Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 17:50

Yes - but Tu 22 ms were not offered to PC Lal and the reason for rejecting them were hardly farcical - the earlier version was a useless aircraft. The only farce is Bharat Karnad who has talked shit yet again, not knowing that there are two different iterations of Tu 22. He made a similar idiotic mistake recently. That man is confused.

Here is a link to that recent idiot statement from Karnad
https://twitter.com/YusufDFI/status/834786026610683906

chola · Post by **chola** » 05 May 2017 18:10

Philip wrote:The Chinese can easily send in more aircraft including bombers to their bases in Tibet.They also possess a huge qty. of tactical missiles if launched from Tibet can hit most of north India.China has large inimical plans for India using Tibet as base.Here's just one recent report.

No they cannot. The Tibetan airfields, the few there are, are all over 4000M in altitude. Heavy loads are prohibative in that rarified air. That is just the geographical issues for PRC. The geopolitical ones are just as prohibitive.

Suffice to say hold all advantages along border. No need to dhoti shiver.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 05 May 2017 18:17

1)

There was an article in Scientific American about evolution of cruise missiles. In late 1970s, a systems analyst came up with a low cost turbofan, with terrain matching guidance and decent yield nuke. Both USA and USN took it up. His object was to provide standoff as bombers could get shot down over FSU. And to shoot a plane with cruise missiles has to be deep in enemy country.
In 1988, these missiles were negotiated away by INF treaty as they were destabilizing.

Surprised to read this. I thought standard cruise missile is a subsonic turbofan, highly efficient and very quiet, that can fly at 500 feet or below where needed, hug terrain, turn street corners (Baghdad 1991) etc. Of course if it carries a nuke it is highly destabilizing, but I thought that was the point of putting them on submarines. Standard WWW3 thrillers had subs north of Murmansk firing cruise missiles into heartland SU. First missile attacks into Baghdad came from things parked in the Med, IIRC.

2) Second, thanks to Philip for that Tu-22 pic. It finally hit me what is strange about the geometry: the SHARK-NOSE so tom-tommed as a Northrop-Grumman/ Cornell Univ. innovation to reduce sonic boom!!! Present on a 1972 Soviet supersonic bomber! But I wonder why: the shark nose causes more drag IIRC, though with less sonic, boom, and why do you care about sonic boom while on a strategic mission? Is it to minimize complaints say from, say, Iran during overflights to Syria? (ability to fly overland supersonic at fairly low altitude without bissing off allies/ own people?)

3) Third, OT I know but reading this conveys the cost of sending long-range bombers on direct bombing missions.

The revolutionary bombs skipped across the lakes behind the dams and showed how precision attacks were possible in an age when most missions were lucky to get within miles of their target...The fascination with the Dambusters themselves is because it combined so many different things which contributed to the war effort - a revolutionary new weapon, supreme airmanship skills and raw courage in pressing home an attack under fire.
Eight aircraft were lost and 56 of 133 aircrew were killed or captured. An estimated 1,600 people died on the ground.

So if u get 16 aircraft, u can do 2 missions. With modern Ishtratejik Bumbers, the cost is greater than that of rebuilding the dam, by a factor of maybe 100.

4) Now about this thing where Indian "strategic planners" role-play as Americans:

BK's last para should be read again.
I have long advocated acquisition of a bomber because, compared to strike fighters and ballistic and cruise missiles it has far more strategic utility, including in nuclear signalling, crisis stability, and escalation control. It is a conclusion also reached by a recent RAND report extolling the virtues of a new “penetrative bomber”.

The RAND corporation is set up at Pebble Beach Golf Course so that Senators can fly in from DC for golf weekends, demand a report, and get it by Sunday afternoon when they have to fly back. The conclusions are determined first, to fit the Senator's speech the next Tuesday. So for an Indian Strategic Analyst to say: "Aha! I am right because RAND report says so onlee!!" is pathetic. RAND is talking about an investment in technology for the US to develop a radically new capability at a cost of $200B to be spent inside the USA. The threats if not present, will be developed carefully to justify the spending decision.
Why is this the right way to make military ACQUISITION arguments for India? - note - in India except for LCA and VIP underwear, ACQUISITION means: "Spend hard-earned money on phoren boondoggles to fund development of the next-gen weapons to be given to Pakistan".

5) BTW, Pakistan PACQUIRED (i.e. begged and got free) B-58 BOMBERS in the 1960s, hain? supersonic too, IIRC. I don't remember them winning any wars. Perhaps because they could not afford to have more than a very few.

6) India does need long-range reach to cover IOR. But for now, I say that the best bet is long-endurance reco aircraft, plus cargo planes to launch missiles and deliver paratroopers.

7) Why use a cargo plane to launch Brahmos - why not launch from the ground?
Answer: you can get the cargo plane through Himalayan valleys to the other side, rise to 10K meters and launch the weapons without even the giveaway rocket plume - see turbofan cruise missiles above. Very mobile compared to ground-based launchers.

If an Su30MKI can carry 2 Brahmos, a cargo plane can carry 20.
9) Yes, China can develop a huge bomber fleet and threaten the Indian fleet.That is because, see below, China has done the work and developed a flying turbofan airliner the C-919. (why is the numbering system reminescent of the Boeing B-XnX?

) As I mentioned above some posts ago, strategic bombers were developed in US/SU/Oirope as precursors to the commercial aircraft fleet, so you can bet China has some "C-919 precursors" that are efficient long-range transonic bombers. Maybe 200 or 500 of them.

India hasn't developed diddly-squat in large-aircraft capability since HS-748, has it? Is the Saras in service? Are Tu / AN-series aircraft even assembled in India? (OK, I sound like the recently-banned entity..

Telling the truth is very risky on these things. Heading to caves now.)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 18:42

UlanBatori wrote: 9) Yes, China can develop a huge bomber fleet and threaten the Indian fleet.That is because, see below, China has done the work and developed a flying turbofan airliner the C-919. (why is the numbering system reminescent of the Boeing B-XnX? ) As I mentioned above some posts ago, strategic bombers were developed in US/SU/Oirope as precursors to the commercial aircraft fleet, so you can bet China has some "C-919 precursors" that are efficient long-range transonic bombers. Maybe 200 or 500 of them.

India hasn't developed diddly-squat in large-aircraft capability since HS-748, has it? Is the Saras in service? Are Tu / AN-series aircraft even assembled in India? (OK, I sound like the recently-banned entity.. Telling the truth is very risky on these things. Heading to caves now.)

Exactly.

If we must copy China - it's not about acquiring heavy bombers because they have them. It should be about the capability to design and build large aircraft which can be for passengers or cargo or bombs. And we need hundreds of these. Just see the juicy lipsmacking in aviation media saying "India requires x thousand aircraft in the next 30 years. Here we are 30 years behind China. Slobbering after a handful of outdated Soviet bombers is a bad idea

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 05 May 2017 18:48

shiv wrote:
Karthik S wrote:What happened to Novator KS-172? Last I heard about it was during orkut days. Missiles with such ranges can provide good defense against cheen LR bombers flying over tibet.
What would be needed is complete air superiority over Southern Tibet.

For which I really think we need to order the additional 40 MKIs roos is offering or place an additional order for Rafales now.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 May 2017 19:03

I think there is a need to take a step back and first list down possible targets against which these said LR strategic bombers will be used by us, as shiv suggested. Unless we have aim no point in having means.

I think everyone would agree on IOR region, where we need to project our power. We should be able to get to every nukkad and corner of IOR. We are covered little better on east side since we have AN and can launch Su-30MKI from there. But west side is where we have gaps. If only we could get a base in Maldives or something. (But lets not forget IN's role here. We will have AC's too for air power projection).

But apart from that, what else..??

East China - only way is to go around from SE Asia as flying through Tibet is a remote possibility. But can our bombers get free path through SE Asia..?? Unless IN sanitizes the region of PLAN and the SE Asian countries co-operate, this route might not be open for us always. Role of US, what side they take, would be crucial in any conflict as far as access to this area is concerned, I suppose.

I cannot think of any other place which we might need to bomb in foreseeable future.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 May 2017 19:08

shiv wrote:
UlanBatori wrote: 9) Yes, China can develop a huge bomber fleet and threaten the Indian fleet.That is because, see below, China has done the work and developed a flying turbofan airliner the C-919. (why is the numbering system reminescent of the Boeing B-XnX? ) As I mentioned above some posts ago, strategic bombers were developed in US/SU/Oirope as precursors to the commercial aircraft fleet, so you can bet China has some "C-919 precursors" that are efficient long-range transonic bombers. Maybe 200 or 500 of them.

India hasn't developed diddly-squat in large-aircraft capability since HS-748, has it? Is the Saras in service? Are Tu / AN-series aircraft even assembled in India? (OK, I sound like the recently-banned entity.. Telling the truth is very risky on these things. Heading to caves now.)
Exactly.

If we must copy China - it's not about acquiring heavy bombers because they have them. It should be about the capability to design and build large aircraft which can be for passengers or cargo or bombs. And we need hundreds of these. Just see the juicy lipsmacking in aviation media saying "India requires x thousand aircraft in the next 30 years. Here we are 30 years behind China. Slobbering after a handful of outdated Soviet bombers is a bad idea

Agree. I am not in favour of getting entire strategic bomber fleet from imported birds. We would miss a great chance of building own big jet aircraft, if we do that kind of stupid thing. But, I would favour taking up 2-4 bombers for our forces to start getting feel of LR bombing, how things work with it, logistics, Ops planning, doctrines and all. But not more than that.

Remember we are the only BRIC country which does not have its own airliner now.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 05 May 2017 21:17

Indian MNCs may be in a position to buy companies that make large fairly aircraft - they are usually pretty shaky. I mean, if Jaguar ( I mean the car the goes well downhill) and Land Rover can be bought, why not a good Russian company or Czechoslovak/Romanian/Kazakhstani/Ukrainian company? Get the whole package, with full rights to reverse-engineer and improvise. This is basically what the Cheens did - paid hard cash, got the goods, took them apart and did the job. Ukraine used to build Antonovs, IIRC. 4 all u know, Honda may be willing to sell HondaJet, a superlative line. Transonic airliners are now a commodity: performance is predictable down to 3 decimal places.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 21:32

JayS wrote:I think there is a need to take a step back and first list down possible targets against which these said LR strategic bombers will be used by us, as shiv suggested. Unless we have aim no point in having means.

I think everyone would agree on IOR region, where we need to project our power. We should be able to get to every nukkad and corner of IOR. We are covered little better on east side since we have AN and can launch Su-30MKI from there. But west side is where we have gaps. If only we could get a base in Maldives or something. (But lets not forget IN's role here. We will have AC's too for air power projection).

But apart from that, what else..??

East China - only way is to go around from SE Asia as flying through Tibet is a remote possibility. But can our bombers get free path through SE Asia..?? Unless IN sanitizes the region of PLAN and the SE Asian countries co-operate, this route might not be open for us always. Role of US, what side they take, would be crucial in any conflict as far as access to this area is concerned, I suppose.

I cannot think of any other place which we might need to bomb in foreseeable future.

Absolutely. This is the way to go about analysing the need. I would be happy to swallow and retract everything I have said so far if someone does this sort of analysis and shows a practicable way of having a heavy bomber fleet that is useful for us. One of my reasons for extreme irritation on this topic is the total absence of any analysis right down from the "top people" who are "respected columnists" Even for these people "Desires" are confused with strategy and rhetoric and clever buzzwords take the place of factual analysis. These people are "columnists" who need to fill columns. Not analyse. It appears.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 May 2017 00:14

Might need to bomb..
Fiji
Guyana
Mauritius
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Antarctica - PRETTY long range!
Uzbekistan
Turkenistan

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 06 May 2017 01:07

Hainan Island. 2000km from Andamans.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 May 2017 02:33

Can you see India doing that? Min. 3 hours each way, and the moment they take off fliendry agints will be sending smoke signals to Peopre's Spaceclaft.
That will be end of that fleet. Missile for sea-skimming cruise mijjiles, or carrier-based craft if you think Virat can survive in those waters. India is a loooong way from these sorts of missions. Totarry Bissful Panch Sheer towards neighbols onree.

Correction added: More scary need for mission is to bomb the fliendry visitols discovered having set up camp at Nicobar or Sentinel Island. That's a pretty long range mission already.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2017 07:26

People have pointed out that having a heavy bomber that can, in one go, drop 50 or 80 bombs is (allegedly) far more efficient than sending 2-4 Su-30s for that purpose. Also, it has been pointed out that the Su-30 "struggles" for one cruise missile but a heavy bomber can possibly ripple fire 4 or 6 currently non existent (for India) cruise missiles.

In this connection I want to jog memories of an older discussion where it was pointed out by someone that a city like Beijing would hardly be affected by one 50 kiloton nuclear bomb and the idea of dropping 2 or 3 of those was still not as good as say a single 250 or 500 kiloton bomb. Now "kiloton" of TNT means 1 million kg of TNT - or the equivalent of dropping 2000 x 500 kg bombs. 50 kilotons equals 100,000 (1 lakh) 500 kg bombs

If we have a strategic bomber flying all the way to Beijing and dropping 100 conventional bombs of 500 kg each - how does this puny number compare with the 100,000 bomb equivalent of 50 kilotons? If 50 kilotons is not good enough for Beijing - what is a "strategic bomber" going to achieve by dropping 50 conventional bombs?

Even worse is 4 or 6 Cruise missiles - which carry less explosive power than 6 x 500 kg bombs. Imagine flying 4500 km from Eastern India to the middle of nowhere in China and then shooting off 6 cruise missiles at Beijing and trying to fly 4500 km back. What would that do to a city that would allegedly laugh off a 50 kiloton nuclear attack?

I don't see India carpet bombing cities like Hanoi, or Mosul and no matter how romantic the idea may seem and how much power we seem to project by doing that I don't see this as an imperative for the IAF. If we must "carpet bomb" a tank column that is within 20 km of our borders, what is the exact need for 4000 km range bomber. I mean are we going to get a bomber to take off from the Andamans and then drop 100 bombs on a Paki tank column in Rajasthan and then have the plane return to the Andamans? I have not figured out the wisdom in this idea. Someone said that "All our air bases will be destroyed" so we will need to have long range aircraft based far south. So we have this large air force of attack aircraft and a large number of bases and we are already convinced that all the bases are gone so we should get strategic bombers to be based in deep south or Andamans?

In this connection I would like to see an analysis of what it would take to take out all our air bases and keep them in disrepair. Note that even the recent 50 cruise mijjile attack on a Syrian air base left the runway intact. An intact runway will always allow dispersed and hidden planes to take off and land. Maybe the US can do it - but if we are going to fight the US in a war - then we are talking something different. Current plans are not sufficient. I do think we should plan to take on a US like attacking force in a war - and I hope that is being planned. But that is a digression from "strategic bomber"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2017 07:38

Shock and awe involves taking out dozens of power plants, pol facility, rail junctions, in one go.
Albeit wrt tsp can be done by ground launchers...cheen has great huge depth...need a long stick to release alcm

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2017 07:53

Singha wrote:Shock and awe involves taking out dozens of power plants, pol facility, rail junctions, in one go.
Albeit wrt tsp can be done by ground launchers...cheen has great huge depth...need a long stick to release alcm

Need to identify and map them out first. Incidentally I have done some mapping in that connection and say that many of these can be targeted simultaneously without any long range strategic bomber. How well this sort of bombing actually works is a matter of opinion - and there are plenty of accounts from WW 2 and Vietnam which are freely available for perusal.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 May 2017 07:55

Supposedly a strategic bomber can come on a visit, stand 20 miles outside a city and fire off several missiles, each with pinpoint targeting. 20 govt. buildings gone inside 5 seconds. There is no need to waste energy burning up parks and pakistans.

In 1971, Indian bombers visited the Paki railroad, IIRC. Such missions still need to be done but I doubt if you want to do those by having $1B bombers loitering around waiting for trains.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2017 09:06

well thats where ELO platforms like B1, B21 and PAKDA are supposed to enter the fray .... and lots of new ucav designs

problem is we are nowhere even on the AMCA & Aura TD timeline -- so those things are far away.

a chota mota dhaba daal type ALCM truck is all thats possible for now while we work on better kit.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 06 May 2017 13:53

UlanBatori wrote:Can you see India doing that? Min. 3 hours each way, and the moment they take off fliendry agints will be sending smoke signals to Peopre's Spaceclaft.
That will be end of that fleet. Missile for sea-skimming cruise mijjiles, or carrier-based craft if you think Virat can survive in those waters. India is a loooong way from these sorts of missions. Totarry Bissful Panch Sheer towards neighbols onree.

Correction added: More scary need for mission is to bomb the fliendry visitols discovered having set up camp at Nicobar or Sentinel Island. That's a pretty long range mission already.

Hainan was just to show that even the spratly islands aren't very far. Ik not really sold on the use of a long range bomber for land attack. Our own ucav might come online before we build a bomber. We don't have an engine , let alone one that can push a bomber to sprint at multiple Mach. If we go get one maritime strike will be primary mission imo. Tracking and targeting aircraft carriers and other vives surface fleets of destroyers and corvettes isn't easy. A fleet that can air launch multiple missiles, cruise or hybrid like a shaurya, will of great use.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 May 2017 15:36

Ukraine war - more than Syrian War, showed power and precision of missiles over aerial bomb-dropping, in attacking armor and maybe buildings. Also showed inability to seize and hold territory without B.O.G.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 May 2017 15:40

UlanBatori wrote:Ukraine war - more than Syrian War, showed power and precision of missiles over aerial bomb-dropping, in attacking armor and maybe buildings. Also showed inability to seize and hold territory without B.O.G.

You mean Syrian war , In Ukraine there was more of Guerilla warfare by professional soldiers on both sides but a contained one.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 May 2017 16:12

Actually, no. In Ukraine, mysterious entities were able to send in missiles that hit UkBapZi armor with extreme precision. Like in Mariupol and on convoys of military vehicles. The "rebels" had much less luck in other places, where they did not have such support. Neither side used airpower much in that war (yet). Showed that modern missiles can target vehicles such as tanks very precisely, so that the weight of explosive and metal needed per target is reduced by a factor of 1000 or more. Plus the generations-of-hatred generated by "carpet bombing" and "firebombing" (say in NoKo and Vietnam) is largely avoided, while enabling targets located within civilian areas to be hit precisely.

In Syria the Russians have used a lot of missiles, but the Assad govt seems limited to iron bombs or barrel bombs for the most part. The Russians conversely, have suffered from having only a few planes, when the need was to attack large areas where the terrorists were spread out. In those situations maybe hordes of B-52s might have been able to carpet-bomb a whole plain (like in Shomali Plain) and achieve a 90% kill rate, but I don't think you can conjure up a mission with long-range bombers at 5 minutes notice. They would have to hang around for hours - which means out of range of SAMs, which again means it is better to use standoff missiles, which can be launched from suitably modified cargo planes. In Syria the ATGM has been the star, but tanks appear to have got over that now.

About tanks - those with air superiority could go airdrop these nice babies that release a cluster of weapons, each parachuting down silently, listening for tank engines, and then rocketing at the final stage into the tanks. They may even hang on trees where there are trees to hang from.

In brief, the modern use of the "strategic bomber" is as a missile/UAV/communications platform/ MotherShip. May even combine some refuelling, plus very long endurance in the general area. Not as a bomb dump truck. This can be done by cargo/airlift planes, which is what India needs desperately.

BTW, has anyone seen/heard of Indian bomber planes or fighter-bombers being pressed into service to say, drop food packets to flood/earthquake/tidal wave disaster areas? If so, then I need to revise my thinking. OTOH, you know that cargo planes WERE pressed into service in 1971 for other missions - maybe even as gunships. In that case it was because total air superiority was established in the first 2 days. But now it can be because one can stand off, deliver and scoot.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2017 16:54

there was a novelist named dale brown who made a career out of modded heavy bomber things. enjoy the read
http://dalebrown.wikia.com/wiki/Fiction ... own_novels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_of_the_Old_Dog

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 May 2017 17:28

The 'la-whore is 50km from the border onlee/Are we going bomb to maldives?' type arguments against Strategic/Heavy long range bombers just exposes our own (including esteemed brfites) shortsightedness and why we deserve to remain a turd world power permanently hyphenated with pakies.
Are the Americans/Russians giving up on bombers? No they have maintained their cold war fleet and are investing in next generation bombers. And the Chinese are still maintaining their ancient soviet derived bombers while they develop their own bomber (which i'm sure we will start seeing strip tease photos with in 5 years - they have been stealing B2 information for years). The utility of heavy bombers is recognized by all the superpowers (or wannabe superpowers).
Some people here believe we will magically achieve strategic parity with the US and China in a couple of decades or so based on the our projected economic growth alone, but without capabilities like heavy bombers, amongst others, we will never be part of the 'big boys club'.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2017 17:38

abhik wrote:The 'la-whore is 50km from the border onlee/Are we going bomb to maldives?' type arguments against Strategic/Heavy long range bombers just exposes our own (including esteemed brfites) shortsightedness and why we deserve to remain a turd world power permanently hyphenated with pakies.
Are the Americans/Russians giving up on bombers? No they have maintained their cold war fleet and are investing in next generation bombers. And the Chinese are still maintaining their ancient soviet derived bombers while they develop their own bomber (which i'm sure we will start seeing strip tease photos with in 5 years - they have been stealing B2 information for years). The utility of heavy bombers is recognized by all the superpowers (or wannabe superpowers).
Some people here believe we will magically achieve strategic parity with the US and China in a couple of decades or so based on the our projected economic growth alone, but without capabilities like heavy bombers, amongst others, we will never be part of the 'big boys club'.

This is what I call a cargo cult argument.

The "great powers" did not become great by simply buying long range bombers from their fairy godmother They did it by developing the industrial power to manufacture them, and equipped them with their own home developed weapons. Here I am seeing a lot of people getting really really upset saying "I want bomber. If you say no you are silly". But no. "Getting bombers" does not happen by magic. Or by importing from the same "great powers". It happens by developing them in house.

This argument that "the great power have them so we must have them too" amuses me by the frequency with which it is pushed. Does nobody understand that being a great power is not by symbolism, but by real power. Of course we can have bombers- just develop them, Otherwise stop pretending that you can buy them -by importing 8-10 from one of the 3 countries making them and say "Aha hum bhi great power" and then fill up application forms for big boy's club. And the bomber selling country will have our pretentious "great power status" in their hands for 30 years after that squeezing our balls in every crisis to make their munnas happy. That is ludicrous. That is cargo cult power pretence. Does no one understand this? Are things really that bad in the way Indians perceive power? Sepoys were proud of how they fought so well with British weapons - and this is a clone of that attitude.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 May 2017 18:28

Karthik S wrote:In our context, having a dozen or so Tu 22 or 160 in a naval role is good and advisable.

This. I see benefit of these assets primarily in a naval role if they are fast.. Land attack is secondary, as the Mongolian has said mijjiles are good enough in many cases. Perhaps even the naval role can be played by shourya type missile with seeker to pursue moving targets like ships.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 May 2017 18:56

The advantages of an imported fast bomber

1. Would cover IOR and sea lanes from SCS to hormuz comfortably.
2. Potent cover against plan flotillas
3. Relatively cheap vs say, a CV
4. Excellent fire power
5. Quick time to target
6. More survivable as compared to an Mpa type... High speed and low level flight profiles.
7. Escalation and power projection, show of force type asset. imagine Indian Navy bomber patrol over Malacca. Something missile cannot do.
8. Quick induction, you can bring this asset into play in 2 to 5 years.
9. High speed, high altitude recon

Yes, it has its advantages.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2017 19:07

Cain Marko wrote:The advantages of an imported fast bomber

1. Would cover IOR and sea lanes from SCS to hormuz comfortably.
2. Potent cover against plan flotillas
3. Relatively cheap vs say, a CV
4. Excellent fire power
5. Quick time to target
6. More survivable as compared to an Mpa type... High speed and low level flight profiles.
7. Escalation and power projection, show of force type asset. imagine Indian Navy bomber patrol over Malacca. Something missile cannot do.
8. Quick induction, you can bring this asset into play in 2 to 5 years.
9. High speed, high altitude recon

Yes, it has its advantages.

Add maintenance nightmare because of irregular Russian spares
Buy 6, keep 2 flying by cannibalization
Complete loss of interest in developing and building large aircraft in India because we can buy everything

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 May 2017 19:46

shiv wrote: "Force projection" is not a role unless you can say which part of the world that force is going to be projected by India. Heavy long range bombers are not required over Tibet. They can be used over the Indian ocean. What other roles do you foresee which does not involve them flying 6 hours over the Chinese mainland and the concomitant risk of being shot down before getting anywhere near the target? Or are you saying that the threat is enough, no need to actually apply the planes in that role

Force projection is not a role but is vested in a capability. I have stated this before and will state the same again. The primary role for a LR bomber is directed against China in a strategic as in nuclear payload delivery role. At this time, do not consider the IAF plan to mitigate the lack of such an asset with the Su-30, as credible. This type of capability and its associated signaling alone justifies, the acquisition of a LR bomber.

In a secondary role, if the same asset can be used for maritime strike or even some reconnaissance then that would be big plus. Any other roles for such an asset, such as striking hard and deep in Tibet, or raining gravity bombs over Lahore is opportunistic. Meaning we do not acquire the asset for those missions but do plan, equip and train for such missions, if numbers allow. The B-52 was never envisioned for bombing Islamic hordes in Afghanistan, so who knows what opportunities may come along in the IOR and along the land borders.

This is the reason; I prefer a backfire type of asset, with a refueling probe can provide to us with all the above envisioned primary and secondary roles and at costs, where we can sustain some credible numbers in the 12-18 range.

Understand uptime and maintenance of Tu-22M3 is a challenge, but if China can acquire the line, maybe India can work with Russia and pay for uptime issues as it has with the Su-30 and is working with us to service the Mig-29/K and solve its woes?

Do you see these bombers in the role of "bomb trucks" dropping 100s of conventional dumb bombs on some target 3000 plus km away? Which target do you have in mind?

Not in its primary role and even in secondary roles only after its maritime strike roles. Do not see a long distance conventional role for the bomber against China. Can envision scenarios where the asset may be used, even at distances for conventional fire power delivered against non-major powers in the IOR in uncontested airspaces.

Do you see these bombers as cruise missile carriers bearing 4 to 6 cruise missiles with conventional warheads to be used to target some faraway target after the bomber has travelled 3 to 4000 km to place itself in cruise missile range of the target? Which target would be within Brahmos range after that? We have no other cruise missiles.

For planning purposes, I would consider the Nirbhay and other higher range versions of Brahmos, even if not in inventory today. But to the question, unlikely we would want to use conventional payloads using cruise missile on long distance targets. Not the purpose of our acquisition and cost prohibitive for India. Not effective enough at those distances and numbers we would have against China. But say in 10 years, if there is such an opportunity say in Mozambique then that is a different matter. But no to the question for active current planning purposes.

Do you see such bombers as nuclear bomb carriers? Against whom? Against what targets 4000 plus km away would these planes be needed as nuke bombers as opposed to ballistic missiles which are more difficult to intercept than bombers

Its primary role to deliver nuclear payloads would be against China targeting its eastern sea board. One will find arguments on all sides for and against the use of bombers in nuclear delivery roles. Our force structure is committed to a triad. For me, the most powerful element of this asset is its visible signaling. Its deterrence patrols will be a constant reminder to enemies and friends alike that we do retain threatening assets – of all kinds. So, this is not just about hard power and asset mixes of why and how one can be switched for the other. I will readily grant the idea that the Sub arm for nuclear delivery is the most reliable – but they remain invisible. Power is to be seen and projected.

Finally all imported planes come with their own dedicated software and hardware. Their comm equpment , avionics and weapons will all be custom built by some foreign nation for their own use. We will either have to buy that stuff wholesale under restrictive conditions or pay through our noses to see if Indian weapons and avionics can be integrated. Do you foresee that the US or Russia will part with these crown jewels without extracting a heavy price from given that these aircraft will be fully capable of hitting or recce-ingDeigo Garcia or some Russian base?

Never factored in US in that equation. Russia is our only option. They may not provide the TU-160 or if they do, may only lease and extract a heavy cost. For TU-22, it is in a different class for them and their START compulsions limit this asset for them. Can get a far better deal for the TU-22M3.

Heavy bombers are strategic assets. Ideally we must learn to build large planes that can then be used as people transport, logistics or bomb transport (ie bomber). If we are really desperate for a capability the Indian ocean area is where we can use it. If someone will sell us bombers - maybe 4 to 6 is all we might need, to keep 2 flying for 30 years by cannibalization.

Who can argue against indigenous assets? But, realistically we are nowhere in this asset class. It would take 20-30 years for us to build a LR bomber – if we start in earnest today, with engines. With the way our funding and prioritization of indigenous assets is moving, I no longer have hopes for “transformative” change. So, I have become a skeptic in our ability to build major platforms and its major components locally. I recognize that unless we build our own all these borrowed assets do not equate to a real power capability, only a borrowed one. But the choice is between giving up on being a major power or keeping a toe hold on it, in the hopes that there would be transformative change some day. I
n the area of wide bodied aircrafts both for civilian and military uses, we could not have been more stupid. I will stop here before a depressing rant.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 May 2017 20:40

shiv wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:The advantages of an imported fast bomber

1. Would cover IOR and sea lanes from SCS to hormuz comfortably.
2. Potent cover against plan flotillas
3. Relatively cheap vs say, a CV
4. Excellent fire power
5. Quick time to target
6. More survivable as compared to an Mpa type... High speed and low level flight profiles.
7. Escalation and power projection, show of force type asset. imagine Indian Navy bomber patrol over Malacca. Something missile cannot do.
8. Quick induction, you can bring this asset into play in 2 to 5 years.
9. High speed, high altitude recon

Yes, it has its advantages.

Add maintenance nightmare because of irregular Russian spares

Buy 6, keep 2 flying by cannibalization

Complete loss of interest in developing and building large aircraft in India because we can buy everything

In a worst case scenario, buy 12, keep 6 flying. Still worth it IMHO for the numerous reasons provided by me and others. Just the show of force capability as a nuke capable missile carrier makes it worthwhile. And the real punch provided in case of war is a big leap in capability.

While maintaining is an issue, the capability in time of need is c crucial. Who can deny the role played by fulcrums in kargil like the chibber incident. Even the much maligned mi26 played a specialized role for the IAF that cannot be denied.

I don't agree with the second part that it will kill local efforts. Buying Mirage 2000 or mig29, did not kill lca, amca. To the contrary, experience with these might enable local efforts.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 May 2017 21:08

Cain Marko wrote:In a worst case scenario, buy 12, keep 6 flying. Still worth it IMHO for the numerous reasons provided by me and others. Just the show of force capability as a nuke capable missile carrier makes it worthwhile. And the real punch provided in case of war is a big leap in capability.

12 of what? Tu-160 is not available in those numbers, is not affordable. At best India can lease but not in those numbers. There is also a matter of Russia possibly denying us this craft.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 May 2017 21:19

Unless you ask the damsel you never know.

Let us quietly ask about b1b and tu160. Nobody will bomb us lol max they will say no. If its yes we dont even have to buy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2017 21:28

ShauryaT wrote: Its primary role to deliver nuclear payloads would be against China targeting its eastern sea board. One will find arguments on all sides for and against the use of bombers in nuclear delivery roles. Our force structure is committed to a triad. For me, the most powerful element of this asset is its visible signaling. Its deterrence patrols will be a constant reminder to enemies and friends alike that we do retain threatening assets – of all kinds. So, this is not just about hard power and asset mixes of why and how one can be switched for the other. I will readily grant the idea that the Sub arm for nuclear delivery is the most reliable – but they remain invisible. Power is to be seen and projected.

Thank you for expressing your idea with clarity. I must point out that I have read about and simulated these scenarios myself (as have others on the mil forum) and I will state the technical complexities involved in implementing what you say. Implementability is doubtful at best - mostly unimplementable for the reasons I state below. Unfortunately there are people (not you personally) who will not like to hear objections to the attractive and deeply satisfying idea of "showing our power" on China's eastern seaboard - but what I write is well known to aviators and to others such as myself who have obsessed with and studied military aviation for more than 3 decades.

The Tu-22 has a combat radius of about 2500 km. You do know that combat radius is the distance that a plane can fly, deliver its munitions and return. It is typically less than half the range of the aircraft because of the need for combat and emergency reserves.

If we overfly China starting from Arunachal Pradesh, both Shanghai and Beijing are within reach - but the aircraft will have to fly over the Chinese mainland and that too over the most highly populated and protected areas. Highly risky. No Indian bomber can be expected to survive a 6-8 hour overflight over Chinese territory. So this overland route is ruled out. No "showing the flag"/signaling either over this route. Agni is better

From Manipur, Hainan Island is 1700 km well within reach of the Tu 22 (and Su-30 for that matter) as long as we overfly Burma, Laos and Vietnam, skirting the Chinese border. If we bomb Hainan via this route it pulls those three nations into the war. Similarly we cannot routinely have "patrols" near Hainan Island "showing our presence" without overflying these three nations because it puts them at risk of Chinese pressure. The Su-30 can do this in fact if push comes to shove.

That leaves the sea route.

Assume we base Tu 22s in the Andamans - or at least let them take off from there. From the Andamans - the plane will still have to overfly a strip of Burma and Thailand. Burma we may be able to handle - but overflying Thailand on a regular basis is not going to happen simply for us to fly our jhanda near Hainan.

Even this route, overflying parts of Burma and Thailand is not that simple. Hainan is still pretty much out of reach. What would have to be done is to send a refueller to patrol the coast of Burma just before the Tu-22 crosses the coast - do a mid air refuelling and then let the Tu-22 cross the isthmus, overfly Burma and a part of Thailand then go over ocean and go show the flag or attack Hainan. Then, once again, on the way back the plane will have to cross Thailand and Burma - whose air defences will be on alert. Immediately after entering the Bay of Bengal, the Tu-22 will need a second refuelling before it can land on one of our Island or mainland air bases. If you have not already done so I would urge you to read the story of the exceedingly complex operation where one lone British Vulcan bomber conducted one single raid on the Falklands after taking off from Britain. The bombs missed the runway. The story is here. Something vaguely similar is doable for India too but we need to ask whether this sort of drama is worth the cost especially because it can only be a one-off and not routine "show the flag"/signaling patrols as you have suggested. And we don't have the number of refuellers that Britain had. And guess what? British refuellers were British heavy bombers converted for the role. What a massive advantage is gained from "make at home"

Note that if we can overfly the isthmus of Burma and Thailand and be refuelled twice on the way, even Su-30s can do this. If an attack on Hainan has to be a one off attack we don't need the bomber. Su-30s can simply overfly Laos and Burma from Manipur and hit Hainan. But regular show of force like Russia over North Sea or off Alaska simply will not happen. Our geography is different

Finally, flying the sea route China's eastern seaboard (beyond Hainan) is out of reach. I suggest firing up Google earth and looking at distances.

Without considering these practical, technical and geographic difficulties it is easy to be enamoured of the romance of the heavy bomber - which as you have said is restricted to the Tu-22, It is all too easy to imagine that Heavy long range bombers can do things that we can't do now without going into the nitty gritty. I was not kidding when I said that these bombers were designed for best use by the original nations that made them. No one was thinking of Indian geography when they designed their bomber. Only we will have to do that

I think we need to get our heads down and produce a Boeing 737 class aircraft which can then be morphed into a bomber

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 May 2017 21:56

At this point of time making our own heavy bomber is more like wet dream, but we must realise the need and invest now so we are in a position to design and manufacture them at least in a couple decades. Instead of making 'no use against pakies' type excuses that is made against n number of things like nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, manned space program.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 May 2017 22:01

abhik wrote:At this point of time making our own heavy bomber is more like wet dream, but we must realise the need and invest now so we are in a position to design and manufacture them at least in a couple decades. Instead of making 'no use against pakies' type excuses that is made against n number of things like nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, manned space program.

It is less of a wet dream to design and build large aircraft than imagine that imported heavy bombers will admit us into some mythical big boys club. That expression makes me laugh. Big boys club. Those clubs are not entered by application forms. Just raw power. Not import power that even Saudi Barbaria has, but industrial power and investment to take our military where we need to take it.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 May 2017 22:14

I think we need to get our heads down and produce a Boeing 737 class aircraft which can then be morphed into a bomber.

Right. But I would modify it into a cargo/airlifter/Postal Service plane first, get the military and govt to buy 500, and get operational experience before putting live passengers in it. Keeps the crash death tolls low. You know Antonov AN225 cannot fly faster than about Mach 0.6, nor above some 12 km - I doubt if the cargo bay can be pressurized. C-130 cargo bay is not pressurized, that's why they can open it in flight. Keeps things so much simpler. HS-748 was a good try, it's a shame they gave up after 2 or 3 crashes. Now Embraer etc are minting money off something not any better. Main issue in India is the utter laziness of the babu/netas in not building systematically and continuously improving. ISRO is an exception, but looking at their recent "hybrid solar Maruti" I get really worried. Prince Phillip would be vindicated in his "Looks like it was built by an Injun, what-what I say!" comment. But I digress. There are many interesting applications posed by India's long coastline, lagoons/backwaters and vast IO region, where the temp. never falls below freezing. The Russians had a Caspian Sea (or Black Sea) Surface Effect Cargo Lifter - a huge plane that skimmed the waves, very efficient and cheap. That would be tough to detect on radar, u c... basically a ship that can travel Mach 0.5 and arrive unannounced, land 3 miles offshore and takeoff, no runway problems.
Getting back to my question, I do recall photos of CANBERRA BOMBER DELIVERING FOOD PACKETS TO MAROONED RESIDENTS etc, but there is no reason why that can't be done by cargo planes much better.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 May 2017 22:19

ShauryaT wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:In a worst case scenario, buy 12, keep 6 flying. Still worth it IMHO for the numerous reasons provided by me and others. Just the show of force capability as a nuke capable missile carrier makes it worthwhile. And the real punch provided in case of war is a big leap in capability.
12 of what? Tu-160 is not available in those numbers, is not affordable. At best India can lease but not in those numbers. There is also a matter of Russia possibly denying us this craft.

Backfires M3M standard but upgraded to mki std with tfr, irbis or sea dragon suite. But as Singha pointed out, doesn't hurt to ask about blackjack first, a good chance they will agree if new production is encouraged with Indian orders. Note though, price will be more for latter.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 07 May 2017 00:26

Curious thing is, the countries that developed Le Concorde do not seem to have any Bombeure de Haute Range. eh bien? Despite needing to blow up several islands in the Pacific & Indian oceans to show how erect their mijjiles are, and despite fielding aircraft carrier etc. So when it comes down to it, only Russia, US and China have long-range bombers. Maybe Cuba too. And Pakistan if they still have the B-58s. Maybe the British have the Gloster Meteor or Vulcan shown in ThunderBall.

Nor does Australia, despite having NO ONE to bomb in their neighborhood within 2000 miles.

Talk about a country that desperately needs long-range bombers just to reach out and touch someone.

The only example of a fleet of long-range bombers launching against a naval fleet in modern times (post WW2) is General Galtieri's squadrons launching against the British fleet coming towards the Malvinas. In that case they did pose a big threat, sinking one destroyer/frigate using the one Exocet per plane that they were able to carry. Then they tried attacking the British on the islands, but were massacred in both enterprises, I think very few survived the war. Harriers launched from the carrier hit the planes often before they could launch the Exocets; then they ran out of missiles and tried direct bombing as the British swarmed ashore. The bloodhound SAMs on land blasted those who got anywhere near. The Frogistanis who sold them both the planes and the missiles, gave the comm frequencies and all other data to the British to counter the planes and the missiles.

If the Argentines had 5 times the number of bombers or missiles, or if any of those had actually been indigenously developed, they would have overwhelmed the British and sunk the whole fleet. As it happened, it was a close thing. The bombers had no defenses against the Harriers, though some Harriers fell down by themselves, and given time all would have been kaput. They could have avenged the sinking of the General Belgrano, their only cruiser, by a British submarine long before the British reached anywhere. Probably the American satellites passed the ship's precise coordinates to the British. Same with locating the bombers as they flew 600 miles to their deaths.

Their only aircraft carrier, Veinticinco de Mayo, wisely stayed put in port, fearing another submarine attack, so there was no danger of carrier-launched aircraft when the British task force sailed past.

If you guys don't see chilling parallels..

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 07 May 2017 05:39

More on Ishtratekij Bum: maybe 90% of the payload went to waste.

In World War II, Hanover was the target of extensive bombing from Allied forces in 1943. The bombings on October 8-9 demolished hundreds of thousands of homes in the city.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 May 2017 05:45

Fuel up the IL76s and load up T90s in them and drove them over th enemy! At least they will prove useful this way!

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 07 May 2017 06:41

Load up the old Patton tanks used as pakistans in the parks, filled with fertiliser and fuel oil and push them out the back end over Lahore where they came from. That would be very Strategic.