Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3961
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 06 Apr 2017 04:46

ashishvikas wrote:India keen to buy MiG-29 aircraft from Malaysia: Malaysian Prime Minister

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 031600.cms

Is the IAF actually considering buying used 4th generation fighters to shore up her numbers? Where have we read this before? :) I should post this in the single engine thread.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 06 Apr 2017 05:09

Well with just 12 airframes available, this deal is more for attrition replacement than raising the squadron numbers.
Surplus, if any, may be used as test bed but I highly doubt it.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 06 Apr 2017 05:49

ramana wrote:There was report about IAF ordering a large number of LGBs.

I couldn't find it again.
Please post here.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6866&p=2136301&hilit=1000+year+glide#p2136301

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 06 Apr 2017 07:06

Thanks.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2755
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Apr 2017 09:23

Rakesh wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:India keen to buy MiG-29 aircraft from Malaysia: Malaysian Prime Minister

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 031600.cms

Is the IAF actually considering buying used 4th generation fighters to shore up her numbers? Where have we read this before? :) I should post this in the single engine thread.


just wrote about this a moment ago in said thread and now this news :shock: :D hope this is true. Hungary has a few too and I bet so do the Russians. Good move, if true

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby rohitvats » 06 Apr 2017 10:01

Rakesh wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:India keen to buy MiG-29 aircraft from Malaysia: Malaysian Prime Minister

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 031600.cms

Is the IAF actually considering buying used 4th generation fighters to shore up her numbers? Where have we read this before? :) I should post this in the single engine thread.


This is more on the lines of Malaysia wanting to sell their Mig-29. Since IAF operates the same, it has mixed the pitch for buying Su-30MKK related stuff with India buying those Mig-29s.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Austin » 06 Apr 2017 10:31

IF IAF buys the Mig-29N then they would just upgrade it to UPG standard as other Migs in IAF

nits
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby nits » 06 Apr 2017 13:45

News Article does not mention any update on what will be the cost of this Mig's ? also are they selling this as they favor Sukhoi more now ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2017 01:10

Fleet rationalization. Need to get rid of multiple types.
IAF gets Mig29s which are useful.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1000
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Khalsa » 07 Apr 2017 01:48

ramana wrote:Fleet rationalization. Need to get rid of multiple types.
IAF gets Mig29s which are useful.


Wow lots of present and hidden gems in there.
Definite opportunity to sell them Su spare parts and possibly some airframes that could be manufactured.
This sounds good.

Look at their fleet. Definitely operating a wide variety of platforms like the IAF for a country its size.

Aircraft--------------------Number of AC F[F+T]
Boeing F/A-18D---------------8[13]
BAE Hawk 208---------------13[13]
MiG-29----------------------10[13]
Su-30MKM------------------18[13]

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17605
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2017 13:20

Getting legacy MIG-29s which are younger than the ones the IAF operate and upgrading them in India will be quite easy as we've already carried out a deep upgrade of all 60+ in service for just under $1B.Exchanging SU-30 spares for these aircraft is a very innovative solution to increasing our numbers of 29s at a very reasonable cost.With a few more,another MIG-29 sqd. could be raised,esp. as we're in other reports going to provide BDesh moolah to buy Ru MIG-35s (possibly) and other defence deals in a tri-partitie arrangement.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3708
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karthik S » 07 Apr 2017 13:23

Philip wrote:Getting legacy MIG-29s which are younger than the ones the IAF operate and upgrading them in India will be quite easy as we've already carried out a deep upgrade of all 60+ in service for just under $1B.Exchanging SU-30 spares for these aircraft is a very innovative solution to increasing our numbers of 29s at a very reasonable cost.With a few more,another MIG-29 sqd. could be raised,esp. as we're in other reports going to provide BDesh moolah to buy Ru MIG-35s (possibly) and other defence deals in a tri-partitie arrangement.


Where did you get that?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2017 19:59

Read the $3B credit to BD to shore up economy.

Philip despite his image hear has his sources.

gugul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 30 Sep 2016 11:17

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby gugul » 13 Apr 2017 16:54

Quick Question : Can anyone tell me what are these panels on the front end of IAF Boeing 707...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1566/2459 ... e12e_b.jpg
http://photovide.com/wp-content/uploads ... es/36b.jpg

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby dinesh_kimar » 13 Apr 2017 19:54

gulgul, maybe AN/AYR-1 passive ESM Sensor system, which is also used by India.

Prithwiraj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prithwiraj » 13 Apr 2017 20:11

These seems to be resource of ARC (Aviation Research Center)?

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby dinesh_kimar » 13 Apr 2017 20:42

^ There is also an ELTA version of the above sensor system. Totally 2 aircraft with us.
ARC doesn't exist anymore, closed down by invincible pigeon. Air assets with IAF, sat based with NTRO.

gugul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 30 Sep 2016 11:17

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby gugul » 14 Apr 2017 20:10

Thanks Dinesh and Prithwiraj...

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 15 Apr 2017 19:24

Mirage-2000 w/ SPICE-2000
Image
Image
Image

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Chinmay » 15 Apr 2017 20:53

^ The first two aircraft are carrying the Popeye missile, not a SPICE-2000

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 16 Apr 2017 07:23

Chinmay wrote:^ The first two aircraft are carrying the Popeye missile, not a SPICE-2000

SPICE-2000 is a derivative of Popeye.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 419
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby bhavani » 16 Apr 2017 08:02

Popeye missile is different from spice 2000. Spice 2000 is a kit for 2000 lb bomb with around 65 km range. Popeye is a proper ASM with around 145 km-200 km range.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby srai » 16 Apr 2017 08:09

You guys are right. So looks like the IAF has both the Popeye-2 and SPICE-2000.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 20 Apr 2017 22:47

X-Post...
srai wrote:^^^
Bombs
  1. 25 lb Practice bomb
  2. 3Kg Practice bomb
  3. 1000 lb Mk-11- (w/ Griffin LGB kit as well)
  4. 250 kg HSLD
  5. 450 kg HSLD
  6. PB-500 (w/ Griffin LGB kit)



Taking all these weapons together with the Popeye and Spice 2000 of IAF what is their ground attack or strike doctrine?

Ground fixed targets and ground fighting support.

Can Avibhushan garu critique after members post?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 27 Apr 2017 00:24

X-Posting....
Philip wrote:Why we desperately need genuine strat./tactical bombing capability,which is a great hole in the IAF's capability vis-avis China,etc. Possession of such a capability could enable us to raise the level of attrition beyond the capabilities of our mortal enemies and also below the N-threshold.
The aircraft will in a crisis also carry our primary air-launched N-weapons, their primary task.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... ed-for-you
World’s biggest bombs: India’s SPICE no match for America’s MOAB or Russian FOAB
INDIA Updated: Apr 14, 2017 12:03 IST
Rahul Singh
Hindustan Times, New Delhi


Less than three months after Donald Trump took over as President, an MC-130 aircraft operated by the United States Air Force Special Operations Command dropped one of the biggest conventional bombs in country’s arsenal in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday.

Deployed by the US military for the first time in combat, the GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) is one of the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the possession of any military worldwide. The 21,000-lb MOAB’s sheer destructive power has earned it the nickname ‘Mother of All Bombs’.

Neither India nor Pakistan nor even China possesses non-nuclear bombs that are in the league of MOAB, developed in the early 2000s. In fact, their stockpile doesn’t come anywhere close to MOAB-like munitions.


The rare strike against Islamic State fighters with a weapon of this size has turned the spotlight on the world’s biggest and largest contemporary non-nuclear bombs, primarily held only by the militaries of Russia and the US.

Here’s a quick look at some of these deadly air-delivered monster munitions whose efficiency and power almost match nuclear weapons, :eek: :eek: :eek: and the smaller bombs that the air forces of India, China and Pakistan hold in their inventories:

Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power: Also known as the ‘Father of All Bombs’ (FOAB), it is the Russian answer to the American bomb. Moscow successfully tested the weapon in 2007; four years after the US developed the MOAB. It is reportedly the world’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb, capable of unleashing 44 tons of explosives compared to 11 tons in the GBU-43 MOAB. At 15,650 lb, the FOAB is lighter than the American bomb but the former’s significantly higher blast yield makes it far more lethal.

GBU-43 MOAB: Designed to destroy underground facilities, caves and tunnels, the US had developed the GPS-guided bomb for the 2003 invasion of Iraq but it was never used in combat until Thursday evening. Just like the Russian bomb, the 30-foot MOAB detonates before hitting the ground and causes unthinkable destruction by sending deadly shockwaves up to a distance of over a mile in all directions. The GBU-43 MOAB, however, is not the heaviest conventional munition in the American arsenal.

GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator: Known by its acronym MOP, the 30,000-lb American bomb is perhaps the heaviest conventional weapon in the world. However, the bunker buster bomb’s explosive power doesn’t match that of the MOAB or the FOAB. Manufactured by US defence giant Boeing, the GBU-57A/B MOP is designed to obliterate underground nuclear facilities and deeply buried enemy targets.

GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrator: The air forces of Israel and South Korea have the 5,000-lb GBU-28 bunker buster munitions supplied by the US in their inventories. The bombs were deployed by the USAF during Operation Desert Storm to carry out strikes against Iraqi bunkers, military installations and high value strategic targets in 1991. The GBU-28, a variant of the Paveway III bomb, can reportedly blast through six metres of concrete.

GBU-24 Paveway II bombs: The French Air Force’s Rafale omni-role fighters can carry a number of bombs from the US Paveway family of munitions. The heaviest air-to-surface conventional weapon the fighter can be equipped with is the GBU-24 Paveway II 2,000-lb laser-guided bomb.

INDIA

SPICE: The Israel-manufactured SPICE (smart precise impact and cost effective) bomb is the biggest conventional bomb that can be delivered by the Indian Air Force. Manufactured by Israeli firm Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Ltd, the 2000-lb precision guided bombs are used on the French-origin Mirage 2000 fighters.

The IAF’s Jaguar deep-strike penetration aircraft can be fitted with 1,000-lb bombs for destroying the enemy’s ammunition dumps during combat. In one configuration, a Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter can carry 26 bombs of 550-lb class to destroy a concentration of enemy armour and personnel. The fighter can also carry 1,000-lb HSLD (high speed, low drag) bombs to destroy enemy airfields. Indian fighter planes can also drop indigenously produced 1,000-lb bombs fitted with Israel Aircraft Industries-produced Griffin laser-guided systems

CHINA AND PAKISTAN

The People’s Liberation Army Air Force has a variety of conventional bombs ranging in the 500 lb to 3,000-lb class. Most of these general purpose bombs have been developed by the China’s North Industries Corporation. Most of the designs are reportedly based on bombs earlier imported from Russia.

Some of the designs also reportedly draw inspiration from the US Mk 80/82/83/84 bombs. Some other bombs in the Chinese inventory are also suspected to have been copied from Western designs. The conventional bombs with Pakistan Air Force are in the 250 lb to 2,000-lb class, with the design again based on the US Mk 80 series bombs and mated to laser guided systems of American origin. Former IAF vice chief Air Marshal KK Nohwar told HT on Friday, “India, China and Pakistan largely have a similar stockpile of lighter non-nuclear bombs. It’s nowhere close to the mega bombs that the Russians and the Americans can deploy in combat.”



So IAF has something equivalent to the US GBU-24 Paveway II as the biggest bomb in inventory.
Question is how many and which aircraft? As for altter, must be from a laser designator pod aircraft.

Could be the Su-30 or Mirage 2000.

The SU-30 has the 1000 lb HSLD with Griffin Kit.

There is the Israeli PB-500 concrete penetrator bomb with Griffin Kit from Su-30s.

The Jaguars have the 1000 MC.

I think the Paveway II kit has been fitted to these also.
The LCA can drop the 1000 lbs class LGBs.
All in all these all show the IAF capability to target point targets like aircraft shelters etc.

In addition the IAF has practiced the LDP as a ranging tool for precision bombing of area targets.
So even the 250 kg bombs from the Su-30 are near precision capable.

There are DRDO tenders for numerical simulation of HSLD with Griffin against concrete structures.

It would be prudent to make the SPICE bomb under license from the Israelis if feasible.

Now coming to my big question. Why this article now and is it a step towards rising awareness of the need for IAF to field heavy ordnance?
Is there a doctrine change?

bahdada
BRFite
Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 19:50

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby bahdada » 27 Apr 2017 20:37

Taiwan's Pursuit of F-35 Tests Trump's Early Rapport With Xi
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-26/taiwan-s-pursuit-of-f-35s-tests-trump-s-early-rapport-with-xi

“We hope we can get F-35s,” Wang told Bloomberg News. “We have been waiting for updated F-16s for too long. Their time has gone. If we buy them now, in 10 years time they’ll be no use.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 27 Apr 2017 21:09

Good for discussion here...
Philip wrote:A dedicated strat/ bomber with a large internal weapons bay will be able to carry a large bomb/missile that can penetrate multiple layers of concrete/bunkers buried UG. The range of missiles that we currently possess ,barring BMos due to its kinetic energy and vert dive capability for the land attack version specifically developed for hitting targets in the mountains,will not be able to take out the kind of Tora Bora targets that the US is using MOAB for in Af-Pak. But more than the need for a heavy munition is the need for bombers.The US is upgrading its B-52s,Russia using very efficiently its TU-95/142 Bears (which the IN has just retired!) in primarily a strat. bombing role carrying their nukes and other tactical munitions. They also possess supersonic B-1s,B-2s,Backfires,Blackjacks,etc.China has a huge fleet of legacy Tupolevs. India...zilch! The myopia of our mil planners is simply staggering.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 27 Apr 2017 21:14

Philip,
After the 1971 war IAF became an all fighter plane force with strike to be conducted by fighter bombers. The Canberra was phased out of the bomber role and relegated to photo-recce.

In their heydays they had a very large bomber fleet almost 55 planes.

But then the bomb load of Canberra vs SU 30 should be compared to see if capability is retained.


What you are lamenting is based on doctrine changes.
The challenger is Pakistan and some areas in Tibet.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 27 Apr 2017 23:51

ramana wrote:Philip,
But then the bomb load of Canberra vs SU 30 should be compared to see if capability is retained.

Ramana sir,
Wiki seems to indicate a total payload of a 3,628 Kg while that of a Su-30MKI is that of 8,000 Kg.. So on a purely load basis, the Su 30 outclasses the Canberra, but to put things in perspective a fighter in the same era had a payload capacity ranging from 1000Kg(Mystere 1VA) to 3400kgs(Hawker Hunter), where as a Tu160 carries a payload of about 44,000kgs and a B1B carries a payload of about 55,000kgs.
From an economic point of view, cost per flight hour of a B-1B is about $57,807, while that of a Su-30MKI is $25,000 but the amount of effect it brings to bear is almost 7 times that of a Rambha and with a radius of action twice that of the later. I am assuming the cost for Tu-160 to be 20% to 50% higher of the B-1B.

This is a very simplistic approach but if one excludes the capital cost of acquisiton, the B-1B and Tu-160 bring a whole of capability to the table for the cost of 2 Su30MKI operating at the same time.

Gurus, brickbats and boquets(if any at all) are welcome.

Thanks.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2017 09:28

Bala Vignesh wrote: but the amount of effect

Bala I would distinguish between "amount of explosive" and "amount of effect"

You can have more explosive and less effect. Hundreds of bombs dropped in a straight line are most effective for targets that are long, perfectly straight and narrow - which pretty much excludes most targets

American costs per hour are different from Indian costs because Indian labour is less expensive, so I would be wary about the dollar costs of Su-30

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 28 Apr 2017 11:37

Bala, Very good point. It's the effectiveness of the ordnance at the target that matters.
The Su 30MKI not only has more bomb load but due to its LDP and superior navigation would be better plane.

Thanks.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 28 Apr 2017 11:51

shiv wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote: but the amount of effect

Bala I would distinguish between "amount of explosive" and "amount of effect"

You can have more explosive and less effect. Hundreds of bombs dropped in a straight line are most effective for targets that are long, perfectly straight and narrow - which pretty much excludes most targets

American costs per hour are different from Indian costs because Indian labour is less expensive, so I would be wary about the dollar costs of Su-30

Hakeem sahib,
True but a bomber is not limited to just carpetbombing a straight strip. For our purposes they would primarily serve us cruise missile carriers I believe. They would, in theory, be able to lug around 5-6 cruise missiles at any point of time and can be used as stand off launchers for range extenstion. On the western front they would be able to play the role of on-call CAS with their huge endurance and payloads.

Coming to costs, they were just for reference to show how much it costs, in terms of OpEx for a bomber and heavy fighter. The article I have cited in the link shows that F15C, which is comparable to Su30MKI in terms of its performance costs about $42,000 approx per flight hour where as a F22 costs a whopping $68,392 per flight hour.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2017 12:41

Bala Vignesh wrote:Hakeem sahib,
True but a bomber is not limited to just carpetbombing a straight strip. For our purposes they would primarily serve us cruise missile carriers I believe. They would, in theory, be able to lug around 5-6 cruise missiles at any point of time and can be used as stand off launchers for range extenstion. On the western front they would be able to play the role of on-call CAS with their huge endurance and payloads.

Unfortunately carpet bombing long strips is the most frequent use of heavy bombers. US bombers can loiter over uncontested airspace to drop LGBs. Where would our bombers do that?

On the western front they are not needed. The targets are close by. Long range bombers were designed to fly over long distances of ocean and still hit USA/Russia (nowadays Middle east/Korea) with missiles or bombs

On the eastern front we are not going to fly them over the Chinese mainland any more that US/Russia/China intend to fly their bombers over the mainland of their adversaries. For example - if we must hit the industrial base of Chengdu 2000 km away (forget Beijing at 5000 km) we will have a bomber flying 6 hours over Chinese mainland to drop 40 or 60 conventional bombs? One factory? One airbase? Only the airbase is a long straight target. That is only the runway. In WW2 and in Vietnam this never worked. And the plane is not going to loiter over Chengdu We will need 50 such sorties to cause pain. 300 hours of juicy bomber targets flying over Chinese mainland.

How far would that take us in terms of effort put in versus cost

If we must bomb the Railway line to Lhasa - better to take out a few of the numerous bridges with Brahmos or LGBs.

Cruise missiles - even if they carry 500 kg of conventional explosive are puny and expensive assets that do not do much damage in twos and threes. The Canberra could carry 6 times as much of a bomb load as one cruise missile. The US is able to launch 100 or 150 such missiles at great cost to pulverise targets. This kind of asset on a plane may not be the best way for us to move forward given our resources. Why not just have the cruise missiles without the "middleman" bomber? Targeting using Terrain Matching and Sat Nav

If we are going to project force at long distances over the Indian ocean - what enemies would we need to hit with a long range bomber?
Last edited by shiv on 28 Apr 2017 13:05, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JayS » 28 Apr 2017 13:01

ramana wrote:Now coming to my big question. Why this article now and is it a step towards rising awareness of the need for IAF to field heavy ordnance?
Is there a doctrine change?

Its more like a dick measuring exercise with everyone going gaga over MOAB. Majority of the folks just got to know that something like MOAB exists. And a fool compared it with a 2000 pounder LGB. Lets not read too much into it.

IAF will have bigger bombs and bigger bombers when as a Nation we will have need of strategic outreach. Currently our mind set that of defensive nature. We do not want to attack anyone, let alone anyone far away. We only want to protect ourselves and punish severely who dares to attack us. We have decent capability to fight few hundred kms away from our borders. I don't see our National doctrine changing for a while now. I would personally like IAF to buy some Blackjacks. But if only my wishes were horses...!!
Last edited by JayS on 28 Apr 2017 16:19, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2017 13:07

JayS wrote:And a fool compared it a 2000 pounder LGB. !

Yeah that was a totally idiotic thing.

The MOAB is an oversize Thermobaric weapon. DRDO is actually making thermobaric warheads for several munitions. They really should release videos. Probably fantastic for bunker busting and stuff like that

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17605
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Philip » 28 Apr 2017 13:34

We are now a nuclear weapons power. Major N-powers maintain a "triad' of delivery systems of which SSBNs are the most survivable and possess a goodly part of these nation's strat. deterrent. Mobile land ICBMs,etc.,have replaced erstwhile silos,identifiable and will be targeted in any N-exchange. Rail and road systems used. Strat. bombers were during the last century the fav. system with both sides in the CW making daily mock runs ,turning back at the last leg.

With the advent of PGMs and LRCMs,long range bombers like B-52s,Bears,etc, with their unmatched range and endurance,got a new lease of life. They're more cost-effective delivery systems of tactical weapons than stealth bombers,etc. Look how MOAB has been dumped by a C-130,in similar manner to our use of transports in wars against Pak. Survivability of the aircraft in conducting LR strikes is vital.This requires a large weapons bay which can carry sev. LRCMs,etc.,.In any spat with China,India needs to cut off Tibet from the erst of the mainland.This means destroying the Tibet railway and other road/rail infrastructure and command centres to stall any Chinese offensive. MKIs can carry only one BMos as of now.BMos-M/L whatever,hasn't arrived yet.

We lack both a LR strat. bombing capability as well as a tactical LR capability as seen in the SU-34 bomber derivative of the Flanker. Russia has used this aircraft successfully in Syria and will possess more than 100 of them.Here is a recent report on the SU-34.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... khoi-su-34

Russia To Ramp-Up Production of Sukhoi Su-34
by Reuben F. Johnson
- April 10, 2017,

An early production Su-34 in static display at the Russian Air Force 100th anniversary airshow at Zhukovsky in 2012. (Photo: Chris Pocock)
Russian deputy defense minister for procurement Yuri Borisov last month announced that the nation’s Aerospace Forces (VKS) would receive 16 new-build Sukhoi Su-34 fighter-bomber aircraft in 2017. New weapons are also being added to the twinjet, which Borisov said had “performed in an exemplary manner during the Syrian conflict and has enormous growth potential.” He was speaking during a visit to the Novosibirsk Aviation Production Plant at Chkalov, which has a long-term contract with the Ministry of Defence to produce a total of 92 Su-34 aircraft.

The Su-34 has been in service with the Russian armed forces since 2014, having passed through a long developmental cycle in which the two-seat, side-by-side design had been envisioned as a carrier-capable attack fighter-bomber; an ASW aircraft; an anti-ship/carrier-killer; and an ELINT/EW platform. But its performance as a replacement of the Su-24 fighter-bomber has been most notable so far. The aircraft can carry a wide range of air-to-ground munitions and can even perform missions that were once assigned to the much larger Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire-series of bombers.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6576
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prasad » 28 Apr 2017 16:14

LR strat bomber imo is for sanitised airspaces only. The US can afford it since they have been fighting against countries with no real proper airforce to put up an aerial fight. Last one was Korea I think where russian Mig-15s created havoc. Since we don't really see the need for porkistan and meaningful targets in the north in Tibet and beyond are better served by cruise and srbms, putting a plane and crew at risk against chinese short range sams isn't ideal. Pinpoint strikes can be assigned to the rafales and rambhas.

In the IOR, effectiveness of any chinese flotilla's AA capability is unknown. To take on either proposed CBG( If they do end up building 2 carrier groups for the IOR without bankrupting themselves first i.e.) say somewhere west of australia, the distances are enormous. An slbm would make a heap more sense than flying from the mainland. Even for closer range, say somewhere around Maldives, unless we have utterly failed to utilise our surface capability, a strong submarine + surface force should suffice. IMO onlee.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby shiv » 28 Apr 2017 16:49

The history of long range bombers goes back to WW2 and the early cold war. In fact all current Russian bombers are leftovers from the cold war. So is the B1 for that matter. Only the B2 is post cold war - but America is unique in all ways. Basically the US and Russia were trying to "get each other" across the Arctic in long flights over the ocean. The US has used them to attack all the piddly little nations it has attacked since the end of the cold war. Russia has used Su 24 and Su 34 more than its Backfires or Tu-95 - the latter were showed off against a piddly nation - overflying friendly nations and not hostile airspace. Turkey showed Russia what happens if you happen to overfly an unfriendly nation with an advanced air defence system.

I personally feel Indian needs to learn to build a jetliner and a military transport - and the same "large plane" skill can be used for Maritime Patrol and a bomber if need be. Developing a dedicated bomber would be a huge sinkhole of funds and effort. If we must buy - I suggest buying a limited number, like MiG 25 and set aside for specific longrange roles - say bombing an Indian ocean base. Of course those who would like to see such an acquisition are unlikely to protest on the grounds of "Too many aircraft types in the IAF". But that is not an argument I accept anyway.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 28 Apr 2017 17:42

More than strat bomber for carpet bombing, what I am advocating is for a CM carrier. Something that can carry 4-5 Brahmos in a internal bomb bay and ripple fire it a target at stand off ranges to take out key nodes of enemy's C4ISR and bases. All said and done, those H-6K's of PLAAF are significant in their range and punch with thier CJ10's. We may require something similar to take out Chini bases in Tibet and also to address any ADGES that China may set up along the LAC.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby JayS » 28 Apr 2017 18:03

Bala Vignesh wrote:More than strat bomber for carpet bombing, what I am advocating is for a CM carrier. Something that can carry 4-5 Brahmos in a internal bomb bay and ripple fire it a target at stand off ranges to take out key nodes of enemy's C4ISR and bases. All said and done, those H-6K's of PLAAF are significant in their range and punch with thier CJ10's. We may require something similar to take out Chini bases in Tibet and also to address any ADGES that China may set up along the LAC.


But we have Su-30MKI for that, don't we..? 40 of them will carry one each of existing Brahmos. All 272 of them would carry 3 mini Brahmos each. And perhaps other fighters as well. Also with increased range of 600km, the need of penetration is reduced. Plus Su-30MKI would need much less escorting efforts (in many situations it might not even need escorts) than bombers.

Same for Nirbhay which would have much longer range.

I agree though we should start looking at having strategic bombing capability in long term. But I don't think we need it for Tibet. Only when we need to go beyond that, we will need strategic bombers. That's too in case we want to inflict some real pain to Hans where it really hurts them (Eastern China) and we still want to keep it one level below the BMs in the escalation ladder. But OTOH we can always keep our threshold low with Chinese in terms of Escalation and try to mitigate absence of certain capabilities (of coarse we will have to be prepared to take the blow back as well). This is not Mahabharata's Dharma yudhha where a worrier needs to fight with same weapon as his opponent.

Anyway we don't really know the utility of strategic bombers in hotly contested airspace. And if you dominate the airspace, basically anything that can lift a missile is good. We don't need special bombers. These American and Russian long range bombings against poor basically disarmed opponents are more for publicity than actual utility.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: srinebula, Yahoo [Bot] and 36 guests