Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Dec 2016 01:40

shiv wrote:Was doodling distances on Googe Earth and it seems to me that there is very little of practical value that a 2500 km radius Tu 22 can do which cannot be achieved by a 1500 km radius MKI. Just my inference that whether you draw 2500 km (Tu 22) long lines or 1500 km long (MKI) lines they both either end in mid-ocean, in mid China or both sets of lines can reach Persian gulf entrance or Malacca straits from either mainland India or from Andamans.

Utility wise I am unable to see the difference. Unfortunately I need to find a tool that draws 2500/1500 km radius circles on a world map centered at various places like South India, North East India, Gujarat and Andamans to illustrate what I mean. My phree Googal earth does not do that


The range figures you have are probably lower estimates. The tu-22m3 likely has more than twice the range of the mki. Combat radius will be 3500-4000 without IFR not 2500. When I checked, this allows the backfire to cover an arc from sw Australia to Madagascar.

The range figures most sources tend to present are those of the older tu22 blinder or the m2s. The m3s actual range was never published by the Soviets who stuck to 2400km radius of the m2. But cryptically they did refer to an up to 45% increase in performance with the m3. All that is really known is that there was a newer engine with greater thrust and better sfc along with weight reduction and aerodynamic refinements allowing fit an increase in the top speed from 1800kmph for the m2 too 2300kmph for the m3. The ASRs required the bird to carry 3 kh22s or 24tons for 7000km and operate from runways no more than 1600m. I think the m3 came very close to achieving said figures, at least from known public records.

Do note that the backfire (tu22m)was derived from the tu145 model, totally different from the blinder. It was an out and out fast bomber at high altitude...2000 kmph, and was expected to provide a supersonic cruise range of 4000km and sub sonic, 8000km.

There was a lot of fud by the Soviets regarding the backfires range. As in the quote in my previous post....4000km combat radius..

I'd be surprised if the radius was only 1000km more than mki. Consider that it carries about 50tons of fuel internally and weighs just about as much empty. That is a very high fuel fraction. The mki otoh, carries about 55% of its empty weight in fuel.

Most of the above info is taken from yefim Gordon's work on the tu22 and tu22m

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 25 Dec 2016 01:43

ShauryaT wrote:^Sure, Thailand has a choice to make. What I know of Thailand, I know what its preferences are. BTW: we are talking 4-5 mins of flight time and interception will be a joke. If Thailand has the gumption to challenge India in this manner, I agree we have no business challenging China.

"Challenge India in this manner"?!! They're an independent country and have the right to defend their sovereign airspace against foreign incursions.

Its not just 4-5 mins flight time. And even if the Thais were slow in responding the first time round (not expecting to be blindsided by a cordial neighbour), they certainly aren't going to be when the bombers are on the return leg of the trip.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Indranil » 25 Dec 2016 01:55

One opens a war using fighters. One closes it using bombers. If you havn't gained air dominance required to let your bombers finish the job, you can't win the war. This is the story of almost every air-war till date.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby LokeshC » 25 Dec 2016 02:33

No sane neutral country will allow its airspace to be used by any foreign power to fight wars, even if its for a few minutes.

The next thing you know your airspace will be controlled by someone else.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Dec 2016 02:45

What happens if you just fly through real fast....whether they like it or not? There is a very small strip of myanmar next to AP, maybe 50km wide as the crow flies, which could be crossed in minutes. Chengdu is only a few 100 km from there.

Will Myanmar actually shoot down such a one off incursion or launch a diplomatic protest? India did do a cross border raid not too long ago against ulfa into myanmar without much repercussions. Just wondering...

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2016 02:58

Viv S wrote:"Challenge India in this manner"?!! They're an independent country and have the right to defend their sovereign airspace against foreign incursions.

Its not just 4-5 mins flight time. And even if the Thais were slow in responding the first time round (not expecting to be blindsided by a cordial neighbour), they certainly aren't going to be when the bombers are on the return leg of the trip.
You really think, when two giants are fighting, international legality will be allowed to come in the way. If India thinks that way, then for sure we have no business fighting another giant, might well as shut up with our tails between our legs or become a poodle. Please do go back and forward in world history and ask what happens to the international conventions of sovereignty of small nations, when a large country needs to have its way. With carrots or sticks, cooperation of opposition, if we cannot have our way with the littoral states - i will say again, we have no business challenging China.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Viv S » 25 Dec 2016 06:28

ShauryaT wrote:You really think, when two giants are fighting, international legality will be allowed to come in the way.

I think that the RTAF jet will mean business when he tells the Tu-22 to land at the nearest airport.

If India thinks that way, then for sure we have no business fighting another giant, might well as shut up with our tails between our legs or become a poodle. Please do go back and forward in world history and ask what happens to the international conventions of sovereignty of small nations, when a large country needs to have its way. With carrots or sticks, cooperation of opposition, if we cannot have our way with the littoral states - i will say again, we have no business challenging China.

China is larger and stronger than us on every tangible military, economic & political count. If we expect Thais to roll over because their state is weaker than ours, than perhaps we too should be rolling over for the Chinese.

Thailand will remain neutral only as long as it shares cordial relations with both parties. The moment is a victim to hostile military action by one of them, the neutrality ends.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2016 10:37

ShauryaT wrote:
Viv S wrote:"Challenge India in this manner"?!! They're an independent country and have the right to defend their sovereign airspace against foreign incursions.

Its not just 4-5 mins flight time. And even if the Thais were slow in responding the first time round (not expecting to be blindsided by a cordial neighbour), they certainly aren't going to be when the bombers are on the return leg of the trip.
You really think, when two giants are fighting, international legality will be allowed to come in the way. If India thinks that way, then for sure we have no business fighting another giant, might well as shut up with our tails between our legs or become a poodle. Please do go back and forward in world history and ask what happens to the international conventions of sovereignty of small nations, when a large country needs to have its way. With carrots or sticks, cooperation of opposition, if we cannot have our way with the littoral states - i will say again, we have no business challenging China.

May I interject in this conversation with a few observations (my views based on my reading) of warfighting?

In theory if we were to send fighters/bombers across Thai and Myanmarese territory to hit Chinese targets we need to have a very clear idea of what we are hitting and whether it will have any effect whatsoever on the Chinese ability to conduct war. This is an important issue because ultimately the senseless bombing of each others cities in WW2 as well as senseless bombing of Vietnamese cities later had little effect on the conduct of the war. It was physical occupation of territory by one or other side that ended the war

As I see it the only target that would hurt the Chinese if we really could damage it would be the submarine base at Hainan Island. Almost nothing else would be better than simply kicking ass on land and blocking off two chokepoints at Malacca and the Persian gulf. For the latter blockade we have some inherent geographical advantages that we must and will use. The Chinese know that too.

Of course using nukes is a different issue.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2016 11:20

^Thanks Shiv ji: I look upon these backfire assets as strategic in nature, so not run of the mill bombing on main land targets. The missions would be nuclear, stopping a CBG and you mention Hainan, which can be worthwhile. Recognize the difficulty in locating a CBG in open waters but just that it would be a worthwhile target. But, in an earlier post, you seem to dismiss their LRMP roles - not an expert but seems these bombers can do those roles adequately though not optimized for sub sonic performance.

Correspondingly, I would argue for the PLAN, targets in A&N and east coast of India without crossing the straits could be worthwhile. Our own CBG's and INS Varsha for example. But they do need better launch points, refuelers, until their LR bombers are ready. Management of the littoral states is critical. These LR bombers also hold a psychological value that we are willing to strike out and they are exclusively positioned against China. PRC has to know we have all parts of the triad ready to hit them. If we continue to not invest, we will be left with no choices but acquiesce to their wishes as already being asked to do on the CPEC.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2016 11:25

Cain Marko wrote:
The range figures you have are probably lower estimates. The tu-22m3 likely has more than twice the range of the mki. Combat radius will be 3500-4000 without IFR not 2500. When I checked, this allows the backfire to cover an arc from sw Australia to Madagascar.

Overestimation of the range of the Tu 22 was deliberately done by McDonnell Douglas because its true range had been estimated by the CIA and by Bill Sweetman separately. There was a risk that a huge F-15 order would be cancelled if it became known that the Tu 22s range was not as much as advertised. Talk of US psy ops

read it all here
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-f ... 180957300/
Spying on the Soviets, With Graph Paper and a Calculator
Figuring out the specs of Cold War Soviet airplanes was educated guesswork, if you had the right tools.

During the cold war, I worked for Flight International in London. Along with my colleague Doug Richardson—every aviation magazine needs a Leica-toting, Scottish, philhellene former-teenage-apprentice-in-a-radar-factory—I was frustrated about our coverage of Soviet technology. One of our competitors was friendly with U.S. Air Force intelligence, another was getting fed snapshots of the latest aircraft from the Military Liaison Missions (MLM)—the Western allies’ legal spies in East Germany—and another employed a chap with a Russian name but a didactic manner that nailed him as Schweizerdeutsch if not German. He seemed to have a source in someone’s intelligence community. And us? We were nowhere.

We found a source who passed us the MLM pictures and plotted over pints in the Rose & Crown. I invested in some graph paper and a Sinclair Cambridge calculator, and we got to work.

Last August, at Moscow’s MAKS airshow, a Russian colleague asked how we’d done it back then, working from a photo or two to generate a rough three-view drawing and calculate performance. I told him there were no rules, because intelligence analysts were usually the only people who ever tried. But if you knew the basic dimensions, there were some graphics tricks that could get you to the right shape. Next you drew in where things like the engine, cockpit, and landing gear went. The remaining spaces contained fuel.

There were wins, losses, and draws, plus a few lessons.

Everyone got the Mikoyan MiG-23 wrong. Despite its formidable appearance, the swing-wing fighter was an evil-minded aircraft—“It would accelerate until it blew up,” said one veteran of the U.S. Constant Peg evaluation program, an Air Force squadron that flew Soviet MiGs so American pilots could figure out how to defeat them. Another Constant Peg pilot told colleagues: “Most of the time, it’s trying to kill me.” Lesson: Don’t mirror-image. We’d assumed the MiG-23 was as capable as the latest Western fighters.

The Soviet speed champ, the Mikoyan MiG-25, fooled everyone as well. Our quasi-Russian rival (we called him Ivan Rippemovsky) claimed it had a 3,400-mile range at supersonic speed. Turns out the NATO radar tracks he’d based that on weren’t from MiG-25s but from the Tu-123 Yastreb spy drone (which started life as a cruise missile).

Then there was the Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire bomber. Everyone thought it was equivalent to the U.S. Air Force’s Rockwell B-1, and had a similar range. But based on the fuzzy photos at hand, the graph paper and the Cambridge disagreed. The Backfire had room for only about 50 tons of fuel, about two-thirds what everyone thought.

Or nearly everyone. Not long after we published our numbers, I got a call from a puzzled engineer at McDonnell Douglas, who wondered how we had hit the same numbers his team had. I told him about my calculator.

In 1992, the Russians brought the Tu-22M to the Farnborough International Air Show, along with a one-page handout. We’d hit the fuel capacity within five percent. Later, I found out why that McDonnell Douglas guy was so surprised: His team had been working for what he preferred to call the Culinary Institute of America, which was quarreling with the Air Force. The Air Force claimed the Backfire had intercontinental range; the CIA said it could make it with inflight refueling but could never get back.

U.S. Air Force intelligence boss Major General George Keegan threatened to mess with the F-15 program—a huge McDonnell Douglas contract—if MD’s analysts, the ones feeding the CIA, didn’t find more fuel tanks in the Russian bomber so that their conclusions matched his. CEO Sanford “Sandy” McDonnell stood his ground. Keegan went on to start the Great Space Laser Panic of ’79. And the Tu-22M did what it did best, which wasn’t strategic bombing but scaring the bejeesus out of carrier groups.

Lesson: Sometimes senior officers stretch the truth until it breaks. But the calculator tells no lies.



Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-f ... 4mhz1K2.99
Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2016 11:32

ShauryaT wrote: But, in an earlier post, you seem to dismiss their LRMP roles - not an expert but seems these bombers can do those roles adequately though not optimized for sub sonic performance.

<snip>

These LR bombers also hold a psychological value that we are willing to strike out and they are exclusively positioned against China. PRC has to know we have all parts of the triad ready to hit them. If we continue to not invest, we will be left with no choices but acquiesce to their wishes as already being asked to do on the CPEC.


From here
http://defenceupdate.in/india-really-ne ... re-bomber/
Operate with caution

The Russian bomber is certainly a game changer, but it doesn’t mean India should rush headlong into a deal. In terms of size, firepower and reach, it dwarfs everything in India’s air arm, but it should not be forgotten that the Tu-22M is a 40 year old design. It last rolled off the assembly lines in 1993 and the aircraft is well out of guarantee, so the delivery of spares might be an issue.

Flight Global reports that in 1991 the Tu-22M mission-capable rate was just 30-40 per cent, although it was not really a representative year because that’s when the Soviet command economy had collapsed.

India should have bought these aircraft cheap as chips when the Soviet Union dissolved and Moscow was wondering what to do with 300 surplus Backfires. But costs aside, having a nascent fleet comprising just four bombers would still be a good idea as it would give India a rare glimpse into the world of strategic airpower.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2505
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby darshhan » 25 Dec 2016 13:31

My contention. If India has to buy a strategic maritime bomber, then why not go Tu 160 blackjack. The advantage will be newer build, extra range and payload. Looks much better than tu 22m backfires

maxratul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 16:44

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby maxratul » 25 Dec 2016 13:57

ShauryaT wrote:Please do go back and forward in world history and ask what happens to the international conventions of sovereignty of small nations, when a large country needs to have its way. With carrots or sticks, cooperation of opposition, if we cannot have our way with the littoral states - i will say again, we have no business challenging China.


This type of flawed thinking majorly contributed to the German defeat in the great war (and ww2 also to some extent.) The entire meticulously detailed Schlieffen plan collapsed once the Belgians decided not to play ball. Respecting sovereignty of neutral nations is even more critical in times of war.
Last edited by maxratul on 25 Dec 2016 14:20, edited 1 time in total.

ritesh
BRFite
Posts: 244
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 17:48
Location: Mumbai

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ritesh » 25 Dec 2016 14:13

Why not su35 for navy?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Dec 2016 14:32

shiv wrote:Overestimation of the range of the Tu 22 was deliberately done by McDonnell Douglas because its true range had been estimated by the CIA and by Bill Sweetman separately. There was a risk that a huge F-15 order would be cancelled if it became known that the Tu 22s range was not as much as advertised. Talk of US psy ops

read it all here
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-f ... 180957300/


Yes, I have read the sweetman article. He points out to 50 tons of fuel approximately as within 5% accuracy. But also consider that the empty weight is about 47-53 tons. That is a very high fuel fraction to get ranges of just around 1000km more than mki. Put in another way, it weighs 3 x mki but carries 5 x the fuel. Almost every source puts it around 7000km range including this one
https://books.google.com/books?id=CPRVbYDc-7kC&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=empty+weight+tu-22m+backfire&source=bl&ots=vKQG5FWsSl&sig=5-OrumW9p4tqw0SiRF_78Ulg65Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH6frf7Y7RAhVMQiYKHTnPDGA4ChDoAQgpMAY#v=onepage&q=empty%20weight%20tu-22m%20backfire&f=false
This kind of fuel fraction is more similar to other long range supersonic bombers like the b1 or even the blinder...the b1 for example is 87 tons empty and total fuel capacity of 92 tons. And the b1s range is proportionately more than the backfire..11000km. Tu22 blinder is at 46 tons empty and 45 ton fuel capacity with a range of 5000km.
To add to to the mess, alot of times the blinder and backfire are confused as the same because of the familiar tu22 designation. They are not, not even the same program.
The backfire sits between the blinder and Lancer, weights and performance wise. Again 7000km stands to reason although there are some who consider it higher.

So, While it is possible that the US purposely overestimated the range on the bird, there is plenty to suggest that it was under reported by the russians. Like I said lots of FUD. ultimately though most sources, western and Russian put it around the 7000km mark. My own amateurish comparisons of fuel fractions also lead me to believe these. Also, The Russians always used it as a long range aviation asset.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2016 14:38

Fuel weight is only a rough indicator. Fuel efficiency of Russian engines and flight profile are equally important. That aside we don't know what the range is but are simply impressed by Russian brochures and American anxieties - being used to assuage our own anxieties. Not the most reliable argument to actually operate this aircraft in my view. But unless better details like spares and uptime are known no one can be sure.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2016 14:50


This link has no range information on the aircraft we are talking about.

But on a page other than the one you linked above the link gives specs for the older Tu 22 codenamed "Blinder". Check what it says.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4843
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Neshant » 25 Dec 2016 14:57

Airspace over a country is considered sovereign.
No country should overfly another unless it is at war or unless permission can be obtained to do so.
Its considered a hostile act plus they will try to shoot the offending aircraft down - which is a hazard.

China is already grabbing and militarizing islands in the South China sea near the Spratleys through which Europe's and Asia's maritime traffic reaches South East Asia, Japan and Australia. Perhaps India should do the same. Grab one or two islands (with the permission of Indonesia) and start militarizing it. Return it to Indonesia as and when this PLAN threat abates.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2016 21:22

darshhan wrote:My contention. If India has to buy a strategic maritime bomber, then why not go Tu 160 blackjack. The advantage will be newer build, extra range and payload. Looks much better than tu 22m backfires
Not available for sale, is it? Maybe a slight overkill for our needs anyways. Rather we get the bears and join the proposed PAK-DA project. It is either Russian wares or nothing in this category, I am afraid.

What we should do with the Tu-22 is make it a regular exercise to traverse our lake from our coasts to Agalegas, Mozambique, A&N, Nha Trang in regular flights to show the flag (in reconnaissance mode only). Our ability to undertake LR patrols over this region will be an important show of force. Think it would take more than just 4 bombers for these regular patrols. But this will require a different type of military budget, not the 2% one and not the penny pincher attitude that does prevail, which resists setting up these off shore posts as expensive assets. Short sighted view, IMO but if the budgetary support is not there, it is a pointless discussion.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2016 21:37

Neshant wrote:Airspace over a country is considered sovereign.
No country should overfly another unless it is at war or unless permission can be obtained to do so.
Its considered a hostile act plus they will try to shoot the offending aircraft down - which is a hazard.

China is already grabbing and militarizing islands in the South China sea near the Spratleys through which Europe's and Asia's maritime traffic reaches South East Asia, Japan and Australia. Perhaps India should do the same. Grab one or two islands (with the permission of Indonesia) and start militarizing it. Return it to Indonesia as and when this PLAN threat abates.
For all the sovereignty claims, power differentials do matter and always has. Let me point to a very recent episode on what happened when Turkey was refusing permission to the Americans over use of the Incirlik air based for operations in Syria. Turkey remains a NATO partner. Turkey did resist its maximum based on how it saw its sovereign national interests with fears of strengthening the Kurds. But, at the end of the day, when push came to shove for operations in Kobani, the Turkish were left with no choice as the Americans simply informed them that they are going ahead and using Incirlik. A small recent incident, where no critical national interests of the US was directly involved. Smaller nations can resist only unto a point. So, yes cultivate them doing peace time for in war even the smallest of issues, such a 5 minute overflight can make a huge difference.

It is OK to make common cause with the Americans, in the name of rights and international laws, however let us not make the critical mistake of NOT projecting national hard power, for someone else would. Power hates a vacuum.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2505
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby darshhan » 25 Dec 2016 21:59

ShauryaT wrote:
darshhan wrote:My contention. If India has to buy a strategic maritime bomber, then why not go Tu 160 blackjack. The advantage will be newer build, extra range and payload. Looks much better than tu 22m backfires
Not available for sale, is it? Maybe a slight overkill for our needs anyways. Rather we get the bears and join the proposed PAK-DA project. It is either Russian wares or nothing in this category, I am afraid.

What we should do with the Tu-22 is make it a regular exercise to traverse our lake from our coasts to Agalegas, Mozambique, A&N, Nha Trang in regular flights to show the flag (in reconnaissance mode only). Our ability to undertake LR patrols over this region will be an important show of force. Think it would take more than just 4 bombers for these regular patrols. But this will require a different type of military budget, not the 2% one and not the penny pincher attitude that does prevail, which resists setting up these off shore posts as expensive assets. Short sighted view, IMO but if the budgetary support is not there, it is a pointless discussion.


How do we know if dont ask the russians ? TU 22 Backfires will be maintenance nightmares. A 2018-2019 Model TU 160 will be much better rather than a 1983 TU 22.

Frankly speaking if russians can cooperate with us on nuclear submarines, there is no reason why they should deny us the TU 160. But then again Russians are not exactly known always for reasonable behaviour.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2016 22:12

ShauryaT wrote:
What we should do with the Tu-22 is make it a regular exercise to traverse our lake from our coasts to Agalegas, Mozambique, A&N, Nha Trang in regular flights to show the flag (in reconnaissance mode only).

Shaurya - the sending a dedicated bomber and claiming it is reconnaissance mode only is a form of chicanery that the US indulges in, and increasingly China. But they both do it against nations they want to intimidate, not friendly nations

The problem as I see it is, to use one of my favourite analogies - sending a bomber on a "recce" role over friendly nations is not even waving the flag but waving an erect penis outside a college women's hostel . It is vulgar and ill intended and being done for no earthly reason if it is over friendly nations. People do not get intimidated by this and if, tomorrow a boat laden with explosives is rammed into an Indian navy ship on a friendly visit to one of those countries - in revenge - the country can simply wash its hands off and absolve itself of all responsibility. It should not deliberately transgress the airspace of that country or appear unnecessarily threatening. That aside our regular patrol aircraft - like the Tu 142 can do that - we don't need a Tu 22 for this.

Like someone said I would be happy if we acquired 6 x Tu 160 Blackjack (not Tu 22) and did not use them for waving flags or organs of state - but kept them for eliminating naval threats

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 25 Dec 2016 22:20

The only nation that offered us supersonic strat. bombers as far back as the '80s was Russia.They realised 30 yrs ago our need for it as China had dozens of TU-16s still being used today.Unfortunately our ostriches have yet to take their heads out of the sand.Blackjack prod. not restarted,Backfires available alng with Bears.Both can conduct regular ops in the Indo-China Sea esp.when taking off or being refuelled if need be from the A&N islands.If China wants to squat in the IOR ,so can we in the ICS.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Dec 2016 22:33

shiv wrote:

This link has no range information on the aircraft we are talking about.

But on a page other than the one you linked above the link gives specs for the older Tu 22 codenamed "Blinder". Check what it says.


Sorry, on pg. 394. They mention the version I'm talking about the, tu22m3, range as 6800km.

As far as the blinder is concerned, I'm not sure what exact part you want me to check, but yes it's a smaller bomber and lower range. Again, the table and spec sheet for it on pg. 389 verify the info provided in my earlier post. range of 5000km for a 1950s bird

the bird I'm concerned with has nothing to do with the 50s blinder. It flew in 1977 for the first time and is far more capable
Last edited by Cain Marko on 25 Dec 2016 22:47, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Dec 2016 22:44

shiv wrote:Fuel weight is only a rough indicator. Fuel efficiency of Russian engines and flight profile are equally important. That aside we don't know what the range is but are simply impressed by Russian brochures and American anxieties - being used to assuage our own anxieties. Not the most reliable argument to actually operate this aircraft in my view. But unless better details like spares and uptime are known no one can be sure.

Not brochuritis saar.....all information from some of most respected sources available on russian maal...butowski and yefim gordon. There is little better one can do as mango man.

Maintenance headaches....This is a possibility although the m3 was specifically developed to overcome some of these problems from the earlier models as per yefim gordon. I'll see if I can find anything on uptimes.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Dec 2016 22:51

ShauryaT wrote:
darshhan wrote:My contention. If India has to buy a strategic maritime bomber, then why not go Tu 160 blackjack. The advantage will be newer build, extra range and payload. Looks much better than tu 22m backfires
Not available for sale, is it? Maybe a slight overkill for our needs anyways. Rather we get the bears and join the proposed PAK-DA project. It is either Russian wares or nothing in this category, I am afraid.

What we should do with the Tu-22 is make it a regular exercise to traverse our lake from our coasts to Agalegas, Mozambique, A&N, Nha Trang in regular flights to show the flag (in reconnaissance mode only). Our ability to undertake LR patrols over this region will be an important show of force. Think it would take more than just 4 bombers for these regular patrols. But this will require a different type of military budget, not the 2% one and not the penny pincher attitude that does prevail, which resists setting up these off shore posts as expensive assets. Short sighted view, IMO but if the budgetary support is not there, it is a pointless discussion.


Agree completely Shauryaji. This asset is versatile enough to be a bomber or mpa, with very decent ranges. The blackjack would be great too have perhaps but the russians themselves only operate a couple. Perhaps India's new strategic ally can give a few lancers allowing brahmos carriage?
Last edited by Cain Marko on 25 Dec 2016 22:53, edited 1 time in total.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Surya » 25 Dec 2016 22:53

Philip wrote:The only nation that offered us supersonic strat. bombers as far back as the '80s was Russia.They realised 30 yrs ago our need for it as China had dozens of TU-16s still being used today.


oh how kind of the Russians to devote entire teams to understanding and planning Indias requirements

am sure they will give you some backfires now - just give them a warm water port with an airfield and we are all good :roll:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 25 Dec 2016 22:57

shiv wrote:Shaurya - the sending a dedicated bomber and claiming it is reconnaissance mode only is a form of chicanery that the US indulges in, and increasingly China. But they both do it against nations they want to intimidate, not friendly nations
but india already does the same....with the bear example you gave as well as the il38 and now the p8, each of which carry a2s missiles.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srin » 25 Dec 2016 23:16

While I get the idea of a fleet of bombers to sanitize IOR of hostile naval fleets, I don't quite understand why we need to restrict the choices to only the Tu-22s/Tu-160s.
Given that the concern is of spares availability and maintenance, it makes a lot of sense to convert a civilian transport aircraft into a bomb truck carrying dozens of cruise missiles. For instance, even an A320 has around 6000 km range, not to mention A330 having double that. Spares are easy to find, and virtually unsanctionable.
They are not stealthy or supersonic or good for low level high speed flights, but that is what the cruise missiles are for.

Question though is if we have the ability/will to do the mods with/without the consent of OEM

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2016 23:46

Shiv ji: I was talking of recon flights strictly within the realm of international laws and with the cooperation of "allies". Vietnam, Mauritius, Mozambique being examples, if cultivated as refueling stops. These are not far off shots, rumors about of various options available with these nations. Everyone and their dog has setup a post in Djibouti. If PLAN can visit Gwadar, we not being able to cultivate our own alliances is myopic, unless we want to pretend we do not need any, as we do now? Similarly Thailand pre-dispositions against PRC can be cultivated.

Philip: Tu-22 offered to us as far back as the 70's but at that time against US CBG's?

Darshan: Philip has answered the why not blackjack yet, also I think Russia needs those so again not available. Blackjack is another level of a message.

At least with the Tu-22, we can put it to multiple uses as recon, security patrols in far off IOR, anti piracy ops (I know ridiculous, but nations do such things) and when the shit hits the fan as strategic bombers.

Another thing to consider is with the increasing differential between the PLAN and IN fleets, something that we cannot match in the short-medium term, what is our answer to keep this fleet off our lake. Please note, I am talking about off our lake not our shores. The poseidon's are fine as coastal defense but LR is needed to project power over the lake. Given the fact that the offensive assets available to India are those that are to Pakistan from the US - there is no reason the US has any interest to provide to us the use of say the B-2's? They would rather be interested in having a B-2 base in India and CBG's in our lake, as they do now. I am leaving the subtle message unsaid, but once we do have these LR capabilities, even the US CBG would be watching us, not because of threat perceptions but capabilities. The cliche, in God we trust, all others we track would apply.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4843
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Neshant » 26 Dec 2016 00:34

ShauryaT wrote:For all the sovereignty claims, power differentials do matter and always has. Let me point to a very recent episode on what happened when Turkey was refusing permission to the Americans over use of the Incirlik air based for operations in Syria. Turkey remains a NATO partner. Turkey did resist its maximum based on how it saw its sovereign national interests with fears of strengthening the Kurds. But, at the end of the day, when push came to shove for operations in Kobani, the Turkish were left with no choice as the Americans simply informed them that they are going ahead and using Incirlik.


Violation of a country's borders is the fastest way to gain yet another enemy.
It comes with some hazardous consequences too both militarily as the country fights back and economically as it gathers its allies to inflict a defeat. Diplomatically it is a disaster too.

There is no way any country would sit by while a foreign power overflies let alone set foot on their soil.
Soverignty of national borders was long ago codified in the Treaty of Westphalia.

Violations of borders like the invasion of Libya by NATO to steal their wealth & resources are seen as thievery by local and regional neighbours leading to problems down the line.

To summarize, do not attempt dadagiri on neutral or friendly countries unless you want to turn them into enemies. Definitely not Buddhist or Hindu majority countries of South and South East Asia as they are civilizational allies.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2016 01:06

shiv wrote:Fuel weight is only a rough indicator. Fuel efficiency of Russian engines and flight profile are equally important. That aside we don't know what the range is but are simply impressed by Russian brochures and American anxieties - being used to assuage our own anxieties. Not the most reliable argument to actually operate this aircraft in my view. But unless better details like spares and uptime are known no one can be sure.


No doubt fuel weight is a rough indicator. But it seems unreasonable that a newer, more streamlined design (backfire m3) with more fuel and better turbofan engines can't have better performance than an older model (blinder) with turbojets. The max thrust sfc for the backfires nk25 engine is .58 or 0.76 according to

http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/nk-25/

.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2016 01:15

As an aside....The backfire does not have to wave its stick in a patrol recon role. It can nicely carry a 6+ kh25/31 , or possibly even a klub or two internally, hidden from eyes that could be offended

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2016 01:18

srin wrote:While I get the idea of a fleet of bombers to sanitize IOR of hostile naval fleets, I don't quite understand why we need to restrict the choices to only the Tu-22s/Tu-160s.
Given that the concern is of spares availability and maintenance, it makes a lot of sense to convert a civilian transport aircraft into a bomb truck carrying dozens of cruise missiles. For instance, even an A320 has around 6000 km range, not to mention A330 having double that. Spares are easy to find, and virtually unsanctionable.
They are not stealthy or supersonic or good for low level high speed flights, but that is what the cruise missiles are for.

Question though is if we have the ability/will to do the mods with/without the consent of OEM


The p8s come close to this. But there maybe issues from oirope if hindoos convert one of theirs to a full fledged heathen.

Problem with these types is that they are slow and simply don't have long ranged weapons , let alone supersonics ala bmos.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2491
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 26 Dec 2016 01:37

Makes more sense to plumb the mki during the upgrade to carry 1400 KGS external tanks and IFR probe so that it can deliver brahmos M to far away places.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3854
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 26 Dec 2016 01:45

Mki already has IFR capability. EFTs are a good idea ala Su35. But range will still be an issue. Nothing it cant do presently and nowhere close to bombers. Another problem is the amount of hassles and logistical support needed to get a single brahmos moving at long ranges. A single backfire doubles the range and triples the payload. No ifr needed.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2491
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cybaru » 26 Dec 2016 02:13

Yeah, but maintaining and cost of acquisition for something current like Tu160 is prohibitive. With the old stuff you don't know if its trying to kill the crew or the enemy.

Even taking something like C295 and putting 2 brahmos in rotary launcher in belly and a radar underneath nose makes more sense. It certainly won't be first strike material, but will keep the Indian ocean free of incursion.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 26 Dec 2016 06:57

Cain Marko wrote:As an aside....The backfire does not have to wave its stick in a patrol recon role. It can nicely carry a 6+ kh25/31 , or possibly even a klub or two internally, hidden from eyes that could be offended


No. That is not what I meant. Sending a dedicated cold war supersonic bomber on "patrol" is itself waving the dingdong even if it is carrying only tea bags in its weapons bay. It is not necessary to send a bomber for dingdong waving. A patrol aircraft is itself a sign of one's presence - except that unless the patrol aircraft flies low and shows its markings the country of origin will not be seen or known. The plane spotters can only speculate

Patrol aircraft are designed to fly and loiter. Supersonic bombers are quick in and out. Low slow flight allows visual observation AND allows the observed fleet to see and recognize who is watching them - which is en essential part of showing the force. You can't fly past at 500 feet at 800 kmph and expect the people on a ship to know who flashed past. Even the nationality of the ship/s may not be easy to recognize by simply flashing past in a race car so the plane may not know what ships it has just flashed past

A hostile naval group that spots a patrol aircraft knows it has been spotted and knows that a dedicated attack aircraft can be summoned. The real problem is that no aircraft can stay in the air for more than say 6-8 hours and none can loiter over a naval group for more than an hour near the limits of its range. Ships stay at sea for months. So once an aircraft spots a hostile naval force it must attack right away (if hostilities are on) or else it will lose the plot. The ocean is huge and the naval force will simply disappear without trace. Even ships close to the coast well within the range of every damn aircraft we have have the nasty habit of vanishing and here we are talking of keeping tabs on naval forces 2000-3000 km away. How do you keep track? You need to recognize them first and then track them.

As I see it the only possibility is to have 2-3 dedicated Indian ocean satellites that sweep the ocean every 4 hours or so. Still - the ships can vanish at night or in cloudy weather. So this business of using dedicated supersonic bombers for routine patrol sounds like a futile dingdong waving exercise to me.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby negi » 26 Dec 2016 07:47

Haven't been reading MIL forum a lot in these days however just few points serviceability and operational costs are important else forget the Backfire or Blackjack we have in TU-142 a long range bomber an AC which can haul 85 tonnes of fuel and remain airborne for 16 hours . It has a decent payload I mean there is a reason a variant of it equipped with long range AGMs is in RU service however IN is going to retire them in a year or two because it is simply too expensive to operate and maintain actually we are still like a 18 yr old kid who is comfortable driving a Maruti 800 who has been given a Shaktiman truck to drive we have neither the doctrine nor the necessary mindset to operate a long range bomber . Long range bombers are deployed by countries whose foreign policies and military doctrines all uninanimously talk about one salient point I.e. to remain on the offensive at all times we as a nation are not there yet .

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5230
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 26 Dec 2016 07:53

shiv wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:As an aside....The backfire does not have to wave its stick in a patrol recon role. It can nicely carry a 6+ kh25/31 , or possibly even a klub or two internally, hidden from eyes that could be offended


No. That is not what I meant. Sending a dedicated cold war supersonic bomber on "patrol" is itself waving the dingdong even if it is carrying only tea bags in its weapons bay. It is not necessary to send a bomber for dingdong waving. A patrol aircraft is itself a sign of one's presence - except that unless the patrol aircraft flies low and shows its markings the country of origin will not be seen or known. The plane spotters can only speculate

Patrol aircraft are designed to fly and loiter. Supersonic bombers are quick in and out. Low slow flight allows visual observation AND allows the observed fleet to see and recognize who is watching them - which is en essential part of showing the force. You can't fly past at 500 feet at 800 kmph and expect the people on a ship to know who flashed past. Even the nationality of the ship/s may not be easy to recognize by simply flashing past in a race car so the plane may not know what ships it has just flashed past

A hostile naval group that spots a patrol aircraft knows it has been spotted and knows that a dedicated attack aircraft can be summoned. The real problem is that no aircraft can stay in the air for more than say 6-8 hours and none can loiter over a naval group for more than an hour near the limits of its range. Ships stay at sea for months. So once an aircraft spots a hostile naval force it must attack right away (if hostilities are on) or else it will lose the plot. The ocean is huge and the naval force will simply disappear without trace. Even ships close to the coast well within the range of every damn aircraft we have have the nasty habit of vanishing and here we are talking of keeping tabs on naval forces 2000-3000 km away. How do you keep track? You need to recognize them first and then track them.

As I see it the only possibility is to have 2-3 dedicated Indian ocean satellites that sweep the ocean every 4 hours or so. Still - the ships can vanish at night or in cloudy weather. So this business of using dedicated supersonic bombers for routine patrol sounds like a futile dingdong waving exercise to me.


Shiv ji, we can't and need not use backfires for patrolling, but they have their purpose as missile carriers, we may not use them for carpet bombing hostile country's territory, but they can be utilized in entirely ASh role.

But let's consider in a hostile scenario, through credible intelligence reports or radars or dedicated satellites we pick up a CBG and some is approaching our shores through Malacca straits. How would you go about tackling this threat. We can argue that a battery of BrahMos and/or Nirbhay ( in future) located in AnC Islands can take care of it, but that will be the only and last line of defense to stop the hostile force. Indeed, a pack of attack submarines will also be a strong defense in these scenarios. But, talking about fighter jets vs dedicated bombers in such cases, would we really want to utilize MKIs to neutralize this threat? The MKIs that otherwise could have been used for their main AD role over main land? And how many MKIs would be required to sanitize 10 ships including the fighter wing of the CBG. This is just a simple scenario about the threat from one direction, we got 2 more directions to contemplate about.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests