[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

A general question to the experts, why is the IAF operating Submarine hunters or low level bombers? Aren't they better suited to be onboard an Aircraft carrier? Lack of big carrier battle groups is clear to me but can this not be a better distribution of resources with growing size and purchasing power?

My layman's guess -

1. Situations where the risk of putting a costly asset like carrier group out outweighs the potential gains.
2. Obvious limitation of a single carrier not being able to effectively cover for all of our maritime boundaries. For anti submarine role, the reaction times are extremely tiny after a potential sighting is reported.
3. Even with 2nd carrier becoming operational - a scenario where one of the 2 is under lengthy refits, upgrades or repairs.

Redundancy is a must unless the navy itself has extremely high inventory that can cover for attrition, repair cycles.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

A general question to the experts, why is the IAF operating Submarine hunters or low level bombers? Aren't they better suited to be onboard an Aircraft carrier? Lack of big carrier battle groups is clear to me but can this not be a better distribution of resources with growing size and purchasing power?

To your question in bold -- The IAF to best of my knowledge does not operate submarine hunters. The fixed wing submarine hunters - P-8I and IL-38 and the rotary wing ASW assets - Westland Seaking and Kamov Ka-28 are all operated and maintained by the Indian Navy. As for low level bombers, yes the IAF does operate them in the form of either lo-lo strike aircraft such as Sepecat Jaguar or multi-role machines such as Su-30MKI and Mirage 2000 which have a significant and full fledged strike capability. Or did you mean something else. I hope this helps.

[MegaWhat]

Seems there was an extremely loud boom heard in certain parts of Bangalore. Some reports claiming it to be from a supersonic IAF aircraft. Anyone here heard that noise and any comments from our knowledgeable members?

[AlphaKilo]

^^^ yes I know and understand that navy operates the sub hunters but my question should have been formulated better. Why doesn't navy operate such planes from its deck that could potentially detect and hunt subs. Helis are there but range limited when compared to the big boys like Poseidon. A ucav based sub hunter could be a great boon for navy. Anyhow not relevant to this thread.

An interesting read and point of view on the MiG-27 as written by a former Pilot.

Due to the IAF’s inclination of everything western, the MIG-27 ML’s range and endurance were ridiculed when pitted against the western equivalent, the Jaguar ground attack aircraft.

https://www.financialexpress.com/def...emies/1808551/

Another video from long ago of Shiv interviewing an MiG-27 pilot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhxJwcvrOA0

I just got a news from my friends in Bangalore that they heard a loud boom over their city and a mirage like aircraft took off from HAL airport. Any sightings from any members? Was it the Tejas going super sonic?

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

I just got a news from my friends in Bangalore that they heard a loud boom over their city and a mirage like aircraft took off from HAL airport. Any sightings from any members? Was it the Tejas going super sonic?

I dont stay close to HAL Airport but heard this boom minutes after an aircraft passed above my house. But the boom was similar to thunder. I only realised its a big deal after watching kannada news channels. But apparently in a few areas it was quite shattering. But I also read unconfirmed news that HAL has claimed that they are not aware of this.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

A general question to the experts, why is the IAF operating Submarine hunters or low level bombers?

The Jaguar IMs were/are dedicated Anti-ship platforms. No.6 Sqdn IAF is a dedicated maritime squadron right from its inception (B-24s, Super Constellations, Canberras and Jaguars in Maritime role). THey were never used or meant for the anti-submarine role.

Low level bombers - because the basic premise of lying low is to avoid radar detection and Long range SAMs.

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Why doesn't navy operate such planes from its deck that could potentially detect and hunt subs.

For the simple reason not many carrier based fast jets were developed for ASW(Anti-submarine Warfare). ASW is a completely different game than AShW(Anti-Ship Warfare). ASW requires different sensors and completely different weapons for detection and under water warfare. A submerged submarine cannot be attacked by an AShMs like the Harpoon, Sea Eagle or the Exocet. The submarine either has to be depth charged or torpedoed by the attacking aircraft. From what I have read, for effective ASW, the patrolling aircraft must fly slow and that is why turboprops and helicopters are effective ASW platforms.

A surface ship like a frigate or a destroyer on the other hand can be targeted by a fighter carrying anti-ship missiles. A carrier based Super Hornet or a MiG-29K carrying AShMs can attack a ship but not a submarine (unless of course it is on the surface and detectable by the onboard radar)

I believe the last dedicated and carrier based jet engine powered ASW aircraft was the Lockheed S-3 Viking.

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

An interesting read and point of view on the MiG-27 as written by a former Pilot.

https://www.financialexpress.com/def...emies/1808551/

The bitter truth is that the Jags are till around, while the Floggers are gone.

[AlphaKilo]

Another piece of nice video on the laser guided bombing by the Mirages during Kargil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoGqRiIKXk4

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

^^^ yes I know and understand that navy operates the sub hunters but my question should have been formulated better. Why doesn't navy operate such planes from its deck that could potentially detect and hunt subs. Helis are there but range limited when compared to the big boys like Poseidon. A ucav based sub hunter could be a great boon for navy. Anyhow not relevant to this thread.

A carrier by definition is significantly constrained in deck and hangar space. You design aircraft that can fulfill the most likely role and that can fit within a constrained space. ASW cover from a carrier needs to sanitize the 100 or at the very most 150 nm radius around the carrier and not 1000 nm away. Large Helicopters such as Westland Seaking, Ka-28 and now MH-60R with an endurance of 3 to 4 hours fulfill that role quite well and fly at a speed that can mimic the sub perfectly. Theoretically you could design a long range ASW carrier borne ski jump take off aircraft with the 0.8:1.0 power to weight ratio needed and then discover you are out of space for much else and out of budget too.

Long endurance carrier borne UCAV's may come one day. The Aerodynamics of weight, size, fuel, weapons will not be any different.

An interesting read and point of view on the MiG-27 as written by a former Pilot.

I think this author writes unfairly and gripes of a Western bias which clearly IMHO did not exist. The MiG-27 had a role to plat as TASA. It did it well albeit with maintenance challenges in later life. The author here is the one wit ha bias it seems to me.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

A submerged submarine cannot be attacked by an AShMs like the Harpoon, Sea Eagle or the Exocet. The submarine either has to be depth charged or torpedoed by the attacking aircraft.

Although not very common or probably not very effective, Anti-submarine missiles do exist such as the Ikara which was an Australian ship-launched anti-submarine missile. It was essentially a missile which carried a guided torpedo.



The Russian 3M-54 Kalibr missile (also known as Club' in the west) is another example and can be launched at ships and submarines by air or surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr

More examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_missile

[Foxbat]

For people pushing for the F/A-18 for the Indian Air Force or Navy or any other US fighters:

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Claims American Fighters Are Only Useful for Airshows - Why F-18s Can’t Fight Without Washington’s Permission
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...n-s-permission

"Mahathir noted regarding the terms imposed by the U.S. on clients for its fighter aircraft that the source codes for the jets were not provided, meaning: “we cannot program the plane for any attacks against other countries without getting the programming done by Americans. So although the planes are very good, in terms of performance very powerful engines, but we cannot program the plane by ourselves. You have to refer to the United States for putting the program for any raid on foreign countries for example. So our planes were costly. We have them. We can fly them at airshows. But we cannot use them to fight any other country because we don’t get the source code.”

No wonder Pakistanis always have to deny their F-16s were used or shot down !

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

For people pushing for the F/A-18 for the Indian Air Force or Navy or any other US fighters:

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Claims American Fighters Are Only Useful for Airshows - Why F-18s Can’t Fight Without Washington’s Permission

No wonder Pakistanis always have to deny their F-16s were used or shot down !

There might be some truth to this. But also remember that the Turks have been using their F16s to bomb the kurds and intimidate Greece - both close US allies. I'd say while the jets procured from the US definitely won't be sitting ducks, they still have more strings attached than Russian or French fighters.

Also, I noticed we haven't discussed about the Eurofighter Typhoon as a potential MRCA because if we remember, the Typhoon along with the Rafale was one of the short-listed aircraft and Rafale won only because it had lower long-term costs which both Britain and Germany were ready to negotiate and bring down. Perhaps a mixed fleet of Rafales and Typhoons while expensive could increase unpredictability of the IAF?

This would be similar to our current mixed fleet of Mirage 2000s and Mig-29s. Another example is the Qatari Air Force which has ordered a mixed fleet of 36 Rafales, 36 F15Es and 24 Typhoons though they mainly did this to curry favor with Washington, London, Paris and Berlin during the Gulf crisis.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Also, I noticed we haven't discussed about the Eurofighter Typhoon as a potential MRCA because if we remember, the Typhoon along with the Rafale was one of the short-listed aircraft and Rafale won only because it had lower long-term costs which both Britain and Germany were ready to negotiate and bring down. Perhaps a mixed fleet of Rafales and Typhoons while expensive could increase unpredictability of the IAF?

Its a double edged sword without a handle IMHO. Its fine for the oil rich middle eastern countries to spend billions like this.

Remember - its not just the planes. Each weapon platform has its own associated weapon systems, inventory, licenses & technologies. Then - ground staff, maintenance facilities & manpower with platform specific maintenance capability are huge costs not visible on face value of the plane in question.

Except the diversity in suppliers, the Eurofighter doesn't bring a lot on the table to justify these added costs. Also - France and UK/Germany aren't too misaligned on policies in general so very little chance that one of them will go rogue towards India and we'll need the other's support. Even in such a scenario, France has been a far better all weather & overt ally for India compared to the others in recent past.

Rafale also has a naval variant and in future if India does go towards a CATOBAR carrier - this might be the easiest one to absorb and complement the IAF strength. In the current economic situations I think consolidating platforms and going away from too many different planes might be a better solution - which is what most developed nations are also trying in fact. That's the crux behind having a Multi-Role aircraft in itself. If one buys too many different MR fighters, the whole purpose of multi-role fighters in being cost effective gets shot down.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

"Mahathir noted regarding the terms imposed by the U.S. on clients for its fighter aircraft that the source codes for the jets were not provided, meaning: “we cannot program the plane for any attacks against other countries without getting the programming done by Americans. So although the planes are very good, in terms of performance very powerful engines, but we cannot program the plane by ourselves. You have to refer to the United States for putting the program for any raid on foreign countries for example.

Sharp cookie this guy. Good thing they made this genius Prime Minister!

Jeroen

[srini1785]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Sharp cookie this guy. Good thing they made this genius Prime Minister!

Jeroen

When you become PM at 92, it shows a lot.

Reg the planes software , i hope one day they are able to hack the region code settings like they do in Mobiles and DVD's .

[AlphaKilo]

https://youtu.be/3AHhmDwEamM

When the LCH goes beserk!! Must be a video from their gun and rocket pod testing.