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.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2045
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby kit » 09 May 2017 17:32

Gyan wrote:There is no way, IAF even with long range Tu-160 can take off from Delhi and hit Beijing. Better way is SSN/SSBN carrying huge amount of cruise missiles firing from Bay of Bengal and South China Sea hitting Southern Eastern Coast of China and Beijing respectively.


Quite true .. witness the american Ohio sub that surfaced in SKorea .. enough cruise missiles in one platform to sent NKorea back to stone age :mrgreen: .. but then India has to go some way before it can realise such an option .. so a gap filler ..some one willing to sell and one willing to buy ! .. though the logistics and tlc required for the blackjack might be thought provoking :roll:

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 09 May 2017 17:34

"One day" can be after the Tu-160 is retired, and they can get a mockup to put in the museum. Much cheaper and equally useful.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3298
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Cosmo_R » 09 May 2017 19:16

kit wrote:... but then India has to go some way before it can realise such an option .. so a gap filler ..some one willing to sell and one willing to buy ! .. though the logistics and tlc required for the blackjack might be thought provoking :roll:


We are and always will be in 'gap filler' mode unless we have a military strategy that underpins our political strategy. Right now, we have neither so we dither on what we need.

In that context (and any other), a strategic bomber makes zero sense.

Instead of throwing money to the Russians for PAK/FA/FGFA and all the other stuff, we can and should ask them to help build out the S-4/5 Aridhaman SSBN successors into SSGNs. We already have most of the SSN/BN tech capability. We probably lack the required skilled workforce. Nobody has to give it to us.

3-4 of these SSGNs and we have truly stealthy survivable CM platforms that deliver 50-60+ missiles without warning.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 09 May 2017 19:42

How many missiles can these subs when they arrive carry? Also remember that they're just one leg of the N-triad! All major N-powers possess a triad of land,air and sub launched strat. missiles,required for the sake of a survivable second strike capability.Our SSBNs will launch only if needed after we've been hit first and have had the greater part of the other two legs destroyed.Once launched,these missiles cannot be recalled unlike strat. bombers which is why they're so relevant even today. Even land-based mobile ICBMs well hidden can be spotted by sats,etc. The US has just had returned from space after a v.long secret mission,its secret unmanned shuttle. You can bet that at least one task was to spot land-based strat. missile locations of every N-power including us.

The Q that befronts us is what strat. bomber should we acquire before we posses our desi stealth bomber and/or reusable missile of APAJK. Foir LR tactical strike aimed at severing Tibet from China,etc.,perhaps SU-34s are better platforms than Super-Sukhois .This does not however resolve the LR strat. bomber capability. Had our 8+ Bears of the IN been retained/upgraded,we could've used them for that purpose without much cost. This can still be done.

The only nation that has offered us and will give us a strat. bomber is Russia. Russia has a lot of Bears and Backfires mothballed for use in a crisis. Blackjack production is on the anvil There are also around 40 IL-38s in storage too in case we need more prop ASW LRMP birds-we have 5 of these with us.Now as far as Blackjacks are concerned,they're expensive ,even the Russians say so,why they are developing a new large "flying wing" stealth bomber which will be subsonic,armed with LRCMs .The missiles may be super,most likely hypersonic to make up for the bomber's subsonic speed.This bomber whose mock-up has been finalised, will cost much less than the Blackjack. For our long-term requirement,where our desi/JV hyper missiles require an airborne delivery system,we need to develop something similar. Since we're going to sign the JV for the FGFA shortly-latest news today,we could examine whether some spin-off of the Pak-DA could be obtained for us for a desi bird. In fact the AMCA requirement as some analysts have said,should be enlarged into a stealth bomber,with an internal weapons bay large enough to carry a much larger qty of missiles,etc. and of greater size than what the current AMCA design can manage. In another report ,posted earlier,about LCA future dev.,there was mention of a stealth version of the LCA. This would be far easier and faster to develop than a brand new AMCA and if so would obviate the need for the med sized AMCA ,going in for the LCA-S and the larger bomber called ALRB (Advanced Long Range Bomber).LCA-S and ALRB along with the FGFA square the circle for the IAF's future advanced birds.
Last edited by Philip on 09 May 2017 20:08, edited 2 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 09 May 2017 19:49

I believe all the russi help is already being obtained over or under the table for the SSBN / SSN program. this is happening regardless of any action on bomber front.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 09 May 2017 20:02

Singha wrote:
I wonder if malacxa strait is considered international airspace?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_waters

The answer is between the above two references. This is the reason why first the British and then the US have control of the major choke points. Translation, any major action between India and China will be subject to a choice of US intervention.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 09 May 2017 20:21

My personal opinion of the Tu-160 is that it will be an unmitigated disaster whose cost will not justify our pulling it out of our pants and waving it about to say "Look how long my schlong is".We may end up paying a bomb, get a lemon and pay the Russians to build something new for themselves. Frankly I don't like the Tu 160 idea one bit. Heck even if the Russians modernize it they wont get any till 2025 or so. And if we get the old ones we will be iscrewed. I hope Saurav Jha's hunch is just handwaving. He may or may not know much about the Tu-160 - but this is no Mirage 2000 like beauty in ease of use and maintenance. Maybe just a mirage...

Swing wing is out out out. The mechanical parts only add to the complexity of maintenance.

That aside a the Tu 160 does not appear to have stellar reliability and even the modernization is delayed
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/ ... ckjack.htm
Although the aircraft has a fly-by-wire control system all cockpit displays are conventional analogue instruments, with no multi-function or head-up displays.
[..]
Even after the aircraft entered service, problems continued to severely restrict operations and production began before a common standard and configuration was agreed. Thus wingspans, equipment fit, and intake configurations differ from aircraft to aircraft.


https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ ... tape/?_r=0
The Russian Air Force probably has fewer than 20 of them, and it is any civilian’s guess how many are serviceable; Periscope cites Russian accounts from the 1980’s that it was common for 70 percent of the fleet to be grounded at any given time. The old Tu-160’s are being overhauled and modernized, and one or two new ones are supposedly now being built each year.

As for the Bears, those are more plentiful (the Russian navy and air force together may have around 60 of them now) but they are old, old, old — built mainly in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and powered by turboprop engines rather than jets. They seem to be somewhat more reliable than the Blackjacks, and were often seen flying long-range patrols


http://www.janes.com/article/29846/furt ... 60-bombers
At present there is still no finalised configuration as to what Soviet-era components will be replaced on these aircraft. Additionally, the manufacturer of the aircraft's Kuznetsov NK-32 engines is unable to come to an agreement with the United Aero-Engine Building Corporation (ODK) on the question of financing.

A source close to ODK has relayed to IHS Jane's that the current work on the modernisation of the Tu-160 and the re-opening of the production line that would manufacture the necessary components for these aircraft is "at a phase when it is difficult to project a timeframe in which this process would be completed".

The testing of the design and prototype construction work is in its final phase, the source stated, but there are a number of components that still need to be replaced in these aircraft that are not available or are no longer in production. The specialists and engineers also state that a plan for the concrete details and schedule for the modernisation of these aircraft can only be determined by an agreement with the customer. The source continued, however, that "it is without question that the money will be found to pay for this programme".

The source added the recent flight of two Tu-160s to Venezuela "were not any part of a flight test programme [for these newly developed components] and that this was an ordinary flight" of the previous, original configuration of the aircraft.

The delays and problems plaguing this programme are not new. Just prior to the Moscow MAKS air show in August 2011, Russian news outlets stated that of the 16 Tu-160s still in VVS inventory only four were flightworthy. The main limiting factor is that most of the NK-32 engines had at that point reached the end of their service life. The Kuznetsov Design Bureau (OKB) that developed the engine and the KMPO production plant that built them during the Soviet period have not produced any new engines in more than a decade. The enterprises no longer have either adequate personnel or the machine-tooling to be able to manufacture them.

The company that inherited what was left of the Kuznetsov OKB and KMPO plants in the post-Soviet period has limited capability to conduct overhauls of the NK-32 engines for the Tu-160 fleet. The company was given a contract in 2011 to re-manufacture at least 26 of these engines, but was only able to overhaul four engines in two years.

In addition to these technological challenges, there are a number of corporate and financing issues that have to be resolved. The company that heads up the current design and production work to support the NK-32 engines is the Metallist-Samara Joint Stock Company, headed by Yuri Eliseev, the former director of the Salyut engine plant in Moscow.


https://jamestown.org/program/russias-t ... -problems/
At present there is still no finalised configuration as to what Soviet-era components will be replaced on these aircraft. Additionally, the manufacturer of the aircraft's Kuznetsov NK-32 engines is unable to come to an agreement with the United Aero-Engine Building Corporation (ODK) on the question of financing.

A source close to ODK has relayed to IHS Jane's that the current work on the modernisation of the Tu-160 and the re-opening of the production line that would manufacture the necessary components for these aircraft is "at a phase when it is difficult to project a timeframe in which this process would be completed".

The testing of the design and prototype construction work is in its final phase, the source stated, but there are a number of components that still need to be replaced in these aircraft that are not available or are no longer in production. The specialists and engineers also state that a plan for the concrete details and schedule for the modernisation of these aircraft can only be determined by an agreement with the customer. The source continued, however, that "it is without question that the money will be found to pay for this programme".

The source added the recent flight of two Tu-160s to Venezuela "were not any part of a flight test programme [for these newly developed components] and that this was an ordinary flight" of the previous, original configuration of the aircraft.

The delays and problems plaguing this programme are not new. Just prior to the Moscow MAKS air show in August 2011, Russian news outlets stated that of the 16 Tu-160s still in VVS inventory only four were flightworthy. The main limiting factor is that most of the NK-32 engines had at that point reached the end of their service life. The Kuznetsov Design Bureau (OKB) that developed the engine and the KMPO production plant that built them during the Soviet period have not produced any new engines in more than a decade. The enterprises no longer have either adequate personnel or the machine-tooling to be able to manufacture them.

The company that inherited what was left of the Kuznetsov OKB and KMPO plants in the post-Soviet period has limited capability to conduct overhauls of the NK-32 engines for the Tu-160 fleet. The company was given a contract in 2011 to re-manufacture at least 26 of these engines, but was only able to overhaul four engines in two years.

In addition to these technological challenges, there are a number of corporate and financing issues that have to be resolved. The company that heads up the current design and production work to support the NK-32 engines is the Metallist-Samara Joint Stock Company, headed by Yuri Eliseev, the former director of the Salyut engine plant in Moscow.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2682
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Cain Marko » 09 May 2017 20:25

Singha wrote:Taking off from delhi to hit beijing was never a use case unless a agni5 takes off.

Up until now even russia has no used the blackjack as a anti ship platform or 80xjdam thing...its purely a cruise missile shooter today..their alcm have upto 3000km range. In future when mk2 starts production and based on syria ops it could change.

The brahmosA is probably too large to fit inside the bomb bays rotary launcher..maybe adapters or internal racks could help....nirbhay will fit for sure.


They intend to use the kh101x12 with the rotary launchers. This baby is just about the same specs of an air launched brahmos... 2400kg, 25 feet. Maybe, just maybe they can stick 12 of these in the rotaries too. That would be insane. Perhaps even hang some externally.

6 of these birds and the IOR region is completely in range and a superb answer to Chinese encroachment. I'll have to change my signature.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 09 May 2017 21:04

Well atleast refurbished b1b will have better uptime and reliable engine

Just saying

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 09 May 2017 21:32

I don't think the Tu-160 features external pylons

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2045
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby kit » 09 May 2017 22:01

Singha wrote:Well atleast refurbished b1b will have better uptime and reliable engine

Just saying



i guess Trump might help :mrgreen: .. at the last know he was literally being taught the difference between the Koreans and Chinese by Xi .. poor guy thought NKorea was Chinese territory

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 559
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 09 May 2017 22:11

I am among those who’ve poo-pooed the idea suggested by this thread title, largely for the reasons others have intimated.

But then I got a “crazy idea” I’d like to share…..

But first let me underscore the fact that purchasing such a craft from any foreign vendor, would represent a huge expenditure, no doubt. Therefore, any way possible to spend that money at home, should be seriously explored. I’d also like to underscore that foreign bought “strategic wares” are by-definition, designed and built with some other country’s strategic imperatives in mind; and these may not correlate with Indian strategic imperatives (geography, topography and likely adversaries, how that war would unfold, what would be their war aims, what should be India's war aims, etc.).

With all this in mind….. An image begins to take-shape, of a new kind of “Strategic ‘Bomber’”. (But give up on the notion of over-flying targets, that is sooooo last war.)

IMAGINE: An “Amphibious ‘Bomber’”!

Its primary armaments include ALCMs and lightweight torpedoes!

It can take-off from and land on water!

It can be re-fueled while in the air and while floating at sea! It can even be re-armed at sea (aboard a special-built craft that can take aboard the water-landed craft, quickly slip-in the required armaments, before returning the craft to the water for takeoff).

One of the best parts: Once it is landed on the sea; it can even submerge itself just below the waves, to hide from radars and listen for submarines!

Imagine if such a craft could network with other sensors, and fire a Trishul upwards to intercept enemy aircraft, while it remains partially submerged!


These craft should be just big enough to carry one torpedo and two ALCMs, with some A2A missiles emerging from re-loadable launch tubes mounted high on the fuselage; one pointing forward, one pointing aft and another pointing upward! (Because it is amphibious, weapons slung under the wings will not be possible.)

High-mounted turboprop engines, will probably serve well; especially if they can be submerged in water, and then restarted quickly after they’ve been lifted-out of the water. To facilitate ‘submergence’ (not diving; just below the surface to hide from radar), there must also be a pump aboard that can take-on ballast water, and probably another system to purge the ballast water with compressed air; at the same time clearing the air intakes of the engine, etc.

Instead of buying 12 copies of something very expensive, not at all stealthy and very, very heavily armed (as suggested by others here); I think it makes better sense to custom build something unique in much larger numbers of copies; since they will also be much cheaper, more survivable, mission re-loadable and more sneaky so also more survivable.

Please just think about this carefully, in terms of what it would take, how quickly this can be made to work, and what it would mean both tactically and strategically for India. If you do, you'll discover it isn't an idea to put down, out of hand. IMO this crazy idea bears proper consideration.

Can you dig it?


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 09 May 2017 22:16

Its a cross between a submarine cruiser like Surcouf which had large cannons and a small ekranoplan. No offspring has popped out yet. Ekranoplan might not work in open seas or rough weather but devastating speedx payload when it works

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 09 May 2017 22:19

Iran is building swarms of it

https://youtu.be/4_KaQ1n-TWE

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 09 May 2017 22:28

^Are some of you intent on making Shiv's prediction true, that this is a thread for video gamers? I mean think out of the box but with some notions of reality. Jet engines, supersonic speed, long range, large payloads are essential elements of a modern strategic bomber. The US is ofcourse into stealth bombers with Russia and China to follow. Request some rational discourse please.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 09 May 2017 22:37

think out of the box but with some notions of reality. Jet engines, supersonic speed, long range, large payloads are essential elements of a modern strategic bomber.

That may be very much "inside the box", IMHO. Modern Strategic Bomber is hypersonic on the ingress leg, may be low-speed on the way out. If India wishes to develop that, there is the "Avatar" concept to expand on. The idea of visiting mass destruction on faraway places requires either surprise or air superiority. If one has air superiority, an aircraft carrier standing off-shore is a far better "strategic bomber". If one does not have air superiority the bomber is just another piece of junk parked outside a museum.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ldev » 09 May 2017 22:57

First deploy in large numbers (~200) a:

Short Range Tactical Fighter aka LCA aka Tejas with homegrown engines.

before having unrealistic dreams of building a:

Long Range Strategic Bomber

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 09 May 2017 23:06

^Now put Indian realities of budget, capabilities, needs, interests, ambitions, risks, opportunities, priorities, timeframes, geo-political alignments, adversaries and doctrine into the picture. Hypersonic bomber? Avatar? If none of the above realities were present then we could take our own sweet time.

I guess you have gamed the Russian plan to be utterly ineffective to rely on strategic bombers both against the US fleet and for nuclear strike, realizing that they probably will not have air superiority over water or land?

I am OK with your assessment of the role of current bombers and you have a point, however the air arm for strategic roles continues to be invested into by all major powers. They all cannot be wrong. I guess in war opportunities come by and no one has complete control of all aspects all the time. China has a long coast line, border and enough threats of its own. So I will count on the fact that they probably will not have complete air superiority say 1000 KM from their coast line all the time. Enough for the IAF to exploit? Also, a message that we do have an answer for them for their fleet 2000 KM from our coast line?

The recently retired TU-162 escorted a PLAN sub from Cape of Good Hope! Hypersonic bombers sure, let us first make the Kaveri work for us and in time we will get the hypersonic version of Kaveri too.

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 559
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 10 May 2017 00:51

Singha wrote:Its a cross between a submarine cruiser like Surcouf which had large cannons and a small ekranoplan. No offspring has popped out yet. Ekranoplan might not work in open seas or rough weather but devastating speedx payload when it works

^^^^^^
Thanks Singha for introducing me to the word "ekranoplan". I Googled and Youtubed it, and was very gratified to see that others have had the same crazy idea as I recently had.

After watching some of those Youtubes, I can see that the Russians are the development partner of choice, on such a project. They've built some monstrous machines in this category, and that was before the revolution in composite materials that now define aircraft manufacturing.

Actually, I was trying to describe two different 'platforms'. One type flies, and lands on the water. The other type of platform is definitely a blue-water ship, which has a rear deck low enough in the water, that smaller amphibious aircraft could be pulled-aboard from aft, for re-arming and refueling.

Further remarks below.....


ShauryaT wrote:^Are some of you intent on making Shiv's prediction true, that this is a thread for video gamers? I mean think out of the box but with some notions of reality. Jet engines, supersonic speed, long range, large payloads are essential elements of a modern strategic bomber. The US is ofcourse into stealth bombers with Russia and China to follow. Request some rational discourse please.

^^^^^^
Actually, I never was much of a video gamer (aside from Solitaire while procrastinating); though I do have an advanced degree in Lego, with a minor in Meccano.

While I admit that I am not an aviation engineer of any description; I am a devoted practitioner and life-long student of strategy.

One of the first things to understand in strategic affairs and the like, is that a "parallel" strategy that mirrors, mimics or matches an adversary's, will invoke attrition as a matter of course. This counsels for an "asymmetric" strategy that is underpinned by uncertainty, ambiguity, speed, reach and maneuver.



After having watched some Youtubes of Soviet-era "ekranoplans", including some very heavy-lift versions of truly impressive size.....

Why not an ekranoplan that had extensible cruciform wings that would provide the lift to actually get all the way airborne? (Recognize, the Russians already built such a craft, before the advent of more modern materials in use today.)

Imagine that the craft had a basic design, but that there were different versions with different capabilities; and these craft in the correct mix, could be deployed en mass; to establish something like a flotilla at sea.

If this can be pursued to establish very large numbers of platforms; it would any day nix a competing strategy an adversary may attempt in a sea denial campaign, CBG strike-group or whatever -- at a fraction of the cost.

Given that such craft fly very low, they will be hard to detect and track. If the submergence idea can be made to work; they can be flown-out and hidden below the surface, to present a very hard to detect platform for launching cruise missiles, torpedoes, naval mines, sonar buoys, and anti-air missiles.

Imagine just one of these, with a canisterized Brahmos-M, with the front end of the canister just protruding from the fuselage; floating just below the waves, waiting to 'shoot and scoot'. If such a craft could be made truly as stealthy as I think it can be; it'll be exactly the kind of thing that will keep India's adversaries second guessing every single war plan they might every contemplate.

Think about it.

Don't just blindly follow the fancy and expensive directions taken by the Amreekhans. Frankly, they don't exactly have a good track record of winning wars, and they've always had every advantage going-in. India's situation isn't the same; so the Indian requirement for a, let's call it a "strategic craft" is going to be decidedly different -- not lesser -- just different.

NB: The definition of 'Strategic Bomber' that seems to be in favour by some Rakshaks, was set back during the Cold War era before good radars, and satellite based IR detectors were around. Nowadays, big, fast-flying and so hot running airplanes are too easily detectable and so easy to interdict (with long range missiles, that any day have more speed and maneuver than any "bomber" imaginable).

When contemplating what India needs, which things India could make the greatest use of; it always makes sense to consider an asymmetric strategy.

Kindly also remember that the strategic purpose of "strategic bombers" during the Cold War, was to give the combatants time to negotiate, to establish an end to hostilities, before MAD. The vast expanse of Arctic airspace, was to be the time-delay to give surviving authorities in both the USA and Russia, some opportunity to turn bombers around, and signal to one another a de-escalation of hostilities.

In the Indian context, there is no vast expanse of space providing time to turn-off the war machine. Pakistan is next door, and so is China; the only two likely adversaries for which India is building a nuclear deterrent. Furthermore, as some have advocated for a fast-moving bomber; rather than a bomber maximized for endurance and/or range; the logic of this for India is even further stretched.

As for a bomber maximized for endurance, to provide some measure of a survivable airborne nuclear deterrent -- this is a remote gambit, which is terribly vulnerable in the case of all-out war.

Something that can hide, but also move quickly, will always have an inherent advantage of surprise (hence the genius of the ekranoplan). Large 'strategic bombers' are only "useful" against severely over-matched adversaries, and I would suggest that India leaves bombing the meek unto others. (Further remember that the Khans bombed the Vietnamese like no other, but still lost that war.)

If India wants to hit hard and fast, SU-30mki.

If India wants a 'Strategic craft' suited to India's war aims and requirements; consider an indigenous, amphibious 'strike craft'. It would be a 'medium lift' ekranoplan derivative with extensible cruciform wings to get fully aloft for cruising speeds above Mach 0.4.

Seriously.

Think about it.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3298
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Cosmo_R » 10 May 2017 04:42

ShauryaT wrote:^..
The recently retired TU-162 escorted a PLAN sub from Cape of Good Hope! Hypersonic bombers sure, let us first make the Kaveri work for us and in time we will get the hypersonic version of Kaveri too.


What is the TU-162? All I could get by Googling was a cooling fan switch

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 10 May 2017 05:18

Cosmo_R wrote:What is the TU-162? All I could get by Googling was a cooling fan switch
Sorry, TU-142M. Now someone can jump and say, I have no technical knowledge :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47330
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ramana » 10 May 2017 05:22

We are in the 5th page of the thread. I don't see any hopes of new information.

Why not some one sum up the case for and some one else against the Strategic Long Range bomber in IAF service.

Thanks,
ramana

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 10 May 2017 07:01

Credit for bringing Ekranoplan into this thread should go to the Yak herder who mentioned it a few pages ago. But Ekranoplan is Philip's baby.

One of the reasons why "supersonic" bombers became obsolete was that "supersonic" fighters could shoot them down. Supersonic is no longer a big deal. The US and Russia aimed each other's bombers to fly over the Arctic. China has the Pacific. India has only Indian Ocean. Anywhere else - Indian planes are going to overfly territory bristling with radars. Supersonic or not - flying planes over huge swathes of other nation's territories is no good. That is why the B1 is gone but the B2 came while the B-52 chugs on. Russian "strategic bombers" are so yesterday.

India has to think of something new and original and not try and do jugaad with cold war ideas. Here I would like to point out that the much bandied about "signalling" that the Tu-160 can do has nothing to do with supersonic or even range. Those 12 cruise missiles on rotary launchers were originally designed to carry a 200 kiloton warhead each. That was what scared the crap out of the Americans and their NATO all-lies. It did not matter if Russia built only 40 Tu-160 and only 5 were flying. Those 5 represented 60 long range missiles with 200 kiloton nuclear warheads. Not conventional dingdong waving stuff. In order to hit southern parts of the US the Russians needed that.

I have a viewpoint on what it takes to signal like a superpower. I believe that we should be able to hit the US, Russia and China if any of these nations acts up. Buying weapons from one and then waving that weapon at another does not give us superpower boasting rights no matter how much we dance or get angry with me for saying it. We remain just another cargo cult sepoy power. We can still do without long range bombers if we develop missiles and targeting systems to hit every single point on earth. The world of UAVs and UCAVs is opening up. But that is OT for this thread.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 10 May 2017 07:12

What we REALLY need is a few thriller novels where WW3 starts and Indian Army/AirForce/Black Cats/ RAA agint Jambu Bonda save the world. Pretty difficult when all that the PM can call up on the Red Telephone is an imported prima donna.
Saar! Whaaat to do? Tyre is phlat and Russia naat giving screwdriver to remove the bolts on the landing gear wheels! Caall day after tomorrow, Saar, we will see what we can do onlee! Today pilot Saab eej naat here, his sister's daughter's friend's brother's cousin is getting married onlee!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 10 May 2017 09:20

UlanBatori wrote:What we REALLY need is a few thriller novels where WW3 starts and Indian Army/AirForce/Black Cats/ RAA agint Jambu Bonda save the world. Pretty difficult when all that the PM can call up on the Red Telephone is an imported prima donna.
Saar! Whaaat to do? Tyre is phlat and Russia naat giving screwdriver to remove the bolts on the landing gear wheels! Caall day after tomorrow, Saar, we will see what we can do onlee! Today pilot Saab eej naat here, his sister's daughter's friend's brother's cousin is getting married onlee!

Heck no one even reads existing histories of wars fought by India some of which are pretty interesting because they are so different from the stuff we are fed from Weshtren sources. Some people who had not read that stuff in 2007 have still not read any 10 years later. The men whose lives are on line think and act based on what they have and not on what Discovery channel says is possible using the latest American weapons.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 10 May 2017 10:06

6 hypersonic brahmos and that huge radar front of the tail?
Image

another huge image.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/wor ... 0629011140

I wonder if we can model this as a small but well armed hydrofoilish FAC like say a Osa class missile boat but faster to get into position?

a loitering patrol asset it is probably not.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 10 May 2017 10:09

I would imagine a N-powered SSGN if available brings a lot more to table than a Ekranoplan however large.
staying power, stealth, way more weapons.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby JayS » 10 May 2017 10:32

UlanBatori wrote:
think out of the box but with some notions of reality. Jet engines, supersonic speed, long range, large payloads are essential elements of a modern strategic bomber.

That may be very much "inside the box", IMHO. Modern Strategic Bomber is hypersonic on the ingress leg, may be low-speed on the way out. If India wishes to develop that, there is the "Avatar" concept to expand on. The idea of visiting mass destruction on faraway places requires either surprise or air superiority. If one has air superiority, an aircraft carrier standing off-shore is a far better "strategic bomber". If one does not have air superiority the bomber is just another piece of junk parked outside a museum.


+1. If we really want to have strategic bomber in future as a credible superpower stuff it has to be futuristic - Hypersonic and/or stealth. For now we could practice on borrowed platform, but becoming sola-anna suppa-power on borrowed weapons are simply wet dreams (Until our strategic weapons and delivery platforms are fully indigenous we are far from being any kind of super power. Today we are fully dependant on outsiders for even this). Stealth we are getting at through AMCA and Ghatak. We have two programs for Hypersonic engine. If we put money we would be spending on those LR bombers (which will be significant mullah) behind these two tech development, we could perhaps have a decent hypersonic stealth LR bomber in next 30-40yrs. And this would check all the tick boxes needed to be suppa-power - Own weapon, TFTA tech, stealthy, speed, LR, payload capacity.

And no I don't think its outlandish to think of having a hypersonic stealth LR bomber in 30-40yr time frame starting from today. But we need to augment our RnD efforts.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 10 May 2017 11:46

Shiv's point about the huge missile carrying capability of the Blackjack underscores the argument. I was just looking at a pic of Gwadar Port and wondering how many MKI strikes/sorties or 29Ks would be needed to flatten the facilities. A couple of bombers could do the biz in just one run/stand-off launch strike. Former USN CNO's Adm.Greenert's famous statement about "bomb trucks" being more useful than "sports cars" comes to mind.

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 559
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 10 May 2017 21:27

ramana, Good Sir,

Please don't be in too much of a hurry, and close this thread before I've had a chance to type what I'm compelled to type.

I know it's messy and highly speculative and all.

Just consider it chum in the water.


Confucius says, "Water too clear, no fish swim." :D

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 559
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 10 May 2017 22:14

Singha, that beautiful pic above is certainly impressive, but somewhere in one of the top-rated Youtubes for 'ekranoplan' was another Russian model that looked very much like a 'Horseshoe Crab', sort of a swept-back saucer shape. It had *internal engines* and just two ports out the rear for thrust. It comprised an enormous enclosed shape in which a man could stand upright in the middle. Essentially, the whole craft was the wing-form, as it had a couple of small wing-lets that were more for stability than for lift; and an enormous load carrying capacity. This shape, the horseshoe crab shape (more than the shape depicted in the photo above); this shape lends itself very well to internal weapons carriage (and engines, for that matter), and so is just begging to get the stealth treatment.

NB: The pic above has the missile launchers mounted on top of the fuselage, so that it can also carry troops! That ekranoplan depicted above is carrying six CMs and hundreds of troops to shore at 400 mph!

JayS wrote:+1. If we really want to have strategic bomber in future as a credible superpower stuff it has to be futuristic - Hypersonic and/or stealth. For now we could practice on borrowed platform, but becoming sola-anna suppa-power on borrowed weapons are simply wet dreams (Until our strategic weapons and delivery platforms are fully indigenous we are far from being any kind of super power. Today we are fully dependant on outsiders for even this). Stealth we are getting at through AMCA and Ghatak. We have two programs for Hypersonic engine. If we put money we would be spending on those LR bombers (which will be significant mullah) behind these two tech development, we could perhaps have a decent hypersonic stealth LR bomber in next 30-40yrs. And this would check all the tick boxes needed to be suppa-power - Own weapon, TFTA tech, stealthy, speed, LR, payload capacity.

And no I don't think its outlandish to think of having a hypersonic stealth LR bomber in 30-40yr time frame starting from today. But we need to augment our RnD efforts.


I would strongly suggest that any strategy which turns on success unfolding over a thirty-year time span; is woefully inadequate for these quickening times.

As others here have suggested, and IMVHO:

India cannot purchase "super power status" from foreign vendors: Therefore an Indigenous strategy is warranted.

Buying super-expensive, yet always somewhat ill-adapted foreign military wares, is unarguably a *foreign* drain on finances. Worse yet, this flow of money motivates foreign powers to maintain India's unease, it it drains Indian coffers, thereby slowing Indian development; or otherwise profiting from sales to India of "exportable" weapons.


RECOGNIZE: That in the Cold War schema that everyone seems to relish as a "Strategic Bomber", being hypersonic was considered destabilizing, as the fast flight time shortened the time to negotiate and de-escalate from MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). ***Strategic Bombers of that era, were akin to pointing a loaded and cocked pistol.*** It only has deterrent value if the enemy sees that you have it pointed right at them, but have yet to pull that trigger. The Strategic Bombers of that era ***weren't stealthy*** so that the enemy could see them coming, shiver in his pants, negotiate to de-escalte and signal same by turning some of his own bombers. Nuclear de-escalation with Strategic Bombers requires that the enemy sees you turn your bombers back around.

If this is not an option for India, because India has no benefit of the Arctic, and would have to go-on 'deterrence patrols' out over the sparsely-populated oceans........... Such Indian 'Strategic Bombers' would be very, very visible to all manner of long-range radar, not to mention satellites tracking IR emissions and now even 'wake turbulence' in the atmosphere using green-and-blue phase pulsed laser colimation. (That's right, the wake turbulence of hypersonic vehicles traveling through the atmosphere, is now visible from space-based platforms already on station.)

The very notions of 'hypersonic' and 'stealth' do not serve either the purposes or the warfighting environment likely to confront India when deterrence fails.

AGAIN, PLEASE CONSIDER: Why is it more scary to see one BlackJack with a quiver of 12 x 200 kt stand-off missiles, versus for the same money spent at-home, India could probably build-out, over the next decade or less, a C-130 class 'ekranoplan' variant that also had extensible cruciform wings to attain full-fledged flight. Each one of these craft could carry let's say 1 x 200 kt stand-off missile, plus a lightweight torpedo and an A2A missile. Others of similar design could carry a pair of Trishuls. Or more torpedoes. Or commandos. (Get my drift?) Having more platforms is in itself, of deterrent value. To the enemy watching, they'd have little insight into that low-flying horseshoe crab like creature is armed with a Brahmos, or a Nirbhay.

In the Cold War, when tensions were raised, both sides would increase the pace of their 'Deterrence Patrols'. These would last perhaps 20 hours or more, each flight, and they would just be there to signal their ability to strike targets within your territory. India cannot fly North over a hinterland, the way the American and the Russians did. Flying North would be problematic, yet flying South is off-target........

Much has been written and said that India is like an aircraft carrier jutting-out into the Indian ocean like the massive peninsula that it is.

There are many truths in this, and much to be said about it (but heretofore these things aren't really discussed, because too much of what passes for strategic thought is what I call "catalogue envy"). That is to say, Indians see things others have, and want them too (which isn't inherently a bad thing, but with military matters it is problematic for reasons such as India's climatic and geographic realities, etc.)

Getting back to my flying horseshoe crab ekranoplan with extensible cruciform wings for full-fledged flight at Mach 0.4 or better, which is about the size of a C-130 and no larger and no smaller, so as to better hide, shoot and scoot an *unpredictable range of seriously ominous weapons*.

IMVHO, if Indians want a hypersonic attack, it's better to fire a hypersonic missile. I think it's laughable to ask a human pilot to fly a hypersonic "Strategic Bomber" through the atmosphere to deliver large numbers of conventional bombs -- which seems to be the argument some are making.

Piloted aircraft should be restricted to supersonic speeds. They may use hypersonic missiles during a strike, but the craft itself should not be hypersonic if a person is to fly inside and survive.

What if the 'deterrence patrol' of India's future, involves a constantly shifting rotation of 100+ of these ekranoplan flying horseshoe crabs? They could fly-out and land on the water, and stay there for a day, and then fly-on to another point where they are re-fueled, and then onto another point where they watch for pirates and listen for subs, then onto another point to observe something closely, then back onto land for a change of crew? In this fashion, each craft could have a 'deterrence patrol' lasting ****days****, during which they would be a nightmare for India' adversaries to locate and track, especially if they are able to float just below the surface of the water. They could become a 'constant presence', an unpredictable presence, being both littoral and blue-water.

How would India's adversaries plan their decapitating first strike? (Would it be harder or easier for India's adversaries to target 12 BlackJacks or 100+ horseshoe crabs?)

I'm sorry, I haven't worked-up any graphics for this thread yet, but I am working on it. I just need to find that Youtube video of the horseshoe crab shaped Russian ekranoplan with the two exhaust ports aft and a very futuristic swept shape.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 11 May 2017 06:33

In all this Doctor Strangelove Wannabeism, one point remains a mystery to me. Why did India not bomb and strafe the pakistan out of the Chinese army as they poured down the Himalayan passes and towards Tezpur? Seems like that was a horde waiting to be massacred. India had a fair number of Spitfires etc that could reach the passes and strafe the PLA. What happened? Of course my view of the 1962 war is that the PLA ran all the way back to Beijing to avoid precisely that, since American bombers had landed at Kolkatta and were setting up shop to pulverize the supply lines. The PLA would have starved to death and had to surrender en masse if the Americans had hit the road bridges leading back over the Himalayas.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33300
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 11 May 2017 07:08

UlanBatori wrote:In all this Doctor Strangelove Wannabeism, one point remains a mystery to me. Why did India not bomb and strafe the pakistan out of the Chinese army as they poured down the Himalayan passes and towards Tezpur? Seems like that was a horde waiting to be massacred. India had a fair number of Spitfires etc that could reach the passes and strafe the PLA. What happened? Of course my view of the 1962 war is that the PLA ran all the way back to Beijing to avoid precisely that, since American bombers had landed at Kolkatta and were setting up shop to pulverize the supply lines. The PLA would have starved to death and had to surrender en masse if the Americans had hit the road bridges leading back over the Himalayas.


"According to Jaggi Nath (the Canberra pilot who photographed the Aksai Chin highway) he met Kaul in Army HQ with photographs of Chinese deployment after a routine sortie over Sinkiang and Tibet. ‘We had the run of the skies, there were simply no Chinese aircraft around that could threaten us. We got pictures of everything—vehicles, guns, their defences, especially in the DBO, Qara Qash and Galwan sectors.’ However, Kaul showed little interest in what the squadron leader had to say. ‘He kept saying how he was just coming from or going to meet the prime minister. For us, not used to the functioning of Army HQ, it looked like a parody.’" (from "1962: The War That Wasn't" by Shiv Kunal Verma)


Yakherder there are too many unanswered questions. The air force was ready but Nehru. Krishnamenon and Kaul thought that use of the air force would be an escalation. Finally when the army was massacred and defeated - Nehru had the gumption to ask the US and UK to save his backside - without even considering using the air force we had.

When civilians think they know too much about war and start dictating the conduct of war, meddling with leadership in the middle of a crisis - the 1962 story is one outcome. Nehru was an absolute disaster and his sycophants only added to the misery. The reason the Chinese went back is that they knew that their own logistics lines would get to long if they strayed further into the plains where the rest of the army would be fighting in terrain they were familiar with.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 11 May 2017 07:22

(Sigh!) Which goes to show that it's not Strategic Bombers that were and are needed: it is Straight-Thinking Brains.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2292
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby JayS » 11 May 2017 11:27

UlanBatori wrote:(Sigh!) Which goes to show that it's not Strategic Bombers that were and are needed: it is Straight-Thinking Brains.


This is why I have been maintaining that when as a nation we will have a need to project power we will have LR bombers. Before that even if we have, they will be pretty much useless, as far as their main intended use. When our whole mindset is the one of self-defense and maintaining status quo, we will neither have hunger to project power neither feel need to have the means. Anyway, without the aim, there is no use of mean. We need to put our horses before the cart. Right now we don't have the horses and we are discussing of buying uber and shining carts from goras.

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 559
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 11 May 2017 12:07

Uggg. So I can't seem to post an image here. Images I have hosted, no longer appear on BRF either, and I wonder if the problem is on my end or if BR servers don't permit that any more, or what. (?)

Oh well, I had clipped a couple of stills from this Youtube (which still seems to work)...



Check out the craft under construction still, it is the one that reminded me of a horseshoe crab, just after the 1 minute mark in the video, seemingly in unpainted yellow-anodized aircraft aluminum. Now imagine this craft but only three or four times larger, large enough to carry a couple of Nirbhays or one Brahmos-III. Or perhaps a canisterized K series missile?

Later on in this past day, after looking at pictures of actual horseshoe crabs, I was taken by their tails also. This gave me a further idea: What if this craft got initial lift out of the water, by using 'water jets' like those water jetpacks I've seen? These devices have some different designs, but basically, a backpack is strapped-on and it contains the power unit; from which trails a long hose that dangles into the water. The power unit draws water up the dangling hose, and the power unit ejects it forcefully downward, thus propelling the person wearing said backpack/power unit, high into the air. For examples of what I'm referring to, please click...
https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/the-water-jet-pack/

Now just try to imaging it..... all coming together..... to create a new kind of 'strategic craft' that upsets all strategies of all others! (More to come, right now I must sleep.....)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 11 May 2017 14:14

This hunt for a new bomber concept and the intriguing concepts arriving reminds me of an ancient tale that dates back from medieval Roman times. Humour me if I go "offside" for a moment!

The mil engineer-cum-architect,chief boffin in those days used to be a Leonardo type figure.master of many crafts/skills. The chief of the scuolo would be entrusted with designing fortifications,settlements,siege weapons,cannon,etc.You could call him the equiv of "DRDO chief"! In our part of the world,the most famous of them all was Gen.Claude Martin,after whom La Martiniere School in Lucknow is named.It was his mansion called Constantia (if I am correct,named after a damsel-unrequited love).CM is buried in the crypt of the school.The Gen. was famous for designing palaces for the nawabs,making cannon,and amazingly surveyed most of the NEast of the country. He was French,but the British employed him and made him a general. CM was also the most famous banker of his time,lending money to nawabs,etc.,He used to have great firework displays at his mansion,which had a huge lake as well,now gobbled up by the govt. Think he wrote poetry too and fully immersed himself in Indiana,dressing like a native,etc.Left his mansion to be turned into a school for teaching English.

Anyway,the point I was making is that Gen.Martin was a master of many things and was another in the long line of mil. geniuses down the ages. back to our Roman genius,master builder mil engr. One day,a young upcoming boffin sought an audience with the king as he wanted to show off his new mil machine meant to defeat siege towers ,v.popular in overwhelming city walls. He then showed off a model where a large crane-like device moved its crab-like claw over the wall and picked up the siege tower ,"capturing" it and bringing it back inside the city walls. Great applause from the king and court.The young man was rewarded with the plum job of chief engr.,replacing the old veteran who quietly faded from the scene.

Not much later,the city came under siege from a powerful invader who had a number of siege towers poised at the wall's weakest point to launch an assault.The young man was summoned and asked to put his machine into action. "But this was only a model!" he cried."You can't build such a large machine as there are no trees large enough to make the wooden beams for it". Howls of dismay,fear and great consternation all around.The king's chief minister then in desperation remembered the old veteran ,who was immediately summoned and asked him whether he could save them. The old gent simply smiled and asked for a collection of all the night soil of the city ,and as much water as possible to be collected and then secretly let out in the night through a hole in the wall where the siege towers stood.
It was done.The next morning saw the towers askew as the entire ground had become a soggy marsh.The towers could not move at all,be pulled out from the mud and were easily toppled with ropes. The siege failed.The old chief was lavishly rewarded and reinstated ,the young gent dumped and rewarded with the lash!

Moral of the story."Old is gold". Time tested birds (in the hand) like Bears,Backfires and Blackjacks better than new-fangled paper birds in the bush!

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8337
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 11 May 2017 16:18

Moral #2: (Nightsoil) beats technology any day (or night). :mrgreen:

The prospect of one hypersonic "astra" coming through the window of the Palace carrying a "package" without warning is a lot more scary than a fleet of bombers lumbering in, threatening to pulverize the peasantry.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 11 May 2017 17:03

Ha!Ha! :rotfl:
Oui mon ami,but lumbering flying dino can carry a mighty large load of hyper-astras of choice!
Deliver barrel bombs of night soil too!

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 11 May 2017 21:10

Partly the reason, I do not take "technical" folks too seriously. They are always into the next best thing and not hunkering down to make what we have or can have in hand work, fine tune and adapt. I mean look at that stupid B-52, expected to soldier on till 2040's, started in 1955!!


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aakashrj, Chinmay, ricky_v, srin, SRoy, TKiran and 23 guests