IAF's Jaguar Upgrade programme

[explorer9]

I have a question
Which are the air forces that still uses jaguar , except ofcouse Iaf ?

Jaguar is awesome while driving but not by flying

Omani Air Force.

 

[Backbencher]

Omani Air Force.

Pathetic , there is no need to say anything else .

 

[phylumchordata]

Jaguar is a phenomenal ground attack aircraft specially designed for the role...it can fly at heights much less than any other aircraft making it invisible to SAMs and anti-aircraft radars. It is a hybrid of a bomber , a fighter and a helicopter ..it can slowly skim over the surface targeting several bunkers,tanks and targets.

An upgraded JAG will give a much needed punch to Indian armed forces in battlefield.

SEPECAT Jaguar - YouTube

FROM 0:30 ...

 

[sancho]

See the OP of this thread for 6 tonnes. That is one of Honeywell's selling points.

As mentioned earlier, the source in the OP is only an info site that sums up some news reports, not an official or reliable source.

And what is it with LGBs, as if only one kind of target will present itself in a war. What about anti-personnel cluster bombs, napalms, chemical and biological weapons if the war gets unconventional. You seriously think a war will be fought with dropping LGBs after deep penetration? Haven't you heard of disrupting logistics just behind front lines? How is Tejas going to match it with only 4 tonne payload? I'm glad you're not running the Air force.

How about thinking logically instead of claiming such BS? A fighter has certain numbers of hardpoints, each with a different load limit, so only because Jags might have some more payload on paper than LCA, doesn't make them carry more bombs to further distances and that's why I tried to make you understand.
In the same config, even LCA MK1 is superior, MK2 with increased payload an internal fuel capacity will be a whole different class in A2G compared to Jags, because it can carry more weapons to greater distances and can defend itself, be it with superior countermeasures, or selfdefence capabilities that a single role ground attack fighter doesn't have! These are facts and again, that's the low end of new fighters, Rafale and MKI are several classes ahead of the Jags.

You seem to know more than the developers & manufacturers themselves! Sukhoi is claiming it is a strike fighter bomber and you go and claim its multirole.

Beeing a fighter bomber doesn't mean it don't have multi role capabilities and Sukhoi even states that:

The Su-32 plane is a special-purpose version of the Su-27; its production is being set up in Novosibirsk.

The two-seat Su-32 fighter-bomber is designed for tactical deployment against air, ground and naval targets (including small and mobile targets) on solo and group missions in daytime and at night, under favourable and adverse weather conditions and in a hostile environment with counter-fire and EW counter-measures deployed, as well as for air reconnaissance.
...

Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-32


And that's the difference to the Jag, which can be deployed only to ground or naval attack, has very limited self defence capability with close range missiles only, has no radar to detect air targets at all, which makes it dependent on escort fighters. All these are features of a single role dedicated ground attack fighter and not a multi role fighter (bomber) like the Su 34.

Btw, the F15 Strike Eagle, the F18SH or even the Rafale are called fighter bombers as well, because of their excellent ground attack capabilities and they still remain to be multi role fighters, by your logic they will be used for ground attack only right?

Omani Air Force.

Which want to replace them either with additional F16 B52 or EF T2 or even T3.

 

[sudhir007]

hi sancho,
why not we scape both jaguar & Mirage-2000 up-gradation deal and buy more rafale. around $2.5billion for mirage around $1b for jaguar we can properly buy around 3-4sqd which more useful then this up-gradation or induct more lca. what do you think.

 

[Su-11]

As mentioned earlier, the source in the OP is only an info site that sums up some news reports, not an official or reliable source.

How about thinking logically instead of claiming such BS? A fighter has certain numbers of hardpoints, each with a different load limit, so only because Jags might have some more payload on paper than LCA, doesn't make them carry more bombs to further distances and that's why I tried to make you understand.
In the same config, even LCA MK1 is superior, MK2 with increased payload an internal fuel capacity will be a whole different class in A2G compared to Jags, because it can carry more weapons to greater distances and can defend itself, be it with superior countermeasures, or selfdefence capabilities that a single role ground attack fighter doesn't have! These are facts and again, that's the low end of new fighters, Rafale and MKI are several classes ahead of the Jags.

WTF? So you don't trust news now? And what's with the assumption that the load carrying capacity in jaguar is because of airframe limitations, and not because of inadequate thrust? If its payload increases with additional thrust then obviously it was a thrust limitation and not airframe limitation.
I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this...
"4,400 pounds greater high – hot takeoff payload"
Honeywell : F125IN Turbofan Engine Jaguar Benefits

Beeing a fighter bomber doesn't mean it don't have multi role capabilities and Sukhoi even states that:



Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-32


And that's the difference to the Jag, which can be deployed only to ground or naval attack, has very limited self defence capability with close range missiles only, has no radar to detect air targets at all, which makes it dependent on escort fighters. All these are features of a single role dedicated ground attack fighter and not a multi role fighter (bomber) like the Su 34.

Btw, the F15 Strike Eagle, the F18SH or even the Rafale are called fighter bombers as well, because of their excellent ground attack capabilities and they still remain to be multi role fighters, by your logic they will be used for ground attack only right?

Oh God! Dude, Su-34 is a fighter-bomber whose primary role is bombing with additional Air-Air capabilities for self defence. It is NOT used for Air intercept, Air superiority, Escort or any other Air-Air specific missions! It can be deployed even-if there is a chance of Air targets suddenly popping-up close to the target-area to be bombed since it has its own self defence Air-Air suite, but it would be sheer idiocy to deploy this fighter-bomber on pure Air-Air MISSIONS actively looking for a fighter to engage! Even a F-16Block 52 would smoke it easy rather than the other way around!

The upgraded supersonic fighter-bomber Su-22M4 is designed for destruction of ground and naval surface targets in daytime and at night under favourable and adverse weather conditions, comprehensive reconnaissance and air-to-air "dogfight" combat.
Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-22

Since Su-22 can "Dogfight", can it be used in an Air Patrol role? Ofcourse not! Su-22 is a fighter-bomber, not a fuckin fighter!
And the Su-34 is replacing the Su-22! GET IT??? There is a reason why Su-34 is cheap compared to multirole fighters, because its fighter capabilities is below par to be called on for Air-Air missions! Like I said before even a F-16 has a higher chance of bringing it down rather than the other way around.

Further...

The upgraded supersonic fighter-bomber Su-22M3 is designed for destruction of ground and surface naval targets in daytime and at night under favourable and adverse weather conditions, as well as for air combat and comprehensive reconnaissance missions.
Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-22

On the world fighter market Russia’s Sukhoi is pinning its hopes, in the near future, on a substantially modernized Su-35 multi-role fighter.
Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-35

The Su-30MK aeroplane has been designed on the platform of the Su-27UB; it is in series production in Komsomolsk-on-Amur and in Irkutsk. The Su-30MK is a two-seat highly-manoeuvrable fighter designed for air-superiority and strikes at ground and naval surface targets using a variety of guided and unguided ADO, with an option of supporting group actions.
Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-30

The Su-27SK aeroplane has been developed on the platform of the Su-27, one of the best fighters in its class; it is produced in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. The Su-27SK is a highly-manoeuvrable fighter designed for air-superiority and ground attack using unguided ADO.
Sukhoi Company (JSC) - Airplanes - Military Aircraft - Su-27S

Thanks for wasting my time n00b!

 

[Storm Force]

DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE WASTING $1 billion upgrading this 3rd generation strike plane.

We should be investing in purely

SU30MKI MMRCA RAFALE & LCA MK1 & MK2 ..............nothing else

 

[arp2041]

DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE WASTING $1 billion upgrading this 3rd generation strike plane.

We should be investing in purely

SU30MKI MMRCA RAFALE & LCA MK1 & MK2 ..............nothing else

i think time is the big factor here, these are 120 planes (not a small amount) & already IAF is running short of squadron strength. There are already plans for future inductions & phase-outs, like for eg. LCA program is running late & huge nos. of it will only come in 2017-18, mmrca is the replacement for the mig-21s & su 30mki are for both adding strength & nos. to the IAF, in this delayed time schedule, if we don't upgrade these fighters they are of no use in war, also they cannot easily be replaced since they are large in nos. I think the order in which the IAF will phase-out its aircrafts would be mig-21, mig-27 than comes the jags.

 

[sancho]

hi sancho,
why not we scape both jaguar & Mirage-2000 up-gradation deal and buy more rafale. around $2.5billion for mirage around $1b for jaguar we can properly buy around 3-4sqd which more useful then this up-gradation or induct more lca. what do you think.

Because when we procured or licence produced these fighters, we paid for a service life of up to 40 years, replacing them after half the life (in case of some Jags even just 5 years) makes the costs that we paid for spares, support... a big waste. It's too simple to just take upgrade costs and compare them to procurement costs of fighters only, because the overall costs are way different. Operating Mirage for example is way less costly, the engines needs to be change less times, which are costs that needs to be added to the procurement and upgrade costs too. That's why IAF put so much effort on comparing the whole lifecycle costs of MMRCA, because their experience with Russians told them, that the costs will increase by far through the years. When you then compare the differences in capability, you will have another reason why a higher upgrade cost for certain fighters is worth it and for others not.

To get back to Jags, as I said, the darin upgrade is needed and the right way to extend their life, but since the fighter won't be capable enough for important roles, the upgrade should be limited to reduce the costs and the replacement focused on drones and UCAVs.

Thanks for wasting my time n00b!

Typical reply of someone that was proven to be completely wrong, but can't admit it.

& already IAF is running short of squadron strength.

The myth of squadron strenght is a difficult thing, on the one hand we are of course loosing numbers, but "only" at the lower end and for single role fighters. But as explained at the last page, the addition of a single LCA for example replaces not only a Mig 21, but can also replace a Jag, so IAF till 2022 or so will have lower numbers, but capabilitywise will be way more capable than today, simply because they will be able to do more with less fighters!

 

[arp2041]

The myth of squadron strenght is a difficult thing, on the one hand we are of course loosing numbers, but "only" at the lower end and for single role fighters. But as explained at the last page, the addition of a single LCA for example replaces not only a Mig 21, but can also replace a Jag, so IAF till 2022 or so will have lower numbers, but capabilitywise will be way more capable than today, simply because they will be able to do more with less fighters!

I completely agree with your point that IAF is adding quality while loosing on quantity, but many people including senior IAF personnel have pointed out that there is no replacing nos. Quality matters but so do the quantity, look at it this way, say IAF has 1 squadron of any high end plane which can replace 4-5 squadrons of low end ones (say migs), in case of an attack on that base (suppose IAF was completely taken by surprise) all the aircrafts are gone, but on the other end if we had the nos. all the planes can never be wiped out. So i would just like to say that there should be 1-on-1 replacements not 1-on-3 (even if that means one su-30 for 3 mig-21).

Also if quantity din't mattered than why USA have so many planes in there inventory, they can defeat any force in the world just by inducting some 400-500 F-22 (only stealth fighter currently).

 

[sancho]

I completely agree with your point that IAF is adding quality while loosing on quantity, but many people including senior IAF personnel have pointed out that there is no replacing nos. Quality matters but so do the quantity, look at it this way, say IAF has 1 squadron of any high end plane which can replace 4-5 squadrons of low end ones (say migs), in case of an attack on that base (suppose IAF was completely taken by surprise) all the aircrafts are gone, but on the other end if we had the nos. all the planes can never be wiped out. So i would just like to say that there should be 1-on-1 replacements not 1-on-3 (even if that means one su-30 for 3 mig-21).

Also if quantity din't mattered than why USA have so many planes in there inventory, they can defeat any force in the world just by inducting some 400-500 F-22 (only stealth fighter currently).

Nobody said that quantity doesn't matter, to take you example, when PAF attacks us today and we send all our A2A fighters to counter that attack, what's the use of 250 x Mig 27 and Jags? Can they keep PLAAF in check? Of course not! But when we have 250 additional multi role fighters, we can and still have the capability for strike roles too!

To counter PAF in general, the shrinking numbers aren't a big problem, because we increase more quality and will remain to have the edge in this field. PLAAF on the other hand has the numerical advantage and is technically very capable too, so to counter them we need both, quality and numbers. That's why I am for more LCA MK2s, Rafales, or even better FGFAs to add numbers again, while Jags should be replaced by drones and UCAVs in roles.