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.
I totally have to agree with Mr. Singh on this one.
CAS is too unglamorous for our pilots and it's not only the IAF but most NATO forces who openly view themselves as air superiority forces not some mud trudging CAS/ BAI force and as such are always trying to mask their air superiority fighters as multi-role fighters by equipping them with highly priced exotic munitions in fantasy configurations under the guise of cost cutting.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when one joins the air force he/she always dreams of becoming an ace fighter pilot not a fighter-bomber/ transport aircraft/ refuelling tanker/ chopper driver . This is so apparent in the MRCA deal and I fail to understand how some senior members of this forum fail to see through the fog.
For all I know the IAF till date never had a dedicated CAS attack aircraft.
The
Jaguars are specifically categorized as 'Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft' by the IAF which means that they are more suited to the
strategic bombing/ long-range air interdiction roles deep inside enemy territory. This role will be taken over by the Rafale and Su-30MKI in the near future and this is where all the fancy expensive long-range, laser/ GPS guided, standoff weapons come useful.
The
MiG-27 due to its limited range and avionics was
limited to battlefield air interdiction and ad-hoc CAS duties. Although not a dedicated CAS platform it possess enough menace to harass Pakistani armored and mechanised columns in the Punjab and Rajasthan sectors.
Both these aircrafts were badly exposed in the Kargil War and only the Mirage 2000 salvaged the day due to their western avionics and use of guided munitions that too much later in the war. Initial Mirage 2000 bombings were done using unguided munitions and a lot of clever innovation by the IAF.
Now some people might point out that if Mirage can do this then why can't the Rafale be used for CAS and herein lies the catch.
The Mirages weren't performing CAS at all. What they were involved in is better known as
battlefield air interdiction. Most of the Mirage's targets were not conventional sized but minuscule targets- mortar positions, supply depots, fuel & ammo dumps and some juicy medium size well- entrenched bunkers; mostly focused on breaking the enemy's logistics chain. We all know how most of the bunkers were retaken one at a time by the Army- massive artillery barrages followed by vicious infantry firefights and in lots of cases it all came down to bayonet tipped hand-to-hand combat.
Where were our so called 'CAS fighters' then? Were they on station at some altitude circling the battlefield ready to pounce on the enemy when called in by the ground forces and then return to station ready again to rain hellfire when the need arose? Ummm...NO...Definitely NO! The IAF was limited to flying in fast, delivering it's payload guided or unguided on pre-designated targets and then quickly exiting the battlefield. This is not CAS. Then can somebody pls explain it to me as to why is everybody's calling the MiG-27 or the Rafale a CAS aircraft?
True CAS requires aircrafts with:
-slow speed with excellent handling at sea-level altitudes
-rugged
-inexpensive
-heavily armored
-highly survivable design
-massive firepower & payload
-easy to maintain and easily replaceable spares and parts
-with 5-6 hours battlefield loiter time (extended with external tanks, air-to-air refueling)
Basically CAS needs a cheap effective rugged sledgehammer not an expensive, nimble, sophisticated, supersonic, dogfighter like the Rafale.
CAS is dirty and dangerous and everybody knows that in a full spectrum war it's inevitable that aircrafts as well as good pilots will be lost. No matter how hard you try friendly fire incidents will happen too. That's why CAS is difficult and hence the above design requirements.
All things considered the only true CAS fighter in the world is the American A-10. In fact, none of the Russian attack jets such as the MiG-23BN or MiG-27 or Su-17/20/22 are truly suited for CAS.
The simple reason is- they were designed as supersonic aircrafts powered by turbojets and as such are
inherently too quick for small fast moving ground targets, have
poor loiter durations due to fuel guzzling jet engines therefore requiring dozens of more sorties. Even the iconic flying tank/artillery Su-25 is a faster than the A-10 by a few hundred kms/hr.
Nonetheless the Su-25 would be a much better CAS platform than our existing Jaguars and MiG-27 and though I have reservations over its loiter time it would be a definite improvement over both of them.
In an earlier post it was quoted
" All in all the Rafale M have remained 4 months in the theater logging 2000 flight hours in 1000 sorties (more than 7 sorties/day, 2 hours/sortie).
The Rafale B/C are still operating from the Sigonella Air Base, Scicilia, after 6 months of operation. They have logged 4000 flight hours in 900 sorties (more than 5 sorties/day, 4.4 hours/sortie)"
'Never before heard sortie rates' was the author's judgement.
I am simply confused by this quote. It proves two things:
1) the engine is highly efficient which is a welcome relief for the IAF
2)
the Rafale is just not suited for CAS. Considering that the M variant is the carrier version I'll cut some slack. Even then with all it's range, multi-role capability, advanced avionics and weapons the sortie rate of 2 per hour shows that
it has very low battlefield loiter duration. It's a simple case of fly in fast, deliver guided munitions on a couple of static targets and get the hell out.
This is not CAS. They were not supporting any advancing army or destroying rows after rows of enemy armor.
In CAS specifically more sorties means more aircrafts have to be committed to replace the ones returning from the frontlines, more time spent on the ground taxiing, taking-off, landing, refuelling, rearming and more time wasted in the air vectoring to the target area or RTB due to bingo fuel. And all this while, our ground forces who dearly need our 'precision weapon based air cover' are being mercilessly pounded by the enemy CAS attack jets because they had the foresight unlike us who only wanted to buy posh fighters and were all too busy increasing our sortie rate.
The Rafale can do CAS just that it's not the best platform nor does it have the required battlefield endurance. Already the Rafale is projected to have lifecycle costs even higher than the Sukhois. And somebody please justify as to why would i waste $100,000 on a precision missile for destroying a tank when all it takes is a couple of rounds from the Gattling cannon mounted on my MiG.
It's time we start taking the Kill-to-cost ratio into account.
If people are still having difficulties visualizing how a CAS mission works then I advise them to watch
'We were Soldiers' where Mel Gibson calls 'Broken Arrow' and then the CAS scenario unfolds. It's the closet reference I could find in popular media. Now people would say that 4th gen jets with precision weapons would definitely have fared better and no doubt they would have but they would still be missing the major point-
those fighters did not stay. They hit their targets and left the battlefield. The same is true in the 21st century scenario. Now just imagine a couple of slow, ugly A-10 Warthog lumbering overhead with 5-6 hours of fuel in its tanks and loaded to the teeth with cannons and rockets; that surely would have changed the scenario wouldn't it? Sure MANPADS could have brought it down like in the Afghan war but technology improves on both sides and such scenarios require both ground forces and air crews to train together closely for many years.
Hence the need for an Indian Army aviation corps which grew out of the frustration of the Army due to the low priority given to CAS and transportation duties by the Air Force which always spends majority the of it's budget on air superiority fighters. The fact that the Army Aviation corps were prevented from buying any fixed wing aircraft is just the tip of the iceberg in the power struggle between the two forces for a bigger share in the defense budget and authority over the unified command.
By saying that the Rafale can replace the both MiG-21 in the air superiority role and the MiG-27 in CAS role the general public has fallen for the typical IAF & Dassault hogwash.
The Rafale is primarily an air superiority fighter with impressive dogfighting capabilities and an excellent avionics & weapons suite for air-interdiction/ precision deep-strike missions
Period! It can replace the Jaguars and the Mirages but definitely not the MiG-27. It might not be a hot rod of the skies like the Eurofighter Typhoon but that's not what Dassault intended it to be in the first place anyway.
They wanted a nimble hi-tech fighter with above average close-in combat maneuvering and excellent secondary strike capabilities and that's what they made.
If our armed forces want to preserve some semblance of CAS capability
then the best option would be for the Army Aviation Corps to take over this role. Ideally I would want India to by the entire A-10 production line which was shut down in 1984 but that might not be possible at all. Also a deep modernization of our existing MiG-27 fleet with all the modern avionics, precision weapons and uprated engines if technically feasible should be pursued. It should not cost more than $6-8 million per aircraft. Rather than buying Rafales at $100 million apiece for CAS no matter how advanced or exquisite it is, what makes more sense to is restart the MiG-27 assembly line, upgrade it domestically to the hilt and buy 6-7 jets for the same price. That definitely would be more bang per buck!
References-
1) google ' A-10 vs F-35' or ' why the USAF hates the A-10' and you'll see what I mean
2)
http://www.quora.com/Are-Close-Air-Support-CAS-aircrafts-like-A-10-and-Su-25-obsolete.
Read Mr. Lynn Taylor's answer, who himself is a Warthog pilot. He'll just shred your doubts and counter arguments to pieces.
