Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 874
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby RKumar » 02 May 2017 15:08

Problem Statement: Do we require a strategic long range bomber keeping an eye on super expensive acquisition costs?

What is strategic long range bomber, as per wiki Strategic bomber

Admin: Please excuse, if you think it is wrong then please lock and 50 hunter to this poor mango SRDE!!

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 874
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby RKumar » 02 May 2017 15:21

shiv wrote:RKumar I believe you have ignored the elephant in the room. Repair. Everything can be repaired, Runways are repaired, Roads are repaired. Tracks are re laid. The wrong buildings or decoys are hit making the attack a failure. There have to be repeat visits from recce aircraft as well as attack aircraft. Satellite images may not work in areas that are designed to stay stealthy under sat observation.

The idea of single attacks doing the job after which one can wash his hands off is too unusual and too unrealistic to be the norm. And to get back to a clichéd and well discussed issue, but in deference to ramana's request - I will mention for the last time on this thread that the history of "heavy bombers" is a history of failing to achieve what they were meant to do.


Sir that elephant is in the room under all cases, no matter how we bomb these target with planes, missiles or with bomber. Eventually everything will be repaired but how long it takes is the question? How badly we damage it? How big is the damaged area? How frequently we can bomb it? Do we bomb only plane shelters or whole airbase including support equipment, water tanks, canteen, ammo depot, power generators etc etc?

Someone was saying, why not use the missiles. Problem is during war, these are available only in limited quantity and takes time to build new ones. You dont care about cost anyway so it is mute to say that expensive to get hold. On top, advanced factories might be already bombed. But producing simple gravity bombs produced in normal industrial sheds is relatively easy.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7610
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2017 16:32

Missiles are easy to produce as well, and can be fired from far away, with MUCH smaller CEP. Dlagon appears to have a long range bomber fleet (probably Xerox of Russian Bears) which is quite threatening. But I feet better investments is in short, dark, rice eating missiles. You can distribute their launch platforms, put long-range fuel tanks on each one if you please, and send them 2000 miles for pin-point delivery- give each one a cell-phone with Off-Network Google maps downloaded. They can shoot down 7 out of 10 heavy bombers, but can they shoot down 700 out of 1000 individual remote-piloted/ autonomous UAVs skimming along at 200 meters? Plus, can they hit 1000 "airbases" which may consist of one Ambassador car or Mahindra Bolero each? The mental block that people have is range, but all you need is a fuel tank. MUCH more efficient than a bomber with a crew of 7 etc. B-52 raids with Carpet Bombing look very impressive, but except for killing civilians and creating vastly more hatred, I don't see the point.
I would say that 80% of the cost and maybe 30% of the weight of the B-2 is in trying to protect it (plus the crew).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16659
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 02 May 2017 19:16

The basic problem is that "hundreds of UCAVs" are unlikely to arrive anytime soon and even the most powerful nations maintain their manned bombers because of the human element. A stray nuclear-armed UCAV could ignite WW3. Missiles too are exceptionally expensive and once fired are a total write off. When APJAK's dream "re-usable" missile /vehcile willa rrive is anyone's guess. What its payload and range too will be is unknown. But what is know and seen with greater visibility today is the sight of legacy B-52s and TU-95/142s merrily making their way across the skies,testing UK/US defences at will.
It mystifies me why the IN swiftly retired our TU-142 fleet,which had served for over two decades without incident, From the wish for 4 more P-8Is,it is clear who was behind the retirement! The PRC and other nations like OZ will be mightily pleased that our ultra-ranged bears are no longer in service.

I've repeatedly said it and will say it again. We will have to repent at leisure if we do not swiftly acquire a strat. bomber capability.Our second strike SSBN capability will take several years more before we have the req. no. of SSBNs and a suitable ICBM to match. Land based BMs can be located and could face losses in a pre-emptive strike. The three legs of the triad are all required. Imagine if suddenly a paranoid NoKo targets us too in a tri-partite deal with China and Pak? These strat. bombers also have a secondary and almost as important task,that of LR maritime strike. Destroying the PLAN's CBG before it enters the IOR will be a definite objective for the IN in any spat with China.China will attempt to have a permanent IOR flotilla based out of Gwadar. Its main SSBN base at Hainan needs to be sanitised in any spat,along with its battle groups in the Indo-China Sea. and would require a coordinated air and naval attack to achieve greater success. Our P-8Is are merely ASWpatrol birds which cannot carry the desired munitions for such a task.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby JayS » 02 May 2017 19:32

ShauryaT wrote:
JayS wrote:I simply don't see bombers dropping 100s of bombs on cities. Thats so WW2. Its not gonna happen. I also think that war will go nuclear if that happens. At least we *should* have our threshold to that level. Anyone trying to erase our cities will be nuked. If our nukes can't stop that then they are useless. We should do to Chinese what Pakis do to us. Have lower thresholds for escalation.

Frankly I don't see conventional wars extending beyond borders between any of the big countries, surely not the nuclear powers. Perhaps in WW3. But not in bilateral wars. Wars will be relatively short and limited. Killing lots of people wouldn't really give you as much as you might get in few well co-ordinated pin-point attacks on key installations, in short wars.

Presumes a very low threshold for nuclear war which equals mass destruction not matched by conventional weapons. Also presumes, nuclear weapons in the hands of India for escalation dominance. Both of these are very unlikely aspects of use of nuclear weapons by India. Goes against every known paradigm of thinking on use of nuclear weapons between India and a threatening power.

We have bombers, nuclear, missiles, munitions, ORBAT, all being discussed in this thread now :)

Added: I think people who do not buy into "a role" for a strategic bomber underestimate the capacity to pursue conventional war. Sustained campaigns are what is needed to achieve meaningful objectives, of even 50 cruise missiles on an airfield is like a slap on the wrist. Ever factored the cost of these cruise missiles.


May be this is better place to discuss this.

If we have enemy bombers bombing our cities with truckload of bombs (which was the context of the post), I think that means we would have lost air dominance over our own space already. Don't you think so..?? If we have lost air space, it means we are in deep shit and high probability we will lose the war eventually. Would we still keep fighting conventional war..? If this is very low, then what is our Nuclear threshold then exactly..? How many cities destroyed and how many crore people killed before we take out our N-weapons..??

Agree on the cost associated with CMs. But CMs are not the only thing. We have PGMs. We have dumb bombs loaded on multirole fighters. Su-30s have respectable load capacity.

Question is do we really need strategic bombers if our defense doctrine is one of self-defense and not that of long range power projection..?? What is the utility of big lumbering bombers in a hotly contested airspace..?? What is the cost of developing LR bombing capability which not only includes big bombers but also long range fighter escorts, tankers, AWACS cover, satellite coverage for COM links, guidance, navigation, recce etc all the supporting logistics..?? Can we use this elsewhere which will give us better bang for the buck in near future..?? And can we not cover the gap by lowering out N-threshold a little..??


PS: I do think we should explore strategic bombers from the perspective of power projection in future. But I really doubt their use as bomb trucks in the kind of limited wars we will likely to have in near future if at all, which will be limited to borders and hotly contested airspace, IMO.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby JayS » 02 May 2017 19:43

Food for thought: Does India have any utility of Strategic bomber as a standoff N-weapon delivery which will be loitering on enemy border while we play diplomacy games to avoid the conflicts, as of today or in near future, say next 2 decades..?

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2912
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Karthik S » 02 May 2017 19:45

In our context, having a dozen or so Tu 22 or 160 in a naval role is good and advisable.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 02 May 2017 20:06

I want to post a few pointers about "strategic bombing campaigns" which have always been led by "strategic bombers" - heavy bombers carying lots of bombs and able to carry outsize bombs for unusual tasks. There are PLENTY of links to analyses of teh strategic bombing campaign in WW2, I just picked one at random because I could not find my copy of Bomber Harri's book. i seem to have lost or misplaced three very precious ww2 books - one from Bilayat, one German and one Japanese. But let me not digress further

This one:
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0 ... thesis.pdf
The aim of the strategic bombing campaign over Germany was to try and win the war without a ground invasion. They wanted to do do 6 months bombing for that. That did not work and did not happen. That aside many of the goals of reducing strategic industrial production also did not work. It had some effect though but the ground invasions was necessary and the bombing campaign was a failure in many respects.

Next Vietnam. The statistics are even more interesting (more easy to find - they are there for ww2 as well)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11954.pdf
“The United States Air Force dropped in Indochina, from 1964 to August 15, 1973, a total of
6,162,000 tons of bombs and other ordnance. U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aircraft expended
another 1,500,000 tons in Southeast Asia. This tonnage far exceeded that expended in World War
II and in the Korean War. The U.S. Air Force consumed 2,150,000 tons of munitions in World
War II – 1,613,000 tons in the European Theater and 537,000 tons in the Pacific Theater – and
454,000 tons in the Korean War.”
[..]
Given the prewar Vietnamese population of approximately 32 million, U.S. bombing translates into
hundreds of kilograms of explosives per capita during the conflict. For another comparison, the atomic
bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the power of roughly 15,000 and 20,000 tons of TNT,
respectively (Grolier 1995). Since general purpose bombs – by far the most common type of bomb used
in Vietnam and in our dataset – are approximately 50% explosive material by weight, each atomic bomb
translates into roughly 30,000 to 40,000 tons of such munitions. Measured this way, U.S. bombing in
Indochina represents 100 times the combined impact of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs.

From here:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/cou ... -war-11270
Strategic

The Rolling Thunder strategic bombing campaign sought to destroy Hanoi’s will to fight by steadily increasing the costs of its unification efforts. Rolling Thunder failed, in large part, because the United States insufficiently understood the nature of the North Vietnamese commitment, and had no good appreciation of how to adjust Hanoi’s cost-benefit calculus.

Could a differently structured campaign have had more of an effect? Unlikely. Rolling Thunder barely shook Hanoi’s control of the North Vietnamese countryside, and the US bombing actually strengthened hardliners. North Vietnam’s war effort depended on its ability to draw supplies from three sources; China, the Soviet Union, and the South Vietnamese countryside. Rolling Thunder couldn’t touch any of these, or at least not for any prolonged period of time. With respect to North Vietnamese morale, there is little indication that a broader or more extensive campaign would have undercut the ability of the Hanoi regime to control its population.
[..]
One of the biggest lessons of the Vietnam War was that strategic bombing campaigns don’t work, even when they’re conducted on a huge scale by major, modern air forces against weak foes. There’s little reason to imagine that configuring the strategic campaign differently would have made much of a difference.


Do we need "strategic bombers?

No. Let Discovery channel not convince us otherwise

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 02 May 2017 20:14

If any nation attacks our cities with a "strategic bombing campaign" using conventional bombers and missiles and lays our cities and industries waste we would be stupid not to use nukes.

Do not misunderstand this. What i am saying is that if we are idiotic enough to try and copy Amreeka and have "strategic bombers" with puny conventional bombs to bomb cities of a nuclear armed nation that nation would be full justified in nuking us.

In the nuclear era, for a nuclear armed state - there is absolutely NO reason to suffer a conventional bombing campaign for weeks. Just nuke the shit out of the mofos who do that. The US has done that to weakling states with no nukes. Let is see what they do in Korea.

There is no excuse for us to masturbate using heavy bombers when we have nuclear armed neighbours - not wimpy pipsqueaks

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 20:14

JayS wrote:Question is do we really need strategic bombers if our defense doctrine is one of self-defense and not that of long range power projection..?? What is the utility of big lumbering bombers in a hotly contested airspace..?? What is the cost of developing LR bombing capability which not only includes big bombers but also long range fighter escorts, tankers, AWACS cover, satellite coverage for COM links, guidance, navigation, recce etc all the supporting logistics..?? Can we use this elsewhere which will give us better bang for the buck in near future..?? And can we not cover the gap by lowering out N-threshold a little..??


PS: I do think we should explore strategic bombers from the perspective of power projection in future. But I really doubt their use as bomb trucks in the kind of limited wars we will likely to have in near future if at all, which will be limited to borders and hotly contested airspace, IMO.
I agree with you that strat bombers are partly for power projection, but if India is not seeking to project power then it is selling itself short. The effects of selling short are visible in missed opportunities and unable to meet threats. Bombers are only one small equation.

As for use of bombers as bomb trucks, my view is it goes along with a country's appetite for sustained war itself and admittedly India is not prepared for such sustained war, leading some to even question if Indian wars are wars at all? But times of changed. Our adversaries are increasingly acquiring lethal fire power in many modes. Granted air dominance is a pre-requsite but such dominance does not have to be complete across the entire spectrum 24*7. A time and space bound opportunity can be created for use of such bomb trucks no?

If we just presume that any large scale bombing will just turn nuclear, takes the fun out of conventional war and more importantly its purpose. We are putting to question the entire value and role of conventional war itself to some degree. It is a valid point but is that how most military planners presume these things?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 20:18

JayS wrote:Food for thought: Does India have any utility of Strategic bomber as a standoff N-weapon delivery which will be loitering on enemy border while we play diplomacy games to avoid the conflicts, as of today or in near future, say next 2 decades..?
Need it today and need it now, both to threaten PLAN assets conventionally over waters and if opportunity provides a role over the border too and a triad option against PRC is essential. A strategic bomber with a nuclear stand off ALCM is the only realistic way to do it. IMO.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 20:20

shiv wrote:If any nation attacks our cities with a "strategic bombing campaign" using conventional bombers and missiles and lays our cities and industries waste we would be stupid not to use nukes.

Do not misunderstand this. What i am saying is that if we are idiotic enough to try and copy Amreeka and have "strategic bombers" with puny conventional bombs to bomb cities of a nuclear armed nation that nation would be full justified in nuking us.

In the nuclear era, for a nuclear armed state - there is absolutely NO reason to suffer a conventional bombing campaign for weeks. Just nuke the shit out of the mofos who do that. The US has done that to weakling states with no nukes. Let is see what they do in Korea.

There is no excuse for us to masturbate using heavy bombers when we have nuclear armed neighbours - not wimpy pipsqueaks
Please show me some Indian military planner / policy thinking to indicate the above thought process.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 02 May 2017 20:26

JayS wrote:Food for thought: Does India have any utility of Strategic bomber as a standoff N-weapon delivery which will be loitering on enemy border while we play diplomacy games to avoid the conflicts, as of today or in near future, say next 2 decades..?

Useless. No point

I know that you know why and I know that you are being polite in joining this idiotic debate (IMO). The question was answered many many decades ago in the US

The Amreekis were working on a nuclear powered aircraft to do EXACTLY what you ask -by staying up in the air for weeks. But the US navy punctured the USAF's balloon by successfully funding and developing a nuclear powered ballistic missile sub that does better than an aircraft. We have that. No need for the bomber
Last edited by shiv on 02 May 2017 20:30, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 02 May 2017 20:27

ShauryaT wrote:Please show me some Indian military planner / policy thinking to indicate the above thought process.

Please show me the source of the threat which would expose us to a many week long strategic bombing campaign against our cities like the US did to pipsqueak nations which should lead to the thought process that I have indicated

India for its part has no plans to conduct prolonged conventional strategic bombing campaigns using bombers. Please show me one of those as well while you search for the above info.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 20:37

That Vietnam example needs qualification. The strat bombing campaign probably killed hundreds of thousands as the total death toll for Vietnam was about 2 million, IIRC. Now, what does not work mean? At a tactical level, the viet cong came up with various techniques to avoid the bombs but it did not work for the objectives the US had set for itself, namely to limit their own ground involvement and seek to destroy the vietcong using superior fire power. So, the bombers delivered, they got the destruction they aimed for. What did not work to the US favor is the ability of the viet cong to fight for their nation, despite the overwhelming fire power against them. The viet cong were fighting for their freedom in their homeland. The US was fighting in the name of freedom 8,000 miles away and lost the war even if they won the battle.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16659
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 02 May 2017 20:43

Russia's new strat. bomber.Ck the link for the pic.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201702 ... th-bomber/
Xcpts:
"The military mentioned everything they could, including a strategic bomber, an operative and tactic missile-carrying bomber and even a long-range interceptor capable of launching space vehicles," Fedorov told the Russian news agency RNS.

The PAK DA project was launched in 2009. The new aircraft is being designed to replace all three bombers currently in service with the Russian long-range aviation, including the Tu-22M3 long-range bomber and the Tu-95 and Tu-160 (aka the White Swan) strategic bombers.

The PAK DA is being developed by the Tupolev Design Bureau. The new bomber will be significantly different from the Tu-160. It will have a flying wing design. The new bomber will be subsonic. The loss in speed will be compensated with advanced stealth and electronic capabilities.
The new bomber is expected to make its first flight sometime before 2021, with the first deliveries starting in 2023.

The aircraft will be capable of carrying air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles as well as conventional and smart-guided bombs. A 2016 report mentioned that the PAK DA was expected to have a range of 6,740 nautical miles. It will also be able to carry 30 tons of weapons.

Next-Generation Strategic Bombers: What US, Russia, China Are Set to Roll Out
According to Russian Aerospace Forces Commander Viktor Bondarev, the new bomber will feature an outstanding stealth capability and an artificial intelligence-guided missile.


Until the new bomber arrives,around 2025+,,(upgraded) Blackjack prod. is to resume. 30-50 to be built.

Tu-160 strategic bomber© Russian Defense Ministry's Press and Information Department/TASS
MOSCOW, April 11. /TASS/. The serial production of upgraded Tupolev Tu-160M2 (NATO reporting name: Blackjack) strategic missile carriers will begin from 2022 and a total of 30-50 such aircraft are planned to be produced, President of Russia’s Aircraft-Building Corporation Yuri Slyusar said on Tuesday.

Russia’s advanced strategic bomber may perform debut flight in late 2018
"We are concluding R&D work in 2021 and starting from 2022 we are beginning the serial production of these machines. We are discussing the exact figure with the customer. I believe their number will range from 30 to 50 machines," Slyusar said in an interview with Rossiya-24 TV Channel.
A source in the defense and industrial sector earlier told TASS that the serial production of the modernized Tu-160M2 missile carrier would begin in 2020 and two-three such aircraft were planned to be produced each year.
Along with the production of Tu-160M2s, operational long-range combat aircraft, such as Tu-160 and Tu-95MS missile carriers and Tu-22M3 strategic bombers, will be modernized. *IN please note! :rotfl:
The idea to restart the production of Tu-160 planes in their upgraded version was put forward by Russian Defense Minister Army General Sergei Shoigu in April 2015 during his visit to the Kazan aircraft enterprise, part of the Tupolev aerospace company.
In May that year, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave instructions to resume the production of these aircraft. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said in October 2016 that 50 such planes were planned to be produced.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/940606

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 20:54

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Please show me some Indian military planner / policy thinking to indicate the above thought process.

Please show me the source of the threat which would expose us to a many week long strategic bombing campaign against our cities like the US did to pipsqueak nations which should lead to the thought process that I have indicated

India for its part has no plans to conduct prolonged conventional strategic bombing campaigns using bombers. Please show me one of those as well while you search for the above info.
OK, today China may not have these strat bombers but they are on their way to get them and when they do, can we assume they can and will use them against India?

Whether bombs rain from bombers or the 2nd artillery division, what difference does it make. Does China have enough ballistic and cruise missiles to send them raining to say Guwhati? In such a case, is our response going to be nuclear? We can paint as many theoretical scenarios and you can shoot them down equally easily. But at heart, is the issue that a destruction of an Indian city using conventional payloads will be met with a nuclear response. If you can throw light on this aspect, through some documentation then it will help Idiots like myself to learn somethings. By articulating the above you have just expanded the scope of nuclear deterrence to deter conventional war also, like Pakistan seeks to do. Not unheard of, but I will wait for evidence of such thinking by Indian planners.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 02 May 2017 21:33

ShauryaT wrote:
Whether bombs rain from bombers or the 2nd artillery division, what difference does it make. Does China have enough ballistic and cruise missiles to send them raining to say Guwhati? In such a case, is our response going to be nuclear?

:rotfl: :(( :((

This is precisely why I thought that discussing the need for a strategic bomber on this forum is a mistake and said so on the original thread. Because the question of the merits and demerits of a heavy bomber/heavy bomber fleet and the connected technicalities for the IAF and Indian industry, which was the cause for the discussion to start in the first place is being diverted to something that has absolutely no connection with the original reason for talking about strategic bombers.

I think it is a waste of my time to get out of a discussion that I was interested in into something that you or someone else may be interested in. I have said enough about my views on who should nuke whom and when on the deterrence thread. I am out of here.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 21:55

Just to be clear, where the opponent is today and where are they going.

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm

The Xian H-6K is an updated version of the H-6 medium-range bomber. It made its first flight in 2007 and entered service in 2009. Other sources report that bomber entered service in 2013. China operates at least 15 of these new bombers. Some sources report that China plans to replace the previous H-6D bombers with the new H-6Ks on a near one-to-one basis.
The H-6K is designed for long-range attacks and stand-off attacks. It is considered as a strategic bomber. It is capable of attacking US carrier battle groups and priority targets in Asia. This aircraft has nuclear strike capability.
The new Chinese bomber has got new engines, and carries more fuel for longer range. It has a revised forward fuselage. The nose radome was replaced with navigation cabin. Composite materials are used in construction of the bomber. As a result the bomber has a reinforced structure. The rear 23-mm guns and gunner position were replaced with electronic components. It requires a smaller crew to operate. There are ejection seats for the crew. It is believed that aircraft has significantly improved avionics, search and attack radar, navigation, fire control, and weapon precision.
This bomber carries air-launcher cruise missiles under its wings. There are 6 hardpoints for missiles. This bomber can carry CJ-10A cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads. The CJ-10 is the first long-range land attack missile, developed in China. It was specially designed to counter the US Navy's carrier battle groups. The air-launcher CJ-10A has a range of 2 000-2 200 km. It can also carry YL-12 anti-ship missiles with a range of around 400 km.
The aircraft is fitted with Russian Saturn D-30KP-2 turbofan engines. Some sources report that this engine was reverse-engineered in China. The new engines have a greater thrust. The H-6K has a greater maximum takeoff weight and payload and the previous version of the H-6. Also it seems that new aircraft has a more favorable weight-to-thrust ratio. This results in improved fuel efficiency and improved range. The bomb bay was eliminated in favor of extra fuel for a longer range. As a result the H-6K has longer range than its predecessors.
It was reported, that indigenous WS-18 engine is under development to replace the Russian D-30KP-2.
It was reported that the H-6K has a combat radius of 3 500 km. Long-range cruise missiles effectively extend the bombers range to about 4 000-5 000 km. It is enough to reach, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Guam and even Hawaii, Alaska and Moscow form Chinas mainland. Without leaving air defense zone.
Despite all improvements this bomber is dated back to the 1950s. It seems that the H-6K is only an interim solution until an entirely new bomber is available. Some sources report that such bomber is already under development in China.


Future:
http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/china-co ... ge-bomber/
This definition would correspond to the sparse details available on China’s prospective subsonic stealth bomber – the H-20 (or H-X) – which could enter service by 2025, some analysts note. According to the Chinese Military Aviation blog, new long-range strategic bomber designs have been under development at the 603rd Aircraft Design Institute (a partner of Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) since the 1990s.

The new bomber will allegedly have a flying wing design similar to that of the American B-2 and is referred to as a “strategic project” by the Chinese military. The blog also notes that individual parts of the aircraft are already being manufactured.


We have continuously pooh poohed China's potential on this board, while that may work at a psy ops level to beat down members like Liu or arrest browning pants - to jump and say we are smart and do not need such assets and China, US, Russian use of bombers has not worked is short sighted and does not serve our interests.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 22:05

Also, just in case someone wants to discount conventional war and missiles and munitions falling down in scale. Here is what China is doing in that respect....Now, do not jump on me and say, I am browning pants. This is to be aware of what an adversary military's capacity is and an insight into their thinking on use of conventional and nuclear assets.

Roughly 80% of the current PLARF arsenal can conduct effective conventional missions and thus contribute to victory in non-nuclear Local Wars under Conditions of Informatization. As the Figures show, the reason for this significant change has been the introduction of precision or near-precision strike SRBMs and LACMs.

When SRBMs first appeared on the graph in 2000, the IISS estimates that they accounted for 30% of the PLARF’s missile launchers; by 2015, SRBMs accounted for approximately 41%. This change is complemented by the introduction of cruise missiles: by 2010, LACMs accounted for roughly 11% of PLARF strength. These trends occur in contrast to the effective destruction of the PLARF’s nuclear intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) force. In 1985, the PLARF’s nuclear IRBMs accounted for over 50% of the force; by 2015, the total was roughly 1.2%.


THE PLA ROCKET FORCE: EVOLVING BEYOND THE SECOND ARTILLERY CORPS (SAC) AND NUCLEAR DIMENSION

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 02 May 2017 22:27

In case someone doubts, PLAAF's capacity to operate bombers for the Indian front. Hotan is at about 1400 meters.

Kanwa was reported to have quoted sources in the Indian navy and air force as saying Chinese troops had placed in Tibet the Jian-11, the Jian-10 and the Kongjing-500 fighter planes in rotational deployment.

And In the city of Korla in Xinjiang, China is seen as having deployed a troop responsible for the launch of midrange ballistic missiles, while in the oasis town of Hotan it had been deploying the J-10 and the strategic bomber H-6K, the report added.

China said to be strengthening Tibet and Xinjiang military buildup, targeting India

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46743
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ramana » 02 May 2017 23:38

While you are at it do read the Joint Doctrine of the Indian armed forces posted in the deterrence thread.
Do the forces see a need for such a bomber?

US strategic bomber primary mission is to deliver nuke bombs as a part of their triad with secondary mission to drop conventional bombs on mango people.

Same with Russia.

China has no plane to reach US. It has a plane to cover Asia where the only nuke powers are Russia, India and Pakistan.
Of the three, two are allies or close allies of China!!!!

Now does IAF have similar requirement? So far no.

BTW, IAF in 1970s after performance of the 1971 war decided to go to an all fighter force with auxiliary strike role.
So this strategic bomber requirement would be a change in doctrine.

With out doctrine changes the argument becomes moot.

My point is what you want is a 'heavy' tactical bomber not a strategic bomber.

The Canberra was retired from this role long back and no replacement sought.

However the SU-30 MKI has a larger bomb load and more accurate delivery system than the Canberra ever did!!!!

Only thing is Canberra could deliver a 4000 lb bomb i.e. 2000 kg Not any more.

However taking the Su-30 MKI accuracy to deliver the 500 kg HSLD/PB-500 with Griffin Kit, this is more effective at target destruction.

IOW you should evaluate the punch delivered at the target and how many per sortie and compare to how many targets that the challenger has.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4841
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 03 May 2017 06:31

ramana wrote:BTW, IAF in 1970s after performance of the 1971 war decided to go to an all fighter force with auxiliary strike role.
So this strategic bomber requirement would be a change in doctrine.

With out doctrine changes the argument becomes moot.

My point is what you want is a 'heavy' tactical bomber not a strategic bomber.
Yes, the history is well known where IAF rejected the acquisition of the Tu-22 bomber, offered in 71. No one can dispute with the primary doctrine of the IAF to achieve air space dominance. A fighter-bomber is a prudent decision too. Leaving the IAF with little resources for other assets such as dedicated CAS, tactical or strategic bombers. They have chosen to use the Su-30 as a last ditch effort to deliver a nuclear payload to China and claimed to retain a role for the IAF in the triad. The problem as you say is doctrine and budgets and prioritization which stems from a higher level issue of goals and objectives. What the current doctrine does do is limit the role of the IAF in their ability to deliver fire power, strategic and tactical.

Given the budgetary realities, I would favor a small bomber fleet for the strategic role with a secondary tactical bomber role and expand this fleet as budgets allow. Something on the lines of the backfire, would be ideal for now to be moved to a PAK-DA type of acquisition in the future. Provides a force projection message, a maritime bomber capability - much needed until IN assets are in place, a threatening strategic option and would be budget friendly. If in a secondary role, we can rain hell on Lahore with gravity bombs all the more better.

This can be used well into the future in an ORBAT scenario of UAV/stealth UAV acting as sensors and provide cueing to stand off missiles from these bombers. If 50 cruise missiles is the number to make an airfield nonoperational even temporarily, doing it using fighter-bombers alone and that too repeatedly is an uphill task. 10 KH-15 on a single aircraft as opposed to a lone Brahmos on a modified su-30 is almost 10 times the payload of the fighter bomber. 6-8 Nirbhay's on such an aircraft with a nuclear warhead projects a certain message.

Dedicated bombers are here to stay both for tactical and strategic roles. We know the broad contours of its evolution to being stealthy and supersonic to increasingly operate in contested air spaces. Being in denial of its roles is to deny a capability, not easily replaced.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46743
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ramana » 03 May 2017 06:52

Now you are talking.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8830
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Yagnasri » 03 May 2017 07:47

As a mango, I think we are forgetting sea control use of a long range bomber. If we have a Bomber which can deliver Bramhos with 600km range on surface combatants of China ( or any other nation) which does not have any air cover to stop such bomber attack we effective control the sea with a small fleet of SSNs.

We are just ignoring Africa which is going to be a very critical thing in very near future as more and more opportunities open up there. We are already fighting a proxy business war with China there. The Bombers will give us a tool to use in Africa in support of our friends in the case of need. We can control most of the east African coast with them.

We are at present not involved in ME militarily. That can change any minute with ISIS like nations coming up in near future and we have some serious interests there. We also need to have a foot in ASEAN nations as per our look and act east policy. Are we seriously saying that su30Mkis are ok for all that in case the S**t hits the fan?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Pratyush » 03 May 2017 08:17

Karthik S wrote:In our context, having a dozen or so Tu 22 or 160 in a naval role is good and advisable.


Who are you planning to fight and where. I have seen multiple demands for such planes but have not been able to fit the context in which they will be used.

Basically what are they expected to do that a carrier born air wing cannot far front indian shores. And su 30 closer to Indian shores.

Besides when PRC has 4 flat tops operational. No indian bomber will get close enough to launch missiles at it.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Pratyush » 03 May 2017 08:21

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:If any nation attacks our cities with a "strategic bombing campaign" using conventional bombers and missiles and lays our cities and industries waste we would be stupid not to use nukes.

Do not misunderstand this. What i am saying is that if we are idiotic enough to try and copy Amreeka and have "strategic bombers" with puny conventional bombs to bomb cities of a nuclear armed nation that nation would be full justified in nuking us.

In the nuclear era, for a nuclear armed state - there is absolutely NO reason to suffer a conventional bombing campaign for weeks. Just nuke the shit out of the mofos who do that. The US has done that to weakling states with no nukes. Let is see what they do in Korea.

There is no excuse for us to masturbate using heavy bombers when we have nuclear armed neighbours - not wimpy pipsqueaks
Please show me some Indian military planner / policy thinking to indicate the above thought process.



The question should be who is able to bomb Indian cities for this duration and what is the IAF doing about it. If the enemy is able to bomb indian cities with impunity. Then make no mistake the IAF has been wiped out. If that's the case, then we have bigger problem then not having big bombers.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 03 May 2017 08:42

I repeat what I have said so many times.

A long range "heavy bomber" that can carry a "cartload" of bombs or missiles - for India will need to have a heavier payload and longer range than the Su-30. That means A range of 4000-5000 km is in order

What will we use this plane for against Pakistan? Zilch. A long range heavy bomber is a waste of time and effort against Pakistan

Against China - we will have to ask the pilots to fly 6-8 hours over Chinese territory and hope that the Chinese air defence people will have both their thumbs inside their musharrafs. This is a good way to get every Indian bomber shot down one by one by one - so much more fun if each is carrying "6 Nirbhay's to ripple fire at Chinese cities" Joke of the decade

That leaves the ocean. If we are not seriously going to hit Australia, South Africa or Madagascar - we have a few Island territories to hit. With 6 Nirbhays? Hmm - that'll be the day. My estimate was that a fleet of 4-6 bombers for an Ocean role would be OK

If China has H-6 or even DinQdonQ-7stealth bombers we gain jackshit by getting the same stuff ourselves. We need to figure out ways of shooting down those bombers before they get very far. An Indian heavy bomber ain't gonna protect us against a Chini heavy bomber any more than an AK 47 being used to shoot down enemy AK-47 bullets as they come at you

Even the most "strategically well read" among us seems to be overwhelmed by the romance of Discovery Channel. The US and USSR have thousands of miles of uncontested ocean for their bombers to fly over before they can shoot off standoff missiles. China desires to return the compliment to the US - so the Chinese from their eastern board have 1000s of km of Ocean to hit US targets.

If those long range Chinese bombers fly over India they will have to fly in from the east, refuel over Tibet and then overfly Indian airspace for hours. In this time we have two choices
1. Shoot them down - if possible over Tibet
2. Ask our air defences to sit with their thumbs in the musharrafs

It does not matter which choice we take of these two, but getting "strategeric" bombers just because "The big boys have them" is "bomber envy" taken to absurd lengths.

I repeat yet again - if we start building large transport aircraft now - we need those badly for logistics, and far faaar many more of them - but the large aircraft experience will allow us to design a bomber of our own should we decide to get one for whatever reason - in due course.

This thread should have stayed on the mil forum. The topic of heavy bomber cannot be divorced from technical issues and, instead, revolve around fluffy rhetoric about what the big boys do or fanboy specs of what big bombers are supposed to be able to do for viewer ratings

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58792
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 03 May 2017 11:57

here are my use cases and comments:

1) long loiter missions over border areas with fighter protection. the ideal example is kargil. rather than swarms of fighters throwing 4 bombs each, keep 1 bomber on station 24x7 at high altitude to unleash a mix of guided, unguided and gliding weapons , screened by usual Mig29 CAP. economy of force and CAS on call rather than wait for iaf to sortie fighters out of nearest bases with the complexities of limited time on station. a proper bomber can quietly sit there for a 10 hr mission.

2) long range oceanic strike. we all know the brahmos-A is a real struggle for the su30 and will make it combat radius no more than 1000km...carting such heavy loads is going to reduce airframe life for sure until lighter brahmos-M is IOC. in contrast even a smallish bomber like backfire will carry 4 x brahmosA with 2000km combat radius. in a nation with a bare 6 refuelers which will be dedicated mostly to the highly value AWACS , we do need the luxury of long legs to hit as far as possible. we will never afford 100 refuelers to feed everyone - the AWACS and the P8(if we pay for it) are priority.

3) attacks on IADS and other high value targets with swarms of decoys, gliding weapons and missiles. a pair of supersonic swing wing bombers will go at the same speed as half a squadron of MKIs, throw more on target and fly from twice as far out without need for refuelers. they will also have much better spacexpower for anti missile EW - the B52/B1 types carry a couple of tons of EW - each. need for coordination and support much less than throwing more mkis into the job.

4) security - due to long legs they can be based in south india away from any surprise "long sword" GLCM attack on forward bases. and they can disappear at speed after a strike too, away from any pursuit or counterstrike.

5) hypersonic brahmos with nukular and conventional warhead- given the boxy wedge nose shape & irregular looks of all future scramjet missiles, its going to be kinda tough on any pylon, these voluminous things are best carried in internal bays.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cXxs3cfaXz8/U ... missile+(1).jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... ei8OqnbOJA

6) opening deep EW corridors for SU30 strike packages with swarms of long range powered decoys and standoff jamming. obviously any large a/c even a C130 can do this, but a dedicated bomber is more suitable with good bays, pylons, powerful engines, good EW room and speed to match the fighters .... its a good buddy-buddy big bro-small bro mix

7) cruise ALCM carriers for release over western cheen for targets deep in the interior 1000-2000km out. again a Su30 will probably manage 1-3 nirbhays while a bomber would manage a lot more perhaps 12-16 for sure. this is the role the H6 plays in PLAAF and we can expect it to hit north india with serious barrages.

8) can convert some of them to dedicated standoff jammer and EW role like the Bear-J and so on...to build up eOrbats. could be mission modules plugged into the bomb bays sometimes. a kind of giant Growler 8)

I would say there is some overlap at the high end of the Su30 bombing mission and the lower band of the bomber mission. but at the midrange upward the bombers surely come into their own domain.

its not a replacement or entirely separate from the heavy fighter mission but complements it and nicely rounds it off for efficiency and scale.

we should ofcourse start toward building a large transport and the way fwd is to get the RTA project going and into IOC quickly.
without getting some ready shelved proj from Ukraine or Russia , the RTA can be stepping stone to a IL76 size plane. it wont happen directly.

from what i have read in novels like north cape by joe poyer and of the SR71, its actually quite hard for fighters to intercept a high flying sustained supersonic bomber which the blackjacks/b1 can be ..... the bomber can be supersonic for far longer and even a few degree change in course make the intercept soln challenging in fuel and climbing .... the Mig25/31 are huge and gas guzzling for that reason. it took a lot of radar work and 6 Mig31 to corner a lone SR71 over the barents sea. I think AAMs are also not that 100% great against a target high up and with huge jammers, decoys and ew tactics.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58792
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 03 May 2017 12:09

I have given my comments in writing. am not going to argue over any of it.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby JayS » 03 May 2017 12:22

ShauryaT wrote:
JayS wrote:Food for thought: Does India have any utility of Strategic bomber as a standoff N-weapon delivery which will be loitering on enemy border while we play diplomacy games to avoid the conflicts, as of today or in near future, say next 2 decades..?
Need it today and need it now, both to threaten PLAN assets conventionally over waters and if opportunity provides a role over the border too and a triad option against PRC is essential. A strategic bomber with a nuclear stand off ALCM is the only realistic way to do it. IMO.


I doubt the utility of standby N-delivery aircraft for us for quite some time in future. We very well can cover our border areas with existing fighter bombers. Its only the longer distance which is point of contention. Who will we be threatening to Nuke possibly at significant distance away from home..?

But I agree on the Naval front, we need something to keep CBG of PLAN and USN away from our turf, if need be. But the N-delivery part can perhaps be covered by SSNs (we need a good number of them, I think all agree on this one). I am thinking we need delivery platform for conventional fire power to start with to deter CBG coming too close to our home. May be big bombers could be of some use there. Question is can the gap be filled by something else in lesser investment?? I see that a lot of the gap can be plugged by using Su-30MKI from AN (can we get a similar base in IOR on west side??), particularly against PLAN. Too many billions would be needed to keep bombers, while the same money invested in Su-30MKI and Brahmos, Nirbhay etc can give us decent capabilities for at least next 2-3 decades. So my thinking is we don't need bombers immediately.

We should look to build some strategic bomber capability beyond that. We should use this opportunity to learn about how to make big aircrafts, as shiv suggested. With that capability we can diversify into transporters, tankers, AWACS, and even civilian airliners. I feel its easy to justify the initial investment if its coming from military requirement, else things get bogged down in economical considerations. Sometimes we need to ignore them. About a decade down the line we should be in a good enough shape economically to start investing seriously on this one.

For starters may be IAF can acquire couple of Black-jacks to start getting feel of long range missions, how to work out logistics, how to fit LR bombing in our doctrines, how to best utilize it, and how much we really need it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16659
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 03 May 2017 13:39

It's why some analysts are asking the IAF to rethink the concept and parameters of the AMCA-which will be smaller and inferior to the FGFA,and modify the design into a larger stealth bomber. The hard truth is that from its bases in Tibet,China can attack any part of the sub-continent with either missiles or aircraft. Its bombers could overfly Pak in the west,Burma/BDesh in the east and attack south/central India from both the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal using stand-off weaponry. How will we retaliate? Our prime goal in any spat with China should be our ability to sever Tibet from the mainland.
This will require destroying China's huge exg. rail and road infrastructure in Tibet which is going to be a huge challenge for the IAF. Tibet has to be totally isolated from Beijing and Chinese forces trapped in Tibet.

Secondly,to prevent Chinese naval forces from entering the IOR,we need to destroy as much of their armada within the Indo-China Sea. Possessing naval faclities in Vietnam and a couple of other ASEAN states ,will help us achieve this goal.LR bombers with LRCMs will be the fastest way to deliver a knockout blow to the PLAN's surface fleet/CBGs ,while our N-subs must take care of the large Chinese sub threat.

When will we wake up? When China fields its own stealth bomber? Incredible myopia of the IAF/MOD.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58792
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 03 May 2017 13:51

I am sure the USAF now regrets not having a larger airframe on the F22 with a large bomb bay, the B2 is super expensive and the F117 is retired. the F22 is fast, vlo, available in quantity but limited by its range and payload from being a striker of note.

belatedly they have gone back to drawing board for new naval ucavs to have 1500km and 2000km radius with yet to be developed exotic engines and 1000km for JSF but the size of CVN gates their payload.

so the venerable B1 is the only heavy ER strike plane available until the B21 raider comes online after 15 years.

things are becoming faster and more spread out and once you locate targets , they could be really fast or really far out or both....someone needs to go out there and tackle threats without needing a vast tail of easily detected/chased off/defeated tankers behind them. thats a logistical game only khan can fund. it wont be long before PLANAF fields a JASSM-ER type 1000km ASM simply to saturate and overload SAM cells like LRASM is designed for.

for us perhaps a few blackjack mk2s could be a good start.

the chinese have proclaimed that no matter the JSF or any UCAV, they are going to triangulate and kill CVNs using a radius from its emissive E2s and they are working on it hard. they have multiple trios of satellites in orbit on closely gapped parallel tracks which perhaps help to triangulate emissions (?) they are also in tests on multiple solid fuel ASAT missiles based on small space launch vehicles.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1141
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby chola » 03 May 2017 14:55

If we want a strategic bomber, let's go build one! No f-ing blackjack or any other off the shelf phoren plane to feed some gora MIC.

All for using Cheen as fire under under our arse but geo-politically and geographically they can never bring much firepower against Yindoo. So stop quaking under lungi.

Need to stop "the we need it here and now" scare tactic to go phoren and develop our own goddam industrial base.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 572
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby nvishal » 03 May 2017 15:00

In july 2016, india and russia signed for s400s and 4 tu22m3 strategic bombers.

Anyone know whether that deal was concluded? Price? Delivery date?

https://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2 ... sia_611501

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7610
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 03 May 2017 15:26

Modern long-range bombers are intended to deliver missiles, not go over the target through Ack-ack fire, explosions raging to left and right, one engine on fire, and drop a heavy piece of metal with dynamite inside, somewhere within a few miles of the intended target.

Most of the "tonnage" dropped over Germany and Vietnam fell on civilian houses or paddy fields. Sure, they caused damage and maybe "degraded the will to fight" but those were post-campaign re-definitions of objectives. The original objectives were probably to destroy factories, which was partially successful because in those days there were no missiles with low enough CEP to make their small payloads useful.

So today the objective is to deliver missiles. UAVs with drop tanks are far superior for this. Maybe the tank will hit someone too. Even the Russian supersonic bombers (total overkill to hit VBIEDs in Syria) are being used because, well, they are sitting around gathering rust and need to be put to use. The utility is that you can wipe out an entire convoy with one or two sorties.

India could buy a few old Russian supersonic bombers being retired from the Syrian conflict. To get any significant bomber fleet, one has to build them. HAL??? Maybe an indigenous cargo plane would be a good start. For most standoff bombing missions that would be good enough: stand off and launch UAVs to do the recon/reporting, and missiles to do the job. Recover the UAVs through the open cargo bay if possible; otherwise drop them on the enemy from max. altitude at the end of the mission when damage assessment is complete.

A modern bomber with a full electronics suite, stealth (to have any chance of getting near the target and back) etc. costs upward of $1B each. Maybe Indian condishuns can reduce that to $500M each. A fleet of 50 would cost $25B to $50B. How is this justified unless the money is at least spent in-country? Such expenditures can only be visualized as neta-scale scams, not as technology projects.

IOW, you could buy an aircraft carrier for every 4 bombers that you don't buy.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1141
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby chola » 03 May 2017 16:22

^^^We need a domestic transport plane as well. A large indigenous aircraft would be a nice goal.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58792
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 03 May 2017 16:24

well even for a 500km combat radius tartous to deir azzor mission, the biggest of the fighters the Su34 platypus never seems to carry its full load of bombs, perhaps to cut back on fuel consumption due to no refueler support. it flies with some 4 smallish bombs. cant be lack of targets, daesh are always buzzing around there like flies around a pile of dung.

if you want speed x long combat radius (tending to 1500-2500km lately) x full payload.....fighters can do it only with refueler support. only a large bomber with swing wings can get it done alone.

having a long range helps to tide over frontal aviation bases getting damaged by heavy attacks or stuffed with CAP fighters for air defence...strikers can stage from deeper in interior like kalaikunda rafales will depend on bagdogra and hashimara for air defence patrols. CAP is a very time sensitive thing, deep strike or loitering CAS is usually a bit loosey goosey timelines.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 03 May 2017 21:34

As long as you include a bit of science fiction in the scenarios one thinks of - one can always come up with useful roles for a long range bomber. Like the chap who sang a (Tamil) song "I have no wife yet, but I intend to name my son Ramakrisnan"

We have no long range bomber but I see roles being made for long range bomber with ALCM, hypersonic Brahmos, one more leg of triad apart from the 3 already envisaged, "swarms of powered decoys" etc

Once the high wears out you find that there is no magic. There are only niche roles for long range bombers over the ocean for us and the magical payloads and fairy tale missions are not going to happen. :D

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32535
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 03 May 2017 22:05

Singha wrote:well even for a 500km combat radius tartous to deir azzor mission, the biggest of the fighters the Su34 platypus never seems to carry its full load of bombs, perhaps to cut back on fuel consumption due to no refueler support. it flies with some 4 smallish bombs. cant be lack of targets, daesh are always buzzing around there like flies around a pile of dung.

if you want speed x long combat radius (tending to 1500-2500km lately) x full payload.....fighters can do it only with refueler support. only a large bomber with swing wings can get it done alone.

It's not about how much they drop but what they drop it on. Targets have to identified and targeted. All this loitering shoitering by heavy bomber is never going to happen.Planes go on specific missions with specific payloads - not like computer game with lots of ammo, lots of targets showing up on screen, large non puny non fuel explosions and the points counter keeps ticking.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, kumarn, Lekhraj, SriJoy, SriramNarayanan, Vineetmehta_del, yensoy and 54 guests