Indian Naval Discussion

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 30 Sep 2011 19:19

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 185313.cms

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 30 Sep 2011 19:23

John wrote:PS:One Russian analyst not too long ago suggested that Rusia offer India and the IN Typhoon class SSBNs and Backfire sueprsonic strategic bombers to counter the threat from the PLAN.AKA,why don't you take a "dekko" at the prospect when in Moscow?

That Russian Analyst was definitely drunk.. Typhoon..!!! only one such is left and i guess few are moth balled.. its a cold war relic ..and without its SLBM it is a underwater cruise ship...there is only one place for them..graveyard...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Sep 2011 19:55

^ That is oscar not typhoon.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 30 Sep 2011 20:01

Kanson wrote:^ That is oscar not typhoon.

What r you referring to? the quote by Russian.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 30 Sep 2011 20:05

Yes, the one that was talked by Russian guy is Oscar not typhoon.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 30 Sep 2011 20:25

Given the shape of the Indian sub-continent, which naturally thrusts itself deep into the heart of the Indian Ocean, it continually intrigues me as to why the Indian leadership went for aircraft-carriers over long-range naval bombers as its strategic tool of choice in the southern seas? The aircraft carriers it can likely field are at best suited for slow and carefully planned localized police-actions against minor trouble makers... but a bomber fleet that can quickly spring into action and range deep into the ocean would have given any country that relies on shipping in IOR cause to tread carefully.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Sep 2011 21:05

John wrote:
Philip wrote:PS:One Russian analyst not too long ago suggested that Rusia offer India and the IN Typhoon class SSBNs and Backfire sueprsonic strategic bombers to counter the threat from the PLAN.AKA,why don't you take a "dekko" at the prospect when in Moscow?
And how exactly are we going to maintain Typhoon our docks can't exactly handle submarine that size. As for Backfire IMO they are not worth the trouble they are cold war relics that are too expensive to maintain and plus it will come with string attached like russia not allowing us to retrofit any non Russian stand off missile.

I think Oscars or even Yasen (if offered) are well worth considering. Don't think anyone is looking at/offering the ultimate cold war beast (Typhoon). The Backfire though is well worth looking into for a number of reasons (and maintenance can be managed, didn't they manage a few foxbats? and even the Bears?). A special case perhaps even tie into the SFC, just a small number (6-8) will do. If India wants to get serious about this "Look East" policy, something like the backfire will surely provide the needed punch, far more than any Bear or Rambha, both in terms of survivability and punch. It is probably the best chance of keeping the Yellow Sea within India's range - taking the battle to their backyard, Hainan included. That bird can probably carry the payload of half a dozen MKI without flinching and have double the combat range. Not a joke and a very serious capability. Stationed around Arakkonam, they would simply bring much of IOR from S.China sea to Somalia under India's purview - not to be dismissed lightly imvho. Chinese ambitions of CBGs in IOR will be badly hit.

CM

John · Post by **John** » 30 Sep 2011 21:34

Cain,
By packing more punch what do you mean? What can Tu-22m3 do, which a Flanker (along with a tanker) cannot achieve. Latter has far better search radar and consumes just 1/5th fuel. Not to mention mki has a much better sortie rate and can also be operated from most runways. Where as with Backfire i can only see handful of bases that can handle it which will affect its strike radius.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2011 21:57

>> it continually intrigues me as to why the Indian leadership went for aircraft-carriers over long-range naval bombers as its strategic tool of choice in the southern seas?

[a] chinese interest and more importantly ability to intrude into the IOR is fairly recent. this they do initially with submarines against which bombers are useless - you need ASW ships, LRMP and helicopters to hunt this threat - all of which we paid attention to.
scaring off USA was not an option, our meager resources were and still are too less to scare them
[c] which long range naval bombers were on sale - to my knowledge none. and the situation persists - the backfire is long out of production and the blackjack is scarce, classified and not for sale.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 30 Sep 2011 22:00

Singha wrote:>> it continually intrigues me as to why the Indian leadership went for aircraft-carriers over long-range naval bombers as its strategic tool of choice in the southern seas?

[a] chinese interest and more importantly ability to intrude into the IOR is fairly recent. this they do initially with submarines against which bombers are useless - you need ASW ships, LRMP and helicopters to hunt this threat - all of which we paid attention to.
scaring off USA was not an option, our meager resources were and still are too less to scare them
[c] which long range naval bombers were on sale - to my knowledge none. and the situation persists - the backfire is long out of production and the blackjack is scarce, classified and not for sale.

The Aircraft Carrier is as much a exhibitionism as anything else.. we wont be able to sustain a full grown carrier battle group for long .. it is a statement... that We have arrived .. only the 4th nation to .. kind of..

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Sep 2011 22:26

John wrote:Cain,
By packing more punch what do you mean? What can Tu-22m3 do, which a Flanker (along with a tanker) cannot achieve.

A backfire is capable of carrying 3X more ordinance for 2-3X the range/radius. A single backfire could for example, carry upto 6 Brahmos - you'd need 6 MKIs to do that.

Latter has far better search radar and consumes just 1/5th fuel. Not to mention mki has a much better sortie rate and can also be operated from most runways. Where as with Backfire i can only see handful of bases that can handle it which will affect its strike radius.

John, I don't see Backfires being used as MKIs would be - the roles are totally different. That is why I suggested just about 6-8 units enough to carry out specialized roles - perhaps keep a CBG in check, perhaps if some PLAN base needs to be targeted. In terms of fuel used up - you'd probly have the same amount of consumption considering that you'll need 4 or 5 MKIs to do what 1-2 backfire can. You would almost definitely require AAR in case of MKIs on a strike mission 2000km away. Not so with the Backfires. A typical scenario would have the Backfires take over the bombing/A2G role while the MKIs provide cover with a strict A2A loadout. Say for example, petals have to be delivered to Hainan, MKIs from A&C could join Backfires from ARK and probably do a decent job. Ditto with some deep strike in the mainland.

We can't think of Backfires being stationed at multiple ABs - no need. Just one such as Arakkonam would suffice, that would also somewhat make logistics a lot easier. More than anything else - it makes our intentions rather clear - this swath of area malacca - hormuz is India's backyard, and it gives an immediate impetus to this intention. No more pussyfooting around.

JMT anyways.

CM

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Sep 2011 22:38

if we want only 6-10 could we get Russia to build that many new Blackjacks for us? the uptime is likely to be significantly higher, plus the massive advantages in range and payload.

unit cost is unlikely to be higher than the C17 for sure

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Sep 2011 22:45

Yes, the blackjack would be something although I don't think production is going at any fast rate, also induction times on the backfires would be quicker. And the latter should seriously offer more than enough for India's needs. Anyways, here is an interesting image:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/range.gif

Damn I'd want them just to piss off the Aussies!

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 01 Oct 2011 01:24

Even if we can't get the Backfire or Blackjack,PAK DA might have potential .May be India could also join in on this program and develop a navalised version of it.The Russian Naval Aviation also needs some new bombers and it wouldn't us to get some for SFC's air force and for Indian naval aviation.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Oct 2011 01:37

Philip, you're such an institution

: Kirov class cruisers, Beriev seaplanes, Backfires, Blackjacks, PAK DA Pranab DA and whatnot. You just love the FSU heavy metal junk. I think you'd take one of each. The IN would look like a museum.

I fully expect you to bring up the issue of sturmoviks (lyushin Il-2) going begging

No offense, just kidding.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2011 07:18

I had forgotten about the PAKDA. its a paper concept right now, but should be a kickass product being based in pakfa learnings. time to get in and commit to 50-100 is likely now when concept studies will be in progress. should be smaller than Tu160 but as fast and much more stealthy and fuel efficient with internal bays.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2011 07:21

^ the range chart of backfire/blackjack

and dont forget they can unleash upto 3000km range KH55 ALCMs in salvo mode. that extends the reach by that much from unrefuelled range.

Tu160 sure is one scary bird if navalized long loiter ASM / LACM is the game. gotta love those huge wings and super long fuselage.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Oct 2011 07:52

I dont think Russia or for that matter US will sell strategic bombers to any country , it would be seen as too destablising becuase of the nuclear potential it holds.

Not to mention its the crowing jewel of technology for these countries that they would never part with any body ,even NATO or CSTO countries that have military alliances have access to B-2 or Tu-160.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Oct 2011 07:54

you cannot compare maintenance of Backfire\Blackhacks to Foxbats.

This will be expensive white elephants we could do without

we have far more desperate needs

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Oct 2011 08:16

GD's love for the blackjack is not hidden from anyone.

I have seen him enamored by it's beauty since the day I joined BRF.

ARay · Post by **ARay** » 01 Oct 2011 10:54

ParGha wrote:Given the shape of the Indian sub-continent, which naturally thrusts itself deep into the heart of the Indian Ocean, it continually intrigues me as to why the Indian leadership went for aircraft-carriers over long-range naval bombers as its strategic tool of choice in the southern seas? The aircraft carriers it can likely field are at best suited for slow and carefully planned localized police-actions against minor trouble makers... but a bomber fleet that can quickly spring into action and range deep into the ocean would have given any country that relies on shipping in IOR cause to tread carefully.

You may recall the history that India remained under colonial regime for ~ 200 yrs. So Anglo-Saxon Naval school of thought was very much predominant even after two decades of independence. Also you may see that as a Naval foce India could add its sub arm with Foxtrots after a painful begging with literally all western powers but turened down and then came the USSR help. Having a CBG was a sort of symbolism of power in those days but the real merit of having a CBG came in picture when sea hawks bombed East Pakistan ports (inaccessible for IAF) relentlessly in 71 war from decks of Vikrant. A truely exemplery effort by a Navy with very limited resources in those days. But as time goes situation and demand also evolves. Now as an aspiring power INS needs its CBGs more than any other in the sub continent to protect its maritime assets and the need is more in face of PLAN.

The options we have now to develop or to purchase the key ship in the group (for CBGs the carrirer, for BGs the battle/missile cruiser

or a stealth most modern destroyer, for replinishment facility/amphibious groups the main tanker/a big storehouse like Jalsabha). As I pointed earlier instead of going for five, INS may modify for three CBGs (leave Pakis for the time being) and spend the rest for developing at least two small BGs for the far east. Now you may need a air cover, which for the time being (next 10 yrs.) will be discrete. Adding Tu bombers in that discrete air cover role will augment the situation in favour of INS. However it will be judicious to seek maritime role for a amall detachment of Su 30 (not wasting them by placing in central India to scare pakis) as possible air cover and station them at Andaman base.

Actually all these plans/debates are influenced by time. Developing a strong sub fleet with small BGs will solve the short term goal but developing CBG at the back ground is a necessity which will come in front after 15 yrs. or so with more expansion of India's economic interest.
Counting on cold war between two giants (USSR/USA) is no good, we can only take a hybrid route which serves our motherland best. In view of this Tu bombers are a good option.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Oct 2011 11:16

The first 10 year plan, of the IN was for 2 light fleet carriers and 4 heavy fleet carriers with 280 air crafts. The plan was ambitious in scope , it was was all the more audacious in its thinking, as it was drawn up less then a month after independence.

The thinking was whoever controls the Indian ocean controls the destiny of the Indian nation. Even today the plan has not been implemented.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 01 Oct 2011 11:59

The maintenance headache of small number of dedicated long range bombers is something we can rather not take in. More so for the IN, which anyways has limited resources at hand. It is better served with spending the same amount on more LRMP crafts which provide us better bang for the buck.

Lets take in a scenario, where we have the Blackjack for maritime strike. Now against what would you send it. As mentioned by few posters against any surface vessels. Now in the next 20-30 years I do no think we would be going against USN. So it would be there to counter PLAN. But why would we allow PLAN surface vessels to enter Indian Ocean in the very first place. They have to go through natural choke points in the Indonesian Archipelago. Its better destroy them there, where we know exactly where they would be, rather than search the entire IOR if we let them get into it. Now some would say, well they have the "Pearls" to be safely in, before the start of hostilities. Well, if there Pearls are in Sri Lanka, or Myanmar, then the vessels would be in Bay of Bengal, which can anyway be covered by IN surface vessels and LRMP and maritime strike squads. Same is the case of Gwadar. Of course its further away but well within the reach of our LRMP and Maritime squads.

so if you look at it the Bay of Bengal, The Arabian sea and the Andaman Sea they are covered by our current assets. What is needed to add to the teeth of the IN, is probably 3 squadrons of Maritime Su-30MKI. They can be like the current Jaguar Maritime Squadrons. Operated by the IAF, but also tasked with Maritime strike operations, and greater training with the IN for such ops. Such dedicated squadrons in Pune/Goa, Trivandrum and Car Nicobar, means we have the major sea lanes covered.

Whats the point of sending something to hit a PLAN DDG operating 2000 km away in the IOR. For all practical purposes that particular DDG is out of the battle. Our Slocs are much nears to the coast. Most of it comes from the Gulf region, Red Sea and Malacca Strait. That DDG in the deep IO is not doing anything. Lets worry about the vessels nearer home. Point being we do not need anything to strike surface vessels that deep.

For striking PLAN bases in the South China Sea, I think we would better served by using Cruise missiles for it, because of two factors.
1.south chine sea is PLAN's backyard and would be heavily defended. Sending 3/4 Bombers would require escorts too. Now when PLAN sees these huge bombers are on way, how many fighters do you think it would scramble. Would an escort of 5-6 Su-30MKI be enough for that.
2. Cruise missiles would provide us huge saturation advantage. How many missiles would the bombers unleash, maybe 15-20 at max. So you send bombers heavily escorted to launch 15-20 missiles, quite a few of which would be knocked down by AD systems, since the AD systems are over loaded at all. So to over whelm the AD systems and ensure that sufficient hits reach home, you need a huge barrage of missiles, maybe 100-200. Now how many bombers you need for that. WW-II style bomb raids are gone. So either develop really long range cruise missiles to hit PLAN or get in touch with an south china ally. The ally serves multiple purposes compared to a long range missiles. we can base our vessels and aircrafts there if need be and boy would that be great.

So something like a Backfire or BlackJack is not needed for the IN, JMT.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Oct 2011 12:28

Pratyush wrote:The first 10 year plan, of the IN was for 2 light fleet carriers and 4 heavy fleet carriers with 280 air crafts. The plan was ambitious in scope , it was was all the more audacious in its thinking, as it was drawn up less then a month after independence.

The thinking was whoever controls the Indian ocean controls the destiny of the Indian nation. Even today the plan has not been implemented.

This is reflected in the book by ASIA AND WESTERN DOMINANCE. BY K. M. PANIKKAR
http://racismandnationalconsciousnessre ... inance.doc
He writes that the colonial power was directly due to dominance of the ocean.

India has gone for sea denial strategy. Bramos is directly due to this strategy.
Only from now will India invest in sea control and sea power projection

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2011 13:04

what a blackjack would permit is a quick transit from mainland India to the southern edge of the south china sea or beyond using a less detectable route south of indonesia, launching of heavy ALCM salvo on vital strategic and economic targets (conventional payload) up the chinese coast, hainan etc and then a return, without need to tie up refuelers or support assets , since it can move at Mach2 and outrun most pursuers.

it is a stable soln unlike launching IRBMs on such targets (will be taken a N-weapon if launch-on-warning policy is in effect) or overland 3000km range GLCMs (we are some way off from that, and it increases the chances of fighters and SAMs gunning it down)....a 1000km range ALCM nirbhay should be enough from the Blackjack as it will be far out at sea.

also if we need heavy strikes on targets north of tibet , like the delingha missile fields, blackjack gets the job done, taking off and recovering from Tambaram if need be.

no fighter in the world can remotely touch such unsupported and unrefuelled capabilities in payload or range.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Oct 2011 14:25

Guys,how on earth did you discover my favourite music preferences..."heavy metal"?!
Seriously,it would be a mammoth task for the In to operate any of the 3 remaining Typhoons,but the idea was to stir debate about large SSGNs being equipped with hundred+ cruise missiles as the USN has done with its Ohio class.It was quite some time ago that the IN was keenly looking at the Sierra class (say some reports) which has a heavy payload of 40 weapons.The Akula 2 which we are getting is even more capable and once pics are available ,we will be able to see from details,whether it is of the Gepard (Akula) std. which should actually be described as an Ak.-3.

Apart from the Akula/s that we might acquire,we should examine the possibility of picking up a large SSBN from Russia being pensioned off early due to budgetary reasons,which possess large missile silos that could accomodate either our cruise missiles or even our future sub-launched ICBM.The Arihant is not large enough to accomodate a minimum of 12-16 ICBM ,each with at least 3 MIRVs.Production time for these are also lengthy,as by now,the second ATV should've hit water.The ATV is actually more suited to the role of an SSGN than an SSBN,except for its speed.It appears to have been built with quieting as priority and slow speed secercy underwater given its role.

Aaprt from any further N-subs available on lease,and the Oscar class is another great design,a sqd. of Backfires/Blackjacks-which will be far more expennsive,will be invaluable to fly far out into the Indo-China Sea and do battle with the PLAN.Russia has several sqds. mothballed and though they need upgrades in avionics,etc.,the cost of such an upgrade will be trivial to the enormous capability that it will bring to our strategic deterrent too,if and when it is used in that role apart from LR strike.The ideal number would be between 12-16,with half located at Dab and the other at Ark,just as the other LRMP aircraft can be assigned to covering both eastern and western approaches to the IOR.One must remember that we have limited air base facilities on the A&N islands.The tsunami devastated the Car-Nic base.If the PLAN/PLAF manage to launch masisbve missile strikes at these bases,rendering them inoperable,we will have to then depend upon carrier and land based aviation.The possession of LR bombers/maritime strike aircraft like Backfires and Bears-even though they may be a generation old,are invaluable bacuse of their immense range and endurance unmatched by any modern equivalent like the P-8Is.Every aircraft we possess is an asset and can be evaluated for its lifespan and usefulness.

The need for heavy cruisers-battle cruisers say Kirov class,is another requirement to supprt the carrier task forces in an anti-air and anti-surface/land attack role.Being a maritime nation which depends almost entirely for its energy supplies and trade using the sea,India cannot afford to allow the PRC to possess in the PLAN a naval force that either with or without PN help,will possess overwhelming naval superiority over India.The PLAN is actually striving to possess capability allowing it to challenge the USN in Asia-Pacific waters.Such ambitions will make its navy overwhelmingly powerful when seen in relation to the IN.Let's hope that AKA's viosit to Moscow brings with it plenty of new fruit.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Oct 2011 16:07

The Indian navy must think in terms what it needs in the next 30 years in order to deal with the strategic scenario. Ones they have figured out what hey need go about designing assets and ships that can actually meet the needs. The PVT sector yards are comming up and in conjuction with the PSU yards they ought to be able to meet the future needs of the fleet.

The legacy Russian fleet while good was built for a different set of needs. That may not be what India needs.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Oct 2011 16:52

Indian Navy commissions Fleet Tanker INS Shakti

I will update this bit later. its breaking news.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 01 Oct 2011 16:59

Indian Navy looking for latest choppers

:
Speaking to reporters in Panaji, flag officer commanding Goa area (FOCGA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai said the hunt for newer crafts was on while the Seaking, which are anti-submarine and troop-carrying helicopters, and Kamov or Ka-31, used as airborne early warning choppers, were being upgraded.

"We are actively scouting for a worthy successor to the doughty Seakings and Kamov helicopters," Pillai said.

:

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2011 18:19

imo this 40-50 unit deal to replace the sea kings is hanging because of funding issue, not lack of intent. the usual suspects have all sent their RFI replies in already.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Oct 2011 18:36

chackojoseph wrote:Indian Navy commissions Fleet Tanker INS Shakti

29 Mig -29's and 16 helios will be acquired in next 2 years.

sum · Post by **sum** » 01 Oct 2011 18:45

X-posting from multimedia dhaaga:

manu_vashist wrote:Andaman: India's eastern buffer

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/ndtv-s ... topstories

Has lots of clips on IN asets in A&N, officers and MARCOs in action..

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 01 Oct 2011 18:54

Singha wrote:I had forgotten about the PAKDA. its a paper concept right now, but should be a kickass product being based in pakfa learnings. time to get in and commit to 50-100 is likely now when concept studies will be in progress. should be smaller than Tu160 but as fast and much more stealthy and fuel efficient with internal bays.

Pranab DA is also a paper concept much smaller than anything and pretty stealthy if you ask PC

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 01 Oct 2011 20:31

Andaman: India's eastern buffer

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/ndtv-s ... topstories

In this video at 14.01 a MARCO is seen firing an AK 47 with something like an empty bottle attached to it.I've seen this before in a magazine before.What does that empty bottle do

John · Post by **John** » 01 Oct 2011 20:33

Philip,
Kirov's fleet air defense are quite limited P15A or the Euro ddgs are far potent than Kirov, only thing fearsome about was its shipwreck missiles. Part of the problem was its tombstone radar which did not provide with 360 degree and as a result was quite vunerable to attacks from different directions. Even a bunch of hornets armed with harm could easily cripple it. May be now can you drop your fantasy of buying them.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Oct 2011 20:54

^bottle

its a mineral water bottle he has cut and taped up to function as a catcher for the empty bullet cartridges....in the past I have seen pix of people use canvas bags on MMG/HMG for it but not a rifle yet.

perhaps there was a need not to pollute that tract with empty shell casings

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2011 21:00

Those casings could be brass. Precious metal not to be wasted. Besides if random people find them they will collect them and sell them. Brass can be sold for good money per Kg. But steel too is bought by scrap dealers. And I am guessing that they have to account for every round fired for practice - a simple security measure to check smuggling for money/terrorism

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Oct 2011 21:24

May be now can you drop your fantasy of buying them.

sorry john he lives in a parallel universe and cannot be reached!!!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Oct 2011 21:42

Singha wrote:perhaps there was a need not to pollute that tract with empty shell casings

Could be one reason. Or what Shiv said or accounting for every bullet during training. We used to collect the copper case piled next to us or the lead which were lodged in the the rage mud (depending upon the bullets used during the NCC days.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Oct 2011 23:42

Some decent posts re. the possible/fantasized Tu22 acquisition - my two cents:

1) Cost of maintenance, yes this won't be cheap but no more/less than the Bears the IN currently operates. For specialized roles, costs will always be extra, but I think they are worth paying. I say increase the freaking budget!!

2) LRMPs and MKIs will serve our purpose and a cruise missile salvo will be good enough for S. China Sea bases. Big difference bet. this and the Backfire/Blackjack imho. Both these a/c can fly @ M2 if needed and cover a range that is 3 X that of the MKI. IOWs, they could literally act as standalone strikes which can take off at a moments notice. They won't require 10 days of planning and prep. For a barrage of cruise missiles, India will have to get close enough with current platforms - trying to get LRMPs, MKIs (in that number) etc 500km away from PLAN bases is a suicide job. And if the idea is to fire Nirbhays from 1000 km away or more, remember these take time to travel and can be taken out by things like TORs. What a flight of 5 Backfires can do is simply coast along until about 1000km from target undetected and then go low and fast, launch Brahmos types and get out, all very quickly with a decent chance of survivability. Remember these birds have a combat radius of close to 3500km+ - that is, they can do an unrefueled mission of that distance to and fro. And they can do it rather fast with a very heavy loadout. They'll have to muster up a fleet of 2 dozen MKIs refuelled twice to carry out a similar mission. Fat chance of being undetected too.

Bottomline is that for such strikes fast bombers are the best bet (stealth of course would be awesome), but CMs are slow and have limitations esp. against well defended areas. Anyways we don't have nearly the quantity or reach via CMs as of now - unless we want to send a sub or two or three - 300-500km from Chinese mainland. Fighters like MKIs are simply not constructed for something of this nature. If India wants to take the fight to the Chinese, a fleet (even a small one) of such bombers would be helpful.

JMT.

CM