Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[Viv S]

I would contend that they would be rather well served to have mix of Su-30mkis and backfires than load up large number MKIs with single shot Brahmos. Let the MKI do the A2A thing, and provide top cover - it is designed for this, and let the backfire do its bit in carrying 3-6 brahmos each. Plus the Brahmos can be fired from really long distances - upto 600km (and released from hi altitude, could be even more) keeping the bird even further out of range of a fighter bubble.

Only 3 Brahmos per Tu-22M. One on the centre-line + two under the wings.

You would need 18 Bmos laden MKI to carry out such a mission PLUS more for top cover and IFR if the distance is a 1500-2000km away. 5-6 Backfires and a few MKI would do much better.

You'd need just 3 Brahmos-equipped MKIs to replace a Tu-22 in that mission. IFR will be required in both cases for a long distance mission. The Tu-22M might have an adequate range but its escorts won't.

The flip-side is - if we find ourselves at war and a PLAN fleet doesn't come sailing across the Malacca, the Su-30s can relocate to airbases in the north but the Tu-22s are all but useless. Any attempt to send it across the LAC is likely to have an unhappy ending. And with most of Pakistani heartland within rocket artillery range, not much point to using it in the west.

And if lo-lo flight was so passe, IAF would not be investing so heavily in Jags - the backfire can do this too only at much longer ranges and higher payloads.

Actually, the project to re-engine the Jaguars is drive by the need to move it to higher altitudes where it currently struggles. That'll allow to operate in mountainous regions as well as a carry out longer range precision strike mission in plain/desert areas.

In general, the low level strike mission has fallen out of vogue since the RAF lost four Tornados within the first three days of Op Granby (1991). Strike missions in all subsequent campaigns were flown at medium/high altitude.

[Aditya G]

Tu-22M was primarily designed as a high speed, long range missile platform to target surface vessels.

We do not require this capability.

We can make do with additional P-8I, su-30MKI, IFR aircraft, aew and more naval air stations.

I like Su-34, but it I believe additional Su-30s in the same price are a better deal.

[Cain Marko]

Only 3 Brahmos per Tu-22M. One on the centre-line + two under the wings.

Not necessarily...the tu22 carried 3xkh32, each at over 5000kg. Don't see why you can't carry one brahmos internally or more via racks placed close to each other.

You'd need just 3 Brahmos-equipped MKIs to replace a Tu-22 in that mission. IFR will be required in both cases for a long distance mission. The Tu-22M might have an adequate range but its escorts won't

.
If the mission is against a cbg doubt they would attempt it with just 3 brahmos....in any case if there is a mission that needs more, you automatically need three times the number of air frames.

The flip-side is - if we find ourselves at war and a PLAN fleet doesn't come sailing across the Malacca, the Su-30s can relocate to airbases in the north but the Tu-22s are all but useless. Any attempt to send it across the LAC is likely to have an unhappy ending. And with most of Pakistani heartland within rocket artillery range, not much point to using it in the west.

The backfires don't need to be in the north, they have more than enough range without ifr to act as strategic assets stationed deep in the heartland. With ifr, range is intercontinental. Btw, why would sending jags or mki across not result in unhappiness? More importantly this was in context of strategic reach in IOR, it is a useful side effect that even if the PLAN doesn't sail west of the straits during war, it gives the IN an option to fly bombers in the opposite direction and take the war to the enemy.

In general, the low level strike mission has fallen out of vogue since the RAF lost four Tornados within the first three days of Op Granby (1991). Strike missions in all subsequent campaigns were flown at medium/high altitude.

At what range were the tornadoes supposed to release their load? All the missions where tornadoes were lost were basically toss bombing runs, only one was with a smart munition from medium altitude. Which means -
a. Basically these were very high risk suicide runs in densely covered airspace.
b. Even the medium high altitude lgb strike at shorter ranges is not without risk especially with long ranged sams and possible fighters.
incidentally, all the above were successful in hitting their targets and in total only 6 were lost out of 64.

But this is not what I'm talking about. A combination of long ranged stand off weapons and low level flight along with very high endurance of the platform puts the backfire in a very different category. Somewhat line a B1 but more versatile because of its maritime strike capability. Unless you have uber stealth platforms ala b2 and f35, and we have no idea how effective these will be vs. S400+, low level flight with long ranged missiles are probably the best alternative to Sxx type SAMs. Backfires are most adequate, especially if these are far away targets.

About the jags the engine change is mainly to deal with takeoffs in hot and high environment. Backfire doesn't have said issue.

[Cain Marko]

Tu-22M was primarily designed as a high speed, long range missile platform to target surface vessels.

We do not require this capability.

We can make do with additional P-8I, su-30MKI, IFR aircraft, aew and more naval air stations.

I like Su-34, but it I believe additional Su-30s in the same price are a better deal.

Why not? Even in 71 IG was contemplating a strike on Diego Garcia iirc. Now when india is a much bigger player, it needs bigger teeth, especially when it does not have enough assets to go around. A sqd of backfires properly upgraded will give pause to any Chinese adventurism.

[Cain Marko]

Could be. but then even a Chinese ghoda (J20) causes dhoti shiver, no? And Indian forces are experts at maintaining high maintenance studs - IL 76, TU-95, MiG-29, 21, 27, 23, Su-30.....all studs or mares in their own right. They say even french wares (or mares) in IAF livery sometimes act rather studly (50% of the times or something like that).

The other thing I like to ask is this.

Suppose we get a long range bomber. What flight path will it follow to hit targets of significance in China?

The US and Russia had the Arctic route to hit each other - and did not have to fly 1000s of km over hostile territory

China will find its long range bombers of great use in showing its power over littoral areas.

Long ranged bomber does not have to always fly overland and hostile territory. There are plenty of coastal marine targets and non hostile airspace over the sea. This was after all in context of strategic reach in the IOR. in any case the backfire has enough range at least. although survivability in the heartland of the han would be questionable but that would be the case for any other asset. At least this gives you an option.

[Viv S]

Not necessarily...the tu22 carried 3xkh32, each at over 5000kg. Don't see why you can't carry one brahmos internally or more via racks placed close to each other.

Can't be carried internally. Too large for the rotary launcher. Rack-carry might be feasible but it would require an extensive customization process with the setup having unique flutter and separation characteristics.

If the mission is against a cbg doubt they would attempt it with just 3 brahmos....in any case if there is a mission that needs more, you automatically need three times the number of air frames.

Three Su-30MKIs to replace each Tu-22M as a missile platform. That can be multiplied as per the situation. The Su-30s will additionally be able to carry AAMs for self defence/attack.

The backfires don't need to be in the north, they have more than enough range without ifr to act as strategic assets stationed deep in the heartland. With ifr, range is intercontinental. Btw, why would sending jags or mki across not result in unhappiness? More importantly this was in context of strategic reach in IOR, it is a useful side effect that even if the PLAN doesn't sail west of the straits during war, it gives the IN an option to fly bombers in the opposite direction and take the war to the enemy.

It doesn't matter where you base them, point is, it doesn't have much utility for the strike over land. Jaguars & Su-30s are capable of precision strike and will be used in a tactical role. But yes, if either is used for deep strike, the ending is unlikely to be a happy one. You need a stealth aircraft to pull that off unless the PLAAF has been suffered extensive attrition, which given their material advantages over us, is also unlikely.

Using Tu-22Ms to strike east of the Malacca straits? It simply doesn't have the range. Staging out of A&NI, its nearly 2000 km to Singapore. North from there to Hainan is another 2000 km. Round trip - 8,000 km. Without reserves. Without the element of surprise; the taskforce will be picked up on civilian radar in the very first leg of the journey (within in the narrow Malacca straits).

At what range were the tornadoes supposed to release their load? All the missions where tornadoes were lost were basically toss bombing runs, only one was with a smart munition from medium altitude. Which means -
a. Basically these were very high risk suicide runs in densely covered airspace.
b. Even the medium high altitude lgb strike at shorter ranges is not without risk especially with long ranged sams and possible fighters.
incidentally, all the above were successful in hitting their targets and in total only 6 were lost out of 64.

All flight at low level in hostile airspace is a high risk option. You can eliminate/suppress LR-SAM systems with ARMs & EW and fighters can be engaged at range. But there's no warning or defence when it comes to QR-SAMs/IR-SAMs/AAA/MANPADS. In addition, modern ESAs are remarkably effective at filtering out ground clutter; a low flying jet is still susceptible to detection & tracking by hostile AEW&C units and fighters. Also, since aircraft in that flight profile are inherently in a low energy state, escape on detection becomes doubly hard. The intercepting aircraft will be faster and their weaponry would be longer ranged (higher altitude launch).

The RAF lost only 6 Tornados because low-level strikes were discontinued after 4 days. To quote Gen. Chuck Horner, air commander in 1991

Q: What do you think of the courage of pilots who have to fly down a runway in 30 seconds in a straight line?

Horner: There's no doubt about it, probably the bravest pilots in the Gulf War were the R.A.F. They had a munition, the JB 233, which had to be delivered at very low altitude and had to be delivered as they flew down the runway. Those airfields were heavily defended targets. I think it showed up in the losses, they took a lot of losses. Now maybe it wasn't from JB 233s, maybe it wasn't just from low level, but there's no doubt about it, their loss rate was like ten times with some of the other systems. They changed all that, Bill Ratton came in and says we're not going to do this any more, he got 'em up at medium altitude, got Paddy Hine to send some Buccaneers down with the laser guided ...laser designated kits, and the Tornados did good work at medium altitude.

Q: How concerned were you about the level of casualties the Brits were taking?

Horner: I was very concerned about all aircraft losses and the fact that the Tornados were experiencing a higher loss rate than anybody else was personally disturbing to both me and Bill Ratton, the RAF commander.

Q: Was it fairly clear to you what was causing the loss of them?

Horner: I don't think there's any doubt about it, the Tornado losses were in part due to the low altitude tactics.

Q: Were you relieved when they stopped flying at low altitude?

Horner: I think one of the things that helped work the problem is that Bill Ratton finally got 'em up out of the low altitude structure and got some capability to drop laser guided bombs from medium altitude and I think that solved the problem, I think they only lost one airplane after that.

- Link

But this is not what I'm talking about. A combination of long ranged stand off weapons and low level flight along with very high endurance of the platform puts the backfire in a very different category. Somewhat line a B1 but more versatile because of its maritime strike capability. Unless you have uber stealth platforms ala b2 and f35, and we have no idea how effective these will be vs. S400+, low level flight with long ranged missiles are probably the best alternative to Sxx type SAMs. Backfires are most adequate, especially if these are far away targets.

Long ranged standoff weapons can be employed from the ground near the LAC with the same results. Or from a flight of Su-30s that can go up, launch and RTB in short order.

Problem here again is that you can use this type of attack only against static targets. To counter mobile SAM systems, you need to get an aircraft in the air with a highly-effective ESM system that can loiter out of track range for the SAM-radar and get a fix on the latter's location. That's not something the Tu-22M is capable of doing. Firing the weapon is actually the easy part. You could hand off the info to a TEL unit on ground.

Anything that requires the Tu-22M to cross the border is a strict no-no. Its not going to survive an encounter with the PLAAF. And with the proliferation of AWACS in the PLAAF fleet, its capacity to monitor its airspace has increased exponentially.

About the jags the engine change is mainly to deal with takeoffs in hot and high environment. Backfire doesn't have said issue.

The Jaguar's problems were with high altitude missions in hot weather. Which is a priority because the IAF is moving past the low-level strike mission that the Jaguar was originally designed for.

[Indranil]

I am in the group of people who think that India should develop/acquire long range bombers.

[ramana]

I am in the group of people who think that India should develop/acquire long range bombers.

Me too.

Hence I think this single engine fighter is a short term solution.

[Cosmo_R]

There had been a discussion^^ regarding 'fit and finish' on the P-15s (?) radar housing or steel plating. It seemed to some to be a bit ragged. Well, the light plays tricks:

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/ima ... 144903.jpg

This is the USS Illinois a Virginia class sub

http://ussillinois.org/

Not quite the seal bodied look.

[Cain Marko]

VIvS,
I view the Backfire almost purely in a maritime role - land attack is not the point although it has certain advantages in this area as well. THis is a Navy asset to sanitize the far corners of the IOR.
In said role and in the context of providing teeth to the IN in quick response to the increased assertiveness and expansion of the PLAN in the IOR, I think this would be a cheap, assymetric and fast response. WRT other issues -

1) Obsolescence - we are talking about a fully upgraded newer version here - expect newer ECM, ESM, jammers, targeting pods, MAWS the works. This bird has plenty of space - it carries a massive cannon in the backside for heavens sake. And it was even in the past used as a recon asset. There was talk of getting an IRBIS variant as the main radar but was cancelled for cost reasons - it carries the capable novella suite's radar now - same as that on the IL-38 possibly. Still, with some money invested, getting a BARS variant with R-73/77 capability installed would not be an issue.

2) Capability - 3 X that of the MKI in terms of payload and at least 2X in terms of range. It can easily carry a load of say 2 X Brahmos and 6XKh31/15 in the rotary launcher. You will need 3-4 MKIs to do this. ANd this is without upgrading this capability, which is definitely possible, considering the weight it hauls around with the Kh-22. IIRC, the Tu-22 can carry up to 6 Kh-55 on external stations - that is apart from the internal load. I would not be surprised if they managed 5 Brahmos - 4 underwing and 1 underbelly.
From Kopp's site:

During the mid-1990s the author discussed the Tu-22M3 with Levanovich, who was adamant that the production aircraft had a hi-hi-hi combat radius of 4,000 km (2,160 NMI) with a payload of three Kh-22M/AS-4 missiles

.
P Butowski too suggests a range increase of between 15-45% for the M3 version over the older bird which had a range of about 5500km. This is without IFR, which can be reinstalled without much hassle since the plumbing exists and only the probe was removed due to SALT requirements. With IFR, the backfire is intercontinental.
This is simply out of the question for an MKI or even a Su-34.

3) Flight profile and roles:
Land attack: While Low level penetration is a dangerous game especially in the context of land attack, it still remains a viable option especially when combined with long ranged stand off weapons. The curvature of the earth assures us of this. The backfire can do all the profiles of an MKI or Jag only with more payload and at longer range. SRSAMs have limitations - if not in the bubble of a larger SAM system they are susceptible to stand off weapons since their range is limited. So a lot would depend on whether they are positioned within or outside the envelope of the bigger SAM. If an ELINT asset can probe and find emitters, it can suggest a path for possible ingress or launch. But overall, I agree that this is a painful situation - no less for the backfire than it is for the MKI though. If the airspace is cleared and the enemy IAD is sufficiently degraded (say TSP vs India), the Backfire comes into its own in a "shock and awe" type show. A flight of 6 Tu-22s unloading 100000+ tons of iron bombs has to make more than just a physical impact on the enemy.

Maritime attack: For maritime roles of course, this is not such an issue. The launch platform can stay well out of SAM range if dealing with surface combatants that are without air cover. And if in case of a CBG, your chances are a lot better with a large number of stand-off range launches, which is much more likely with a Backfire, especially if the targets are far out in the ocean (say 2000km). A P8 tailing a couple of frigates/destroyers at sea could guide a Backfire with 2 Bmos or 6 Kh-31s quite nicely and in short order compared to say 3 MKI and a refueller.
Basically the entire IOR becomes a hunting ground for this bird and anything unprotected that moves in it is fair game.

[Cain Marko]

Another thing about attacking targets in say, China. It would depend also upon if whether we can procure some type of overflight agreement from Myanmar, Vietnam and other SE Asian countries. If in a pinch this is done in a one off event without permissions, what repercussions are we truly looking at? Can and will these countries shoot the aircraft down? Do they have the capability or the will to do so?

[shiv]

I want to ask, what role would a long range bomber play in the IAF.

What targets are sought to be hit?

The evolution of "long range bombers" started with heavy WW 2 bombers that would become sitting ducks in the post WW2 era. This led to the "supersonic long range bomber" that would fly over the Arctic to hit the targets of the day. When these supersonic bombers themselves became vulnerable due to AWACS and better interception, the next phase was long range stealthy supersonic bombers

What we have today in the hands of the US and Russia are "legacy subsonic bombers" like B-52 and Tu-95 flown over low-threat zero defence areas. The Supersonic bombers are also retained for similar reasons. But the high threat/hostile air defence areas will need something stealthy.

What do those who want India to have a long range bomber desire. For what purpose, Please expand a little and justify.

[negi]

Well anything aerial specially big in size is getting easier to detect and track by the day the only medium where it is still hard to detect missile platforms is under the sea , so it makes more sense for us to build SSBNs or SSNs , more importantly we are much closer to mastering the build of nuke subs as against building a long range bomber (no one will sell those). Kaveri has not materialised so even if we build the airframe we will have to buy the engines compared to that Arihant's power plant is already in service .

[Austin]

Nuclear Bombers today are just cruise missile carriers in deterrent role , they can cover great distance from different direction and can be a medium of overt physiological pressure/political tool or warning to enemy at the time of crisis , they can patrol in air for hours and if required with refuelling even for a day or two and multiple bomber can maintain a 24x7 patrol in air during crisis. , the submarine deterrent otoh are more covert in nature.

These days due to use of Stealth bomber can also function covert type of mission.

[Austin]

I want to ask, what role would a long range bomber play in the IAF.

What targets are sought to be hit?

The evolution of "long range bombers" started with heavy WW 2 bombers that would become sitting ducks in the post WW2 era. This led to the "supersonic long range bomber" that would fly over the Arctic to hit the targets of the day. When these supersonic bombers themselves became vulnerable due to AWACS and better interception, the next phase was long range stealthy supersonic bombers

What we have today in the hands of the US and Russia are "legacy subsonic bombers" like B-52 and Tu-95 flown over low-threat zero defence areas. The Supersonic bombers are also retained for similar reasons. But the high threat/hostile air defence areas will need something stealthy.

What do those who want India to have a long range bomber desire. For what purpose, Please expand a little and justify.

I havent heard or seen any interviews from any Air Chief or any Sr Officer in rank so far asking for bomber or even murmuring about having one.

There are no official requirement to have one atleast nothing in public , nor will any one sell us bomber , Not to mention we might need to have more than a dozen of it and build a doctrine and usecase for bomber in our context.

Keeping a bomber is like keep an aircraft carrier , one needs to have the doctrine , aircraft , supporting assets , weapons , training , infrastructure and long lead time to make that operational and put it into practise , May be someday if we can build one then we can think about owning one other wise its not worth the effort importing it even if some one sells it , its like maintaining a white elephant.

[shiv]

Agree Austin. I think the issue with a long range bomber is not a matter of prestige but one of what role is envisaged for it. With northern India being surrounded on 3 sides by land masses and hostile territory - long range bombers will not go very far into hostile territory.

That leaves only the Oceans. Long range heavy bombers carrying tens of tons of munitions have been used traditionally only as a means to pound and pulverize well defended targets or enemy forces. The maritime role for any aircraft is a bit different. because there are vast expanses of empty ocean. What the ocean needs are long range patrol aircraft to keep tabs on what is happening. Time and again bombers have been converted for recce roles because the roles overlap. But with ship defences being what they are it probably makes more sense to attack ships from long range standoff missiles like Brahmos or have stealth fighters.

So if recce/ship attack role is excluded from the long range bombers we are looking at the capability to attack south Africa, Diego Garcia or Australia by air. Apart from those marginal roles i am unable to see what role could be played by the purchase of legacy cold war high speed high altitude bombers

[brar_w]

The P-8's carry the Harpoon and soon the Harpoon-ER, while Australia has already indicated to the JPO that it want's to integrate the JASSM on it. If procured in sufficient quantity I'm sure the USN at some point will consider integrating the LRASM. Given it's ability to detect, identify and target and the possibility to work within the SWaP to integrate improved Next Generation networking there is no reason the IN can't develop weapons and operational concepts around using them as stand off maritime attack aircraft, particularly when persistence over an area is required.

[Cain Marko]

The P-8's carry the Harpoon and soon the Harpoon-ER, while Australia has already indicated to the JPO that it want's to integrate the JASSM on it. If procured in sufficient quantity I'm sure the USN at some point will consider integrating the LRASM. Given it's ability to detect, identify and target and the possibility to work within the SWaP to integrate improved Next Generation networking there is no reason the IN can't develop weapons and operational concepts around using them as stand off maritime attack aircraft, particularly when persistence over an area is required.

Yes, that will certainly help when it does happen in the Indian context. I just wish the Harpoon was supersonic..

[brar_w]

It's design growth revolves around multiple missile carriage on the Navy strike fighters (mostly Super Hornets) so it will remain subsonic for size, range and weight considerations but you could always develop new weapons and integrate them. The Australians for example want to use the JASSM over the littorals to attack land targets..JSOW could be an option. I don't see the USN coming out with a tactical supersonic missile requirement anytime soon for that category so the Harpoon and its ER version will likely remain as is until hypersonics come in. The Brahmos-M or a P-8I specific version could be integrated at a future date but there need to be opreational concepts feeding into weapon integration requirements and not the other way around.

[Cain Marko]

A bomber acquisition also has to be seen in the context of a show of force and broader thinking beyond the TSP and land warfare mindset. As Indian interests grow globally, a global (or initially at least IOR) reach in quick time is always useful. Much like having an aircraft carrier, why even have these then? They are absolutely useless in the northern regions, no?

[bhavani]

Looks like Arihant and Chakra are based out of Visakhapatnam. That is the first time i have seem Arihant/chakra openly in Google Maps. . I cant figure out which one is which. One is in water, one seems to be in Repair/minor refit. The one in refit is rather fat and long and looks like chakra and the one in water is also long but a bit thin. -They are definitely not a kilo .There are few kilos near by and they are much shorter and so puny. The one is water when compared to kilos in water is much longer and is in a separate part of the base.Can it be the sighting of Aridhman?

Also which is that Rajput class destroyer which is in a Red Rust color for the last few years. I have checking over the last 5-6 years it is always in the red rust color in Vizag naval base. It is being repaired over the last few years? It looks like one of the Rajput class being in permanent refit seems to be true. I check Vizag regularly as it is my hometown.

[Philip]

For those ostriches who cannot acceot the ned foir the IN/IAF to operate strat. bombers,take a dekko at China's latest under devlopment. Pic in the link.

http://www.janes.com/article/66423/deta ... gic-bomber

Details emerge about requirement for China's new strategic bomber

Andrew Tate, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
21 December 2016

Impression of China's new strategic bomber, according to China Military Online. Source: Via China Military Online
An article published by the China Military Online website on 7 December has provided further insights into the requirements for China's new strategic bomber.

Remarks made in the media report by Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, director of the People's Liberation Army Navy's Expert Consultation Committee, followed on from the confirmation given on 1 September by General Ma Xiaotian, Commander of the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), that China is developing a new long-range strategic bomber referred to in the article as the H-20.

While Gen Ma gave no details of the programme, R Adm Yin, who is also a regular media commentator on Chinese military developments, commented that as the "cruise missiles, nuclear weapons, and other weapons and equipment that will be carried by domestic strategic bombers are all in place", the time was right for China to develop a new strategic bomber.

He stated that China's current long-range bomber, the Xian Aircraft Corporation (XAC) H-6 series (a modernised Tupolov Tu-16 Badger derivative) is not truly a strategic bomber and suggested that the new aircraft will have characteristics comparable with those of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber.

The experience and knowledge in the design of stealth aircraft gained from the development of the stealthy J-20 and F-31 combat aircraft, together with the associated understanding and application of advanced materials technology, also present an opportune moment to progress the requirement for a new strategic bomber, according to R Adm Yin.

Although China has never developed a strategic bomber, the production of the XAC Y-20 military transport aircraft and of the Comac C919 commercial jet airliner reflect the progress the country's aviation industry has made in acquiring the technical expertise required to embark upon such a development project.

The article also quoted remarks made by another military commentator, Li Li, who noted that the technical challenge in producing a stealthy supersonic bomber was very considerable.

PS: How anyone in their right minds think that Jags,etc. can substitute for a real intercontinental start. bombing capability beats me. Even MKIs have to be refuelled,tankers are vulnerable and have payload limitations. Our TU-142 LRMP Bears can be used just as the Russians are doing even today,frightening the Brits,but we have just 8 on LRMP duty.There are scores of Backfires mothballed in Russia which can be upgraded-as is being done which will serve us for the interim,at least until 2030.Beyond that we will need a true stealth bomber with a heavy payload carrying stand-off weaponry with ranges of thousands of KM.

Russia, India Finish Antisubmarine Stage of Joint Indra Navy Drills © Sputnik/ Ildus Gilyazutdinov

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE 15:24 21.12.2016
Russian and Indian warships practiced anti-submarine warfare in the Bay of Bengal. MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The Indian Special Forces and the Russian Navy have completed the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) stage of the joint Russian-Indian Indra Navy 2016 drills, spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry's Eastern Military District Vladimir Matveev said Wednesday. “During the second day of the active phase of naval drills Indra Navy 2016, Russian and Indian warships practiced elements of ASW activities in the sea,” Matveev told reporters. © SPUTNIK/ INDRA-2016: Indian and Russian Troops Perform Joint Exercise in Vladivostok In the course of the drills, the participants fired reactive depth charges at a simulated enemy submarine in the Bay of Bengal, according to the spokesman. The Indra Navy 2016 drills will be concluded later on Wednesday. The official ceremony and debriefing will take place on board of Indian INS Satpura frigate. The drills are being held in the Bay of Bengal since December 14. This year, some 500 servicemen are engaged in the drills, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. The first joint Russian-Indian naval drills were held in 2003. The exercises were also held in 2007, 2014 and 2015.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201612 ... submarine/

[Yagnasri]

My mango views are: With long range bombers in a ship attack/recon roles we will severely restrict Chinese freedom in deploying Surface combatants in the Indian Ocean wherein they can not provide air cover to them with Carriers in the near future.

We can expect air supremacy over paki land after the first few days of war, and after that, we can use the bombers even on them.

[Viv S]

VIvS,
I view the Backfire almost purely in a maritime role - land attack is not the point although it has certain advantages in this area as well. THis is a Navy asset to sanitize the far corners of the IOR.

CM, few points here.

1. We've got only two hostile actors in the IOR. The PN & PLAN. For general MP duties, the P-8s & Bears are quite sufficient.

2. In wartime, the PN surface fleet isn't going to venture away from littoral waters. Only its subs will strike out to range.

3. The PLAN will be pre-positioned near Gwadar or will come steaming up the Malaccas. In either case, the Su-30MKIs have the range to deal with it. They'll be backed up by the IN's CBGs & sub squadrons.

4. If the PLAN is already operating west of the Malacca and chooses to avoid action and stay well south of the Equator, its fleet will be very hard to track. You could dispatch the Tu-22Ms and hope they can get lucky, but without any escorts they're more likely to get shot down by the PLANAF fighter screen.

In said role and in the context of providing teeth to the IN in quick response to the increased assertiveness and expansion of the PLAN in the IOR, I think this would be a cheap, assymetric and fast response.

You're talking about taking a

i) number of second hand aircraft,
ii) of a type with a history of serviceability issues,
iii) requiring a new maintenance/support chain,
iv) a new pipeline for trained aircrew & ground staff, and
v) extensive upgrades & modifications to get it upto spec,
vi) to do a job that could be done with a higher number of locally manufactured, multi-role fighter jets.

Hardly cheap or asymmetric.

P Butowski too suggests a range increase of between 15-45% for the M3 version over the older bird which had a range of about 5500km. This is without IFR, which can be reinstalled without much hassle since the plumbing exists and only the probe was removed due to SALT requirements. With IFR, the backfire is intercontinental.
This is simply out of the question for an MKI or even a Su-34.

Even with the best case range upgrades, the Chinese coast is just simply too far. Doable with IFR but then you'd just be adding the refuelers to the list of units operating without escorts. They'll be susceptible to detection all the way there flying over one of the most crowded areas for commercial traffic. Also, they'll be depriving the IAF units in the thick of the fight at the border/LC/LAC of precious IFR assets.

Within the SCS they'll be going in blind, thousands of km away from home, without any reliable intelligence and prey for with every Chinese Flanker/J-20 in the area operating on home turf. And even if the Backfires do manage to pull it off, catch the Chinese napping, and sink a couple of warships, it'll still be a one-off Doolittle-type mission that'll boost morale but barely change the equation in military terms. It'll be near impossible to do twice after the advantage of surprise is lost.

3) Flight profile and roles:
Land attack: While Low level penetration is a dangerous game especially in the context of land attack, it still remains a viable option especially when combined with long ranged stand off weapons. The curvature of the earth assures us of this. The backfire can do all the profiles of an MKI or Jag only with more payload and at longer range. SRSAMs have limitations - if not in the bubble of a larger SAM system they are susceptible to stand off weapons since their range is limited. So a lot would depend on whether they are positioned within or outside the envelope of the bigger SAM. If an ELINT asset can probe and find emitters, it can suggest a path for possible ingress or launch. But overall, I agree that this is a painful situation - no less for the backfire than it is for the MKI though. If the airspace is cleared and the enemy IAD is sufficiently degraded (say TSP vs India), the Backfire comes into its own in a "shock and awe" type show. A flight of 6 Tu-22s unloading 100000+ tons of iron bombs has to make more than just a physical impact on the enemy.

Several problems here I can see -

1. If you're going to use stand-off weaponry for land attack, you'd don't really need a large bomber to do it unless you're operating at very long ranges. A TEL-launched BrahMos will do just as well. Or a SCALP/JASSM/Nirbhay, either ground or air launched.

2. The curvature of the earth only blocks ground radar emissions. The radar horizon for an AWACS or fighter jet is several hundred km. And modern ESAs are very good at filtering out ground clutter. (Take a look at the high res SAR maps generated by modern AESAs for reference.)

3. SR-SAMs are susceptible to stand-off weaponry only if they can be located ahead in time. An aircraft in a lo-lo flight profile has very limited FoV. The curvature of earth means he too cannot see what lies ahead. And if he runs into a SAM/AAA site he'll have little to no reaction time. QR-SAMs are designed to be mobile and current intelligence on their positions may not be reliable. Also, AD systems based on IR/optical tracking will remain immune to ELINT ops.

4. Degrading the PLAAF IADS to the point where carpet bombing becomes an option is a tall order to put it mildly. And if you've done it, you're already well past the shock-and-awe stage. To invest in a weapon for the 'afterwards' is akin to putting the cart before the horse. We're better off investing in assets that can actually help degrade the enemy IADS.

Maritime attack: For maritime roles of course, this is not such an issue. The launch platform can stay well out of SAM range if dealing with surface combatants that are without air cover. And if in case of a CBG, your chances are a lot better with a large number of stand-off range launches, which is much more likely with a Backfire, especially if the targets are far out in the ocean (say 2000km). A P8 tailing a couple of frigates/destroyers at sea could guide a Backfire with 2 Bmos or 6 Kh-31s quite nicely and in short order compared to say 3 MKI and a refueller.

Its highly unlikely that we'll find a PLAN fleet operating in the IOR without carrier support. Problem here, like I said before, is tracking the CBG. Any MP aircraft, like the P-8, will likely run into PLANAF fighters before it can tag any capital ship. It'll be very hard to do without fighter support. Which brings us back to square one - if the Su-30MKIs are being used for fighter sweeps, they may as well be used as anti-shipping platforms too.

Send in a squadron MKIs to launch their Brahmos payloads from standoff ranges, follow-on through with 2 x Kh-31s. RTB. Refuel, rearm. Come back and mop up the remnants. RTB. Relocate to the north and join the main fight.

[shiv]

A bomber acquisition also has to be seen in the context of a show of force and broader thinking beyond the TSP and land warfare mindset. As Indian interests grow globally, a global (or initially at least IOR) reach in quick time is always useful. Much like having an aircraft carrier, why even have these then? They are absolutely useless in the northern regions, no?

No. "A show of force" is possible with an aircraft carrier (not a submarine, for example)

Where would bombers "show force" and to whom?

Sri Lanka? No
Myanmar? No
Bangladesh? No
Pakistan? No
Iran?
Malaysia?
Indonesia?
Australia?
Somalia?
Diego Garcia?
Madagascar?
South Africa?

What sort of range would be needed to make a serious show of force by bombers that would be more effective than a flotilla with an aircraft carrier?

[Rishi Verma]

I am in the group of people who think that India should develop/acquire long range bombers.

Me too.

Hence I think this single engine fighter is a short term solution.

Need is here so is future. The "long range bomber" can be redefined as payload specific unmanned bomber. It releases the missile and returns.

Payload specific means one uav for brahmos type cruise missile, other uav for load of clusterbombs.

Also some stealth uav for strategic loads.

By partitioning into payload specific designs the "bombers" can be of reduced sizes.

[shiv]

Need is here so is future. The "long range bomber" can be redefined as payload specific unmanned bomber. It releases the missile and returns.

Payload specific means one uav for brahmos type cruise missile, other uav for load of clusterbombs.

Also some stealth uav for strategic loads.

By partitioning into payload specific designs the "bombers" can be of reduced sizes.

This is about fighters, but it can apply equally well to bombers
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... rump-18716

Unless drones can fight on their own, their datalinks to remote operators will be vulnerable to enemy interference. UAVs that lose contact with pilots, even for a few seconds, will die in air-to-air engagements. Moreover, no drone that can match modern fighter aircraft will be expendable.

And the problem is that almost no one thinks that having robots that can decide to kill on their own volition is a good idea. This makes drones a continuing option for fulfilling many airpower missions, but means that they can’t do everything fighters can do.

[shiv]

http://defenceupdate.in/india-really-ne ... re-bomber/

Backfires operating from the Thanjavur Air Force Base in southern India – and armed with the 300 km range BrahMos – can comfortably strike naval assets up to Seychelles. They can also be used to target PLAN vessels operating in the South China Sea. The bomber’s ferry of 6800 km means it can reach Darwin, Australia, without aerial refuelling. Clearly, such an aircraft would be a huge force multiplier for India.

If the media reports about India wanting a limited number of just four Backfires are true, then it would suggest they would be deployed in a maritime – rather than strategic – strike role. The bombers are equipped to receive data directly from spy satellites monitoring the oceans. India, which has a constellation of ocean survey and spy satellites, can access real time satellite intelligence and despatch the Backfires on ship hunting missions. The bombers can also be guided by scout aircraft.

Forces rivalry

While the IAF’s timidity in adopting a strategic role is a likely reason for the repeated rejection of the Backfire, another factor could be forces rivalry. Air forces are highly resistant to strategic bombing being done by the navy or army. The Tu-22M being a specialised maritime strike bomber, it could – in the IAF’s view – be the beginning of the navy’s strategic air arm. The air force clearly doesn’t want the Indian Navy poaching on its turf. In this backdrop, chances are the IAF will find another farcical excuse to scuttle Backfire talks.

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.

also

And the Tu-22M did what it did best, which wasn’t strategic bombing but scaring the bejeesus out of carrier groups.”

[ShauryaT]

^The IN needs its own organic assets for own our lake and not be reliant on the IAF. When shit hits the fan, resources will be stretched. Need to maintain a dominant IN air wing to anything PLAN CBG's can field. You need both dedicated fighters to own the air space on the lake AND LR bombers as available assets that can threaten China in their lake and coast. There is another dimension to the LR bomber and it is for nuclear deliveries, if a triad is to be maintained against PRC.

We sometimes forget we have available island assets in Agalega, Seychelles, A&N and even Nha Trang. All we have to do is ask and ensure we put our Rs (the new one) where our silent mouth is.

[Viv S]

^The IN needs its own organic assets for own our lake and not be reliant on the IAF. When shit hits the fan, resources will be stretched.

Our resources are already stretched. We're being outspent by the Chinese by a factor of four or five. Every rupee spent on a "good-to-have" equipment is a rupee less spend on a "must-have" equipment.

Need to maintain a dominant IN air wing to anything PLAN CBG's can field. You need both dedicated fighters to own the air space on the lake AND LR bombers as available assets that can threaten China in their lake and coast. There is another dimension to the LR bomber and it is for nuclear deliveries, if a triad is to be maintained against PRC.

How would a conventional LR bomber (as opposed to a VLO B-2-type aircraft) deliver a nuclear payload against the PRC? Its life expectancy will fall the moment it steps across the LAC, and it'll go through the floor the moment it crosses the FEBA into PLAAF dominated air space.

We sometimes forget we have available island assets in Agalega, Seychelles, A&N and even Nha Trang. All we have to do is ask and ensure we put our Rs (the new one) where our silent mouth is.

Seychelles, Mauritius et al. are willing to led India set up listening posts and provide R&R to visiting IN assets in peacetime. Allowing the IN/IAF to stage out of those bases, in wartime, to strike Chinese military vessels/aircraft is an entirely different kettle of fish. It'll make them a participant in a war between two behemoths.

[ShauryaT]

^How do you think the IAF has planned as a last ditch attempt for the su-30 to be this long range bomber replacement for the triad? Many routes for such LR bombers with their payload of an ALCM such as the Nirbhay can be explored, ofcourse none risk free. Also, who told you those island posts are only peace time assets. Its a question of deft management, push comes to shove what will they do? Just like a large country like phillipines cannot ignore the giant nearby, so cannot these small islands, vis-a-vis India.

If we are serious about the triad a LR bomber is a must. These are necessary investments to ensure that PLAN or PLAAF do not feel too cocky and issue threats like, acquiesce to the CPEC or else...

[Gagan]

INS Arihant !
Note the bow mounted sonar


INS Chakra

[Viv S]

^How do you think the IAF has planned as a last ditch attempt for the su-30 to be this long range bomber replacement for the triad?

Has it? First I'm hearing of it. What's your source?

Many routes for such LR bombers with their payload of an ALCM such as the Nirbhay can be explored, ofcourse none risk free.

Nirbhay can be launched to explore those routes alone. Risk free. For a LR bomber, the risk cannot be even partially ameliorated because the threats to it are mobile (QR-SAMs), highly mobile (AWACS) and extremely mobile (J-10/J-11/J-20).

Also, who told you those island posts are only peace time assets. Its a question of deft management, push comes to shove what will they do? Just like a large country like phillipines cannot ignore the giant nearby, so cannot these small islands, vis-a-vis India.

Would we give those island nations a pass, if Chinese bombers were staging out of their bases to attack India? Would we consider them merely an unfriendly bystander or an active participant in the war?

Philipines has a core outstanding territorial issue with China, one that is by no means dormant. Seychelles & Mauritius don't. Vietnam does, but until its signatory to a collective defence agreement with India, it isn't going to overtly participate in an Indo-China war. And vice versa.

If we are serious about the triad a LR bomber is a must. These are necessary investments to ensure that PLAN or PLAAF do not feel too cocky and issue threats like, acquiesce to the CPEC or else...

An LR bomber will make zero difference to PRC's attitudes. Their heartland will already br covered by the Agni V/Agni VI. Second strike capability will be delivered through the Arihant-class. Strategic targets will be covered by the Prahaar/Agni-1P type tactical missile along with the BrahMos. Plus whatever LRCM we go for (depending on how the Nirbhay pans out).

An LR bomber, unless its a VLO design capable of deep penetration, adds nothing to the equation.

[ShauryaT]

Nirbhay can be launched to explore those routes alone. Risk free. For a LR bomber, the risk cannot be even partially ameliorated because the threats to it are mobile (QR-SAMs), highly mobile (AWACS) and extremely mobile (J-10/J-11/J-20).

Nirbhay's range of a 1000KM is ineffective from land for PRC for nuclear payloads. Furthermore, from what I know, we do not plan to have GLCM with nuclear payloads. An ALCM from stand off distances of a 1000KM from coast lines, while not risk free is still a relatively good possibility. Ofcourse, VLO designs only reduces such risk, not available to us, until PAK-DA?

Would we give those island nations a pass, if Chinese bombers were staging out of their bases to attack India? Would we consider them merely an unfriendly bystander or an active participant in the war?

Hello, why would we allow such in the first place. A PLAN SSN showing up in Sri Lanka was enough for the IN to show the flag to the Lankans.

Philipines has a core outstanding territorial issue with China, one that is by no means dormant. Seychelles & Mauritius don't. Vietnam does, but until its signatory to a collective defence agreement with India, it isn't going to overtly participate in an Indo-China war. And vice versa.

Overt, covert these are all semantic things. India was not part of the US gulf war I but provided critical refueling capabilities to the US, did India participate in Gulf war I?

An LR bomber will make zero difference to PRC's attitudes. Their heartland will already br covered by the Agni V/Agni VI. Second strike capability will be delivered through the Arihant-class. Strategic targets will be covered by the Prahaar/Agni-1P type tactical missile along with the BrahMos. Plus whatever LRCM we go for (depending on how the Nirbhay pans out).

A triad is the declared Indian intent. A mobile air component provides its own level of deterrence, which is a mind game. So, its value is not only when the balloon goes up, but to prevent such an occurrence. The US, Russia and now even PLAAF will have these resources, if you think they are of no value, your view against war planners.

Also, to the Su-30, being a last ditch bomber and the source of the story, do not remember, but consider it as a chai wallah source, so FWIW but in the realms of plausibility and the reason cited by the IAF to NOT spend precious resources on LR bombers.

[Cain Marko]

3. The PLAN will be pre-positioned near Gwadar or will come steaming up the Malaccas. In either case, the Su-30MKIs have the range to deal with it. They'll be backed up by the IN's CBGs & sub squadrons.

Why would they do something so obvious knowing indian capability?

4. If the PLAN is already operating west of the Malacca and chooses to avoid action and stay well south of the Equator, its fleet will be very hard to track. You could dispatch the Tu-22Ms and hope they can get lucky, but without any escorts they're more likely to get shot down by the PLANAF fighter screen.

this is why you need more patrolling which brw, the backfire can do very nicely. A dozen backfires will provide a very real boost to the INs capably to watch such areas. The IN is on the lookout for a second mpaa, a couple dozen backfires would do nicely.

i) number of second hand aircraft,
ii) of a type with a history of serviceability issues,
iii) requiring a new maintenance/support chain,
iv) a new pipeline for trained aircrew & ground staff, and
v) extensive upgrades & modifications to get it upto spec,
vi) to do a job that could be done with a higher number of locally manufactured, multi-role fighter jets.

Hardly cheap or asymmetric.

Well, no capability comes for free. It is still a lot cheaper than trying to match the plan with subs and capital ships. Especially when as you point out, resources are hard to spare and indian manufacturing speeds are sadly inadequate.

And no, there is simply no locally or foreign manufactured multipurpose jet that can do what a backfire can....reach the far reaches of the IOR, monitor them, and attack as and when needed. One could argue a p8 could do this in time, and it would be a good argument but the ability of a p8 to carry similar payload and get away is limited comparatively.

Even with the best case range upgrades, the Chinese coast is just simply too far. Doable with IFR but then you'd just be adding the refuelers to the list of units operating without escorts. They'll be susceptible to detection all the way there flying over one of the most crowded areas for commercial traffic. Also, they'll be depriving the IAF units in the thick of the fight at the border/LC/LAC of precious IFR assets.

I checked going around the straits where monitoring will be lesser via google to target hainan, around 8000km, definitely doable with single ifr. Remember this is not even a possibility with any other asset.

within the SCS they'll be going in blind, thousands of km away from home, without any reliable intelligence and prey for with every Chinese Flanker/J-20 in the area operating on home turf. And even if the Backfires do manage to pull it off, catch the Chinese napping, and sink a couple of warships, it'll still be a one-off Doolittle-type mission that'll boost morale but barely change the equation in military terms. It'll be near impossible to do twice after the advantage of surprise is lost.

Much more than a morale booster. It could cripple PLAN capability to put out force into ior. Not to mention the loss of men and materials and hnd.

Several problems here I can see -

1. If you're going to use stand-off weaponry for land attack, you'd don't really need a large bomber to do it unless you're operating at very long ranges. A TEL-launched BrahMos will do just as well. Or a SCALP/JASSM/Nirbhay, either ground or air launched.

A tel launched bmos has absolutely zero deep strike capability. And while the jags, mki etc do have some, it is sorely limited compared to a backfire. If even a small advantage or gap is found in any sector, a backfire could exploit this to go a lot deeper and cause heavy damage, little to no chance with other assets.

2. The curvature of the earth only blocks ground radar emissions. The radar horizon for an AWACS or fighter jet is several hundred km. And modern ESAs are very good at filtering out ground clutter. (Take a look at the high res SAR maps generated by modern AESAs for reference.)

3. SR-SAMs are susceptible to stand-off weaponry only if they can be located ahead in time. An aircraft in a lo-lo flight profile has very limited FoV. The curvature of earth means he too cannot see what lies ahead. And if he runs into a SAM/AAA site he'll have little to no reaction time. QR-SAMs are designed to be mobile and current intelligence on their positions may not be reliable. Also, AD systems based on IR/optical tracking will remain immune to ELINT ops.

True but this is a problem for all other strike assets too. just that with the backfire, you can exploit gaps to go deeper faster.

4. Degrading the PLAAF IADS to the point where carpet bombing becomes an option is a tall order to put it mildly. And if you've done it, you're already well past the shock-and-awe stage. To invest in a weapon for the 'afterwards' is akin to putting the cart before the horse. We're better off investing in assets that can actually help degrade the enemy IADS.

Was thinking of tsp here.

Its highly unlikely that we'll find a PLAN fleet operating in the IOR without carrier support. Problem here, like I said before, is tracking the CBG. Any MP aircraft, like the P-8, will likely run into PLANAF fighters before it can tag any capital ship. It'll be very hard to do without fighter support. Which brings us back to square one - if the Su-30MKIs are being used for fighter sweeps, they may as well be used as anti-shipping platforms too.

.Again backfires can do much better as mpaas here because of their fast getaway and their ability to fire more lethal weapons from farther distances. p8 types might be able to tag them outside fighter bubble but definitely more risky. ability take shots is a lot lower. There is also satellite monitoring.

Send in a squadron MKIs to launch their Brahmos payloads from standoff ranges, follow-on through with 2 x Kh-31s. RTB. Refuel, rearm. Come back and mop up the remnants. RTB. Relocate to the north and join the main fight.

Mki has very limited range and zero capability to detect or loiter. Backfires can do both....a combo of il38 and mki but fast and far more capable in terms of punch packed, and survivability. If this happens somewhere out of the way, mkis will need lots of tanker support and will have a single shot at best. Backfires could play cat and mouse for much longer.

[Cain Marko]

A bomber acquisition also has to be seen in the context of a show of force and broader thinking beyond the TSP and land warfare mindset. As Indian interests grow globally, a global (or initially at least IOR) reach in quick time is always useful. Much like having an aircraft carrier, why even have these then? They are absolutely useless in the northern regions, no?

No. "A show of force" is possible with an aircraft carrier (not a submarine, for example)

Where would bombers "show force" and to whom?

Sri Lanka? No
Myanmar? No
Bangladesh? No
Pakistan? No
Iran?
Malaysia?
Indonesia?
Australia?
Somalia?
Diego Garcia?
Madagascar?
South Africa?

What sort of range would be needed to make a serious show of force by bombers that would be more effective than a flotilla with an aircraft carrier?

Completely disagree here. In some ways a bomber shows force a lot better than a cbg that clumsily moves from one place to another. A single backfire armed with a lovely package of bmos, kh15 can every now and then enter atc view or do a low pass over a ship or regularly patrol your shores. Enough force...just check out the media frenzy when a lone bear does any of the above to NATO.

Tu-22 has similar range as an il38 and can do patrols of 3500-4000km. Of course it can carry nice ashms along and moonlight as an mpaa too while at it.

As far as the list of countries goes, every shore from northern Australia to madagascar to somalia+barbaria and the southeast Asian countries are worthy of a visit occasionally.

[Viv S]

Nirbhay's range of a 1000KM is ineffective from land for PRC for nuclear payloads. Furthermore, from what I know, we do not plan to have GLCM with nuclear payloads. An ALCM from stand off distances of a 1000KM from coast lines, while not risk free is still a relatively good possibility. Ofcourse, VLO designs only reduces such risk, not available to us, until PAK-DA?

We don't plan to have a LR bomber either. We're obviously talking in hypotheticals here. If an air-launched Nirbhay can be equipped with a nuclear payload, so can a ground launched one. As far as range is concerned, any conventional bomber will quite simply be incapable of going up against modern A2/AD assets of the sort fielded by the PLAAF. The range of the Nirbhay on the other hand can be extended in stages (case-in-point: Tomahawk - 2,500 km).

Hello, why would we allow such in the first place. A PLAN SSN showing up in Sri Lanka was enough for the IN to show the flag to the Lankans.

And why then will the Chinese tolerate Seychelles/Mauritius allowing its soil to be used a staging ground in an Indo-China war, instead of considered it participant in the war? And if we accept that it wouldn't, why would either nation ever choose to go to war against a behemoth like China?

Overt, covert these are all semantic things. India was not part of the US gulf war I but provided critical refueling capabilities to the US, did India participate in Gulf war I?

There's nothing semantic about it. If a nation allows its bases to be used for staging attacks on a third nation, it is for all means and purposes at war with the third nation. Turkey provide no troops, no aircraft in 1991, only bases. It was still a participant in the Gulf War and NATO provided it with Patriot batteries against retaliatory strikes.

Of course if nobody finds out about it, its business as usual. In this case, there's no way to suppress the information. All three nations will find themselves a target for PRC if they decide to participate.

A triad is the declared Indian intent. A mobile air component provides its own level of deterrence, which is a mind game. So, its value is not only when the balloon goes up, but to prevent such an occurrence. The US, Russia and now even PLAAF will have these resources, if you think they are of no value, your view against war planners.

The air-component of the triad consists of tactical gravity bombs and possibly the BrahMos (if equipped with a nuclear warhead). Maybe including the Nirbhay in the future. Seeing as the war planners have passed over the Tu-22M option, I'd say their view is pretty much in consonance with mine.

As for a VLO bomber, which is what US, Russia & China are developing, it serves an actual military purpose that goes well beyond strategic nuclear deterrence (read: Air-Sea Battle). With the proliferation of long wave radar systems, we may need something of the sort (flying wing design). Maybe a UCAV will suffice; our situation is somewhat different from those facing China/Russia & the US, particularly in terms of range.

Also, to the Su-30, being a last ditch bomber and the source of the story, do not remember, but consider it as a chai wallah source, so FWIW but in the realms of plausibility and the reason cited by the IAF to NOT spend precious resources on LR bombers.

Some Su-30s have probably being equipped for nuclear toss bombing. So as a 'last ditch'... sure, its an option. That still doesn't make it capable of deep strike missions or justify a conventional bomber type. Its like a bayonet; it'll do as a last ditch weapon but bayonet purchases are not very high on the list of priority acquisitions, and for good reason.

[Rakesh]

Indian Navy receives 12th Car Nicobar Class patrol vessel
http://www.janes.com/article/66521/indi ... rol-vessel

For info on the vessel --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Nicob ... rol_vessel

[Rakesh]

Babus getting uncomfortable

Indian Navy appoints Admiral-rank officer as flag officer without asking Defence Ministry, MoD unhappy
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 41124.html

[Viv S]

Why would they do something so obvious knowing indian capability?

They'll stay east of Malacca then, if they're not willing to take the risk of engagement. The Su-30s can relocate north and join the fight.

I checked going around the straits where monitoring will be lesser via google to target hainan, around 8000km, definitely doable with single ifr. Remember this is not even a possibility with any other asset.

Much more than a morale booster. It could cripple PLAN capability to put out force into ior. Not to mention the loss of men and materials and hnd.

Its still a near suicide mission. The flight will be get picked up on half a dozen civilian radars in the Malacca straits. The larger the taskforce, the more likely it is to get detected. And that info is bound to get through to PLA intelligence (X large bombers transiting east at H hrs). Even if it doesn't, the Backfires will still be flying blind in the SCS against a foe with massive resources available, on its home turf. They need to run across a single AWACS or into a single fighter CAP and the whole mission goes kaput.

A tel launched bmos has absolutely zero deep strike capability. And while the jags, mki etc do have some, it is sorely limited compared to a backfire. If even a small advantage or gap is found in any sector, a backfire could exploit this to go a lot deeper and cause heavy damage, little to no chance with other assets.

True but this is a problem for all other strike assets too. just that with the backfire, you can exploit gaps to go deeper faster.

Neither the Jag nor the MKI nor for that matter, the Backfire has ANY deep strike capability. They're all going to show up as bright beacons on the KJ-3000 radar scope. (Especially bright for the Backfire.) If theoretically, you could find a blind spot, and another, and another, to provide a ingress route, you could launch a Nirbhay along those coordinates or depending on the range of the target, an (upgraded) BrahMos, air or ground launched.

The Tu-22M has a massive RCS. While all conventional aircraft are susceptible to detection, for the Backfire that's of an order of magnitude larger. If there's a gap, its best exploited by a ground hugging LO cruise missile. If you want true deep strike capability where modern A2/AD assets are present, you need a stealth aircraft. Even the Rafale won't do.

.Again backfires can do much better as mpaas here because of their fast getaway and their ability to fire more lethal weapons from farther distances. p8 types might be able to tag them outside fighter bubble but definitely more risky. ability take shots is a lot lower. There is also satellite monitoring.

Mki has very limited range and zero capability to detect or loiter. Backfires can do both....a combo of il38 and mki but fast and far more capable in terms of punch packed, and survivability. If this happens somewhere out of the way, mkis will need lots of tanker support and will have a single shot at best. Backfires could play cat and mouse for much longer.

I'm not comparing the Backfires with MPAs. Neither MPAs nor Backfires will survive a straight encounter with the PLAN fighter screen. Nor can a P-8 realistically be expected to tag a CBG fleet (tag here meaning 'get a weapons grade bearing on'). Though unlike the Backfire, the P-8s are equipped with a high-end ESM system, and will be able to steer clear of the PLAN fighters and AEW&C aircraft (hopefully).

The IAF & supporting CBG-based IN fighters, on the other hand, will need to fight their way through the PLAN fighter screen before they can get bearing on the main fleet. Once they pass those coordinates on, you can launch those Brahmos CMs from Backfires or other Su-30s, it doesn't make a significant difference, aside from the fact that the latter can self-escort.

Take the IAF/IN fighters out of that equation (because of their limited range, if you like) and you have a bunch of Backfires attempting to screw with a bunch of Flankers & J-31s in the air.