Honeywell tenders for Jaguar engine upgrade

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Even with only A2G capability these Jags would pose a threat to Pakistani forces on the Afghan-Pak border or atleast would be perceived in this way by the Pakistanis. And of course having a stable Afghanistan is a must but I am growing increasingly pessimistic that Afghanistan will remain in anyway stable going into the future.

Again the Pakistan rant... give it a rest kiddo... these obsolete jags wont even be goin near afghanistan forget Pakistan... as for a threat... insignificant..

 

[sancho]

Even with only A2G capability these Jags would pose a threat to Pakistani forces on the Afghan-Pak border or atleast would be perceived in this way by the Pakistanis. And of course having a stable Afghanistan is a must but I am growing increasingly pessimistic that Afghanistan will remain in anyway stable going into the future.

Of course it would be seen that way from some, but realistically, they can only drop LGBs at very short ranges and would not have any air cover. The F16s they want, should be more of a problem for Pakistan, don't you think?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Sir, this is obvious isn't it? The Jag's basic design means it is never going to be a A2A fighter and can only really be solo-role. However the Mig-29 is being taken to the UPG which has significant A2G capabilities and is relatively multi-role. I have to say te day of specialist/niche a/c IS over- for the IAF atleast (or should be anyway, the JAG upgrade counts against my point).

Not quite. That could be said of of Air Forces with greater resources (and deeper pockets) but even they have not exactly subscribed to that philosophy though they have the means to.

The IAF is not in the class of the heavyweights. That apart even; the IAF still sees no reson to junk the Jags. And with sufficiently good reason. So far as the Mig-29 is concerned; the UPG gives it limited multi-role capability just as the Honeywell engine (as the last part of the Jag's UPG package) pushes the Jag in that direction. It is obvious that the Jaguar was not designed as an A2A a/c nor will it truly be. You can't make a 'Dray-Horse' into a 'Race-Horse'. Even the concept of multi-role/omni-role is a very nebulous one. Which is why some minds use the characterisation of 'swing-role' instead.

 

[sancho]

So far as the Mig-29 is concerned; the UPG gives it limited multi-role capability just as the Honeywell engine pushes the Jag in that direction.

Totally not even close! The engine upgrade of the Jag, gives it only some more ease to handle heavier payloads, but not the capability to carry more, since the number of hardpoints will remain the same, contrary to the Mig 29UPG.
The MMR will provide the Jag mainly with better A2G detection and low level flight capabilities, but still only the IM's will be used for anti ship missions with Harpoons, which is why only a very small number of missiles were procured. Not to mention that it only will add LGBs and new SR missiles, but no stand off range weapons, no SEAD weapons, again contrary to the Mig 29UPG.
The fact is, the upgraded Mig will be far more capable then it was and that in several different roles, while the Jag only gets some make up to look better, but performance wise it hardly makes a difference.
When you have MKIs, upgraded Mig 29s and M2Ks, or even LCA MK1 which will be at least as capable as the uprgaded Jags, you don't use the Jags in any important role anymore.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

or even LCA MK1 which will be at least as capable as the uprgaded Jags, you don't use the Jags in any important role anymore.

Do not fall in the "bottomless pit" of comparing aircraft only by their 'Paper Specs'. What is the comparison between the low-level capabilities of a LCA and Jaguar for example?

 

[sancho]

Do not fall in the "bottomless pit" of comparing aircraft only by their 'Paper Specs'. What is the comparison between the low-level capabilities of a LCA and Jaguar for example?

You can disregard the facts if you want, but still LCA MK1 will have...

...the same EL 2032 radar (but in a bigger diameter)
...the same litenting LDP
...the same LGBs
...the same number of hardpoints
...the same fuel, bomb and missile load in strike roles
...the same IFR capability
...as it seems the also the same HMS
...better avionics
...better EW sensors and jammers
...better RCS

IAF pilots already confirmed that it's handling capabilities, and avionics are very good, so where do you see the issue for low level flying? Besides that it will be far more survivable and useful in other roles too and that is still the low end fighter we are talking here, not the upgrades older once, or even MKI, let alone Rafale.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You can disregard the facts if you want, but still LCA MK1 will have...

...the same EL 2032 radar (but in a bigger diameter)
...the same litenting LDP
...the same LGBs
...the same number of hardpoints
...the same fuel, bomb and missile load in strike roles
...the same IFR capability
...as it seems the also the same HMS
...better avionics
...better EW sensors and jammers
...better RCS

IAF pilots already confirmed that it's handling capabilities, and avionics are very good, so where do you see the issue for low level flying? Besides that it will be far more survivable and useful in other roles too and that is still the low end fighter we are talking here, not the upgrades older once, or even MKI, let alone Rafale.

Hmm, Sancho; you just did not answer my question, but chose to say many other things instead on the basis of "Paper Specs".
Well then; here is another question for you. Since (in the earlier post) you threw in the MiG-29 into the comparison with the Jag on the basis of....
How does the 'terrain following ability' or NOE ability of the MiG-29 (in its A2G role, after all its a multi-role is'nt it?) compare with that of the "ancient, antiquated (!)" Jaguar?

I did say earlier in a post that a "dray horse can not be a race horse" and vice-versa.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Hmm, Sancho; you just did not answer my question, but chose to say many other things instead on the basis of "Paper Specs".
Well then; here is another question for you. Since (in the earlier post) you threw in the MiG-29 into the comparison with the Jag on the basis of....
How does the 'terrain following ability' or NOE ability of the MiG-29 (in its A2G role, after all its a multi-role is'nt it?) compare with that of the "ancient, antiquated (!)" Jaguar?

I did say earlier in a post that a "dray horse can not be a race horse" and vice-versa.

With its new NVG-compatible cockpit, HMDS and improved avionics the MIG-29UPG is bound to have very good NOE performance. The INS on the Jags is outdated today and the tech on the MIG-29UPG will certainly give the Jag's NOE capability a run for its money. Add to that the Mig-29UPGs can fight their way in, deliver thair payload and fight their way out-if needed to. The Jags are still very vulnerable despite the addition of the HMDS, SR-A2A missile and improved defensive aide suite and as such may need escorts for some missions.


The MIG-29UPG is far more of a multi-role a/c now than the Jag can ever be. With the UPG addtion I don't see where the Jag really scores over the Mig-29s now.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

With its new NVG-compatible cockpit, HMDS and improved avionics the MIG-29UPG is bound to have very good NOE performance. The INS on the Jags is outdated today and the tech on the MIG-29UPG will certainly give the Jag's NOE capability a run for its money. Add to that the Mig-29UPGs can fight their way in, deliver thair payload and fight their way out-if needed to. The Jags are still very vulnerable despite the addition of the HMDS, SR-A2A missile and improved defensive aide suite and as such may need escorts for some missions.


The MIG-29UPG is far more of a multi-role a/c now than the Jag can ever be. With the UPG addtion I don't see where the Jag really scores over the Mig-29s now.

Is that all that is required for low-level flight performance or NOE abilities? Every aircraft has different abilities at different altitude/speed combinations. Which BTW is dependant on the aero-dynamic abilities of the aircraft concerned. Which happens to be intrinsic to the aircraft design itself, not the add-ons. Not so much on the 'bells and whistles' that you mention. Those things only make things easier for the Pilot by reducing his work-load; but do not make the aircraft itself perform better.

The Jaguars were designed to have escorts (in most cases). But that does not detract from their core abilities. However the add-ons/UPGs viz. Radar, Improved avionics, now a more powerful engine, improved ordnance (JDAMS, JSOWS etc) have not deteriorated the aircraft; or have they? Nor degraded the Aircraft's exceptional low level flying abilities, have they?
@Abingdonboy; please do not succumb to the temptation of being "bamboozled" by the 'paper specs' that get published. Performance in the air is not necessarily synonymous with that.

 

[dbc]

@Abingbonboy; please do not succumb to the temptation of being "bamboozled" by the 'paper specs' that get published. Performance in the air is not necessarily synonymous with that.

I don't expect this to happen. I think people are so accustomed to judging performance by technical specification that they forget all about real world performance under combat conditions. One of the realities of combat is that no one can afford just precision munitions in a long campaign. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Mali how often have you seen the latest European fighters such as Rafale and Eurofighter carry and deliver dumb bombs such as the Mk-83? As a matter of fact, the French has dusted off the old Mirage F-1 and are now using it to drop Mk-82's over Mali. Why? because its cheap, time over target is not a problem neither is collateral damage.And the Mirage F-1 is much better at this than a delta winged aircraft can ever be.

In Iraq or Afghanistan, the first half of the campaign the ratio of precision guided munitions vs unguided munitions was 63:37 and in the second half of the campaign the ratio was inverse. In other words the US used more unguided munitions than guided munitions in both campaigns.

As for the IAF the Jaguar is the best low altitude penetration aircraft in the IAF inventory and is the only aircraft capable of doing what the F-111 did for the USAF. It is much better at delivering cheap unguided munitions than any jet in the IAF inventory bar the Mig-27. This is unlikely to change even after the MMRCA acquisition.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I don't expect this to happen. I think people are so accustomed to judging performance by technical specification that they forget all about real world performance under combat conditions. One of the realities of combat is that no one can afford precision munitions in a long campaign. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Mali how often have you seen the latest European fighters such as Rafale and Eurofighter carry and deliver dumb bombs such as the Mk-83? As a matter of fact, the French has dusted off the old Mirage F-1 and are now using it to drop Mk-82's over Mali. Why? because its cheap, time over target is not a problem neither is collateral damage.And the Mirage F-1 is much better at this than a delta winged aircraft can ever be.
In Iraq or Afghanistan, the first half of the campaign the ratio of precision guided munitions vs unguided munitions was 63:37 and in the second half of the campaign the ratio was inverse. In other words the US used more unguided munitions than guided munitions in both campaigns.

As for the IAF the Jaguar is the best low altitude penetration aircraft in the IAF inventory and is the only aircraft capable of doing what the F-111 did for the USAF. It is much better at delivering cheap unguided munitions than any jet in the IAF inventory bar the Mig-27. This is unlikely to change even after the MMRCA acquisition.

You did put your finger on the 'nub of the matter'. While the last two sentences summarised matters well. Even the MiG-27 did very well in that role but for reliability issues which are absent in the Jaguar; underpowered as it may be considered to be.
Which is precisely why the IAF still swears by the aircraft and is willing to invest both time and money in its upgrade.
One astounding statement earlier compared the Tejas to the Jaguar in low level performance. It just does not match, part of the reason is the under-lined statement above which highlights the limitations of a Delta-wing at low levels at lower speeds. No amount of 'bells and whistles' can over-ride that.

Aboutthe dependance of the IAF on unguided munitions; the IAF is not even in the category of the USAF. So it stands to reason that the IAF is/will be even more dependant on them. There was an interesting comment here (on another thread about the IN's MiG-29Ks) where the MiG-29K was shown with the 57mm rocket pods and our @sancho was disappointed about its use!
The reality is that the pod in question will see service for a long time yet. Against low-value targets for sure and for all of the reasons enumerated above.

Even this rather 'new-fangled notion' of multi-role/omni-role is a fallacy in itself. To be accurate; it is simply a concept of seeking and creating the "best possible compromise"!

 

[ANPP]

Totally not even close! The engine upgrade of the Jag, gives it only some more ease to handle heavier payloads, but not the capability to carry more, since the number of hardpoints will remain the same, contrary to the Mig 29UPG.
The MMR will provide the Jag mainly with better A2G detection and low level flight capabilities, but still only the IM's will be used for anti ship missions with Harpoons, which is why only a very small number of missiles were procured. Not to mention that it only will add LGBs and new SR missiles, but no stand off range weapons, no SEAD weapons, again contrary to the Mig 29UPG.
The fact is, the upgraded Mig will be far more capable then it was and that in several different roles, while the Jag only gets some make up to look better, but performance wise it hardly makes a difference.
When you have MKIs, upgraded Mig 29s and M2Ks, or even LCA MK1 which will be at least as capable as the uprgaded Jags, you don't use the Jags in any important role anymore.

no of mirage n mig is very low n also size of these is also small, i.e. If you r going for strike with these plane you have to give them some protection in air. Thats why jags r still vital for iaf.

I am also surprised on the debate over jags hms and improved a2a capability, although that will not change the field too much but even if it provide little opportunity or few milli seconds to pilots to save the a/c, that is good and we should do that because none can afford to lose a tested a/c specially we r not manufacturing it.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

Capt.Popeye:Sir,do you have any more interesting thoughts on the Jaguar in the Indian Air Force service,I'd love to know more.
BTW,I remember watching a documentary concerning the developmental timeline of the Jaguar,the narrator(who spoke with a British accent) describes the Jaguar as having the best terrain mapping system on any aircraft at the time.He also says that the Jaguar was designed to take off and land from motorways,plains,fields et cetera in the event of Soviet invasion of England/France,this was followed by the footage of a Jaguar landing on a farmland(?),I distinctly remember seeing the rear landing gear bobbing up and down so violently!
I remember reading that the Jaguar was purchased only after the refusal of the sale of the Tornado to the Indian Air Force.
I also remember reading that the first(and the only?) ones to equip over the wing pylons to aid A2A missile(Matra?) carrying was the IAF!
Also,isn't the official IAF designation for the Jaguar,The Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Capt.Popeye:Sir,do you have any more interesting thoughts on the Jaguar in the Indian Air Force service,I'd love to know more.
1.BTW,I remember watching a documentary concerning the developmental timeline of the Jaguar,the narrator(who spoke with a British accent) describes the Jaguar as having the best terrain mapping system on any aircraft at the time.He also says that the Jaguar was designed to take off and land from motorways,plains,fields et cetera in the event of Soviet invasion of England/France,this was followed by the footage of a Jaguar landing on a farmland(?),I distinctly remember seeing the rear landing gear bobbing up and down so violently!

2.I remember reading that the Jaguar was purchased only after the refusal of the sale of the Tornado to the Indian Air Force.

3.I also remember reading that the first(and the only?) ones to equip over the wing pylons to aid A2A missile(Matra?) carrying was the IAF!

4.Also,isn't the official IAF designation for the Jaguar,The Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft?

Hi, @Lord Of Gondor; I've edited your post (quoted above) to simplify answering.

1.IIRC; I've seen that video clip too someplace. The aircrft was designed for rough field operation as well as for STOL as was probably demonstrated in that video. That claim about the Terrain Mapping was not completely correct. While it used what was known as COMED (moving map display); the IAF evaluation team found some lacuna in its fusion with other sensors. Tus was born the DARIN I project which used both UK origin as well as French Eqpt in a typically Indian package to achieve results better than the OEMs. To understand that in greater detail do read the Blog by Air Cdre T.K.Sen (Tikoo Sen) called "TKS Tales" on BR. He happened to be the Director of the Project. It is a fascinating read. I read t much after having spoken about it with Wg Cdr. McMahon (later AM)who happened to be the commisioning CO of the first Jaguar Sqdn. And filled in many details thereby. Later there was a DARIN II program and now the DARIN III program.
However, I must add that rough field operatin was not the key-note of only the Jaguar. The MiG-27 was similarly designed (which was a rather common attribute of many Soviet a/c). Though these a/c came into the IAF invntory later and incidentally followed the MiG-23 MF versions which came to the IAF in an A2A role.

2. The Torndo was simply unaffordablefor the IAF/MoD then. So I wonder if the IAF even sought the aircraft.

3.The addition of over-wing pylonsfor 2 A2A missiles was an IAF initiative to increase the Jaguar's autonomy. But it was also incorporated by the RAF after the validation trials were carried out by BAE. That had to be done in the UK since BAE was the sole certifying authority, HALhad no such powers. I suggest that you also read the articles by the late Wg Cdr Kukke Suresh who worked with HAL then documenting how HAL helped to improve some aircraft sub-systems in the Jaguar the IPR for which was assumed by BAE!

4.The DPSA apellation was created by the IAF when they formulated the ASQR for an aircraft to replace the venerable Canberra. As a low-flying Day and Night intruder/interdictor. I don't think that the IAF uses that acronym any more! Surely not in the face of aircraft like the Su-30 MKI.
But no other aircraft in the IAF (save the MiG-27 BN) matches the Jaguar in the CAS/BAS role. I think that is the acro that IAF may be using now.

 

[sancho]

Is that all that is required for low-level flight performance or NOE abilities? Every aircraft has different abilities at different altitude/speed combinations. Which BTW is dependant on the aero-dynamic abilities of the aircraft concerned. Which happens to be intrinsic to the aircraft design itself, not the add-ons.

That explains your confusion, because the design is not an issue for strikes anymore! Take the Mirage 2000D as an example, it's was designed to be an interceptor and still is specialised as a ground attack version, only by giving it custom radar modes and avionics, the same goes for the F15 Strike Eagles or the Su 34.

Modern fighter radars are multi mode radars, with A2A and A2G modes to support low level flying, be it the EL 2032 or the Zhuk ME. If necessary, additional avionics like TERPROM systems will be added, which again has nothing to the design anymore.
Moreover, the current generation of weaponary mainly requires high altitude attacks from greater distances and not to get the fighter right over the target anymore. The Mig for example will benefit from the range of Russian A2G missiles, like Kh29, 31 and 35, which makes the Mig useful in CAS, SEAD or inti ship roles, while the Jags are mainly limited to CAS roles only (a dozen of Jaguar IMs for anti ship too).
And all these fighters will remain with credible self defence capabilities even in strike role, while the Jaguar is fully dependent on escorts. So instead of using nearly a dozen fighters in escort and strike configs, IAF will soon be able to use just half the number to do the same mission, while being more capable and less vulnerable. The Jags instead will be limited to 2nd day CAS roles only, just like the LCA MK1, as the reports around the Iron Fist exercise confirmed. That's why the Jag fleet will loose any importance in the strike role, beyond 2016, when the bulk of MKIs and upgraded Migs and LCA MK1s are available, with upgraded Mirage and new Rafales coming in (which btw will take over the low level penetration roles as well, thanks to his advanced avionics and specialised weapons).