Indian Military Aviation- Jan 10 2012

[krishnan]

problem is they are not hiding under the bed, but pretending to sleep on it

[Bala Vignesh]

My fear is with whom??

[symontk]

Indian Military officers wont make any statement unless approved at higher levels. Seems some lakshman rekha is drawn and actions approved if crossed

Apart from that, there seems to be heavy recuritment in HAL, anyone knows if for LCA?

[kmkraoind]

Here is the political leadership decision.

Govt won’t buckle to wild calls for revenge: Khurshid on Pak ceasefire violation - Firstpost

Khurshid also hoped the anger over the killings and the demand for revenge would pass “and it must pass”. “It’s important that we do not allow anyone to play up to the media. Both sides have very active media and it’s important that the public face must remain restrained,” the minister added.

[Boreas]

Here is the political leadership decision.

Govt won’t buckle to wild calls for revenge: Khurshid on Pak ceasefire violation - Firstpost

Khurshid also hoped the anger over the killings and the demand for revenge would pass “and it must pass”. “It’s important that we do not allow anyone to play up to the media. Both sides have very active media and it’s important that the public face must remain restrained,” the minister added.

Same dude was swearing to "play with blood" when kejriwal announced to hold demonstration at his hometown.

[eklavya]

^^^
Same dude is representing Pakistani not Indian interests, as he has done all his life. Poor fellow must be upset that after going to so much trouble to get his hero Miandad a visa he couldn't chit-chat with him at the Delhi match.

[k prasad]

Arrey... zimpul explanation onlee.

Sher ke saamne geedad chuuha ban jaata hai. All of Salmans bravado and blustering is only limited to his own Gali where "Apne gali mein kutta sher ban jaata hai".

Thats pretty symptomatic of our government really... they're like archetypical bullies who'll happily beat up peaceful protestors but are too scared to act against someone who's an equal bully.

[putnanja]

Airbus eyeing Rs 12,000 cr IAF deal for medium-lift transport planes

SPAIN: Close on the heels of clinching the IAF contract for supply of mid-air refuellers, European consortium Airbus will now bid for the Rs 12,000 crore global tender to be floated by India for procuring 56 medium-lift transport aircraft to replace its vintage Avro planes.
...
...

Making a strong case for C295 and its efficacy in Indian Air Force, head of marketing of light and medium transport of Airbus Military Jeronimo Amador vouched for the aircraft's fuel efficiency and the total life cycle cost.

Talking to reporters at the Airbus facilities here, he said the aircraft has been sold to 17 operators so far with six countries coming with repeat orders.

He said the aircraft can fulfil logistics need for a large country like India with 1500 nautical mile range from New Delhi.

The first 16 transport aircraft, according to the proposal cleared by the DAC, will be procured off-the-shelf from foreign vendors who will have to partner with a local private or public sector firm.

The next 16 aircraft will have to have 30 per cent indigenous component while the remaining 24 planes will have 60 per cent locally-procured and produced items.
...
...

[Shrinivasan]

Here is the political leadership decision.
Govt won’t buckle to wild calls for revenge: Khurshid on Pak ceasefire violation - Firstpost

He is playing to his gallery... BJP is playing to gallery... what surprised me was the statements ACM Browne and COAS Singh. I think it would have led to some shalwar browning in Pindi and our Salman Bhai is trying to defuse this tension!!!

[Singha]

if this medium lift thing goes through, will the C295 overlap with the ~100 AN32upg we shall operate for another 15 yrs?

the transport fleet appears well on its way to becoming a zoo of C295, AN32, C130, IL76, C17 and the (PBUH) MTA also. do we really need so many buckets and so many "right sized" airlifters?

imo a mix of more new build AN32, C130J and C17 (IL76 retired in 5 yrs) would have sufficed?

[NRao]

1) What was the sequence in which these speeches occurred? Foggy bottoms, followed by out-of-the-box Salman, followed by CoAS, followed by Singh? Salman Bhai is taking his role too seriously.

2) With this Pakistani act, are all tracks closed for good now? Siachen has no place in any discussion here on out.

3) The IAF, seems to me, is not too happy with Russian products. Have they signed up on the MTA yet? HAL/DRDO/ADA/etc/etc, perhaps MoD, have signed. IAF? What are 45 MTAs going to do? Spare problem all over again. Why even go for EADS stuff I wonder? Get a line for the C-130s and build 100+ and round it out with another 15 C-17s.

[Singha]

yes the short chassis original C130(get new ones) and C295 will be close. the stretched C130J(we got these) will widen that band nicely.
scrap the C295 thing, cancel the MTA and just complete the AN32upg for the small end. for moving generals and scientists around get a few 2nd hand business jets or ATR72 and close that as well...base them at key locations like hyd , blr, delhi

we seem to revel in endless new deals instead of leveraging and expanding deals already in progress. perhaps each is a new chance for corruption.

[Prem]

[url=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 005224.cms]

SPAIN:Making a strong case for C295 and its efficacy in Indian Air Force, head of marketing of light and medium transport of Airbus Military Jeronimo Amador vouched for the aircraft's fuel efficiency and the total life cycle cost.

About C295 Mini Cooper

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 95-380612/

One potential candidate to receive the winglets is a special mission version of the C295, which will carry an Elta Systems-sourced airborne early warning and control mission system. In 2012, Airbus Military conducted aerodynamic test flights of a demonstrator aircraft featuring a fixed rotodome, with the same platform also used for the recent activity.If proven to be of benefit, winglets could be installed to new-build C295s, and also potentially be offered as a retrofit option to current users of the type. The design is operated by, or on order for, a total of 16 nations, as recorded by Flightglobal's MiliCAS database.

[NRao]

About C295 Mini Cooper

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 95-380612/

One potential candidate to receive the winglets is a special mission version of the C295, which will carry an Elta Systems-sourced airborne early warning and control mission system. In 2012, Airbus Military conducted aerodynamic test flights of a demonstrator aircraft featuring a fixed rotodome, with the same platform also used for the recent activity.If proven to be of benefit, winglets could be installed to new-build C295s, and also potentially be offered as a retrofit option to current users of the type. The design is operated by, or on order for, a total of 16 nations, as recorded by Flightglobal's MiliCAS database.

They are very late to the winglet game !!!!!!!!

In fact this plane seems to be very badly stunted. With most of the users coming from minor nations - Spain and Portugal being the only ones from NATO.

Poland, not even Spain (13), with 16 is the largest operator. !!!!!!!!!!!

I would consider other alternatives.

[Singha]

LM has the base C130J in production....other than the stretch C130J-30 which we purchased.

[nachiket]

The premise that India did not have the budgets in the past to build a bomber force isn't borne out by what happened on the ground. The India of limited budgets did induct the Canberra. The India of massive budgets has not. So it's not about the money.

Wiki aunty tells me that the Canberra's payload is about half that of an MKI. Even if the numbers are a little off, it shows that the India of massive (really?) budgets has spent them wisely.

Is it about the lack of doctrine? Absolutely...and that can be said of almost anything to do with Indian defence planning, , and while the babus and netas deservedly take the rap for many things, this is one that the faujis across the three servicescannot dodge.

Or it could be because of lack of options. What is the IAF supposed to buy? Does the Su-34 count as a blue blooded bomber? Just how much of an improvement would it be over the MKI/Rafale to justify buying it. Or should we buy impossible to maintain cold war relics like the Tu-22M? B-1 is out of bounds. Blackjack is out of production. What's left? Maybe we can send an RFP to Xi'an Aircraft Corporation for the H-6.

[anand_sankar]

Anyone here from Allahabad? Or anyone who has visited the WWII Phaphamau airbase north of Allahabad.

I'm in Allahabad in a few days to cover the Kumbh Mela. Planning to visit the location. Any info on it would be useful, nothing much on the Internet.

[srai]

if this medium lift thing goes through, will the C295 overlap with the ~100 AN32upg we shall operate for another 15 yrs?

the transport fleet appears well on its way to becoming a zoo of C295, AN32, C130, IL76, C17 and the (PBUH) MTA also. do we really need so many buckets and so many "right sized" airlifters?

imo a mix of more new build AN32, C130J and C17 (IL76 retired in 5 yrs) would have sufficed?

AN32, IL76 and Avros will be completely phased out over the next 10 to 15 years. During this time, new acquisitions are planned -- some already underway. The "zoo" that you describe is because of this transitional period where pretty much all of the IAF's transport aircrafts are being replaced in a very short amount of time.

In 2025 IAF's transport fleet will comprise of the following:

* Heavy (20t+) -> 16+ C17 replacing 16+ IL76
* Medium (<20t) -> 40+ MTA / 12+ C-130J replacing 100+ AN32
* Medium-Light (<10t) -> 50+ C295/C27J replacing 50+ Avros

Plus other specialised aircrafts from NAL, Boeing, Bombadier, Embraer, Airbus, and Iluyshin.

[Aditya G]

....The "zoo" that you describe is because of this transitional period where pretty much all of the IAF's transport aircrafts are being replaced in a very short amount of time.

In 2025 IAF's transport fleet will comprise of the following:

* Heavy (20t+) -> 16+ C17 replacing 16+ IL76
* Medium (<20t) -> 40+ MTA / 12+ C-130J replacing 100+ AN32
* Medium-Light (<10t) -> 50+ C295/C27J replacing 50+ Avros

Plus other specialised aircrafts from NAL, Boeing, Bombadier, Embraer, Airbus, and Iluyshin.

Well it is a zoo then.

There is scope to reduce the number of types in areas other than transport as well.

For example; Do-228 serves as a light transport, ELINT and MRA in IAF, IN and ICG. It is a good example of one type serving multiple roles. Similarly Gajaraj comes as the IL-76MD, IL-78MKI and A-50EhI.

Agreed that one airframe may not be the most optimal solution in each area. But if the new aircraft will be produced in India (at least in large part), then why not go ahead with the compromise?

Aside from the IAF requirement, there is also a need for requirement for AEW in IAF and medium range MRA in IN. Why not combine the multiple requirements?

[member_23455]

The premise that India did not have the budgets in the past to build a bomber force isn't borne out by what happened on the ground. The India of limited budgets did induct the Canberra. The India of massive budgets has not. So it's not about the money.

Wiki aunty tells me that the Canberra's payload is about half that of an MKI. Even if the numbers are a little off, it shows that the India of massive (really?) budgets has spent them wisely.

Is it about the lack of doctrine? Absolutely...and that can be said of almost anything to do with Indian defence planning, , and while the babus and netas deservedly take the rap for many things, this is one that the faujis across the three servicescannot dodge.

Or it could be because of lack of options. What is the IAF supposed to buy? Does the Su-34 count as a blue blooded bomber? Just how much of an improvement would it be over the MKI/Rafale to justify buying it. Or should we buy impossible to maintain cold war relics like the Tu-22M? B-1 is out of bounds. Blackjack is out of production. What's left? Maybe we can send an RFP to Xi'an Aircraft Corporation for the H-6.

Don't create a strawman argument. Nowhere do I say buy xyz bomber over MKI. The point, and do refer to the post to which i replied to, is that there was still a constituency for a bomber back in the days when money used to be tighter, but folks were used to having dedicated bombers around. Over time that evaporated in India but in the USAF for example, the F-117A has been retired but not the B-52.

Lack of options - like the Tu22s we wanted to originally lease/buy alongwith the Akula? Did Wiki aunty not tell you that we still fly impossible to maintain cold war relics like the Mig 21, Sea Harriers, Chetaks, Cheetahs...you get the picture I am sure. The RFP if it has to be sent should be sent for the H-10 (Guess which Soviet cold war relic this is the designation for?)

And finally, if you really have to ask what improvement a specialized weapon system has over a multi-role weapon system then well that is a doctrinaire position and we can have two different POVs on that

[Singha]

dedicated bombers are both necessary for IAF and fairly cheap considering their value add proposition.

[svinayak]

Anyone here from Allahabad? Or anyone who has visited the WWII Phaphamau airbase north of Allahabad.

I'm in Allahabad in a few days to cover the Kumbh Mela. Planning to visit the location. Any info on it would be useful, nothing much on the Internet.

Huge coverage in the internet news

[anand_sankar]

@Acharya

Yes lots of coverage of the Kumbh, I am trying to find some literature on the abandoned airbase.

[srai]

....The "zoo" that you describe is because of this transitional period where pretty much all of the IAF's transport aircrafts are being replaced in a very short amount of time.

In 2025 IAF's transport fleet will comprise of the following:

* Heavy (20t+) -> 16+ C17 replacing 16+ IL76
* Medium (<20t) -> 40+ MTA / 12+ C-130J replacing 100+ AN32
* Medium-Light (<10t) -> 50+ C295/C27J replacing 50+ Avros

Plus other specialised aircrafts from NAL, Boeing, Bombadier, Embraer, Airbus, and Iluyshin.

Well it is a zoo then.

There is scope to reduce the number of types in areas other than transport as well.

For example; Do-228 serves as a light transport, ELINT and MRA in IAF, IN and ICG. It is a good example of one type serving multiple roles. Similarly Gajaraj comes as the IL-76MD, IL-78MKI and A-50EhI.

Agreed that one airframe may not be the most optimal solution in each area. But if the new aircraft will be produced in India (at least in large part), then why not go ahead with the compromise?

Aside from the IAF requirement, there is also a need for requirement for AEW in IAF and medium range MRA in IN. Why not combine the multiple requirements?

Yes, until India produces its own line of aircrafts then what you are proposing can become a reality. It can customize a range of aircraft for its needs. Otherwise, there is no choice but to go with platforms that are "readily" available on the markets.

[aharam]

Hi,
I believe some of my comments were misconstrued. Unfortunately, I was busy and didn't get a chance to respond earlier.

When I said that India did not have the budgets to build a bomber force, I mean a strategic bomber force, not a fleet of medium bombers. In the 50s and 60s most world powers built a fleet of strategic bombers - the Vulcan as an example cost England over $1b in the 50s, well beyond India's economy then. Strategic bombers became passé in the late 60s early 70s when air to air missiles became more potent and even high flying fast strategic bombers became vulnerable over defended airspace. While strategic bombers became passé, their airframes did not, and when air forces such as the USAF and the former Soviet Union realized that bombers were actually not obselete, they still had workable aircraft left in their inventory. This is not a coincidence. Strategic bomber airframes were designed for longevity and given their range requirements, they can't be easily obsoleted - the world hasn't grown any bigger physically in the last few decades.

Also, your statements on Boyd, Spey and the fighter mafia are not quite correct. They were a reform movement, but they were very much the underdogs. Boyd was forced out of the Air Force and for decades worked as a civilian pushing the EM theory of dogfighting, which incidentally, correctly describes the capability of an aircraft for dogfighting - please see my other posts on this. Boyd was out and out a fighter guy, but he was absolutely not a proponent of multi role aircraft - he considerd them a bad compromise at best. Incidentally, the aardvark is a great example, it was the first multirole aircraft and was originally intended to be a fighter and failed in both roles, the Australian air analysis site notwithstanding. Boyd was a big believer in purpose build aircraft and really pushed small fighters, simply because they were the right choice from EM theory. His personal aircraft of choice was the F86, by all accounts a superbly maneuverable aircraft. He was the father of the F16, but considered the block a/b result as too much of a compromise. He is probably turning in his grave looking at the current block 52s and 60s. Spey who worked with him and was his main backer - also much more astute politically - was the father of the,purpose built A10, which to this day is a great ground attack aircraft. It can't hold its own even against a mig21, but any mobile or even most fixed targets are well within its capabilities, and it always goes into a sanitized airspace, so facing a mig 21 is not a design criterion. Net result a better aircraft for the job. Incidentally, the face plated climb maneuver of Boyd in his 40 sec position reversal game was well known to us when I flew in the 80s - I used it to try it out at least three times I recall, and it works because of the element of surprise and the unpredictability of the pilot executing the maneuver.

When the fighter mafia started, they had to meet in secret to push their agenda. SAC was the dominant force and the fighter mafia never actually won. The best they got was fighting the bomber agenda to a standstill - hence the result today of multi role aircraft. Had the fighter mafia truly won, you would still have small very maneuverable aircraft, not BVR weapons platforms. The fighter mafia always treated BVR missiles as fallible, which they still are and wanted an aircraft that could still fight when there was nothing left on the pylons. That said, the fighter mafia never foresaw a future of UAVs or even BVR missiles as accurate as they are today.

While this game was going on among the super powers, India cuold only afford a medium bomber force, since its force projection needs in the 60s were relatively very local. Unfortunately, this category tends to obselete more rapidly than a strategic bomber force. The strategic bomber inventory, and this is by no means comprehensive, still includes the badger, the b52, the bear and the b1 - all of 50s, early 60s vintage.

Now that India has the budgets, there is no one really building a long range bomber fleet other than the Chinese, hence no real availability or choice. The US and Russia, don't need to - they already have an old fleet that is adequate for the role. India has none, because it never had a viable fleet, and when it had the budgets to, it focused on the current fashion, which is multi role aircraft. The question then is if bombers are so immaterial, why doesn't everyone else get rid of them, instead of paying for maintaining decades old airframes, and why is china still building badgers for long range operations.

I haven't dealt with HAL since the late 80s, and I am certainly no expert on them compared to other members on the forum. It appears based on the responses that my assumptions on HALs capablities are to put it mildly overrated - apparently a b52 class aircraft, for which the current Kaveri engine is probably in the right thrust regime is still beyond them.

As for specialized platforms, I continue to remain a believer in them. A bomb truck that doesn't have to worry about surviving in a defended air space can devote more payload to its primary duties. Multi role aircraft can help sanitize the airspace and even go after select heavily defended targets, but you are not going to beat a b52 carrying jdams with an MKI. Even a small fleet of heavy bombers will be able to inflict a swath of destruction so large as to make war for an industrialized enemy unviable in a few days. Simply from a payload perspective it would take almost an order of magnitude more MKIs.

While it might be the era of the fighter jocks, not all think alike

Cheerios
Aharam

The premise that India did not have the budgets in the past to build a bomber force isn't borne out by what happened on the ground. The India of limited budgets did induct the Canberra. The India of massive budgets has not. So it's not about the money.

Wiki aunty tells me that the Canberra's payload is about half that of an MKI. Even if the numbers are a little off, it shows that the India of massive (really?) budgets has spent them wisely.

Is it about the lack of doctrine? Absolutely...and that can be said of almost anything to do with Indian defence planning, , and while the babus and netas deservedly take the rap for many things, this is one that the faujis across the three servicescannot dodge.

Or it could be because of lack of options. What is the IAF supposed to buy? Does the Su-34 count as a blue blooded bomber? Just how much of an improvement would it be over the MKI/Rafale to justify buying it. Or should we buy impossible to maintain cold war relics like the Tu-22M? B-1 is out of bounds. Blackjack is out of production. What's left? Maybe we can send an RFP to Xi'an Aircraft Corporation for the H-6.

Don't create a strawman argument. Nowhere do I say buy xyz bomber over MKI. The point, and do refer to the post to which i replied to, is that there was still a constituency for a bomber back in the days when money used to be tighter, but folks were used to having dedicated bombers around. Over time that evaporated in India but in the USAF for example, the F-117A has been retired but not the B-52.

Lack of options - like the Tu22s we wanted to originally lease/buy alongwith the Akula? Did Wiki aunty not tell you that we still fly impossible to maintain cold war relics like the Mig 21, Sea Harriers, Chetaks, Cheetahs...you get the picture I am sure. The RFP if it has to be sent should be sent for the H-10 (Guess which Soviet cold war relic this is the designation for?)

And finally, if you really have to ask what improvement a specialized weapon system has over a multi-role weapon system then well that is a doctrinaire position and we can have two different POVs on that [/quote]

[member_23455]

Also, your statements on Boyd, Spey and the fighter mafia are not quite correct. They were a reform movement, but they were very much the underdogs.

Instead of conducting a thesis on the Fighter Mafia and derail this thread, let's get back on-topic and on-context. The example of the Fighter Mafia was given in the context of doctrines. Why was the importance of doctrine brought up? To puncture the myth that budgets were the primary reason for us not having a dedicated bomber fleet. Since you claim to have been misconstrued and have offered multiple qualifications on your original post I will leave it at that.

The thing with doctrines is that they are not supposed to go lock-step with current needs or capabilities. Which is the reason why when some of these doctrines succeed, the people behind them are hailed as visionaries et al.

Now that India has the budgets, there is no one really building a long range bomber fleet other than the Chinese, hence no real availability or choice.

Where do you suppose the Chinese are "coming up" with these capabilities to build bombers then. Was anyone selling SSBNs, yet we have managed to "come up" with Arihant? Was anyone selling Cruise missiles, yet we have "come up" with the Brahmos.

So let's stop being apologists for the IAF planners and accept that as far as a dedicated bombing fleet is concerned, there is no one to fight for that capability - which really was the original point that I have been making all along.

[Singha]

if India had paid Rus as much as it has for Arihant help, I feel they would have helped us produce a modernized Backfire using Blackjack technology and the ALCMs to go with it(already have in that dept perhaps with 36MT engine)

we can still call in such a proj - more utility than MTA for sure.

[Aditya_V]

RajitO-> a word of advice, upto you to take, arm chair strategists like you and me can talk but lets listen to ex fighter pilots like Aharam, ours is pure online material based theory but their experience is based on the real world.

[member_23455]

RajitO-> a word of advice, upto you to take, arm chair strategists like you and me can talk but lets listen to ex fighter pilots like Aharam, ours is pure online material based theory but their experience is based on the real world.

Aditya_V. Since we are offering advice to each other (by the way, no vice like advice), don't jump into a conversation between two folks, especially when you might not have the full background about me. I am definitely not an ex-fighter pilot, am definitely an armchair strategist and that has never been a problem in my engaging with people who have "been there, done that."

Now did you have either an opinion on the subject or facts to throw our way to contribute to this discussion?

[Karan M]

Hi,....

Superb post!

What do you make of the feasibility (or lack thereof) of converting an airframe like the Ilyushin-HAL MRTA into a cruise missile carrier or a bomber of sorts? Doable?

On an unrelated note..

All I can offer in return is this image of an upgraded MiG-29. I must say, its quite turning into a multirole plane from the dedicated Air Superiority aircraft it was..but it may turn out to be very potent in its new guise!!

[srai]

^^^

For limited quantity needs, one idea would be to convert IN's 8 Bears to a dedicated heavy bomber fleet. More second hand units could be purchased from Russia to augment these.

[eklavya]

So let's stop being apologists for the IAF planners and accept that as far as a dedicated bombing fleet is concerned, there is no one to fight for that capability - which really was the original point that I have been making all along.

What is the role of the Jaguar if not bombing? It was specifically acquired to meet the IAF's Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft (DPSA) requirement.

[eklavya]

dont forget the B1s are fully capable of launching stealthy standoff missiles too incase of opposition.
and they are also built for low level fast penetration.

astonishing 24 JASSM per this pic...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/load-b1.gif

even mix and match is possible
http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-c ... mb-bay.jpg

that being said, and for Indo-china distances staging out of a airbase in the deccan, these puppies would just need 1 refuel on way out and 1 refuel on way in to hit southern half of china and all of tibet and gansu....sortie rates will be low...perhaps 50% uptime in war and 25% in peace, so a full sqdn of 16 could maybe generate around 8 sorties daily, but each strike will be packing a lot of heat.

give 2 squadrons of B1/blackjacks with the right PGM/missiles and the tide of a war could be turned at a political level even.

each plane that delivers its full payload of 24 JASSM could essentially take 1 large industrial or infra target out of commission for a long time. for smaller things like bridges, multiple ones along 100s of km of river could be dropped by a daisy chain of missiles.

who would want to lose 8 major factories/refineries a day?

ps. it needs around 200 JASSMs ready for use daily. multiply by 30 and it comes to 6000 JASSMs alone. costly. if Cheen were hit like that, Gen Liu would turn all dharmic and come to negotiating table after 3 days...or war would go nuclear...

How does the B1 defend itself against the PLAAAF Su-30 class aircraft and S300 class air defence systems?

[eklavya]

The premise that India did not have the budgets in the past to build a bomber force isn't borne out by what happened on the ground. The India of limited budgets did induct the Canberra. The India of massive budgets has not. So it's not about the money.

Jaguar is a dedicated ground attack aircraft. So is the MiG-27. So was the Su-7.

In the fighter pilot club that is the top brass of the IAF who will champion that cause? That I am afraid is the bottomline, all wishful thinking on BR aside...

What utter rubbish. The current Chief and Vice Chief are both outstanding Jaguar pilots. A former Chief was also a Jaguar pilot. There is no distinction made between pilots who have had a primarily ground attack or air defence role. And the current trend towards multi-role aircraft is a global trend, not something that the IAF alone has dreamt up.

[eklavya]

And finally, if you really have to ask what improvement a specialized weapon system has over a multi-role weapon system then well that is a doctrinaire position and we can have two different POVs on that

So, instead of the multi-role Rafale, which combination of specialised air defence and ground attack aircraft would you recommend, and why? What are the military/mission and financial benefits?

[shiv]

So let's stop being apologists for the IAF planners and accept that as far as a dedicated bombing fleet is concerned, there is no one to fight for that capability - which really was the original point that I have been making all along.

Could you point me to any post you might have made citing the advantages of a dedicated bombing fleet in the IAF context? I belong to the same club of armchair strategists as you, but I believe that heavy bombers have never won any wars (not even world war 2) and have been used more as hot air and rhetoric than anything else. Please allow me to point out that agreeing with you is not being an apologist for you any more than disagreeing with you amounts to being an apologist for the IAF. Rhetoric is fun, but is only a digression.

Heavy bombers are huge, expensive to maintain and fly, vulnerable and remain unused in most air forces throughout their working lives. I personally cannot see the point in an aircraft flying 6000 km in a 7 to 8 hour round trip over China merely to drop 40 x 500 kg bombs on some target. Bombs are always dropped along a straight line, and a line of destruction that is 2 km long and 100 meters wide is of no use for doing much damage to anything other than city blocks - even if one sends 4 bombers. It's another matter that there was a time (in 1940) when this line of bomb destruction was "state of the art" but it never actually did and serious military degradation to anyone. And losing even one bomber would degrade the attacking forces a great deal.

The US committed about 50 B 52 to Vietnam and lost half of them. In a later era, flying in sanitized airspace over Iraq and Afghanistan and equipped with PGMs, B 52s played a better role IMO, but that was because "fighter jocks" and AWACS jocks worked alongside them. Besides the USA was fighting against Iraq or Afghanistan with the entire industrialized world on their side plus some.

I think heavy dedicated bombers would be an expensive waste for the IAF. If a radar installation or an airfield or power station requires 4 well placed PGMs - a heavy bomber would be inappropriate. I would guess that a squadron of heavy bombers in the IAF would cost as much as 4 squadrons of fighters over their lifetime and while multirole fighters would be able to partly fulfil a bomber role, the bombers would be zeros in a fighter role.

[Singha]

>> but I believe that heavy bombers have never won any wars (not even world war 2)

the american B29 fleet made a good amt of difference in the war on japan because nothing else could touch the home islands for most of the war until okinawa was captured and that was kept as a emergency recovery base.

there were other signature bomber raids like the one on messerschmitt factory in remagen, or the ploesti oil refinery in rumania. nothing beats bombers in inflicting mass damage at low cost / Kg and the range they offer.

ofcourse they have to depend on other assets for protection and clearing the air these days , but the option of launching standoff PGM/missile is always there and preferred for well defended targets.

truth be told we cannot even think of touching targets in northern half of tibet, qinghai, gansu, sinkiang with any variety of rafale/su30 tempting as they may be. Cheen can line up fighters like on display on the tarmacs with impunity.
that would change if we could have a few B1s with stealthy JASSM type weapons.
same goes for strikes on hainan or thereabouts, instead of doing gymnastics with multiple risky refuelings a B1 could maybe do 1 refuel and still cart a significant payload there.

as our sphere of influence increases there are only two options to increase reach of our AF
- foreign bases / aircraft carriers. carriers are not cheap and we produce them at snails pace. the congressi foreign policy is not oriented to foreign bases because nobody respects a mousey posture and lack of booming growth
- land based long range bombers.

[vsunder]

Singha: I think you are totally mistaken about Ploesti.
The refineries were hardly damaged and were back
in operation within a month. There was a tremendous
loss of aircrew, it is called "the Black Sunday raid".
Even the so-called Dambuster's raid did not have
any lasting impact beyond 2 months and factories
in the Ruhr were back to full production after 2 months.


Here is a piece of the Wiki entry for Operation Tidal Wave( Ploesti Raid)
I am sure you can check yourself

310 aircrewmen were killed, 108 were captured by the Axis, and 78 were interned in Turkey.[1]:76 Three of the five Medals of Honor (the most for any single air action in history) were awarded posthumously.[1]:77 Allied assessment of the attack estimated a loss of 40% of the refining capacity at the Ploiești refineries,[1]:75 although some refineries were largely untouched. Most of the damage was repaired within weeks, after which the net output of fuel was greater than before the raid

[shiv]

Singha: I think you are totally mistaken about Ploesti.
The refineries were hardly damaged and were back
in operation within a month. There was a tremendous
loss of aircrew, it is called "the Black Sunday raid".
Even the so-called Dambuster's raid did not have
any lasting impact beyond 2 months and factories
in the Ruhr were back to full production after 2 months.


Here is a piece of the Wiki entry for Operation Tidal Wave( Ploesti Raid)
I am sure you can check yourself

310 aircrewmen were killed, 108 were captured by the Axis, and 78 were interned in Turkey.[1]:76 Three of the five Medals of Honor (the most for any single air action in history) were awarded posthumously.[1]:77 Allied assessment of the attack estimated a loss of 40% of the refining capacity at the Ploiești refineries,[1]:75 although some refineries were largely untouched. Most of the damage was repaired within weeks, after which the net output of fuel was greater than before the raid

The official history of the Bomber Offensive in WW2 records that at the height of the bomber raids on Germany in 1944, the last year of the war in Europe, German industrial production rose to a peak - higher than it was in any of the earlier years. All that bombing failed to degrade German industry or power supply. It was the US's overwhelming industrial ability to do more than replace losses that ultimately tipped the balance. Apart from the Soviet front.

As for Japan - the war was made shorter by the Atom Bombs. But Japan was already losing when the bombs were dropped and the war would likely have ended a few months to a year later anyway.

[shiv]

truth be told we cannot even think of touching targets in northern half of tibet, qinghai, gansu, sinkiang with any variety of rafale/su30 tempting as they may be. Cheen can line up fighters like on display on the tarmacs with impunity.
that would change if we could have a few B1s with stealthy JASSM type weapons.
.

I believe that heavy bombers will allow us to touch them. But they will do nothing more than a kiss and a caress. A line of dumb bombs most of which are guaranteed to miss the target is totally useless compared to the cost of maintaining and sending heavy bombers. The damage will be repaired in a few hours to days and if we try repeat raids the bombers will soon all be shot down.

I think you are talking about entering into a prolonged conventional war of attrition with China of the WW2 type. We are guaranteed to lose a lot in such a war with or without heavy bombers. Such costly prolonged wars must not be fought when we have nuclear weapons. One puny 20 kt nuke will do the job of 1000 heavy bombers.