaka, prahar and brahmos and prithvi are available now. They were not available in the days of MIG-21s,23s,27s and JAGs.

So their roles are almost redundant now.

 

[manutdfan]

I would like to question yoru wisdom here,

True CAS requires aircrafts with:
-slow speed with excellent handling at sea-level altitudes
WHY DOES PLANE HAVE TO BE SLOW? OR FLY VERY LOW, WHAT IF THE PLANE CAN COMPLETE ITS MISSION EVEN FROM HIGHER LEVEL

-rugged
RUGGED FOR WHAT? WHAT IF IT CAN COMPLETE THE MISSION FROM WELL OUT OF THE RANGE OF MANPADS AND SRSAMS?

-inexpensive
THATS A GOOD QUALITY, WOULD 35 MILLION BE EXPENSIVE? SPECIALLY IF IT CAN MANAGE MULTI ROLES AND NOT REQUIRE ANY SORT OF FIGHTER COVER?

-heavily armored
NOT NEEDED IF ITS NOT GOING TO FLY WITHIN RANGE OF 12.7 MM GUNS OR MANPADS

-highly survivable design
NOT NEEDED EITHER, AS IT WILL STAY OUT OF RANGE OF ENEMY DEFENCES

-massive firepower & payload
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT QUALITY AND EXPLAINED.

-easy to maintain and easily replaceable spares and parts
EXELLENT QUALITY.

-with 5-6 hours battlefield loiter time (extended with external tanks, air-to-air refueling)
I WOULD GO FOR 2-3 HOURS LOITER TIME, THE PILOT HAS TO GO FOR A LOO TOO, 2-3 HOURS LOITER TIME, IFR CAPABILITY, NO NEED OF EXTERNAL FUEL TANKS, USE ALL POSSIBLE PYLONS FOR WEAPONS.

CAS should be possibly Army Aviation corps responsibility, and they can take a nice plane with twin engines (better survival) possibly having 8-10 pylons, a good targetting pod, easy and cheap to buy, fly and maintain.

there are planes like Su-34 which are really capable as CAS plane, but I think they are overkill, I mean Su-34 is excellent if Pakistani armoured division is in action, so few of these might just get it over with. But I think i would prefer a plane as described above. Su-34 might conduct the CAS operation but it might still have enough fuel and war load that the pilot might simply have a go on army headquarters in Rawalpindi. Like I said, OVER KILL.

i suggest you read my post thoroughly again. all the answers are there. whatever points you have said matches exactly that of IAF top brass who love the Rafale. also IAF is shamelessly trying to copy the USAF by pretending that the marketing brochure for multi-role fighters is unquestionable law.

CAS is possible only when air superiority has been achieved else it's suicide. i'm not gonna take it up point by point as i feel all your questions can be answered by the original post. and i'm getting a bit tired. sorry man.

i'll just say that the answer lies in the name itself CLOSE AIR SUPPORT. emphasis on CLOSE and SUPPORT. if you are not going to be tree-top close to the troops for 5-6 hours continuously then better not bother about CAS anyways. call it interdiction then, not CAS at all. CAS implies moving with the troops and fighting alongside them hand-in-hand. not at 20,000 feet and far ahead of the slow moving ground troops as you think it to be. i see it as a support weapon not spearheading one and a part of combined arms tactics.

btw all modern planes have built in waste disposal systems. they don't have to bother about visiting the loo. they piss sitting in their seats. it's surprising you aren't aware of this.

from what i understand you are mixing up battlefield air interdiction and CAS.
ground attack is divided into diverse roles- strategic/theater bombing, air interdiction further spilt into theater interdiction and battlefield interdiction, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and CAS. Su-34 or even Tejas for that matter can carry out all the aforementioned roles with full competency except for CAS. as for the loo Su-34 has an in-built toilet and also plenty of area for lying down and catching a wink or two.

alas it all boils down to our military doctrine and how much we actually value the poor infantry guy's life. considering that Cold Start is still just some fancy thought on paper only and that our official doctrine is defensive offensive till date i don't see CAS being relevant unless we're the invading army which is impossible for a non-violent country like ours. also in an infantry rich armed forces like ours i don't believe that our generals value every soldier's life that much in their grand scheme of things and feel that they can afford to lose a few thousand extra soldiers. look at the slaughterhouse that they created in Kargil.

i would like to point out that the Russian equivalent to A-10 i.e. Su-25 still doesn't adequately meet all the requirements of CAS. come on, only 250 rounds for the 30mm gattling cannon! however Russians attack choppers are much tougher and have higher firepower than their western counterparts so i think it balances out. as an alternative i think for Indian armed forces a massive fleet of Russian attack choppers upgraded with western avionics would suffice. but they would still lack the range, endurance, armor, firepower and payload of the A-10.

Kargil was different though. Kargil wasn't CAS at all. it was battlefield interdiction which called for precision air strikes. considering the very high altitudes of the targets and the limited space for maneuvering aircrafts a slow moving attack jet would have been suicide hence the Mirage 2000 was brought in.

@smestarz all things considered my point is since we're a defensive army and only concerned with repelling enemy attacks i think that attack choppers would be sufficient for CAS. if we're planning to invade deep into enemy territory then a dedicated CAS fighter would be necessary.
again as you had mentioned using the blitzkrieg example we could simple bypass the heavily defended fortifications as we did in 1971 war in the eastern Pakistan sector. but present day Pakistan would be a completely different ballgame. it's a myriad labyrinth of tunnel networks, fortifications, anti-tank/aircraft defenses and what not. not to mention the hundreds of terrorist organizations for guerrilla warfare.
MiG-27 though too fast for CAS was still able to fulfill the task upto a certain degree. what happens when it is phased out? there's a reason why the Americans and the Russians are still clinging on to their antiquated but highly effective A-10 and Su-25 respectively. the Su-34 strike fighter can no doubt replace all of Su-24, Su-17/20/22, MiG-23BN & MiG-27 but never the Su-25.

 

[smestarz]

I gave my view, But I tell you again, a plane that costs more than 100 million for 10 years spares and weapons, is not good for IAF . We are a big country and we need quantity first, because Quantity can outdo quality also and we have seen that in past wars. With the smart weapons coming in, there are two school of thoughts for CAS role. and in a way, both can be used to compliment each other.
1. High flying plane with PGM (12 A2G weapons) that can be dropped with pin point accuracy/
This approach is accurate but also expensive as price of PGM munition is high, the bean counters may not appreciate that
2. Low Flying CAS plane like Su-25/A-10. Since these planes will be flying low because they need to be economical and drop dumb bombs as accurately as possible so they will need to survive the fire from 12.7 mm AA guns and also MANPADs.
And incidentally both these approaches are working
USAF uses A-10 for its CAS.
UK uses Tornados with Brimstone missiles,

One approach is dedicated and would depend on air cover for protection, but the cost per sortie will be cheaper but a lot of repairs might be needed

The other approach is multi role, where these planes fly their own cover, the cost of sorite might be higher (due to PGMs used) but sortie rate will be higher

Some chair marshalls use this arugement for rafale and its true, but then when they are asked why not LCA or Su-30 MKI, they come with the most dedicated answer by IAF.. "WE NEED MEDIUM PLANE"
We can remedy other things, but how can we remedy paid stupidity? Did these chair marshalls when they flew even wonder if they are flying Light or Medium plane? They simply few a plane that was designed for a role .. MiG-21 air interceptor and ground attack..And then after working 30+ years now they think of weight, Guess the only thing that has groiwn about these people is their age, greed and of course increase in their waist... what a waste.

i suggest you read my post thoroughly again. all the answers are there. whatever points you have said matches exactly that of IAF top brass who love the Rafale. also IAF is shamelessly trying to copy the USAF by pretending that the marketing brochure for multi-role fighters is unquestionable law.

CAS is possible only when air superiority has been achieved else it's suicide. i'm not gonna take it up point by point as i feel all your questions can be answered by the original post. and i'm getting a bit tired. sorry man.

i'll just say that the answer lies in the name itself CLOSE AIR SUPPORT. emphasis on CLOSE and SUPPORT. if you are not going to be tree-top close to the troops for 5-6 hours continuously then better not bother about CAS anyways. call it interdiction then, not CAS at all. CAS implies moving with the troops and fighting alongside them hand-in-hand. not at 20,000 feet and far ahead of the slow moving ground troops as you think it to be. i see it as a support weapon not spearheading one and a part of combined arms tactics.

btw all modern planes have built in waste disposal systems. they don't have to bother about visiting the loo. they piss sitting in their seats. it's surprising you aren't aware of this.

from what i understand you are mixing up battlefield air interdiction and CAS.
ground attack is divided into diverse roles- strategic/theater bombing, air interdiction further spilt into theater interdiction and battlefield interdiction, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and CAS. Su-34 or even Tejas for that matter can carry out all the aforementioned roles with full competency except for CAS. as for the loo Su-34 has an in-built toilet and also plenty of area for lying down and catching a wink or two.

alas it all boils down to our military doctrine and how much we actually value the poor infantry guy's life. considering that Cold Start is still just some fancy thought on paper only and that our official doctrine is defensive offensive till date i don't see CAS being relevant unless we're the invading army which is impossible for a non-violent country like ours. also in an infantry rich armed forces like ours i don't believe that our generals value every soldier's life that much in their grand scheme of things and feel that they can afford to lose a few thousand extra soldiers. look at the slaughterhouse that they created in Kargil.

i would like to point out that the Russian equivalent to A-10 i.e. Su-25 still doesn't adequately meet all the requirements of CAS. come on, only 250 rounds for the 30mm gattling cannon! however Russians attack choppers are much tougher and have higher firepower than their western counterparts so i think it balances out. as an alternative i think for Indian armed forces a massive fleet of Russian attack choppers upgraded with western avionics would suffice. but they would still lack the range, endurance, armor, firepower and payload of the A-10.

Kargil was different though. Kargil wasn't CAS at all. it was battlefield interdiction which called for precision air strikes. considering the very high altitudes of the targets and the limited space for maneuvering aircrafts a slow moving attack jet would have been suicide hence the Mirage 2000 was brought in.

@smestarz all things considered my point is since we're a defensive army and only concerned with repelling enemy attacks i think that attack choppers would be sufficient for CAS. if we're planning to invade deep into enemy territory then a dedicated CAS fighter would be necessary.
again as you had mentioned using the blitzkrieg example we could simple bypass the heavily defended fortifications as we did in 1971 war in the eastern Pakistan sector. but present day Pakistan would be a completely different ballgame. it's a myriad labyrinth of tunnel networks, fortifications, anti-tank/aircraft defenses and what not. not to mention the hundreds of terrorist organizations for guerrilla warfare.
MiG-27 though too fast for CAS was still able to fulfill the task upto a certain degree. what happens when it is phased out? there's a reason why the Americans and the Russians are still clinging on to their antiquated but highly effective A-10 and Su-25 respectively. the Su-34 strike fighter can no doubt replace all of Su-24, Su-17/20/22, MiG-23BN & MiG-27 but never the Su-25.