Honeywell tenders for Jaguar engine upgrade

[sancho]

Why? because its cheap, time over target is not a problem neither is collateral damage.

But when did that happenend? In the initial stages of the conflicts or later? The fact is, that even against these countries with limited or no air defences or air forces, precision guided munitions was always used to strike the main targets, because then cost isn't a factor, but precision and low collateral damage. In Libya bunker busters filled with concrete were used, to destroy communication centers, that were placed in crowded areas. Only when the enemy didn't pose a major threat anymore and air superiority is achieved, cost-effective strikes agains smaller or less armored targets get importance. That's why F18 Growlwers, F15 Strike Eagles, F16 varients, Tornados and Rafales with precision weapons were used at the begining of the Libyan conflict, whole in later stages Mirage 2000D/N, F1, Sea Harriers, the EF, drones and combat helicopters took over.
The same happend in Mali, where the Rafale with AASM made the first strike raids, while in later stages Mirage F1s, or even the Atlantique 2 were used for cost-effective strikes, or why the French now will buy Reaper drones for future CAS roles.

The Indian situation however is way different! We don't have the luxury to fight with air superiority, nor against limited air defences! As Kargil showed, the vast differences in geography makes precision strikes even highly important (where the Jaguar btw also wasn't able to hit the targets with dumb bombs). So long distance strikes from high altitudes, instead of risking the fighters will be inevitable. But IF, at least areal superiority will be achieved in later stages of the war, the Jaguar will become useful again, because the operational costs are cheaper compared to the Russian fighters, or the Rafale, but than again, the same is the case for LCA MK1.
When you have also noted the statements of Air Marshal Browne during Aero India, you might have noticed that he wants IAF to push more to drones, especially armed once for the strike roles. Because they are also cheap, but even more effective than manned fighters in normal strike or recon roles. So the future for IAF and strike capability clearly is not based on the Jaguars!

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I'm still not happy with jaguar's payload and number of hardpoints.

 

[sancho]

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.

But exactly because we can't afford to loose fighters, we will use our most capable and survivable fighters for the importan strikes, with weapons that can be used from safe distance. All this doesn't fit to the Jaguar anymore, it is neither highly capable, nor does it offer good survivability and has no stand off weapons so far (if at all Sudarshan ER might be added).

 

[MilSpec]

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.

From what I have known for the Mig 29, it is the out and out air superiority aircraft in IAF, and the pilots flying them are the cream of the crop. UPG will make it multirole, but doesn't mean it will fly multirole missions, it will still remain the out and out Air superiority watch for strike platforms and CAP for trombay high. ground attack is a secondary function it will undertake if needed.

 

[Abingdonboy]

From what I have known for the Mig 29, it is the out and out air superiority aircraft in IAF, and the pilots flying them are the cream of the crop. UPG will make it multirole, but doesn't mean it will fly multirole missions, it will still remain the out and out Air superiority watch for strike platforms and CAP for trombay high. ground attack is a secondary function it will undertake if needed.

Indeed, but I think the mantle of the IAF's air superiority fighter of choice has now passed to the MKI and the MKI is in fact designated the IAF's "air dominance fighter". With the UPG additions the Mig-29 pilots will now train in a wider range of combat missions/profiles but,of course, a2a combat will remain a staple for these birds.

 

[MilSpec]

Indeed, but I think the mantle of the IAF's air superiority fighter of choice has now passed to the MKI and the MKI is in fact designated the IAF's "air dominance fighter". With the UPG additions the Mig-29 pilots will now train in a wider range of combat missions/profiles but,of course, a2a combat will remain a staple for these birds.

Specs indicate Mki taking over air sup missions, but that is not the case, mig 29 is still the go to aircraft for key air superiority missions, MKI's take over critical CAP and air sup where Mig29's resources are expended either due to location, engagement or sqdn strength. MKI is indeed an exceptional performer, but the way strike platforms are composed you might see a strike package of 2MKI's 4 m2k flying dedicated strike config with 4 Mig 29's or a combination of 2 mig 29's and 2 MKI flying pure air superiority. As long as Mig29's are available they will be fully utilized for A2A, because there are a bunch of veteran pilots who have nailed down tactics on that aircraft, and many would be surprised at the nimbleness and agility of m29 when it comes to wvr.

 

[dbc]

But when did that happenend? In the initial stages of the conflicts or later? The fact is, that even against these countries with limited or no air defences or air forces, precision guided munitions was always used to strike the main targets, because then cost isn't a factor, but precision and low collateral damage.

• Cost and collateral damage:

Cost is a factor, it was a factor for the IAF in Kargil when the IAF choose not to use French PGM's.

At the same time, ASTE helped modify the Mirage 2000H’s centerline weapons station to carry 1,000-pound U.S.-made Paveway II laser-guided bombs instead of the IAF’s French-produced Matra precision munitions, which were prohibitively expensive.

Airpower at 18,000

As for collateral damage in the India-Pakistan context I'm not sure if this is an overriding concern for the Indian military. Lets assume it is, during bombing derby's in which USAF, USN, Marines and NATO air forces compete the F-16's and F/A-18's consistently win the trophy. In US military jargon the F-16 and the F/A-18's are described as 'tight weapons systems' because it excels at delivering unguided munitions accurately. In fact, the F/A-18's and F-16 were only ever beaten by the French Jaguar during a joint exercise in Saudi while the US and the coalition partners waited for Saddam to vacate Kuwait peacefully. An example of this accuracy is illustrated by a US Marine F/A-18 mission that destroyed the Iraqi army's III Corps forward headquarters in the center of Kuwait City surrounded by residential buildings. The F/A-18's carried two AIM-7s,two AIM-9s, two wing tanks and five 5,000 lb unguided bombs each. Of course the pilots who flew that mission would have preferred PGM's over unguided munitions but PGM's were too expensive and in short supply and the mission was planned in haste since intelligence indicated the presence of senior Iraqi military commanders in that location. In other words this was a fleeting target of opportunity and a time sensitive target. Just so you know, unguided bombs dropped from a 'tight weapons system' like the F/A-18, F-16 or the Jaguar is nearly as accurate as a PGM particularly if the bomb is released from a steep dive at low altitude. It goes without saying that the pilot has to get a lot closer to the target and risk getting shot down by AAA or MANPADS. But the F/A-18 and Jaguar are designed to survive AAA and MANPADS as was proven over Iraq and Kuwait when the F/A-18's and Jaguar survived hits from AAA,MANPADS and SAMs and returned to base. Finally, if I'm not mistaken the IAF practiced and demonstrated the dropping of unguided bombs during the last exercise code name Iron Fist. The IAF is unlikely to waste time and money practicing something they don't intend to do in combat.

The Indian situation however is way different! We don't have the luxury to fight with air superiority, nor against limited air defences! As Kargil showed, the vast differences in geography makes precision strikes even highly important (where the Jaguar btw also wasn't able to hit the targets with dumb bombs). So long distance strikes from high altitudes, instead of risking the fighters will be inevitable. But IF, at least areal superiority will be achieved in later stages of the war, the Jaguar will become useful again, because the operational costs are cheaper compared to the Russian fighters, or the Rafale, but than again, the same is the case for LCA MK1.
When you have also noted the statements of Air Marshal Browne during Aero India, you might have noticed that he wants IAF to push more to drones, especially armed once for the strike roles. Because they are also cheap, but even more effective than manned fighters in normal strike or recon roles. So the future for IAF and strike capability clearly is not based on the Jaguars!

• Air Superiority

Air superiority does not necessarily need to be established in the entire area of conflict in the case of India this is the entire air space over Pakistan. Air superiority can be limited to an area over the target long enough to achieve the mission objective. An example of this is the destruction of the Paul Doumer Bridge during the Vietnam war. F-4 Phantoms provided a screen against Mig-21 while F-105's dropped this bridge a crucial road and rail link to South Vietnam and Laos into the river using 3,000 lb bombs. Air superiority was achieved around the target and maintained long enough for low flying Thuds [F-105's] to drop their load of 3,000 lb bombs. Air superiority over the entire theater is desirable and if achieved then the IAF can preserve its more sophisticated arsenal for unanticipated contingencies. But theater wide air supremacy is not essential to the employment of the Jaguar just a period long enough for the Jaguar to ingress and egress unmolested is enough to successfully complete the mission.

No one is disputing the benefits of using precision guided munitions over unguided 'dumb' bombs. But there is the question of cost, a question of availability since dumb bombs are easy to manufacture a supply of these bombs is assured during war times. The same is not true for smart weapons, raw materials, the know-how or even the infrastructure for producing smart weapons may have been destroyed by the enemy. Dumb bombs on the other hand can be made in a garage and does not require specialized tooling or exotic materials. Finally, smart weapons are not immune to counter measures. Laser designation can be foiled by clouds, dust or smoke over the target. IR sensors can be fooled by heated decoys. An F-16 pilot providing close air support in Iraq to troops in contact with the enemy during a sand storm could not employ any of his arsenal of smart weapons that included IR guided Mavericks and LGBs. He had to resort to low altitude strafing of Iraqi troops fortunately his bullets hit a truck carrying munitions that caused an explosion severe enough to force an Iraqi retreat. If he had dumb bombs that day he could have used his radar to find and bombs the Iraqi convoy.

 

[sancho]

Cost is a factor, it was a factor for the IAF in Kargil when the IAF choose not to use French PGM's.

Because the French LGB was a 2000lb bomb, procured for high value targets and not small hideouts that can be attacked by 500 or 1000lb LGBs. The more cost-effective US LGBs in 1000lb were procured, but couldn't be used at the begining and no other guided weaponary was available then.
So cost was not the issue, but the lack of suitable GUIDED bombs!

particularly if the bomb is released from a steep dive at low altitude.

Which nobody risks anymore, especially not in Indias case! Why would you risk a fighter (worth several millions) being hit by air defences, when you can use LGBs or PGMs today from safer distance? We have 2013 now and not the 80s or 90s anymore, the advantage of these guided kits is not only the precision, but also that the weapon itself takes over the attack run and the fighter pilot don't have to do steep dives.

Finally, if I'm not mistaken the IAF practiced and demonstrated the dropping of unguided bombs during the last exercise code name Iron Fist. The IAF is unlikely to waste time and money practicing something they don't intend to do in combat.

That exercise is mainly for the public and IAF of course still uses dumb bombs too, but as reported LCA used LGBs in that exercise! Unguided weapons simply have no priority anymore, just like an old dedicated strike fighter hasn't, when you have modern 4th and 4.5th gen fighters in the fleet, that are superior, be it in IAF, or for NATO forces as shown in all recent conflicts. When the risks are lower and the missions doesn't require efficiency anymore, cost reasons will be considered, but only then the Jags or dumb bombs will play a role again, although LCA might still be cheaper to operate.

Air superiority can be limited to an area over the target long enough to achieve the mission objective... But theater wide air supremacy is not essential to the employment of the Jaguar just a period long enough for the Jaguar to ingress and egress unmolested is enough to successfully complete the mission.

That's what I said as well, but modern multi role fighters don't even have this limitation, they can be used in any strike missions even if not even partial supermacy is achived and that will be the case in any Indian conflict.

a question of availability since dumb bombs are easy to manufacture a supply of these bombs is assured during war times. The same is not true for smart weapons

That's the reasons why IAF did not only added LGB and PGMs from Russia, Israel and the US after Kargil war, but is developing it's own versions now, to not have the same problems anymore.

 

[sancho]

As long as Mig29's are available they will be fully utilized for A2A

If that would be true, IAF wouldn't waste all the money to upgrade A2G and even anti ship capabilities to it. The squadron in Jamnagar will now not only provide air cover for the Jaguar IM, but will be able to attack ships on their own and as you can see here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...r-force-news-discussions-144.html#post4269402

They even added SEAD capabilities, which means any Mig 29 pilot will not only have to be able to intercept enemy fighters or provide escort duties, but needs to be trained in CAS, SEAD and partially even anti ship roles, similar to MKI or Mig 29K pilots.
In fact, since MKI IAF puts a lot of weight to multi role capabilities, MKI and Rafale are even the most balanced fighters in this regard. Similarly LCA and even AMCA was always required to be multi role fighters, so don't expect IAF to limit themself today anymore to certain roles for certain fighters only.

 

[MilSpec]

If that would be true, IAF wouldn't waste all the money to upgrade A2G and even anti ship capabilities to it. The squadron in Jamnagar will now not only provide air cover for the Jaguar IM, but will be able to attack ships on their own and as you can see here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...r-force-news-discussions-144.html#post4269402

IAF Mig 29's were one of the oldest vintage mig29's export versions and were due for upgrade. The decision was to give additional roles to Mig 29, if the need arises, that doesn't change it's primary role. from the Pilots who fly trombay high patrol, first on the scene in the deployment zones for airsup missions will always be Mig 29, as long as possible. depending on the nature of missions, the formations can include, MKI and Mig21 bison.

They even added SEAD capabilities, which means any Mig 29 pilot will not only have to be able to intercept enemy fighters or provide escort duties, but needs to be trained in CAS, SEAD and partially even anti ship roles, similar to MKI or Mig 29K pilots.
In fact, since MKI IAF puts a lot of weight to multi role capabilities, MKI and Rafale are even the most balanced fighters in this regard. Similarly LCA and even AMCA was always required to be multi role fighters, so don't expect IAF to limit themself today anymore to certain roles for certain fighters only.

As I said, Primary role of Mig29 will remain Air superiority, secondary role if needed will be untilised as a strike aircraft.
It is the most agile dogfighter in IAF inventory till date with the most skilled pilots behind it.

 

[sancho]

IAF Mig 29's were one of the oldest vintage mig29's export versions and were due for upgrade. The decision was to give additional roles to Mig 29, if the need arises, that doesn't change it's primary role.

Who said it would? But it's the last life extention and if IAF wanted to remain the Migs only in A2A roles and in A2G roles only if the need arises as you said, they just had added the KAB 500s and rocket pods, similar to the Mig 21 Bisions. But as I showed that is not the case and the pilots will need more comprehensive training, to do SEAD or anti ship roles roles too. The Mig now offers a wider variety of ground attack capabilities than the Jaguar, even if it's design was not aimed on it, or that it hardly has 10 to 15 years left in IAF and that shows the importance multi role capablity has for IAF today.

 

[MilSpec]

Who said it would? But it's the last life extention and if IAF wanted to remain the Migs only in A2A roles and in A2G roles only if the need arises as you said, they just had added the KAB 500s and rocket pods, similar to the Mig 21 Bisions. But as I showed that is not the case and the pilots will need more comprehensive training, to do SEAD or anti ship roles roles too. The Mig now offers a wider variety of ground attack capabilities than the Jaguar, even if it's design was not aimed on it, or that it hardly has 10 to 15 years left in IAF and that shows the importance multi role capablity has for IAF today.

the difference between launching a pGM and a dumb bomb with arm mode on litening III is not rocket science but yes I am sure M29 pilots will have to qualify with Kh31, 59, and PGM's which is going to be a Pain in the a$$ for them... I do agree swingrole aircrafts will be future of IAF.

 

[sancho]

the difference between launching a pGM and a dumb bomb with arm mode on litening III is not rocket science but yes I am sure M29 pilots will have to qualify with Kh31, 59, and PGM's which is going to be a Pain in the a$$ for them... I do agree swingrole aircrafts will be future of IAF.

Sure, but necessary for the defence of the country! We can't remain to split our fleet into A2A and A2G fighters, when we at least try to withstand a 2 front war. We simply need capable fighters on all borders and that's why the Migs and the M2Ks will be far more capable and useful after the upgrade, but why the Jag will only a 2nd line fighter anymore.

 

[MilSpec]

Sure, but necessary for the defence of the country! We can't remain to split our fleet into A2A and A2G fighters, when we at least try to withstand a 2 front war. We simply need capable fighters on all borders and that's why the Migs and the M2Ks will be far more capable and useful after the upgrade, but why the Jag will only a 2nd line fighter anymore.

i have always thought Jag was an oddball acquisition for IAF. Although IAF has squeezed every drop of life from it's paltforms, Jags might see an early departure....

 

[Nishan_101]

Does IAF getting some Old jaguars as spares...??