TeerIf the guess is close to reality then tejas project needs to be axed and pm brought in front of inquest.2020 for service? Can’t be, makes no sense.
Its anything but close to reality, its a guess! In fact, it deliberately tends towards the extreme position just to make the point the IAF has enough on its plate all the way to 2020. See the post.
Kill tejas and move on in partnership on a single engine stealth aircraft based on tejas backbone.
Sure, good idea, which will be so easy, a “single engine stealth aircraft on Tejas backbone”, it will come in by 2030 and be such a help then! 😮
Teer^Deino, Teer can be rather… passionate on these matters.
Sorry, no passion here but just the facts!
The facts speak for themselves as versus emotional comments on disappointment and what not!
And if folks could stick to aviation as versus comments on bribery (:rolleyes:), that would be another plus..
TeerI am assuming thats with those huge external jugs? The Su-34 has been seen with external tanks, could probably be fitted to Su-30 with ease if the IAF wishes so, and would give them a combat radius superior to the Rafale.
Su-35 has also been made external tank capable, and that capability has given Carlo Kopp nightmares ever since
Teer^The MiG proposal was what the IAF was initially interested in, because it was similar to their/HAL’s own MCA proposal. That’s one of the reasons why the agreements weren’t finalised till this year: the RuAF had already decided on Sukhoi and could not afford to finance a second project, so the IAF changed its mind and decided to go with what they could get: a heavy Su-30 class fighter. Simultaneously AMCA continued as a separate program instead of being merged with PAK-FA. In the end the IAF intends to buy at least as many MCAs as FGFAs.
Witcha, unless we were part of these discussions, there is no way one can say for sure, it was the IAF that was interested in the MiG proposal, versus the MOD trying to dovetail it with the AMCA (and save money). Also the decider is the IAF planning, if the IAF was interested only in a 5G medium weight platform, their orders for the 5G PAK-FA aircraft would be much more conservative (same as MMRCA, around 5-6 squadrons).
Also medium fighters need not necessarily be short-legged. The Rafale, for instance, has a larger combat radius than the MKI.
The point is not to look at just range but payload with range, and the overall capability. A heavy fighter simply brings more to the table, in many areas than a smaller one (and loses out in cost/logistics expense). Look at the radar range est. for a new F-15 class platform for instance, versus that on the F/A-18 or the F-16
TeerOriginally Posted by Deino View Post
Just in short and I really don’t know why You are so angry with my … it nearly seems You blame me for these failures or delays !
Can you point out where I am angry or blaming you for anything? I have given logical & factual answers to each of your points, but you respond with more emotion.
My points are simple, there is no need for emotions – disappointment and etc, in all of this, given we have the facts at hand. I queried you with respect to each point as well.
Lets see, you noted the LCA would have production order issues – whereas I have clearly shown that current production numbers are still at the same level as earlier. And that more may be ordered, but we have to take into account the fact that the IAF wants more heavy fighters.
Even so, we are looking at ~200 fighters for the IAF & IN combined, plus more orders going forward.
Just in short I agree with You that it’s wise to update the requirements … to adopt more moderne systems and so on … but again the Tejas has a long, a very long way to go until it can fullfill this role.
Of course, it has a long way to go, but would you prefer that India adopted a fighter which did not meet its needs & then proceeded to withdraw it from service, or would you prefer that it stuck to the hard path?
Ideally, if India had enough money, it would have gone with both, but hard choices have to be made when the customer is very discerning & will not compromise.
You self speak of 5 Squadrons of the Mk 2 and two more of the Mk 1 + these naval birds … but WHEN ???
The Mk 1 will be used merely as a trainer to pave the way and if the predictions are correct on the Mk 2 … after 2015 ! That’s way toooooo late for the IAF, like You said. Additioanl other fighters will be needed to be operated combat ready.
Deino, the LCA MK2 is due for production from 2016 onwards. But lets even assume its delayed by 4 more years. So lets take 2020.
You state, “its way toooo late for the IAF” – but have you looked at the IAF inductions recently and its other programs?
These timelines and inductions have been decided by the developers working with the IAF, seeing the threat perception at hand.
The IAF is currently at 130 Su-30 MKIs, by 2015, they aim to double this number.
They are also upgrading their MiG-29s & Mirage 2000s (former work already underway, delivery from next year onwards), Jaguars (half of the fleet upgraded, next half due to begin next year), MiG-27s (40 already upgraded)..and the MMRCA deliveries are due to start from 2014-15 onwards..
The IAF is going to have substantial work on its hands all the way to 2020, with all the new aircraft joining the fleet (and even more, if the FGFA as planned, comes around that timeframe).
The IAF is also investing heavily into creating a world class NATO level C3I network with redundancy, AWACS and all sorts of SAM systems, and radars.
So as you can see, they are not exactly going to fall over in terms of combat capability & there are enough inductions (140 Su-30 MKI, plus MMRCA) plus upgrades and MLU (oldest Su-30s, current MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s, Jaguars) to keep them viable well into the next decade.
This is the reason why the AM above was saying “take this opportunity…to add more…” etc to the LCA, given the IAF finally has the funding and the progress above to keep its combat strength at a decent level.
Let’s cancel that project or maybe simply keep it alive as a technology demonstrator like the Lavi TD was later used in the way You said, to “develop” an independent aviation indudstry, but give the IAF a fighter it could operate.
I am sorry, but as an Indian citizen, whose tax money goes into the program, I disagree, as your idea would be the worst possible for India.
India does not need TD’s or Lavi’s – and what was the end result of the Lavi, the fact that Israel cannot manufacture combat aircraft, but has to rely on upgrades for export capability, and imports for own combat strength.
India won’t get an independent aviation industry by cancelling the LCA, it will get a severely limited one, which depends on other nations for providing complete platforms, and can only put bits and pieces on them. The end result will be, given the usual way Indian Govt operates, another decade of lost time, another few years of buck passing and finally another program would be launched, after existing infrastructure and lessons learnt, have been allowed to decay.
IMO the Indians are just learning the hard way – similar to Sens’ post – what the Chinese were learning serveral decades before … and IMO they sadly have to learn a lot (and longer) more.
India is not China & has its own dynamic & decision making capability. Besides which comparing China’s problems earlier, with what India faces today, has huge flaws. Different times, different places, and different choices to be made, not to mention different end users and what their perceptions are.
…………………
More details added:
Ref Deino, the LCA MK2 is due for production from 2016 onwards
Found the reference to the MK2, as posted by Austin & which backs up my statement above. It should have the answers to the queries posted.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1650255&postcount=591
Posting the excerpts:
Director ADA, P.S. Subramanyam
current status of the LCA programme?
We have developed 2 technology demonstrators TD-1 and TD-2; we have the four prototypes PV-1, PV-2, PV-3 and PV-4. The Limited Series Production aircraft ranging from LSP-1 to LSP-4 are all flying. TD-1, TD-2 and PV-1 have now become outdated and are used for ground testing or testing of equipment that needs to be developed for the Tejas. All the aircraft from PV-2 onwards are participating in the flying test campaign. LSP-5 is currently the final ‘Standard of Preparation’ that we will deliver to the Indian Air Force (IAF) and this aircraft is expected to fly this month. LSP-6 and LSP-7 will follow and have been earmarked for the user evaluation by pilots belonging to the Aircraft Systems and Testing Establishment (ASTE).
Both the IAF and the Indian Navy have committed some money for the Tejas Mk-2 which will be equipped with a higher performing engine. We now have a concurrent programme to develop the Tejas Mk-2 version for the IAF and the Indian Navy. The PV-5 which is a trainer version of the Tejas’ is flying and another aircraft PV-6 is expected to fly by the end of this year. The maiden flight of the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to take place in December 2014 and production will begin in December 2016.
What is the configuration of the LSP versions and what changes will Mk-2 versions entail?
Equipment-fit LSP-wise is in the final standard of preparation for the IAF. All the sensors, communication equipment and weapons required for the current Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) are present. Also since we were designing a fighter of this class for the first time, we were very conservative in the design. Especially when it came to structural strength characteristics and this has lead to an increase in weight. Weight optimisation will be undertaken for the Tejas Mk-2 variant to reduce its weight. The Mk-2 version will also have better Centre of Gravity (CG) management and maintainability features. Within the programme feasibility, we will be revamping the cockpit electronics to bring it more up to date with technologies that will be prevalent around 2016. There will be advanced electronics, improved cockpit displays and interfaces which will remain contemporary even in the 2020’s.
The Tejas Mk-2 will feature an alternate engine which will offer a performance increase of about 10 per cent. The engine change for Mk-2 will result in the rear fuselage being changed and intakes having to be redesigned. All these structural changes will also reflect in drawing changes and parts fabrication. The digital Fly by Wire (FBW) Flight Control System (FCS) will not change. We do not see much impact when it comes to hydraulics, electronics and undercarriage, etc. With regards to the developmental programme this will not be a major impact.
This should answer all your queries about changes etc, and is from the program director himself
TeerI wouldn’t exactly say the MMRCA has ‘picked up pace’ when the deadlines keep getting extended again and again, none of the participants are formally eliminated and the threat of getting cancelled due to allegations of irregularities is ever-present.
Picked up pace as compared to earlier, when there was no clear support for the program.
Right now, trials have been held, the trial results have been submitted, and the process is being logically pursued. This gives the IAF confidence that it can count on fighters being delivered by the 2014-15 timeframe.
Such a complex, multi-Billion $ tender is surely not going to be simple, or a video game, with everything over in a few hours. There is a lot of way to go in the MMRCA, including detailed Commercial negotiations, and detailed work around costing, infrastructure and production. But that is to be expected for such a large program.
Conceded on the FGFA, though being the only fifth-gen fighter project in development and with a certain future(at this point) the IAF would want as many as they could order.
The IAF had the option of pushing the Russians to go with a medium weight alternative using the earlier MiG proposal, or waiting for the JSF. And with the item in development, for lower risk, logically, they would have only committed to a few to begin with. Instead of which they pushed for investment into the program as a JV, and planned for such large numbers to begin with, at the same level or even more than the Su-30’s. This is a clear indication of the importance Heavy Fighters have come to gain in the IAF’s planning.
Again – look at what the IAF Chief has said. That requires long range, persistent fighter platforms. The IAF goes for capabilities, and then chooses its equipment to match.
Teer1.How many Gripen C could have been bought for assembly in India for the money spent for the Tejas in the meanwhile?!
2.Contrary to the Chinese the Indians do not belive in their own capabilities or are willing to pay for the expertise in need.
3.There is no first class equipment for third class prices to built or to buy including the common bribery in India. 😡
1. Irrelevant, as buying the Gripen would have done little for India, as compared to the LCA which has done a lot to boost its aerospace capability.
2. Indians do believe in their own equipment and are willing to invest in its development and do order it once it is developed. Otherwise, there would be no continuation of the Kaveri program, or the LCA MK2.
Sample examples:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/03/army-opts-for-nag-missile-as-it-enters.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?topicName=india&id=news/awx/2010/06/09/awx_06_09_2010_p0-233041.xml&headline=Akash%20Missile%20System%20For%20Indian%20Army%20OK%27d
3. Yes, budgeting is a problem with India’s domestic programs and its local programs constantly struggle with it, but with growing economic progress there will be more money available (including bribery :p ).
TeerI have a suspicion the multiple MKI repeat orders owed more to the IAF’s frustration on the slow progress in acquiring more medium fighters after their original Mirage-2000 request was replaced with the MMRCA tender. Being a ‘repeat/follow-on’ of an already-signed current contract the Su-30s would be relatively immune to political controversy over a single-vendor deal.
Thats partly true (for the first 40 additional orders) but not the only reason, because even with the MMRCA picking up pace, they have asked for 40 more Su-30 Flankers (taking the overall numbers upto 270). Its a clear indication of the IAF looking at the value the Flanker brings to the table and ordering as many as they can, as soon as possible.
Also, look at their signing up for the 5G PAK FA, and the estimated orders placed at 250-300, this is a clear support for the Heavy Fighter concept. I would also point to the statements of the Air Chief, PV Naik namely:
“India’s area of responsibility extends from the Strait of Hormuz to the Malacca Straits and beyond. This will happen in the future. We see what capability is required to meet this aspiration and accordingly modernisation and procurements are planned.”
Simply put, heavy fighters are here to stay.
TeerAm I right in thinking that the Mk1 is too under-powered to perform well as a fighter and too heavy to carry a useful weapons load as a strike aircraft? If so, is it still a suitable MiG21 replacement? If it is, I suggest the IAF order a load more to maintain squadron strength in spite of its shortcomings. Given the Mk2 time line suggested by the air marshal, I suspect that the IAF will otherwise need to order a lot more MMRCA’s than intended. If the IAF ends up with 250 or so MMRCA on order, how many Mk2 Tejas will it need?
Spitfire, the LCA MK1 post FOC will be superior to the MiG-21 Bison in most key areas.
Lets consider the payload as being capped at 2.5Tons to keep the rest for fuel to get to a MTOW, just to take worst case assumptions into account throughout.
Lets take each BVR missile as ~300 Kg (225Kg for a RVV-AE +75 for the pylon) – 600 Kg for two, and 180 kgs for a R-73E, so 360Kgs for two. Total weight equal to 1 T. The LCA can still carry ~1T worth of fuel, and still not be at MTOW.
In contrast, the MiG-21 Bison, currently the IAF’s best light fighter, will be severely range limited (not as much external fuel and range on internal fuel < LCA) if all the above armaments are carried.
Second, quality of sensors – the LCA’s radar range is double that of the Bisons. The LCA will also carry the latest RWJ (Radar Warning Jamming Suite) versus MiG-21 Bison which only has the first Tarang RWR, and has a HMS (Elbit Dash) versus the HMCS on the Bison (Sura-K).
Whatever, I posted above holds true for A2G as well, with the LCA carrying heavy LGBs, having Litening capability (already demonstrated on way to IOC) and unguided dumb bomb/rocket capability. The LCA radar will have a greater A2G capability than the Bisons aperture limited Kopyo set as well.
The LCA has far better ergonomics as well, with an all glass cockpit and HMS, whereas the Bison only has the one HUD and MFD to use.
The only area where the Bison will be superior to the LCA MK1 is that it has a stated Kh-25 ARM capability. But even this or a similar missile from a foreign vendor can be integrated, if its deemed critical. With the IAF Su-30 MKI having Kh-31 capability, this is no great shakes.
The reason why the IAF is only ordering two squadrons of LCA MK1 is simple, why spend on the MK1 when the MK2 is coming, and complicate logistics by keeping two classes of aircraft when the latter is to bring more capability.
The IAF order of 40 LCA MK1 is to keep HAL production running, till the MK2 arrives. But if there are delays in the MMRCA or the like, an additional MK1 order is entirely possible.
In the past, the IAF has tended to place repeat orders for aircraft in production once it gets familiar with them.
If the currently proposed GE414 Mk2 Tejas will not be available until near the end of the decade, my thinking is that it would have been better to redesign the Kaveri, increasing thrust to a level adequate for Mk2 Tejas and MCA and to design the Tejas Mk2 around the redesigned Kaveri.
The Kaveri was always the highest risk component of the LCA program, and with then available funding, a bridge too far. Why put the risk back into the LCA MK2 when there are opportunities available for the Kaveri-Snecma 90Kn class engine?
For one, the first LCA MK1s can be re-engined with it, plus there is the MCA.
TeerAgreed, but – honestly – admitted I’m disappointed !
Disappointed with what exactly? Lets look at each of your questions in turn.
What was the original aim to develop the LCA ??? … when was it’s first flight ???
The larger strategic aim of the LCA was to develop an Indian aerospace industry, which it has, as seen from the multiple programs to develop trainers, business aircraft and what not. So lets leave that aside, and focus on the operational needs.
Its original aim was to replace the MiG-21s, with an aircraft that offered Mirage 2000/MiG-29 capabilities albeit in a compact, scaled down platform, that met the MiG-21 airbase footprint (so as to utilize existing AF infrastructure). This was at a time when the PLAAF had next to nothing in terms of modern airframes, and only Pak’s F-16 acquisition was the critical threat.
Today, with changing threat perceptions, the IAF expects more of the aircraft. So, can you tell me as to why they should not think so?
And now years later and even if each and every other project in other countries had similar delays and so on, I’ve lost all ym hope that the Tejas will reach operational service in reasonable numbers (and not just as a third-ranked aircraft) in the IAF.
It is your prerogative to lose hope or retain it, but common sense says that when India is acquiring 99 engines at great expense
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories728.htm
It is doing so for a reason, namely that the IAF has asked for FIVE squadrons of LCA MK2 to begin with. I also refer you to the IAF Chief of Air Staff’s recent interview where he states, that after 20 LCA MK1 have been ordered, the case for another 20 LCA MK1 are being processed.
So thats 7 squadrons of the LCA as confirmed orders for the Indian Air Force.
That apart, the Indian Navy has asked for production slots for 57 Naval LCAs.
So what exactly are reasonable numbers? In my view, the current production run of the LCA is fully in line with the original estimates of 220 aircraft, only difference being a handful of LCA squadrons are instead going to the Navy.
Now lets look at the “third ranked aircraft” – which comment is also pretty bizarre as it was first posted by a poster above.
The Indian Air Force has historically relied on a fleet of
1.MiG-21s – around 600 + comprising 70% of the operative fleet
2.
MiG-23variants – around 100
MiG-27s- around 100
MiG-29s -around 70
Jaguars – around 100
Mirage 2000s-around 40, now 50
Of these, the IAF classified 1 (MiG-21s) as light, and 2. as Medium weight aircraft.
But with the growth of the PLAAF & the adoption of the Flanker, the IAF has had to re-evaluate its force composition to a new Heavy-Medium-Light structure.
So now, the IAF anticipates:
1. Heavy combat aircraft
~270 Flanker-H (almost all coming from erstwhile MiG-21 numbers)
2. Medium
~126-189 MMRCA (replacing similar numbers of retired MiG-23/27 types)
3. Light
~140 -200 est. LCA (replacing the 125 Upgraded Bisons and other types)
As you can see, there will be another shortfall once the MiG-27 Upgrades (40), Jaguars, Mirage 2000 & MiG-29 retire. These will be replaced by a combination of the 5G PAK-FA and the MCA follow on to the LCA.
There is a gradual trend of the IAF adding more airframes to the “Heavy” category, this has come at the expense of the light & medium categories, but it was to be expected, with the capabilities a Su-27 class airframe brings, plus the fact that the PLAAF is not sitting still either.
So what exactly is the issue of the LCA being “third ranked” or whatever? Its akin to being upset that the F-15 offers more capabilities than the F-16 or that the Eurofighter trumps the Tornado F3?
Yes, I’m disappointed especially in comparison of the own Indian expectations ..
Care to rephrase this? What exactly are you disappointed about? That the Indian expectations change? Would you prefer they remained static, and that the IAF did not change its force structure and only relied on Light Fighters?
If so, you are being unrealistic. It was only a matter of time, before the developments elsewhere caught up with Indian requirements. In India, to save cost, and pass political budgeting, there was a great trend for “light this, light that” in order to be cheap, and inexpensive. As an Indian taxpayer, I am glad that they are adding more capabilities to the LCA to make it more combat effective, than relying on threat projections circa 1985-1986, which laid a great stress on maneuverability and agility, but not so much on payload and onboard equipment.
The LCA will have onboard defensive EW equipment, a fully modern AI radar, proper BVR armament, a decent range, plus state of the art close combat missiles (Python-5/R-73E) plus IFR & OBOGS.
I much prefer it, to the earlier LCA which was planned around R-60 MKs, “possible IFR”, limited A2G capability (with only limited modes in the radar), and basically built around point defense capability.
It will remain relevant for far longer in the IAF and actually serve as a proper tool.
TeerBeyond the speculation about what the MK2 may or may not contain, I found this depiction of operational usage to be pretty interesting:
The LCA will be a frontline fighter capable of protecting itself and carrying out a useful strike role. But its theatre of operations will depend on the threat levels it will face. If we develop the LCA Mk-2 with the necessary Electronic Warfare (EW) and countermeasure dispensing capability, I don’t see why it cannot be used in any theatre of war. Given our geographical size and the need to face two fronts, we still need numbers with the IAF talking about 40 squadrons. The LCA will be the 3rd tier after the Su-30 MKI/FGFA and MMRCA. The IAF says that they will take 40 LCA Mk-1 aircraft and those aircraft are important for the simple reason that it will enable both ADA and HAL to obtain spares consumption data as to how many maintenance hours are required per flying hour. This data can be accumulated by using the LCA Mk-1 over this decade to put product support in place. The hope is that by the time the LCA Mk-2 is ready to enter service; all these problems would have been ironed out. The LCA Mk-1 could also be used to create an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) if required to feed pilots into the system as the IAF will be inducting large numbers of aircraft over the next two decades. The LCA Mk-1 will serve the IAF extremely well for at least the next three decades.
This is virtually a repeat of the Su-30K to Su-30 MKI experience, with the IAF first gaining experience of the Flanker platform with the K including capabilities and maintenance, and then getting to the large scale production of the more advanced type.
And after the MK2 start arriving, the MK1 can remain useful in the OCU role, similar to how the Su-30K’s trained pilots for conversion onto the Su-30 MKI squadrons
TeerDeino,
Don’t know why you are surprised/worried as this article is exploratory, the article has more context, beyond the eye catching title from the journo (and it seems he succeeded).
In a nutshell, the AM notes he is unsure about the effect of these changes and proposes additional ones. There is no surety that his wide ranging suggestions will be adopted, either.
Note:
Will the weight go up, will they add more fuel, will the aircraft be able to offer the performance demanded by the IAF with an engine offering more thrust and higher fuel consumption are questions I cannot answer, as these details have not been made public. We could however use this opportunity ..
Having said that, there will be some changes, as we’ve noted in the past about how the MK2 will have more advanced avionics and items, such as an AESA radar, an internal EW suite and other items, all of which of course have associated weight.
Some of these items are also contributors to the current weight gain itself for the first 40 MK1 (EW and structural changes), so the actual weight additions to the MK2 will be mostly in the form of additional fuel (a likely development given the more powerful engine) and some tweaking for more weapons carriage (another possibility).
The choice of the GE414/EJ200 was done taking into account any possible growth in weight between MK1 and MK2 and besides which the developers also aim to shave some 300-400 kgs in weight from the MK1 to MK2 in terms of optimizing the structure.
This can then be used to offset any weight gains from strengthening the structural elsewhere (additional weapons), additional avionics, fuel etc.
As matter of fact, the EJ200 met the thrust requirements itself, but the Ge414 has more thrust still.
Teer^^ None of that is necessarily a stopper.
A.With huge numbers of A2A capable platforms being inducted, the IAF can do with a handful of A2G oriented platforms with self protection capability (R-73E w/HMCS), EW aids, MAWS and RWRs automatically triggering defensive aids. Active Defence Suppression capability is also available for the Su-25 (ARMs).
2. I have already explained why Su-30/Mirage 2000s with PGMs are not the answer, in my opening post. If you are still unclear about the differences in mission requirements, read the links which have an overview of the requirements/differences.
1. I think LGBs are fine, but for close support we do need some A-10 type aircraft, which can get really low and support the troops with strafing runs and what not. Reason I am saying this is because in fights at very close range and/or at high altitudes where bomb ballistics can be iffy, we need aircraft able to operate very close to own troops without harming them.
2. Low flying slower aircraft will be better than an aircraft at ~10,000 feet lobbing bombs. And in which case, the aircraft has to be armoured all around, and with simplified systems which can take more battle damage.
3. In case there is a very heavy threat perception, the Su-25 can also be made Litening capable, and target from medium altitudes. In the Su-25, the pilot has reduced visibility thanks to positioning, but that can be offset with investing in additional optics in the aircraft, like the MiG-35 has, and since the basic aircraft itself is simple and cheap, these costs should not add up to too much.
3.I have already addressed the claim that ” Any additional tactical A2G capability can be provided by attack helos” – noting “The other options are to depend on close combat helicopters (very vulnerable to ground fire)”. In more detail, they are extremely vulnerable to integrated Air Defenses when there is not ample time for proper mission planning. Helicopters are good for opening strikes and even SEAD/DEAD when time is available to determine targets & avoid air defense, in a fluid battle zone, with heavy SAM/AA cover, they are more vulnerable than fast movers.
33 Apache helicopters were ordered to move out ahead of the 3rd Infantry Division and to attack an Iraqi Republican Guard regiment in the suburbs of Karbala. Meeting heavy fire from small arms and shoulder-mounted rocket-propelled grenades, the Apaches flew back to base, 30 of them shot up, several disablingly so. One helicopter was shot down in the encounter, and its two crewmen were taken prisoner.
TeerA very good link on the Su-25 (and other aircraft as well)
http://www.vectorsite.net/avsu25.html
Selected quotes:
The Americans helped revive the Soviet jet Shturmovik. The Vietnam War was a wake-up call to the US military, demonstrating that the flashy futuristic technologies developed in the 1950s didn’t always do the job in a dirty war fought in the mud and jungle. One of the lessons learned there was that rugged, relatively slow, heavily-armed attack aircraft, such as the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, were much better suited to mudfighting than supersonic fighter-bomber aircraft.
The Su-25 had two fuel tanks in the fuselage and a fuel tank in each wing, providing a total internal fuel capacity of 3,660 liters (966 US gallons). The internal fuel tanks were all self-sealing. There was no provision for inflight refueling. While initial production Su-25s used the R-95 turbojet engine, very late production examples used the improved R-195 turbojet, which provided slightly greater thrust and was specifically designed for combat survivability, with the ability to soak up considerable battle damage and keep on running. Fit of the R-195 required minor changes to the engine nacelles.
Too much of interest to quote, so please read through the link for the proper context.
Discovery on Su-25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0mE_BCj-eg&feature=related
Should have some good footage
Teerhey, I am not in favour of the harriers either ! :p
the LCA’s are the best bet for that role, in addition to helicopters. if needed we might even field a version with armour plating around cockpit and engine.
You are right, that was Kramer. I think LGBs are fine, but for close support we do need some A-10 type aircraft, which can get really low and support the troops with strafing runs and what not. Reason I am saying this is because in fights at very close range and/or at high altitudes where bomb ballistics can be iffy, we need aircraft able to operate very close to own troops without harming them. Low flying slower aircraft will be better than an aircraft at ~10,000 feet lobbing bombs. And in which case, the aircraft has to be armoured all around, and with simplified systems which can take more battle damage. I find the Su-25 to be perfect for that role. I think the IAF should have at least 3-5 squadrons worth of Su-25s, that can do this role, and in case there is a very heavy threat perception, the Su-25 can also be made Litening capable, and target from medium altitudes. In the Su-25, the pilot has reduced visibility thanks to positioning, but that can be offset with investing in additional optics in the aircraft, like the MiG-35 has, and since the basic aircraft itself is simple and cheap, these costs should not add up to too much.
I agree though, that these aircraft will face a lot of resistance.
The A-10 in ODS, a larger, slower aircraft:
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/
Often exposed to withering anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missile threats the slow, highly maneuverable A-10’s incurred extensive combat battle damage during Desert Storm. Five A-10s were lost in action, another destroyed attempting to land at KKMC Forward Operating Location #1 after being badly battle damaged, nearly twenty more sustained significant battle damage and many others incurred minor damage.
In all, about 70, roughly half of the total A-10 force supporting Desert Storm, suffered some type of battle damage, and six brave A-10 pilots lost their lives.
Su-25 seems to be a reasonably mature type with significant operational experience.
Quotes from Wiki, didnt have time to vet, but corrections welcome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25#Operational_history
Over the course of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Su-25s launched a total of 139 guided missiles of all types against Mujahideen positions. On average, each aircraft performed 360 sorties a year, a total considerably higher than that of any other combat aircraft in Afghanistan. By the end of the war, nearly 50 Su-25s were deployed at Afghan airbases, carrying out a total of 60,000 sorties. Between the first deployment in 1981 and the end of the war in 1989, 21 aircraft were lost in combat operations.[18]
Iran–Iraq War
The Su-25 also saw combat during the Iran–Iraq War of 1980–1988. The first Su-25s were commissioned by the Iraqi Air Force in 1987 and performed approximately 900 combat sorties throughout the course of the war, carrying out the bulk of Iraqi air attack missions. During the most intense combat of the war, Iraqi Su-25s were performing up to fifteen sorties per day each. In one recorded incident, an Iraqi Su-25 was shot down by an Iranian Hawk surface to air missile, but the pilot managed to eject. This was the only confirmed successful Iranian attack against an Iraqi Su-25. After the war, Saddam Hussein decorated all of the Iraqi Air Force’s Su-25 pilots with the country’s highest military decoration.[18]
2008 South Ossetia War
Main article: 2008 South Ossetia WarIn August 2008, Su-25 planes were used by both Georgia and Russia during the 2008 South Ossetia war. Su-25s of the Georgian Air Force participated in providing air support for troops during Battle of Tskhinvali and launched bombing raids on targets in South Ossetia.[3] Russian military Su-25 undertook air raids on targets in Georgia.[25] The Russian military officially confirmed the loss of three Su-25 aircraft to the Georgian air defense, though the Moscow Defense Brief suggests four.[26][27] Russia estimates that it destroyed three Georgian Su-25s in the war.[26][28] The 3 Russian planes were reportedly downed by Georgian Buk-M1 air defence units.[29] Georgian Su-25s were able to operate at night.[29] In early August 2008, Russian Su-25s attacked the Tbilisi aircraft plant, where the Su-25 is produced, dropping bombs on the factory’s airfield.[30]
The other options are to depend on close combat helicopters (very vulnerable to ground fire), and 4G+ aircraft with extensive investment into optics and advanced PGMs (expensive and limited in usage). Say, Rafale with AASM & Damocles versus Su-25 w/rocket pods, former has the edge in survivability no doubt, but India needs sufficient numbers to adequately support the Army, where its artillery cannot compensate.
Sign In
