- Feb 16, 2009
It is our only fighter which can manage a lo-lo-lo mission at ranges of 2000Km while carrying 2 LGBs and drop tanks.why do you spend so much on an obsolete piece of antique?
If you have to buy something with your extra cash why not buy more MKI instead?
It is our only fighter which can manage a lo-lo-lo mission at ranges of 2000Km while carrying 2 LGBs and drop tanks.
A little of faith dude, AMCA won't be as good as Jaguar? How do you know? The AMCA is not even designed yet.It is our only fighter which can manage a lo-lo-lo mission at ranges of 2000Km while carrying 2 LGBs and drop tanks.
Without drop tanks, even the MKIs cannot match that range with that flight profile.
The pilots flying Jags are highly experienced and brilliant at their work. Not worth the effort to give them MKIs when the aircraft is not plumbed to carry tanks. It's low altitude performance is the best in the IAF with adequate power, high wing loading (over 500Kg/m[SUP]2[/SUP]), excellent drag control, brilliant maneuvering and a few other traits lacking in many of our other aircraft. A new engine will make all of these things even better like giving it better fuel efficiency, superior medium altitude performance and more range. Anybody asking to replace this aircraft without any reason isn't right in the head. You are excused since you did not know.
Bring in the two massive 30mm cannons with rocket pods and it's capability as a CAS aircraft is immeasurable.
Irreplaceable you see. As a matter of fact, there is no equivalent replacement aircraft available. They are talking about the AMCA, but it won't be as good as the Jaguar.
Would you ask the USN to replace their A-10s unnecessarily? Especially if it is something as good as the A-10 and F-16 combined. I wouldn't.
The upgrade isn't particularly expensive either.
Its true, But during the time it was purchased its call so..from what i heard its combat radius is only 800 km---less than that of the f-16 . its certainly not a ' Deep penetration strike aircraft '----the fancy title given to it by the air force . no terrain following / terrain avoidance radar for low level flying .
it can be called an attack aircraft at best ..
It's combat radius is measured in the lo-lo-lo profile, not other profiles. 800Km radius is on internal fuel. Add 200-300Km with tanks.range of 2000 km ??
from what i heard its combat radius is only 800 km---less than that of the f-16 .
It is a DPSA.its certainly not a ' Deep penetration strike aircraft '----the fancy title given to it by the air force .
No, but it comes with a new RLG inertial navigation and a digital terrain mapping system which is superior to the terrain avoidance radar.no terrain following / terrain avoidance radar for low level flying .
It is.it can be called an attack aircraft at best .
I don't think the reasons know to us are the same as what we are thinking right now. LGBs were relatively new to us during Kargil, it may have seen some problem not yet revealed publicly.anyway it didnt perform that well in kargil . ultimately laser guided bombing was done by mirage 2000s .
We added a LITENING pod. Period.in the west it is regarded as old and unsophisticated . its performance in the 1990 kuwait war was below par . since then it has been largely discarded by both france and britain .
Earlier AMCA was said to be a direct replacement for Jaguars as a strike aircraft. IAF changed requirements to air superiority aircraft with a secondary strike capability.A little of faith dude, AMCA won't be as good as Jaguar? How do you know? The AMCA is not even designed yet.
there are several types of ground attack aircraft that i have heard of---of the tactical variety . I am Not talking about strategic bombers like B-1 OR B-52.Duh! It is an attack aircraft!
Both are the same if roles are concerned. Strike aircraft or attack aircraft mean the same thing. For eg: The SH and Hornet have the designation F/A which stands for Fighter/Attack.one is a strike aircraft---which is capable of long range ( around 1500 km ) and carries a 8000 to 10000 kg of weaponry . this , the jaguar is NOT as its capabilities are inferior than this.
second is attack aircraft---which has a relatively modest range of less than 1000 km and can carry 3000 to 4000 kg of weaponry . this is what the jaguar IS .
SEAD is not an aircraft type, it is a role. Supression of Enemy Air Defences. Three things are required for it. A good self protection suite, weapons and performance. Jaguar has all 3 and is our primary SEAD aircraft.other is SEAD ( suppression of enemy air defence )aicraft . many strike or attack aircraft can be converted to this . hopefully the jaguar will be converted to this later .
Light aircraft. Not used anymore. Helicopter and Gunships are better.also there are COIN ( counterinsurgency ) aircraft . these are slow moving aircraft which can strafe rebels from air . this the jaguar is most certainly NOT .