ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[IndianHawk]

I had read somewhere a couple of jaguar squadrons, are retiring this year.. ?
only 61 Jaguars being upgraded... so we might have 3 squadrons retiring in the next few years...

That may be true. Earlier build jaguar will be let go only later build will be upgraded to Darin 3.
With aesa radar and derby missile they will be very potent against porky obsolete planes.

 

[Longewala]

Jaguar has longer legs than lca. More importantly jaguar squadron are already operational. It takes years to form and operationalize an squadron. No point throwing all that away in a jiffy.

Jaguar if re- engined will serve till 2035. If not they'll be retired before 2025. Our jaguars were built much later than western once and have life left in their airframes. No one throws away a platform which has structural life left. Not india not west. There jaguars were simply much older to ours.

And why would we throw them away when our enemy uses, for a similar role, mirage-5 jets that are 20-30 years older.

It's like suggesting 90s-era t-72s should be scrapped whereas they face 60s to 70s build t-59 / 69s

 

[MrPresident]

All fair and valid points. Here are some facts that i was checking out.

1. Jaguars started rolling by 1980s that is good 40 years and HAL manufactured 80 of them even if you think HAL took 8 years to deliver all of them then latest would be 32 to 35 yrs old. Remember Mig 27s that we have retired were inducted during the same time (1985).

2. Jaguars doesnt have massive advantage of range compared to LCA, it has bit more but not worth the upgrade cost. Remember all these range and MTOW figures would have reduced over the period of time. Upgrades only made it worst.

3. I agree you cannot just throw away the planes but is the cost of upgrades worth? One can develop the tactics only they fly and have build up the squadrons. We have to bite the bullet somewhere and look at the future which is Tejas family. We have to put in all effort and money in future.

 

[MrPresident]

@Longewala Well mate, why would we let our enemy dictate what we buy or develop? In war you dont get into fair fight, you make sure you have massive advantage and crush the enemy. During 2003 gulf war Iraq had T62 s and T72s but US dint use pattons they still used their M4A1s dint they.

US developed F22 raptor when USSR was broken up and Russia was struggling with finances. They had no reason to develop as the most modern aircraft during that time was Su-27 and Eurofighter Typhoon and US had F15s and F16s, but still they did and that is to have massive advantage over the adversaries.

 

[Bleh]

@Longewala Well mate, why would we let our enemy dictate what we buy or develop? In war you dont get into fair fight, you make sure you have massive advantage and crush the enemy. During 2003 gulf war Iraq had T62 s and T72s but US dint use pattons they still used their M4A1s dint they.

US developed F22 raptor when USSR was broken up and Russia was struggling with finances. They had no reason to develop as the most modern aircraft during that time was Su-27 and Eurofighter Typhoon and US had F15s and F16s, but still they did and that is to have massive advantage over the adversaries.

USA didn't scrap those F-15/16/18s though... Nor can India afford to retire functioning bomb-trucks with already falling sq. strength, they're not prime dogfighters. As much as I favour Tejas, FOC could only replace some Mig-21s to plug the falling numbers & gap in production before Mark1A. Jaguars should only be replaced by MWF.


Quality-quality balancing is different for every country as per their own capabilities & threat perception.
With ~270 Su-30, 62 (maybe 96 if we order the mothballed ones) Mig-29, 48 Mirage-2000 & Rafale & Tejas coming; IAF already has "massive advantage" against PAF who has few dozens F-16 & about a 100 Jf-17. Rest are vintage crap that Jaguar's BVR can take out easily!

 

[IndianHawk]

All fair and valid points. Here are some facts that i was checking out.

1. Jaguars started rolling by 1980s that is good 40 years and HAL manufactured 80 of them even if you think HAL took 8 years to deliver all of them then latest would be 32 to 35 yrs old. Remember Mig 27s that we have retired were inducted during the same time (1985).

2. Jaguars doesnt have massive advantage of range compared to LCA, it has bit more but not worth the upgrade cost. Remember all these range and MTOW figures would have reduced over the period of time. Upgrades only made it worst.

3. I agree you cannot just throw away the planes but is the cost of upgrades worth? One can develop the tactics only they fly and have build up the squadrons. We have to bite the bullet somewhere and look at the future which is Tejas family. We have to put in all effort and money in future.

Jaguars which are being upgraded were all manufacturered in 1990s . Iaf determines they are still useful. What's the point of debating professional judgement of iaf. IAF won't use any aeroplane whose airframe is not suitable to fly !!
Mig27 were never as robust as western jets so they had to be retired early. Otherwise look at mirage 2000 35 years in service and ready for 15-20 more after upgrade. Jaguar and mirages were build to last.

Yes LCA can replace them but delays have insured that lca mk1/mk1a will phase out mig21 first and then mwf will phase our jaguar / mig29 and mirage gradually.

So jaguar need to soldier on till mwf arrives and thats why they are being upgraded.

 

[IndianHawk]

@Longewala Well mate, why would we let our enemy dictate what we buy or develop? In war you dont get into fair fight, you make sure you have massive advantage and crush the enemy. During 2003 gulf war Iraq had T62 s and T72s but US dint use pattons they still used their M4A1s dint they.

US developed F22 raptor when USSR was broken up and Russia was struggling with finances. They had no reason to develop as the most modern aircraft during that time was Su-27 and Eurofighter Typhoon and US had F15s and F16s, but still they did and that is to have massive advantage over the adversaries.

F22 was already in development when USSR broke up. And after that American reduced the numbers to only 180 something against planed 1000+ !!

Looking at paf they have half of their air force 40-50 years old and even older. 90% of paf doesn't have any bvr capabilities ! Against those a jaguar armed with aesa and bvr derby is a sure win .
Only f16 could trouble it all other paf jets are mince meat for our upgraded jaguars and since all upgrade is Indian design it's cheap compared to mirage upgrade.

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

.................................................

is there any program running for CFT in india?

 

[Bleh]

is there any program running for CFT in india?

Could be, for MWF... I think I've seen it mentioned.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

USA didn't scrap those F-15/16/18s though... Nor can India afford to retire functioning bomb-trucks with already falling sq. strength, they're not prime dogfighters. As much as I favour Tejas, FOC could only replace some Mig-21s to plug the falling numbers & gap in production before Mark1A. Jaguars should only be replaced by MWF.

Jaguar jets are flying with 15-20% lesser load spare part crunch is real and sometimes IAF pilots say that we fear that if that jet will be able to climb up again after taking a hard turn.
Their is a reason why IAF is thinking to retire this oldie beast.
We can keep flying them without caring about few body bags which will come in future because of it's technical issues and price of installation of new engine is absurd.

 

[Bleh]

Jaguar jets are flying with 15-20% lesser load spare part crunch is real and sometimes IAF pilots say that we fear that if that jet will be able to climb up again after taking a hard turn.
Their is a reason why IAF is thinking to retire this oldie beast.
We can keep flying them without caring about few body bags which will come in future because of it's technical issues and price of installation of new engine is absurd.

I know that. You're not wrong. Nor am I saying the situation is ideal, but Mig-21 too need to be replaced. Fighter/interceptor before striker/bombers.
Those body-bags had already been shipped when IAF decided against not expanding the FOC Tejas order by another squadron or two... they've not just started arriving yet! But they are inevitable, just as inevitable as the "absurd prices" of new engines for Jaguars that'll need to stay another decade.

And jaguar always had issue regarding climbing. Recently when Mig-27 was retired, I read of a IAF joke that "Jaguars leave ground only because of the curvature of Earth".

 

[Raju Seth]

First of all MKI is an air superiority fighter. Its primary role was to establish air dominance over enemy territory. So in turning these into bombers means that we are diminishing its effectiveness in primary role. We should go for dedicated attack aircraft instead of turning a dedicated air superiority into a mediocre attack aircraft.
With the induction of 2 Rafale squads, I am hopeful that IAF would minimize the role of MKIs to CAPS or escort like what we have seen in Balakot episode.

@Raju Seth .... We have recently modified 2 sqds of the MKIs to carry BRAHMOS. As I have said above, by doing so we are diminishing its potential to be a true air to air adversary. Although we could pass it off because these are for specific use and would not see the level of usage as others. But just imagine, a dedicated bomber could compensate for 6 of these MKIs in a war scenario. Bombers are not for just carpet bombings. Bombers are force multipliers. Its the payload which matters when one compares a comber with that of an attack aircraft.

Talking of economics, YES, we can't afford a dedicated BOMBER sqd as of now. But brushing it under the carpet with make shift or JUGAAD arrangement would not help us in long run.

By introducing brahmos on su30 ,we are enhancing the variety of weapon on it.No su30 is going to fight a2a carrying a brahmos underbelly.
THere is a reason why most airforce have stop maintaining dedicated bomber,fighter etc.With advent of technology,range & intensity of bombs have increased .There is a big difference now dropping100 WW2 bombs vs 10 2019 lgb bombs.Its not the payload but the accuracy matters.The gun powder used in bombs have changed.energy released by modern bombs is more than older one.destruction is caused by physics not numbers,I hope you know how to bulldoze a wall by few hits vs taking out 1 brick at a time using hammer.

In a country where defence budget is not as per requirement but on x% of gdp growth rate.Maintaing dedicated squad is bad idea.Not to say it is outdated,when you have a platform that can carry less load & can cause equal destruction to a fully loaded WW2 1 B52,yu dont need another dedicated squad,improving multirole platform is the way to go.

 

[Chinmoy]

By introducing brahmos on su30 ,we are enhancing the variety of weapon on it.No su30 is going to fight a2a carrying a brahmos underbelly.
THere is a reason why most airforce have stop maintaining dedicated bomber,fighter etc.With advent of technology,range & intensity of bombs have increased .There is a big difference now dropping100 WW2 bombs vs 10 2019 lgb bombs.Its not the payload but the accuracy matters.The gun powder used in bombs have changed.energy released by modern bombs is more than older one.destruction is caused by physics not numbers,I hope you know how to bulldoze a wall by few hits vs taking out 1 brick at a time using hammer.

In a country where defence budget is not as per requirement but on x% of gdp growth rate.Maintaing dedicated squad is bad idea.Not to say it is outdated,when you have a platform that can carry less load & can cause equal destruction to a fully loaded WW2 1 B52,yu dont need another dedicated squad,improving multirole platform is the way to go.

Now there lies the problem. Whenever we talk about bombers, we just envision it as a World War era system which could be used only for carpet bombing. I have already mentioned that a bomber is more of a force multiplier. Agreed that we can't use a bomber in a highly saturated air defence scenario, but this holds true for any attack aircraft. We need to get air dominance first to use a bomber in enemy territory. But in our case in our western border, we could use it from within the relative safety of pour territory. In norther border, we would need to obtain serious air dominance even to use M2K or MKI in bomber role. So its square one for Bomber and Attack aircraft.

Now coming to use MKI as a bomb truck. Do you know that at present the mission computers of MKI doesn't allow it for a swing role? Means in Attack mode, it can't carry out the role of air dominance. The mission computer has to be completely reprogrammed for that and this can't be done in mid flight. There goes the multi role out of the window for MKI. M2k and Jaguar Darin III upgrades have the capability upto an extent, but there too M2k could carry out only a limited A2A role in attack mode. Tejas has that capability to switch role in a single sortie but it got a short leg and has the limitation of payload.

We are jumping on the program of slapping BRAHMOS on MKI. But we have effectively forgot that a MKI with BRAHMOS under its belly could take off, but can't land. It would be like the Khukri which would not go in scabbard unless it tastes blood. If a mission objective is changed or cancelled, which is common, then the MKI can't land unless it drops off the missile. A serious limitation I believe.

When we talk of economics, YES, we can't afford a sqd of bombers for sure. But saying that we don't need it is just.................
Do you think China is investing on Bombers to do a carpet bombing on US? Do you think Russia is investing on PAK-DA and flying Tu-160 to do a carpet bombing run?
Maintaining bombers is a costly affair. But saying that attack aircrafts could take place of bombers is like comparing a Sedan with a Pickup truck.

 

[fire starter]

Now there lies the problem. Whenever we talk about bombers, we just envision it as a World War era system which could be used only for carpet bombing. I have already mentioned that a bomber is more of a force multiplier. Agreed that we can't use a bomber in a highly saturated air defence scenario, but this holds true for any attack aircraft. We need to get air dominance first to use a bomber in enemy territory. But in our case in our western border, we could use it from within the relative safety of pour territory. In norther border, we would need to obtain serious air dominance even to use M2K or MKI in bomber role. So its square one for Bomber and Attack aircraft.

Now coming to use MKI as a bomb truck. Do you know that at present the mission computers of MKI doesn't allow it for a swing role? Means in Attack mode, it can't carry out the role of air dominance. The mission computer has to be completely reprogrammed for that and this can't be done in mid flight. There goes the multi role out of the window for MKI. M2k and Jaguar Darin III upgrades have the capability upto an extent, but there too M2k could carry out only a limited A2A role in attack mode. Tejas has that capability to switch role in a single sortie but it got a short leg and has the limitation of payload.

We are jumping on the program of slapping BRAHMOS on MKI. But we have effectively forgot that a MKI with BRAHMOS under its belly could take off, but can't land. It would be like the Khukri which would not go in scabbard unless it tastes blood. If a mission objective is changed or cancelled, which is common, then the MKI can't land unless it drops off the missile. A serious limitation I believe.

When we talk of economics, YES, we can't afford a sqd of bombers for sure. But saying that we don't need it is just.................
Do you think China is investing on Bombers to do a carpet bombing on US? Do you think Russia is investing on PAK-DA and flying Tu-160 to do a carpet bombing run?
Maintaining bombers is a costly affair. But saying that attack aircrafts could take place of bombers is like comparing a Sedan with a Pickup truck.

what about brahmos ng it will sure remove the drawbacks .

 

[Chinmoy]

what about brahmos ng it will sure remove the drawbacks .

It is almost a decade away. It would almost take away one drawback, but what about the other drawback? Drawback in the platform itself.

 

[Bleh]

When we talk of economics, YES, we can't afford a sqd of bombers for sure. But saying that we don't need it is just.................
Do you think China is investing on Bombers to do a carpet bombing on US? Do you think Russia is investing on PAK-DA and flying Tu-160 to do a carpet bombing run?
Maintaining bombers is a costly affair. But saying that attack aircrafts could take place of bombers is like comparing a Sedan with a Pickup truck.

Actually India doesn't need huge strategic bomber (more like container trailers) that much, but could to with medium tactical bombers (pickup trucks)!

After India retired her trusty Canberra bombers in 2007 the niche was left largely vacant. Bomb-trucks are only good for air support & airstrikes on minor targets like bridges or ammo dumps.
But to swash a oil refinany or level Heavy Industries Taxila or blow up a rail junction, you need something that will fly over their SAM bubble & outrun any fighter to drop 10t ordnance on the specific targets of importance.

Mirage series had its MirageIV... I hope our Tejas eventually gets one too.

 

[fire starter]

what about brahmos ng it will sure remove the drawbacks .

Actually India doesn't need huge strategic bomber (more like container trailers) that much, but could to with medium tactical bombers (pickup trucks)!

After India retired her trusty Canberra bombers in 2007 the niche was left largely vacant. Bomb-trucks are only good for air support & airstrikes on minor targets like bridges or ammo dumps.
But to swash a oil refinany or level Heavy Industries Taxila or blow up a rail junction, you need something that will fly over their SAM bubble & outrun any fighter to drop 10t ordnance on the specific targets of importance.

Mirage series had its MirageIV... I hope Tejas gets one too.

MWF will replace mirage........................
..

 

[fire starter]

It is almost a decade away. It would almost take away one drawback, but what about the other drawback? Drawback in the platform itself.

what drawback??????????????????

 

[Chinmoy]

Actually India doesn't need huge strategic bomber (more like container trailers) that much, but could to with medium tactical bombers (pickup trucks)!

After India retired her trusty Canberra bombers in 2007 the niche was left largely vacant. Bomb-trucks are only good for air support & airstrikes on minor targets like bridges or ammo dumps.
But to swash a oil refinany or level Heavy Industries Taxila or blow up a rail junction, you need something that will fly over their SAM bubble & outrun any fighter to drop 10t ordnance on the specific targets of importance.

Mirage series had its MirageIV... I hope our Tejas eventually gets one too. View attachment 41690

A platform which could carry around 20t would be a welcome inclusion in the armoury.

 

[Chinmoy]

what drawback??????????????????

The swing role capability in a single sortie.