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.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4781
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 11 May 2017 21:15

JayS wrote:
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.
We do have the aim and intent clearly defined. It is to have a triad and a credible one. There could not have been a more explicitly written down set of aims and doctrine you will get in the Indian context to justify a LR strategic bomber. Furthermore, the use of the long range MPA TU-142M, that did have capability to carry torpedoes and missiles by the IN is further justification. The TU-142 roamed the IOR and forays into SCS were not uncommon. What more justification do we need?

I feel, we need to get out of the coolie mentality that only the gora nations and pretend goras have a right to have this in your face platforms.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4781
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 11 May 2017 21:34

^I want to further clarify that our needs for LR strike are not first use oriented hence no need to spend loads of operations budget on keeping them hot and active at all times.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby JayS » 11 May 2017 22:59

ShauryaT wrote:
JayS wrote:
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.
We do have the aim and intent clearly defined. It is to have a triad and a credible one. There could not have been a more explicitly written down set of aims and doctrine you will get in the Indian context to justify a LR strategic bomber. Furthermore, the use of the long range MPA TU-142M, that did have capability to carry torpedoes and missiles by the IN is further justification. The TU-142 roamed the IOR and forays into SCS were not uncommon. What more justification do we need?

I feel, we need to get out of the coolie mentality that only the gora nations and pretend goras have a right to have this in your face platforms.


Nuclear triad doesn't mean one has to have LR bomber. We already have Triad for self defense (the naval part is still weaker, but its being worked on). We all agree on importance of IOR region. But I see current dispensation focusing on Navy (ships) to cover that part.

And let me say it in very humble sense, there is no need to overcompensate by blindingly copying goras, just to get over coolie mentality. Putting money on something which is not as useful as some other platforms (for ex more SSBNs, better equipped bases in AN etc) which could give us more bang for the buck in near future, would be unwise. We don't have enough resources to show false bravado.

Yes, I am all for starting work on developing LR capability. But we don't have to hurry as yet and pour in billions and have a lot of them just now.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 11 May 2017 23:40

Just heard that another Indian ship has been seized by Somali pirates. Would you send the LR bomber fleet to build parking lots in Somalia? If there were hypersonic strike capability the pirates wouldn't dare - their leader's bungalow will be ash.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4781
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby ShauryaT » 12 May 2017 00:39

JayS wrote:Nuclear triad doesn't mean one has to have LR bomber. We already have Triad for self defense (the naval part is still weaker, but its being worked on). We all agree on importance of IOR region. But I see current dispensation focusing on Navy (ships) to cover that part.
What do you make of the credibility of the air component against China or are you saying no need for the triad there. I think, the SFC will disagree with your assessment, if it is so? As of now, their plans seem less than credible. Which reminds me, I owe a response to Shiv ji's use cases a few pages back.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 12 May 2017 02:45

Just out of curiosity: Why should it be a TRIAD? (let me guess: because the westerners said so)

Deterrence can come from
1. land-based ballistic missiles
2. air-launched missiles and bombs (could be from fighter planes with long-range tanks, heavy bombers, heavy cargo planes, or a transonic airliners loaded with nukes...
3. ship-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles
4. submarine-launched ballistic missiles
and...
5. PLUS: JDAMS (jehadi-detonated...) smuggled devices
6. Hypersonic-cruise missiles launched from any of the above.

Maybe call it a SEX-Ad??
So, most respectfully, the Strategic Triad is as yesterday as the Maginot Line or the Locked-Shield Roman Square or the Nokia 5320 phone (oh, wait! that's mine).

IB4TL

Ravi Karumanchiri
BRFite
Posts: 546
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 06:40
Location: www.ravikarumanchiri.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Ravi Karumanchiri » 12 May 2017 03:04

FYI anyone who wants to imagineer a novel design, I've recently discovered a FREE 3D Modelling software that works much the same way as those pricey softwares out there. You can check it out for yourself at http://freecadweb.org/.

I am still learning it, but will soon give form to the 'Strategic Craft' I would suggest for India, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

The broad outlines of this design are inspired by that 'ekranoplan' video I was turned-onto by esteemed and knowledgeable Rakshaks in this thread. In particular, the craft that appears under construction after 1 minute of that Youtube I posted above, in this thread.

My design is up-scaled somewhat, with a 'wingspan' and length both roughly around 30 meters. (NB: The C-130 Hercules has roughly 40 meters wingspan and 30 meters length. But since the entire fuselage itself is the wing area; 40 meters is probably too large for best use, and 30 meters in size is more practical. So, 30 meters is the 'wingspan' constraint I'll design ab initio. This lent itself to being powered by a pair of *existing generation Kaveri engines*. CONSIDER: While the Kaveri may be currently unable to better 85kn thrust, and this is insufficient to propel the LCA to its design envelop; this level of output may be perfectly sufficient for a craft designed to fly much, much slower than mach 2.0.

In a 30 meter 'flying horseshoe crab' design, two Kaveris could be on board and em placed *internally* within this 30 meters fuselage. (Please note a Nirbhay is 6 meters long, and a Brahmos LR is probably 8.5 meters long; which I mention as a relevant point of reference.

So, 30 meters diameter..... 170kns thrust powered by twin Kaveris.... an extensible/retractable tail that can be used to draw-up water to be propelled downward for water take-offs and landings ***with no aircraft carriers or runways of any description being required to takeoff and land***.


Much has been written in this thread and others, about fancy aircraft of every description, but all of them must 'rally' at 'choke points' called airports and air bases or at least, runways. Of course, the reality is: All of these immovable areas (and in the case of naval aircraft carriers, the carriers themselves do move, but so are they even more critical targets); the enemy will seek to destroy India's ability to operate from/within/through that air domain, by attacking assets on the surface (whether land or sea).

This is the true genius of amphibious 'strategic craft' (i.e. potentially, but not necessarily, nuclear armed vessels that fly slow and low, and can shoot and scoot and hide and surprise -- operating far afield and far offshore, in constellations of differing craft, each with special abilities that represent a *distributed capability*). The enemy's counter strike against these deployed forces, becomes asymmetrically more expensive and less workable, as uncertainty and dispersion increases. (More on this later.)

If such an amphibious 'strategic craft' could be made to truly love the water; I mean get wet over its head (but perhaps not much over it's protruding sensors); this could be akin to having *re-position-able* missile silos in the ocean. To underscore this point: I am advocating for a 'basic design' which outwardly looks identical from one model/version to the next. However, one such craft could be maximized for fuel carriage, to re-fuel the others. Another might be for troop-carrying, or air defense with a wide variety of anti-air weapons, or anti-submarine designs of various descriptions. The point is: Having multiple kinds of platforms that look essentially identical: Means the enemy would not know which of these deployed craft to target during a first strike, and would have to risk starting an all-out counterattack and escalating war, over a mere listening station (or is it carrying a Shourya, a K4?).

Being able to operate in distributed fashion, is itself of great deterrent value. Not to mention: The basic design I've suggested lends itself to carriage of very heavy warloads. It may not be a swift craft, but it has much to recommend it as a 'punishing' design, as warbirds go.

Please consider: Current aircraft carriers cannot operate aircraft during high sea states (too much wind and wave). But I think if this 30 meters craft had two Kaveris powering pumps; and this apparatus was used to suck-in water from the tail, and shoot it downward to propel the craft upward.... such a craft could launch into the wind (particularly if it had a projecting wing that sprung-up during take-off and flight, yet folded away while waterborne), even during very stormy sea states, and more wind and wave than an air craft carrier can handle.....

What would it mean to have 'bomb trucks' that could operate entirely from and into water?

Being able to operate from inland lakes, would mean not only are 'home' facilities impervious to bombing; it would mean that the enemy's inland lakes are potentially 'forward operating bases'!

What if such craft could re-arm and re-supply submarines at sea?

Or move large numbers of troops and helpful bits of armor and arty?

Think about it.

And if you can, draw it. Design it.

I'll do what I can, but I'm just learning CAD right now, as I go. This will be my first 'industrial design'.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 12 May 2017 04:51

Isn't it simpler to recruit Pakistanis, give them each a soosai vest and ask them to fly this contraption into LaHore? The Ekramoplan is at least a few decades too old. Since about 1970, ppl discovered that unless u r going supersonic, and if u r flying low, high-bypass turbofans beat the heck out of these long turbojet thingies. So you don't need 16 engines racked up to do the job: 4 will do.

India could use a whole fleet of sea-planes to defend the long coastline. Much more needed than Long Range useless thingies. In fact, small sea-planes can serve as long-range aircraft: Look how Lindbergh did it (not sure if his was a sea-plane). Pan Am Clipper was long range.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 12 May 2017 07:05

ShauryaT wrote:I feel, we need to get out of the coolie mentality that only the gora nations and pretend goras have a right to have this in your face platforms.

Shaurya - I request you to keep off this worthless rhetoric. As you know this is a word game that two can play. Note that the desire for a "long range strategic bomber" as expressed on this thread is solely based on cargo-cult coolie copying of goras with no semblance of knowledge of geography or tech limitations. "They have it so we must have it" - so describing opponents of that in fancy terms is specious.

Stick to specifics. What is required of a long range bomber. Where will it go (route and range)? What will it do? Where are we technologically placed to get there?
Last edited by shiv on 12 May 2017 07:12, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 12 May 2017 07:09

JayS wrote:Nuclear triad doesn't mean one has to have LR bomber.

:D Totally true. But no one wants to know. Long range bombers are a result of geography and cold war history. I am perfectly willing to post pages and pages of data in support of this statement - but will spare this thread for now. They are not useless but unless we describe the (niche?) role we have for them it is too easy to try and copy the specs and weapon/sensor loads of cold war legacy weapons platforms and think that those are appropriate for us.
Last edited by shiv on 12 May 2017 07:13, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 12 May 2017 07:12

If we need long range bombers (let me call them attack aircraft) to "project power" over foreign shores, who are we looking to send signals to? That is a fundamental question. If we can get an answer to that we can talk about how that can be done (or not done)

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 12 May 2017 07:47

The whole point of the Strategic Triad and in our case the Sex-Ad, is to never have to use them. Their Strategic use is only on DoomsDay. All other instances of Long Range Bombers being used, have been just "Oh let's take the opportunity to take old Ludmila or Betty-Jean on a ride". Bush1 didn't really NEED to carpet bomb the Republican Guard caught in the desert - they would have surrendered given half the chance. The Pakiban caught in the Shomali Plain didn't NEED B-52s or B-1s or B-2s: F-16s and F-18s were doing an perfectly adequate job. In Syria the Tu-22s were just standing in for other fighter planes, and needed a chance for a test-drive.

So! there has been no real usage of a long-range strategic bomber after the nuclear age really started. Enola Gay was an experimental 1-bomb wonder, not so much a Strategic Bomber.

IOW, even if the Chinese come marching over the Himalayas and are 100 miles outside Delhi, India will not use any Strategic Bombers to send nukes to China. It would be national suicide.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 13 May 2017 06:31, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 12 May 2017 08:21

I would like to launch into a tirade.

When we talk of big powers and big boys - we need to see the extent to which we follow rules set by the big boys. The extent to which we make our own rules is an indicator.

For example the MTCR limit of 300 km that we laboured under for years (but broke out of on our own) was solely to protect the US and NATO allies from "near enemies" like Cuba, Iran etc. For India it meant jackshit. The threat from Pakistan was in no way mitigated by this idiotic regime.

We need to look at "strategic bomber" through the perspective of how it gives us global power rather than regional power. Dominating or threatening China only makes us a convenient ally of the US. Whatever system we develop has to be useful against anyone - including the US. There is no use thinking that simply threatening China will make us a world player. From this perspective a long range strategic bomber becomes virtually useless. But I will repeat myself if I re state why that is so.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby yensoy » 12 May 2017 08:22

Looks like we are trying to revive a process from the 60s http://www.siloworld.net/DOWNLOADS/SAC%20Brief%20History%20Reduced.pdf.

There is one thing you can do with bombers which you just can't with missiles. Fly over enemy territory, open bomb bay and threaten; yes you can do that only to enemies without anti aircraft guns. Their utility ends there. For actual delivery, missiles will do the job faster, cheaper and more precisely.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57198
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 12 May 2017 12:03

to beat up the two local hoodlums I am thinking if the b1b/tu160 are white elephants, perhaps a next gen ELO design around the size of the famous british V_bombers - the valiant, victor and vulcan(of falklands fame) is the right size. bigger than platypus, smaller than backfire. i think all had internal bays.

take a look
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_bomber

kit
BRFite
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby kit » 12 May 2017 13:15

Singha wrote:to beat up the two local hoodlums I am thinking if the b1b/tu160 are white elephants, perhaps a next gen ELO design around the size of the famous british V_bombers - the valiant, victor and vulcan(of falklands fame) is the right size. bigger than platypus, smaller than backfire. i think all had internal bays.

take a look
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_bomber



Boss the B1B and B52 do have their utility for a global expeditionary power like US . As bomb trucks they are unparalleled in cost effective delivery of smart weapons.

Now is India thinking along similar lines and put a blackjack to work in an uncontested air space ? This we don't know . Hence there is a futility in this discussion.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16190
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Philip » 12 May 2017 13:32

Shiv is right,we don't want to excite too many external powers what! But that is exactly what we want to possess."Speak softly but possess bombers carrying "big sticks" with a v.long reach.The talk is now of a "900km" BMos variant set to make its entrance before 2020. Along with Nirbhay,which should have a 1500KM+ range, Heavy strat. bombers with huge bomb bays can carry an awesome arsenal of stand-off weapons. One is not suggesting that we fly over Beijing and drop "dumb bombs". Fighters found it v.difficult just intercepting the Bear at alt. which is the fastest turboprop flying. A Mach 2 strat. bomber is going to be more difficult. Until our "flying wing" arrives,and is alarge enough for it to carry a reasonable amt. of hardware,we must eat what one can find on the shelves.

"I am hungry today,give me unripe fruit",is an old saying,but the fruit on the shelf is ripe,perhaps a trifle over-ripe but certainly not green!

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57198
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 12 May 2017 21:56

The mighty victor bomber


Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57198
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 12 May 2017 21:59

Valiant bomber



Uk had a huge aerospace industry to produce 3 types of bombers from 3 cos in parallel

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57198
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 12 May 2017 22:02

Avro vulcan the mirage8000


JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby JayS » 12 May 2017 22:37

Singha wrote:Valiant bomber



Uk had a huge aerospace industry to produce 3 types of bombers from 3 cos in parallel


This I saw in a documentary so take it FWIW. I have not verified it. UK after WW2, in the frenzy to cover the lost ground was spending upto 10% of its GDP on defense (including nuclear program and all). Yes, their Aero Industry was doing good. But they could not sustain it through 1960s. Soon UK's aero industry bundled up. Even US and USSR have spent crazy amounts on their MIC built up. We spend only a minute fraction on development of our MIC and thus our returns remain below par.

PS: Well its true afterall. Chart of UK defense spending as % of GDP:
Image
Last edited by JayS on 12 May 2017 22:53, edited 1 time in total.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3146
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Cosmo_R » 12 May 2017 22:39

yensoy wrote:Looks like we are trying to revive a process from the 60s http://www.siloworld.net/DOWNLOADS/SAC%20Brief%20History%20Reduced.pdf.

There is one thing you can do with bombers which you just can't with missiles. Fly over enemy territory, open bomb bay and threaten; yes you can do that only to enemies without anti aircraft guns. Their utility ends there. For actual delivery, missiles will do the job faster, cheaper and more precisely.


Ohio Class SSGNs suddenly turn up having crossed the Pacific undetected and it sends a shiver looking for a Chinese spine to run up.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57198
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 13 May 2017 06:57

Uk seems master of the wing root blended engine
Victor valiant canberra then the beautiful de havilland comet

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 13 May 2017 07:55

The Russians are the ones who showed that all those curved metal fabrication nightmares are not worth it. Anyway these were transonic/subsonic, not enough power to punch through the transonic without diving. If you want a modern supersonic long-range bomber, probably the best best for India is to tie two Su-30MKIs wingtip to wing tip and hang a big bomb-container-cum fuel tank minimum-drag supersonic body in the middle. 4 engines, 4 intakes. 2 pilots or 4 pilots.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57198
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 13 May 2017 08:08

A scaled up by 50% yf23 with 2 deep internal bays would great. Great speed at dry thrust and vlo. Both are musy for contested airspace

Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby shiv » 13 May 2017 08:47

Singha wrote:Avro vulcan the mirage8000


The guy uses up more than 1/2 the runway before he allows his nosewheel to touch the runway. And that frightening climb rate with its massive 0.3 T/W ratio? Just kills me. This plane when loaded will do exactly nothing from Leh or Tibet airfields

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 57198
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Singha » 13 May 2017 19:15

Ancient engines compared to todays composites and engines.

Yb23mki is it.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7083
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby UlanBatori » 13 May 2017 22:50

Nope. Expanding a fighter is a non-starter - how will you expand the cockpit? What about engines - need totally new engines. Totally new landing gear.

Twin-Su30MKIs. Because you need 4 engines to carry the big bomb load, and a nice slung fuel container in between to extend the range. f 1 or even 2 engines are kaput, no big deal, can still make it back to base. Look at the f-82 Twin Mustang was - mission was also long-range (fighter escort, so maneuverable), designed in a hurry. They can save weight by converting one side cockpit into radar/ ECM module, and eliminating 2 of the 4 tails (the ones that remain must be bigger). Make sure to tie the thrust-vectoring paddles together or things can become very bad.

designed to escort Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers on missions exceeding 2,000 miles (3,200 km) from the Solomon Islands or Philippines to Tokyo, missions beyond the range of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning and conventional P-51 Mustangs. Such missions were part of the planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, which was forestalled by the surrender of Japan

During the Korean War, Japan-based F-82s were among the first USAF aircraft to operate over Korea. The first three North Korean aircraft destroyed by U.S. forces were shot down by F-82s, the first being a North-Korean Yak-11 downed over Gimpo Airfield by the USAF 68th Fighter Squadron.

This can be mass-produced in India since India already knows how to assemble Su-30MKIs. I have never been sure how India manages to have engines for the Russian planes built in India, but same can be done here. Minimal technological leap (needs a good mid-wing spar and integrated tank/bomb bay designed to match supersonic area rule of the whole vehicle), proven capabilities, absolutely unique in the world, 400% India-geniusly designed and built. Pls remember to send me a postcard when this smashes PLA out of Tibet and Xinjiang and Myanmar and Gwadar.

if you look at B-52, Bear and B-2, the common feature is high aspect ratio. B-52 and Bear have just very long wings. B-2 IS a wing. Vulcan and B-70 and Tu-22 were in their times built for world-beating speed so they went with very large wing area (low wing loading). Tu-22 incorporated swing wing to get subsonic high aspect ratio, then swept wings for supersonic dash. Su-30 design can have both if the central wing is properly designed.

abhik
BRFite
Posts: 1827
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby abhik » 13 May 2017 23:27

Another characteristic of heavy LR bombers is the ability to carry 80-100+% of its empty weight in internal fuel, compared to 40% ballpark for most fighters.

Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2143
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

Postby Klaus » 19 May 2017 11:13

UlanBatori wrote:Isn't it simpler to recruit Pakistanis, give them each a soosai vest and ask them to fly this contraption into LaHore? The Ekramoplan is at least a few decades too old. Since about 1970, ppl discovered that unless u r going supersonic, and if u r flying low, high-bypass turbofans beat the heck out of these long turbojet thingies. So you don't need 16 engines racked up to do the job: 4 will do.

India could use a whole fleet of sea-planes to defend the long coastline. Much more needed than Long Range useless thingies. In fact, small sea-planes can serve as long-range aircraft: Look how Lindbergh did it (not sure if his was a sea-plane). Pan Am Clipper was long range.


Which is where a desi modified version of Japanese US-2 can serve as a true LRMP as well as a search & rescue type of craft in the deep Indian Ocean. The possibilities of such a plane are endless, it can literally communicate with subs by landing right next to them while they're at periscope depth in the water.

IN and the coast guard should have dozens of these planes, suitably modified for littoral and true LRMP capabilities respectively.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jaeger, Pratyush, ricky_v, Vyas and 20 guests