Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 May 2017 20:28

The article makes a convincing case for bombers, its primary reasons for acquisition and an impassioned case for why the retiring of the Canberras was a mistake!!

Role of Bombers in Contemporary Warfare --
Sqn Ldr Vijainder K Thakur

Indeed, two squadrons of upgraded, re-engined, modernised, cruise missile equipped Canberras probably would have done more to dissuade a PLA adventure along the LAC than all the 126 Rafale combined would ever do! Surprisingly, all the IAF Canberra pilots that I have spoken with say the IAF never contemplated using the Canberras against the Chinese which may well explain why Air HQ never considered modernising the aircraft.

There are some good strategic reasons for the IAF to resurrect its bomber force:

To strengthen the nuclear triad by making the air leg more credible.
To acquire an A2/AD capability in the IOR.
For force projection in the IOR.
To counter the threat from Chinese cruise missile armed bombers.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 04 May 2017 20:56

Add:
To Fight The War Of 30 Years Ago.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 May 2017 21:00

Let us see, if operations of the Khan using bombers has any role in our contemporary context, say in Tibet where the C&C nodes and air bases are well identified.

Most important during this conflict was the first use of GPS-aided precision weapons and the increased use of long-range cruise missiles. Bombers proved that they could assist in establishing air superiority by delivering a large payload with extraordinary accuracy, at extended range, with an effect greater than any other in the history of air warfare. Allied Force also demonstrated that precision weapons could decrease collateral damage and increase targeting efficiency. Both of these characteristics proved essential to achieving a high degree of air superiority as quickly as possible, and the bomber force could play a critical role in that core function. The technological breakthroughs associated with the strategic bomber during this operation changed the way air forces established air superiority in future conflicts.

The advantages of a strong strategic bomber force are well known and documented throughout history. Bombers alone cannot win air superiority, but the combination of a strong strategic bomber force and an agile fighter force can do so as quickly and efficiently as possible. Together they embody the true application of airpower. Air Marshal Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris aptly observed that "victory, speedy and complete, awaits the side which first employs air power as it should be employed." (13) The strategic bomber force represents a critical part of employing airpower properly. As the United States faces cuts in its defense budget, China and Russia have recently shown that they realize the importance of strategic bombers to national defense, reflected in China's development of the H6-K and in comments by President Vladimir Putin: "Russia needs a new strategic bomber and will develop it despite high costs." (14) Both of these examples show that rising global powers consider this aircraft a critical component of their application of airpower and national security. The United States should take note.

Lightning strikes and thunder claps: the strategic bomber and air superiority.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2017 21:02

Sometime retired air force officers don't think when they write.

To counter the threat from Chinese cruise missile armed bombers.

An Indian bomber can threaten someone else but it can never "counter the threat" from Chinese bombers. How silly.

IOR rim is what everyone agrees on. I say buy 4-6 for that purpose

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2017 21:05

ShauryaT wrote:Let us see, if operations of the Khan using bombers has any role in our contemporary context, say in Tibet where the C&C nodes and air bases are well identified.

Tibet targets are well within range of existing aircraft. No need to invest in 5000 km range huge radar blobs in the sky to take out targets that are between 200 and maximum 800 km away.

How about talking Something closer to the east coast of China? Even Chengdu if you like - much much closer. Or Hotan

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 May 2017 21:23

ShauryaT wrote:Surprisingly, all the IAF Canberra pilots that I have spoken with say the IAF never contemplated using the Canberras against the Chinese which may well explain why Air HQ never considered modernising the aircraft.

Bullshit

"According to Jaggi Nath (the Canberra pilot who photographed the Aksai Chin highway) he met Kaul in Army HQ with photographs of Chinese deployment after a routine sortie over Sinkiang and Tibet. ‘We had the run of the skies, there were simply no Chinese aircraft around that could threaten us. We got pictures of everything—vehicles, guns, their defences, especially in the DBO, Qara Qash and Galwan sectors.’ However, Kaul showed little interest in what the squadron leader had to say. ‘He kept saying how he was just coming from or going to meet the prime minister. For us, not used to the functioning of Army HQ, it looked like a parody.’" (from "1962: The War That Wasn't" by Shiv Kunal Verma)

The Canberra carries less than the Su-30 and Rafale and Jaguar. Most of this stuff is well known on the mil forum. No one in this forum is interested so rubbish can be posted if need be. The Canberra was a "light bomber". That apart it had a three man crew and the bomb-aimer in the nose had no ejection seat.. When Vijainder Thakur blabbers he blabbers much. He wants this lightweight obsolete death trap to fly against China? With Cruise mijjiles? And you are posting that here? LOL

He blocked me long ago on Twitter when I pointed out stupid things he was saying so I am happy for my compliments to be passed on to him

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 May 2017 21:47

Pushing for the Canberra as a strategic bomber is wrong. It implies one is tactical.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 May 2017 21:59

ramana wrote:Pushing for the Canberra as a strategic bomber is wrong. It implies one is tactical.

Not the main point of the author. The main point was while China continued to invest and evolve an old lumbering platform like the H-6, India chose not to invest in the Canberra and as a result today we have no bomber fleet. It is how different forces have made these decisions. The IAF will argue that its choices are more effective for contemporary warfare. The PLAAF will argue they have retained an asset for potential use. If IAF's choices are right then the basing of H-6K in Hotan is no threat to us. is it for most likely scenarios?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 May 2017 23:20

ShauryaT, I submit the SU-30 is more effective and once it has the airborne Brahmos, it satisfies all the author's requirements.
No need to belabor the point.
Also not France a P-5 does not have a strategic bomber.
Same with UK once the V series was phased out.
If any Tu-22 are lying around they should be picked up but not flagellate for a strategic bomber to get China.

They worry about A-5.
about Hotan, I don't know.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 05 May 2017 00:40

The long-range bomber of yesteryear had to fly over the target, align to release bombs, and time the delivery perfectly. Meanwhile getting rocked by ack-ack blasts, machine-gun/cannon bursts from fighters etc.

Today's hard arguments by the bomber community emphasize load-carrying, missile payload, payload versatility, stand-off distance, platform stabiity - and for a cheap, cheap $1B each, stealth.

But what's the point? Why can't you do the same missions using a cargo plane, if manueverability is not a big deal? You can even roll the missile out the back end like a MOAB. You can carry fighter planes under the high wing and release them nearer the target. And unlike the bomber, the cargo plane can also be used every day for many many other missions, justifying the cost of the imported craft easily.

Plus, with the cargo plane you get short field/soft field operations, while the Long Range Bombers line up nicely on well-known airbases waiting to be blown up on the ground in the first minutes of any war. Or be stuck until the next raid comes to blow them up because the runways are gone.

In countries where they are interested in designing and developing and exporting their own planes, bomber development presages commercial aircraft development. For instance the Douglas and Boeing lines (and the Airboos line). What's India's excuse? Any pretense of developing larger planes, is long dead. The HS-748 made sure of that.

It is sad to see Indian jarnails and Air Marshals parroting US /Russian counterparts - as if the budget realities and indigenous production / design capabilities are anywhere close, and the rest of us can't see that they are copying stuff they memorized out of Jane's All The World's Aircraft or some such. Makes one feel sorry for those who have to work under these guys. The US uses bombers because each one pays $1B worth of money recirculation via Rockwell or Northrop-Grumman or Boeing. Russia uses them because, well, they have them and build them, and need to keep that expertise alive. India? Another 30-year Acquisition Baboon Boondoggle for something completely useless.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 05 May 2017 00:54

The other thing I have never figured out is the meaning of the term "nuclear capable". What is so special about carrying nuclear weapons? Abdul bin Kabul carries them in a suitcase. F-16s can carry them under a wing. Nuclear weapons have been miniaturized to fit in standard artillery barrels. Maybe they need a switch that takes two pilots to turn the key simultaneously like in the ICBM silos and the Polaris subs? Someone said: Oh! hey are HEAVY! MEGA tons onlee!!

I claim that nukes, with large CEP assumed, can be carried in any plane. Of course, getting out of the area alive is a very iffy thing, but if a B-52 or the B-29s could do it, I don't see why the C-17 or AN-12 cannot.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 May 2017 01:59

Strategic Bomber for IAF - Bharat Karnad

Forty years on, while China is bolstering its already strong strategic bomber fleet (of Xian H-6K aircraft) by buying off the production line of the most advanced Backfire, the Tu-22 M3, and prioritising the indigenous development of the four-engined, wing-shaped, H-18 strategic stealth bomber, IAF hopes its Su-30s assisted by aerial tankers will be a credible deterrent and counter against the Chinese bomber armada.

It will be prudent for the IAF, even at this late stage, to constitute a Bomber Command and cadre, lease ten or so Tu-160 Blackjacks from Moscow and, rather than the fifth-generation fighter, invest the Rs 35,000 crores in a programme jointly to design and produce with Russia the successor aircraft to the Blackjack — the PAK DA, which is expected to fly by 2025. 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”.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 05 May 2017 06:28

http://www.indiadefence.com/Tu-160.htm

WHAT'S HOT? –– ANALYSIS OF RECENT HAPPENINGS

'BEARS' TO 'BLACKJACKS' – A POSSIBLE LOGICAL PROGRESSION?

By Sayan Majumdar

New Delhi, 31 March 2006
The Indian Navy has been offered Tupolev-22M3/MR strategic strike platforms to replace their ageing Tu-142 and Il-38 MRW aircraft. A detailed analysis shows that the Russian Tupolev-160 “Blackjack” offers several advantages over the offered aircraft, and may be available as the Navy’s requirement is small and Tu-160 production has restarted and additional funds will be welcome. The Russians on their part have never been hesitant to transfer strategic platforms to India.

Russian Tupolev-160 “Blackjack”
The Indian Navy acquired a strategic manned airborne dimension with the entry of Tupolev Tu-142M “Bear-F” Long Range Maritime Patrol/Anti-Submarine Warfare (LRMP/ASW) platforms in 1988. Powered by four KKBM Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprops (each rated at 11,033-KW or 14,795-shp), with eight-blade contra-rotating reversible-pitch Type AV-60N propellers, the Tu-142M boasted a “near-conventional jet speed” of around 500-knots while still encompassing the whole Indian Ocean region from bases in South & Central India (INS Rajali and INS Hansa being more prominent) on internal fuel alone. Still an In-Flight Refuelling (IFR) probe is fitted above the nose and presently can summon the Indian Air Force (IAF) Agra-based Illyushin Il-78MKI IFR tankers of No.78 “Battle Cry” Squadron if situations arise.
While as primary sensors the Tu-142M platforms were fitted with the Korshun-K (Black Kite) automatic search and sighting system and MMS-106 Ladoga magnetometer to detect “stealthy” nuclear-powered submarines, the Indian Navy’s Tu-142M made foreign news headlines for its “Wet Eye” search and attack radar. The Australian Government presented strong reservations about the Tu-142M’s intended role in Indian Navy service, which to the Australian Government represented an Indian naval effort to expand its sphere of influence at the cost of Australia’s own. On top of these, matters did not help as rumours spread that the Indian Navy Tu-142M fleet represented a specialized variant, which in addition to LRMP/ASW gear and role retained sufficient gear to carry out a secondary heavy-bombing role.
This last mentioned aspect was never confirmed by Indian Navy sources and may or may not be a part of Island Continent’s political gimmick to enhance their own defence budget and spending. In any case a top speed of around 500-knots has only marginal effectiveness in penetration of well defended airspace yet integration of state-of-the-art Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM) or Land Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM) may transform the “Albatross” into a formidable attack platform without the need to fly over its intended targets and yet decimate them at will from stand-off distances. Negotiations were reportedly made for additional procurement of six to eight more Tu-142M platforms but apparently fell apart after the tragic mid-air crash of a pair of Indian Navy IL-38s in October 2002, with priorities shifted in more ways than initially anticipated.
Although various plans exist for upgrading the Tu-142M fleet to formidable LRMP/ASW platforms with Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) attributes, one platform presents an Israeli upgrade package that includes the proven Elta EL/M-2022A (V3) radar and associated ELINT, satellite communication and electronic warfare equipment. The Indian Navy was “looking beyond” LRMP/ASW platforms for effective operations in its sphere of influence and this was somewhat confirmed at the turn of millennium by persistent yet intermittent reports of the lease of Tu-22M3 (Backfire-C) multi-mission strike platforms, capable of performing low-level nuclear strike and conventional attack role both over land and sea alongside high-seed reconnaissance missions. In absence of official confirmation and shielded in misinformation or secrecy, the proposed airborne package as per Russian media reports includes leasing of three Tu-22M3 strategic bombing/maritime strike platforms, plus one Tu-22MR reconnaissance oriented platform with a giant Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) in what was previously the internal bomb bay to enable aerial reconnaissance from a great slant distance. Also the package reportedly includes one Tu-134UBL with each of the mentioned type from Russian Air Forces register.
During the height of the Cold War, the Tu-22M remained one of the most controversial airborne platforms and contributed considerably to breakdown of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) II due to arguments as to whether to classify it as a strategic platform or not. Two Kuznetsov NK-25 turbofan engines provided Tu-22M a range of at least 7,000-km-plus at high altitude on internal fuel alone, with further extension possible with IFR. To complicate matters further the maximum speed was reported to be 2300-km/h at high altitude with 12-tons of strike ordnance or an alternative load of a single air launched cruise missile carried in semi-recessed form to reduce drag. Thus it was logically deduced by the US Administration that if air bases were made available in then South or Central American Marxist influenced Nations, the Tu-22M acquires the “strategic dimension” by conducting “one-way over Artic” missions against the United States homeland and thus should be regarded as a strategic platform. This logic was outright rejected by the Soviets for few practical reasons ultimately leading to breakdown of SALT II.
However in Soviet Dalnaya Aviatsiya (DA) or Long-Range Aviation and AV-MF or Naval Aviation service the Tu-22M did represent a formidable strike platform with the radar speculated to be of the missile guidance ‘Down Beat’ family in conjunction with one of the most formidable contemporary avionics and electronic warfare suites and were feared and respected by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) adversaries. Most of the electronic warfare suites were “flush mounted” so as not to hamper aerodynamic performance. During the height of Cold War the Tu-22M “Backfire” achieved further notoriety in NATO eyes for repeated simulated launch of cruise missiles against the NATO Aircraft-Carrier Battle Groups (CVBG) and penetrating the formidable Japanese air-defence network at will. These were bound to be carefully planned ELINT/ferret missions and tactics to test and record NATO Strike Fleet and Japanese air defence tactics and procedures. Operating from forward bases in the European Landmass the Soviet Tu-22Ms were active over North Atlantic as far as Azores, encompassing the whole European Landmass and were considered a significant threat to NATO surface ASW barriers in the key areas such as Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gaps.
Yet a thorough evaluation puts the Tu-22M “Backfire” along with the Sukhoi Su-24 “Fencer” in the category of “Cold War relics” as these one-time formidable and fearsome platforms underwent only limited upgradations after the “Cold War” era in sharp contrast of United States Air Force (USAF) operated strategic airborne platforms like B-1B and B-52G/H. Prominently apparent are certain inherent drawbacks in the area of Radar Cross Section (RCS) as the Tu-22M fuselage lines are largely copied from earlier Tu-22 “Blinder”, basically a "historic" design prior to “stealth consciousness”. While slab-sided fuselage and engine intakes present prominent RCS, the positioning of engine intakes occupies significant fuselage space reducing internal fuel loads and thus reducing the otherwise potential range. Also perhaps the entire avionics and electronic warfare suite need to be replaced with contemporary equipment to ensure survivability of these technologically ageing platforms in present high-threat environments.
The “significantly small” Indian Navy requirement of strategic combined maritime strike and reconnaissance platforms, justified in light of their deployment restricted over oceans and need not over fly integrated hostile enemy Air Defence (AD) system and missile network over land, makes even highly sophisticated and expensive designs approachable if operational benefits significantly overlap the financial and technical investment. In this context perhaps the optimally suitable maritime strike platform for Indian Navy resides in the Russian Tu-160 “Blackjack” supersonic strategic bomber, the true successor of Tu-95/142 “Bear” and the pride of the Russian Dalnaya Aviatsiya since reorganized to 37th Strategic Air Army comprising of the 22nd Guards Red Banner Donbass Heavy Bomber Division and the 79th Guards Heavy Bomber Division in May 1998. Both high-profile Divisions posses a mix of five regiments of nuclear and conventionally armed Tu-95MS6/MS16 “Bear” strategic bombers, single regiment of nuclear armed Tu-160 “Blackjack” strategic bombers plus four regiments of Tu-22M3 “Backfire” conventionally armed medium range bombers. Tu-160s by themselves equip the 121st Air Regiment based at Engels Air Force Base at Saratov region.
Tu-160 in contrast to Tu-22M represents a formidable state-of-the-art Fly-By-Wire (FBW) platform with 10,500-km inter-continental range with considerable weapons load estimated on a mission profile of subsonic high altitude cruise, followed by transonic penetration at low altitude on internal fuel alone. The IFR option is available for further enhancement of range. Russian Air Force Tu-160s repeatedly displayed their capability to operate over Indian Ocean during Indo-Russian Naval Exercises (INDRA) from Russian homeland and Central Asian Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) bases striking down dummy or notional targets with cruise missiles. On conceptual level, if operated from Indian bases the Indian Ocean “will fall under scanner” in totality along with adjoining territories of West Asia and Far East.
In Tu-160 design, sufficient stresses have been given on reduction of RCS with the wing and fuselage gradually integrated into a single-piece configuration. The four NK-32 augmented turbofan engines, each providing a maximum thrust of 25,000-kg are installed in two pods under the shoulders of the wing with engine-intakes well shielded under fuselage to be screened from look-down radars. Measures were also applied to reduce the signature of the engines to infra-red and radar detectors. The Tu-160 avionics system consisting of navigation and attack radar and electronic countermeasures system will represent the pristine Russian technology after proposed upgradations, which are to follow alongside resumption of production lately for Russian 37th Strategic Air Army service. Even a limited export order for Indian Navy may evoke considerable interest as this is bound to “streamline” the re-opened production line to subsequently cater future Russian Air Force needs.
The Tu-160 in Indian Navy service may well be the perfect carrier (almost a made for each other) of the projected air-launched variant of supersonic (Mach 2.

Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) with smaller booster and additional tail fins for stability during launch, accommodating six of them on multi-station launchers in each of the two internal weapons bays. BrahMos ASCM is a joint venture between Indian DRDO and Russian NPO Mashinostroyeniya (NPO Mash) and inherits from its predecessor the Russian Yakhont ASCM, low RCS with an active radar homing seeker to facilitate fire-and-forget launch. Varieties of flight trajectories including sea-skimming or terminal pop-up followed by a deadly dive are meant to complicate the task of the adversary.
Mid-course guidance is inertial, developed and refined by Indian scientists. It is now an open secret that for further refinement of mid-course guidance the Indians are working hard at enhancing and refining the Inertial Navigation System (INS) with possible Israeli assistance that keeps track of the smallest change in velocity of the missile from its launch. In fact, if the warhead is nuclear tipped to cause wide-area destruction, the degree of accuracy delivered by INS is sufficient. Indians are believed to have obtained gyroscopes and other related items from European nations and are said to have successfully reverse-engineered them. Concurrently as a parallel development and as part of Alfa next-generation airborne reconnaissance and strike system, NPO Mash unveiled the Yakhont-M air-launched supersonic ASCM at the MAKS 2003 air show, which share elements with the Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos. Armed with multi-sensor guidance, to engage surface ships and ground targets at up to 300-km, reconnaissance and target acquisition are to be provided by radar and electro-optical sensor equipped Kondor low-Earth-orbit satellites.
No wonder, BrahMos is rapidly emerging to be an enigma of sorts as numerous variants are being proposed or mooted simultaneously. The quest for a Brahmos LACM variant was hinted at in a test at Pokhran during December 2004, the missile being equipped with special image processing software for terminal homing and subsequently searched, located and destroyed a 50-cm thick concrete bunker with pinpoint accuracy. Although not officially stated, the special image processing software could well be a Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator (DSMAC) variant, which uses a zoom lens to collect images and matches them with the snaps of the approach to the target stored in the memory, to conduct precision strikes against an array of enemy counter-force and counter-value targets ranging from airfields to overland communications, command and control centres and powerful air defence installations.
There is considerable speculation that the ultimate BrahMos variant could emerge as tri-service sub-sonic or transonic LACM variant with an estimated range of 800-km to 1,400-km with Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance backup. Such a formidable missile system will offer considerable stand-off distance to every launch platform and will enable Indian Navy airborne LRMP/ASW and strike platforms to execute their operational roles without having to enter hostile airspace or engage enemy AD systems. Looking from a pure technological standpoint, Tu-160 “Blackjack” in Indian Navy colours will effectively eclipse other airborne strategic and sub-strategic platforms “in the vicinity” like Chinese Peoples Liberation Army-Air Force (PLA-AF) operated H-6 (Tu-16) bombers and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F-111 strike fighters and only be competitive with USAF B-2 Spirit platforms occasionally based in Diego Garcia.
Back to Top

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 06:53

ShauryaT wrote: as a result today we have no bomber fleet.

Shift of goalpost. You have moved from long range heavy bomber to "no bomber at all". Wrong - an impression born out of half-information. The Jaguar is more bomber than Canberra. And more capable.

basing of H-6K in Hotan is no threat to us

Strawman. The threat posed by basing of H-6 in Hotan CANNOT be addressed by an Indian bomber fleet. Even 200 Indian heavy bombers will not be able to knock down one H-6. But air defences - Mirage 2000, Su-30, Tejas, Rafale even Jaguars can take on and take out an H-6. The answer to a Chinese H-6 is not an Indian bomber, but Indian air defence.

Indian attack aircraft (used to be called fighter-bombers in the 60s-70s) cannot be shot down by H-6. H-6 can attack, not defend. Bombers are for attack not defence. You cannot defend your airspace with bombers. Responding to H-6 with our own bomber is absurd because they can do nothing to reduce the H-6 threat. But Su-30 and other a/c can be used both for attack and defence. They can attack Hotan airfield and put it out of action, or they can shoot down H-6 bombers. That is why they are called "fighter-bombers" or "attack aircraft", "multirole aircraft" or "swing role aircraft". I don't suppose you are aware of the tech developments that made multirole possible and more attractive than the "pure dedicated bomber"

If we want to attack China we have to look at what targets we have and what modalities are best suited for those targets. Tibet targets do not require heavy long range bombers. East China targets are risky for bombers that have to overfly Chinese territory for many hours after taking off from India and so are unsuitable for that role also. Only the IOR role is a possibility.

Complete and utter blindness and ignorance of the technical issues involved in fighters versus bombers allows us to have a nonsensical debate on this forum. The mil forum has a score of people who have the relevant information at their fingertips and will not make absurd claims. There is very little of interest on this forum to bring them here. That is why this topic should have stayed in the mil forum

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2017 07:57

Other than a certain poster proclaiming no need for bombers...bombers boo boo bad i dont see anyone against investing in a small fleet of heavies. While loud shouting may intimidate some, it exposes a hollowness and desperation to indulge in circular arguments to drown others out which is why i seldom patronize such incidental threats barring the odd bvr shot.

Cargo planes like il76 do not wash for jugaad bomber due to
...oem support needed..nobody else doing it..
...4 big engines underwing leave less room for pylons
...no can launch alcm from back cargo ram just wheel out a bombs manually using a guy attached to a rope to give the kick .... massa only uses that mode for mald decoy tests for good reason
...slow transit speed
...zero mission eqpt in place

Making of a bomber out of il76 or c17 will be far coatlier than buying 12 tu160 mk2 and take more time even if it works

Cheen modded a dedicated bomber like tu16 badger into h6 which it entirely produces incl the old engines...they never tried to mod the an12 clone or il76 despite wink wink deep license on table for any russi ukraine kits.

Even a subsonic large platform with good range will do if the blackjack is iphone7 costly which it is...but right now in timeline production and political risk its the only show in town.

Lateral thinking would indicate we should also ask the usa for purchase of 12 refurbished b1b ...why not...all that the girl can do is say NO. If she says yes its a good proven beast and will have 50 years life from now...b52 produced in 1950s will serve till 2040 ...a 90yr lifespan. .. these things dont fly daily so takeoff landing cycles are less and durations long.

I am all in and doubling down for b1b or tu160..a modest 12 spread across 2 sqdns and 1 major base in central india peninsula.

*activates spectra suite and turns away at mach 1.8*

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 May 2017 08:00

Shiv ji: I do not want to get into an argument but you are accusing those with different views on the matter of putting up strawman arguments, of being blind, ignorant, stupid, idiot, video gamers, etc by reference or directly. You would most certainly react sharply to such an attack.

What I find you doing is completely misrepresenting the points being made. e.g: No one has said or implied the answer to a bomber is a bomber, yet you have a few posts on it. No one said, do a fly by to the east coast of PRC via Tibet yet you provide these as arguments which no one has made.The PLAAF H6 is only being provided as an example of a capability retained by PLAAF as being worthwhile for them in their view and positioned as an asset across the LAC.

My position of a primary role for a bomber as a strategic asset and a secondary role as a tactical bomber for the IAF stands. If budgets are aligned, I do think dedicated bombers are here to stay, especially for those who want offensive assets and all it entails to hold them in costs, positioning, capabilities and use. India and the IAF need to make these choice and when made will result in certain consequences in terms of opportunities that may or may not be available. A strategic bomber or any bomber say of at least the backfire class would result in these capabilities or lack of. A TU-22M3 with a refueler would provide to us an affordable strategic and tactical asset to be used in limited numbers. But my numbers are in the 12-18 range for such an asset.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 08:30

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: I do not want to get into an argument but you are accusing those with different views on the matter of putting up strawman arguments, of being blind, ignorant, stupid, idiot, video gamers, etc by reference or directly. You would most certainly react sharply to such an attack.

I would also be happy to stick to facts and opinions alone minus accusatory nonsense such as this:

ShauryaT wrote:We have continuously pooh poohed China's potential on this board, while that may work at a psy ops level to beat down members like Liu or arrest browning pants - to jump and say we are smart and do not need such assets and China, US, Russian use of bombers has not worked is short sighted and does not serve our interests.

You may or may not like this but you said

ShauryaT wrote: If budgets are aligned, I do think dedicated bombers are here to stay, especially for those who want offensive assets and all it entails to hold them in costs, positioning, capabilities and use.

Please explain the type of heavy bomber you are talking about, its range and what roles you envisage for it. Other than the B-2 every existing heavy bomber today is a cold war relic with a specific cold war role. Sorry but I consider words like "Here to stay" as rhetoric without any backing explanation. This is the second time you have used that expression. I find it difficult to follow your reasoning without the mass of technical details that should go with it. You are not the first person with whom I have had this discussion and I can and will be hard on answers that I consider inadequate justification. I have opinions too.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 May 2017 09:01

shiv wrote: Please explain the type of heavy bomber you are talking about, its range and what roles you envisage for it. Other than the B-2 every existing heavy bomber today is a cold war relic with a specific cold war role. Sorry but I consider words like "Here to stay" as rhetoric without any backing explanation. This is the second time you have used that expression. I find it difficult to follow your reasoning without the mass of technical details that should go with it. You are not the first person with whom I have had this discussion and I can and will be hard on answers that I consider inadequate justification. I have opinions too.

Russia continuing to invest in TU-160. PAK-DA as its future stealthy bomber. B-21 as the successor to the B-2 and indeed some rumors on unmanned stealth bomber like capabilities on yet formally undisclosed projects in US. China's acquisition of the TU-22m3 production line labeled H-18 and its future H-20 project billed as their B-2. These are the one's I consider as being here to stay. What is the big technical learning here. This is pretty basic information, is it not?

In the context of India, ranges in the 4000 KM combat range spectrum (w/o refueling) would be ideal for our acquisition and is the primary reason consider Tu-160 as slightly over kill. It entails higher cost for a capability we do not need now. A Tu-22M3 type of payload will be fine for us for the near term (20 years). It can double up as a maritime bomber and if opportunity provides perform tactical bombing. What we do for our future, ideally build our own version. We have discussed Tu-22 in the past, your preference at time time was for Tu-160, if it were to be acquired.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2017 09:05

Tu22 is long out of production. Its fate if purchased will be similar to our mays and bears..tough to get high uptime

I agree the b1 and tu160 are 50% larger than what we need but only well supported plays. Induction could be around 2023 by which time our bharmosM and alcm nirbhay should one hopes be ioc. Baki saaw garuda etc will soon be there..nothing like 60 garudamma and saaw to attack every target in a base in parallel within 5 min window

War with cheen in 2050 could be global. They already have a base in djibouti and surely tsp. More in mid east and Africa are sure. They will look to hit us from there and we must get ready on all fronts including ssn.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 05 May 2017 09:46

Singhaji:

A B1B costs a heck of a lot. If India were to rent a few to fly in and bomb someone, that may be feasible, but trying to buy the whole infrastructure for a few of those billion-1babies, is a huge waste of money. Won't impress anyone.

About using cargo planes: Let's see
Cargo planes like il76 do not wash for jugaad bomber due to
...oem support needed..nobody else doing it..
All the more reason to do it.
...4 big engines underwing leave less room for pylons
B-52 has 4 big engines under wing.. and was still able to launch Pegasus + X51 type hypersonic cruise mijjile. I am saying that the bombing raid of tomorrow is a bunch of missiles launched from a few hundred miles away, so how does it matter what it's launched from, it just has to be stable and flying. Why can't a few Brahmos be dropped from cargo planes, and then ignite and go where they need to go?

...no can launch alcm from back cargo ram just wheel out a bombs manually using a guy attached to a rope to give the kick .... massa only uses that mode for mald decoy tests for good reason

True, but today's mijjiles are "all-aspect". There is no reason why they can't be dropped from a cargo door, and then they can decide which way to go. If dropped from a B-2 where most things are carried internally, that's not very different from being dropped from a cargo door.
...slow transit speed
True, but STOL capability, probably takeoff 300 miles closer to the target. Plus, they need not be THAT slow. I bet C-17 goes transonic.

...zero mission eqpt in place
Worse for the Billion Babies. At least with C-17, Antonovs etc Indians are familiar with the operation.

The times have changed. Big bombers to drop hajaar iron bombs are a thing of the past, IMO. Think about it, launch a score of missiles from a large cargo plane, and a few UCAVs flying fast can serve as the shepherd dogs, keeping communications and updating target info. ****MUCH**** harder for enemy to detect, not to mention shoot down.

As shiv said, for India vs. PeeAllSee, transiting Himalayas w/o going very high (and being detected early calls for very maneuverable fighter-bombers, not lumbering Heavy Bombers.

I think future model of a strike mission is a bunch of small UCAVs, carried 4 under wings of each cargo plane. Each UCAV also carries 4 or 6 AAMs, plus the cargo plane dumps about 30 more cruise missiles.

And these cargo planes don't sit idle in peacetime. They are well worth the investment unlike the Doomsday Bombers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2017 10:04

Nice thoughts but we are 20 years away from aura ucav ioc...there is no talk of even td trials yet. These ucav things take time to work out. Even khan saheb is just starting on ioc er strike ucavs.

Until such times we do need something

B1 will be refurbished old crates as production ceased long ago. May not be so costly though no doubt all heavy bomber opex is high..but with just 12 or 16 its minimum credible force not a all or nothing bet

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2017 10:06

The bone structure of cargo planes being a strong floor stressed for heavy loads ..high volume interior ... fat wings makes them kinda sub optimal for the long range bomber mission...but if someone can make it work i am also all for it.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 May 2017 10:23

After reading gurus here, I being a mango man, feel that we can have said some good number of additional numbers of su30mki to take care of our bombing needs. One mango doubt here: how to counter an H6 firing long-range cruise missiles from stand off distances like from Tibet. Can we do it with Mkis patrolling the sky going after the missiles and the H6 also with a long range AAMs? Maybe we add a very long range AAM to our list of requirements if we have to deal with H6 threat.

Still feel that a few of bombers to go after the surface combatants in IOR is required.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 May 2017 10:47

Yagnasri wrote:After reading gurus here, I being a mango man, feel that we can have said some good number of additional numbers of su30mki to take care of our bombing needs. One mango doubt here: how to counter an H6 firing long-range cruise missiles from stand off distances like from Tibet. Can we do it with Mkis patrolling the sky going after the missiles and the H6 also with a long range AAMs? Maybe we add a very long range AAM to our list of requirements if we have to deal with H6 threat.

Still feel that a few of bombers to go after the surface combatants in IOR is required.

Good question. practically speaking, it would be almost impossible to deter a bomber sending CM from stand off distance like 500+km. Fighters patrolling area would be out of depth (or rather range) to counter the bomber itself. Plus the bomber might very well be inside enemy airspace, which is not that easy for our fighters to penetrate. AAM, even the ultra long range like Meteor cannot go beyond 100km. That too need long range radar detection, guidance, SAT links, COM links etc n number of things functional over that distance to increase probability of kill with only 1-2 missiles per target. Not too mention the fighters escorting the bombers complicating the situation. This is why the appeal in having a bomber which can fire CMs from stand off distance from within the safety of our own airspace, or at least away from enemy dominated airspace. And particularly big bombers which can have longer range and can carry many CMs at a time.

Next part is countering the missiles themselves. I think trying to shoot down CMs using Fighters is almost futile. That task would be totally taken care of Air Defense. We will have to strengthen out AD cover to make sure most if not all CMs are shot down.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 May 2017 11:02

the only way to deter ALCM carriers at very long range is if someone figures out OTH radar to generate target quality tracks on airborne fast movers and then cue A2AD type missiles of shourya mould to fly out deep and release AAM KVs as the final stage of the hunt from the edge of atmosphere like 120,000feet in diving profile with AAMs going active. very expensive and prone to spoofing and wasted shots using a unmanned expendable drone with high RCS reflectors to "create" a false flag bomber formation.

nobody has tried it yet , though I rant about it occasionally

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 11:05

ShauryaT wrote:. These are the one's I consider as being here to stay. What is the big technical learning here. This is pretty basic information, is it not?

Too basic in fact. Technically what are the roles envisaged for these aircraft by their countries of origin, and how would that role fit Indian requirements as you see them

"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

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

Yesterdays tech like swing wing esp from Russia is likely to be highly unreliable, maintenance intensive and very expensive and the Russians will look for maximum profit and many decades of a noose round our neck.

US selling B1? Forget it.I an not even going to talk about weapons and integration

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 05 May 2017 11:10

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.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 11:14

Yagnasri wrote:After reading gurus here, I being a mango man, feel that we can have said some good number of additional numbers of su30mki to take care of our bombing needs. One mango doubt here: how to counter an H6 firing long-range cruise missiles from stand off distances like from Tibet. Can we do it with Mkis patrolling the sky going after the missiles and the H6 also with a long range AAMs? Maybe we add a very long range AAM to our list of requirements if we have to deal with H6 threat.

Still feel that a few of bombers to go after the surface combatants in IOR is required.

Let us get some answers to these questions
1.Which cruise missiles specifically would be used against Indian targets from 500 km inside Tibet
2. Where would these bombers be taking off from?
This is important info to counter them

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 May 2017 11:34

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.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 11:53

IIRC the Backfire bomber did not have the range to hit the continental US. Of course it was immediately claimed that they would be used by the Soviets for one way suicide missions and so posed a threat.

If a bomber cant reach Beijing from Arunachal Pradesh, what would we use it for? One way soosai?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 11:56

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.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 12:56

Singha wrote:The bone structure of cargo planes being a strong floor stressed for heavy loads ..high volume interior ... fat wings makes them kinda sub optimal for the long range bomber mission...but if someone can make it work i am also all for it.

Bone structure of planes can be designed for carrying anything, but we need to learn to make big planes withbig engines. The same "bone structure" that made the Tu 104 airliner used by Indian Airlines was modified to make the Tu 16 bomber and its Chini knockoff that is causing so much takleef

We need big planes by the hundred. Instead we are talking of importing piddly numbers of bombers

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2017 13:58

Here is av.good take on the issue by BK written 3 yrs. ago!

Strategic Bomber for IAF
Posted on February 7, 2014 by Bharat Karnad
A trick question: What was the most decisive weapon of the Second World War? If your answer, as expected, is the atom bomb, you are wrong. It was the B-29 Superfortress bomber that delivered it. Without the plane, the A-Bomb would have been only a novelty. The flip side of this question is: What was the most egregious policy failure of Imperial Japan (besides the surprise raid on Pearl Harbour)? It was the delay in developing its Nakajima G10N Fugaku strategic bomber with the range to hit American island bases in the western Pacific and the US west coast early enough in the war to make some difference. Often, the means of delivery are as important as what’s delivered.

These historical thoughts were prompted by the statement of the new Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, who talked of his service achieving a “strategic” profile in terms of its ability to pull “expeditionary” missions. While the growing numbers in the inventory of C-17 and C-130J transport planes, and of aerial tankers able to extend the range of combat aircraft, make expeditionary actions easier to mount, such tasks in the past (Operation Cactus in the Maldives, Operation Pawan in Sri Lanka) were adequately managed with the old An-32s. The Raha statement revealed an eagerness to sidestep the traditional criterion — a fleet of bombers capable of long range attack — that distinguishes a strategic air force from a theatre-oriented one, such as the IAF.

How and why did the IAF, despite a palpable need, not become strategic? The fault lies in the natural shrivelling of missions beginning in the 1950s that accompanied the dimming of the strategic vision and the narrowing of the military focus, laughably, to Pakistan as main threat, and the quality of leaders helming the air force. The 1947 era of service brass, mostly Group Captain-Air Commodore rank officers fast-forwarded to the top, having loyally served the Raj and imbibed British ways of thinking, configured the service in the manner their old bosses had planned. It resulted in the IAF emerging as a creditable tactical force.

Short-legged fighter aircraft with a leavening of fighter-bombers became its calling card with the UK-built Lysanders, Tempests, and Spitfires of the 1940s replaced by the French Dassault Ouragans and Mystere-IVs, and the Hawker-Siddeley Hunters which, in turn, were succeeded by the Russian Mig-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and the Su-30MKIs. The odd Western import during this latter phase — the Jaguar and Mirage 2000, were also only short to medium range aircraft. The only dedicated bomber the IAF ever acquired was the medium-range Canberra in the Sixties. But highlighting its limited operational mindset was the air force’s choice of the Folland Gnat, a local area air defence aircraft, for licence-production in the country.

It was different early on. When Jawaharlal Nehru’s government first approached the United States for arms aid in 1948, it was the war-tested B-25 Mitchell bomber which topped the procurement list. During the Second World War the Walchandnagar aircraft company (precursor to the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd), among other planes, built the B-24 Liberator bombers in Bangalore. Most of these aircraft were shipped back to Britain. But a significant number, which could have constituted an embryonic bomber component of the IAF, was deemed “surplus to the need” and deliberately destroyed by the departing British at the Maintenance Command in Kanpur by hoisting these aircraft, one by one, up by their tails to considerable height and dropping them nose down on the hard ground.

*(Perfidous Albion".The white man wanting the natives to remain landbound.)

The IAF brass at the time — Subroto Mukherjee, M.M. Engineer, Arjan Singh, et al — did not protest against this dastardly deed by the British, apprise Nehru and the Indian government of the strategic cost of the loss of long range air power, and otherwise failed to prevent these wanton acts of sabotage. True to form, after the 1962 Himalayan military fiasco, the IAF sought not bombers able to reach distant Chinese targets as deterrent but the US F-104 for air defence, before settling on the MiG-21.

What showcased the IAF’s apparent institutional reluctance against transforming itself into a strategic force, however, was the decision by the Air Chief Marshal P.C. Lal-led regime to reject in mid-1971 the Soviet offer of the Tu-22 Backfire strategic bomber. The reasons trotted out verged on the farcical.

As Wing Commander (later Air Marshal) C. V. Gole, member of the Air Marshal Sheodeo Singh Mission to Moscow and test pilot, who flew the Tu-22 informed me, he was appalled by the fact that he had to be winched up into the cockpit, and that the plane would have to takeoff from as far east as Bareilly to reach cruising altitude over Pakistan! (This and other episodes are detailed in my book ‘Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security’.) Evidently China didn’t figure in the threat perceptions of the Air Headquarters at the time, nor has it done so since then.

IAF’s doggedly defensive-tactical thinking married to theatre-level capabilities have ensured its minimal usefulness in crises and conflicts.

Forty years on, while China is bolstering its already strong strategic bomber fleet (of Xian H-6K aircraft) by buying off the production line of the most advanced Backfire, the Tu-22 M3, and prioritising the indigenous development of the four-engined, wing-shaped, H-18 strategic stealth bomber, IAF hopes its Su-30s assisted by aerial tankers will be a credible deterrent and counter against the Chinese bomber armada.

It will be prudent for the IAF, even at this late stage, to constitute a Bomber Command and cadre, lease ten or so Tu-160 Blackjacks from Moscow and, rather than the fifth-generation fighter, invest the Rs 35,000 crores in a programme jointly to design and produce with Russia the successor aircraft to the Blackjack — the PAK DA, which is expected to fly by 2025. 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”.

[Published,7th February 2014 in New Indian Express, at http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinion ... vQulWKSw7s

Just imagine what could've been.45 years ago the Soviets offered us their top strat. bomber,the Backfire,still in service and doing bl**dy well! Rejected by the then chief. what myopia.

I have a solution though .Since the IAF are strategically "myopic",give the strat. bombing role to the IN. After all the famous "raid on Tokyo" in WW2 was carried out by USAF bombers flying off a USN carrier! Now that the IN has retd. the Bears,replace them with at least a dozen upgraded Backfires (on lease) until we possess our won desi bomber or join with Russia in their stealth bomber programme. Al;ternatively,we can order new Blackjacks as production is supposed to be resuming,but they are very costly and we would have to lease them.Backfires on lease would be far more affordable.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 05 May 2017 15:11

What is the point of shooting a CM from a bomber from very deep into the friendly space? Can't that be done easily from the land based platforms?

Also, instead of sending a bomber to shoot 4 bramhos along with (minimum) 2 fighters escort, wouldn't it be saner to just send 4 bramhos carrying MKIs and be done with it?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2017 15:24

MKIs do not have strat. bombing range and payload. Why are the two mil superpowers continuing development of stealth bombers when they have thousands of ICBMs? The fact is that the targets are many more times numerous than the missiles possessed. Nations have a long time ago,from WW2 and the Cold War, built huge UG facilities for survival against air attack. Manned bombers and UCAVs of the future too,can be recalled unlike current missiles,until APJAK's dream of a reusable missile arrives.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”.

Chgina from its bases in Tibet can rain down upon any part of India missiles and even operate its bombers from these bases,but can India strike the whole of China using its air power as of now? No way.

chola · Post by **chola** » 05 May 2017 16:07

Philip wrote:MKIs do not have strat. bombing range and payload. Why are the two mil superpowers continuing development of stealth bombers when they have thousands of ICBMs? The fact is that the targets are many more times numerous than the missiles possessed. Nations have a long time ago,from WW2 and the Cold War, built huge UG facilities for survival against air attack. Manned bombers and UCAVs of the future too,can be recalled unlike current missiles,until APJAK's dream of a reusable missile arrives.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”.

Chgina from its bases in Tibet can rain down upon any part of India missiles and even operate its bombers from these bases,but can India strike the whole of China using its air power as of now? No way.

Philipji, if you've been reading the dhoti-quivering or laugh thread and its huge analysis (much work by Shivji) that Cheen maintain very few air bases in Tibet and it is highly doubtful that they can operate anything with substantial load from them much less strategic bombers.

A 65K ton CVN we make ourselves is better investment than four strategic bombers we buy from Roos. Let's build a large transport first and them move to a bomber afterwards. A good strategic goal for our industry. But bombers are hardly a "must have now" type of thing.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 05 May 2017 16:16

Philip wrote:MKIs do not have strat. bombing range and payload. Why are the two mil superpowers continuing development of stealth bombers when they have thousands of ICBMs? The fact is that the targets are many more times numerous than the missiles possessed. Nations have a long time ago,from WW2 and the Cold War, built huge UG facilities for survival against air attack. Manned bombers and UCAVs of the future too,can be recalled unlike current missiles,until APJAK's dream of a reusable missile arrives.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”.

Chgina from its bases in Tibet can rain down upon any part of India missiles and even operate its bombers from these bases,but can India strike the whole of China using its air power as of now? No way.

Are you suggesting that our bombers should go deep into enemy space without the fighter escorts

? Because if MKIs don't have that range, I don't know who else can escort.

China will worry about defending their own air space first, then dominating our air space near the border and when (more importantly if) they are able to do that, they will start dreaming about bombing the rear areas by when we might already have lost the war. Anytime before that, they will have a hard time defending their oh-so-long-legged bombers not only in the air, but also on the ground.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2017 17:01

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 their locations will target our air bases first and can hit most of north India if need be. Once our air bases are attacked, it will make it easier for PLAAF LR bombers to carry out further attacks.China has large-scale inimical plans for India using Tibet ,here's just one recent report.

Warning for India: Chinese air force inducts new stealth fighter ahead of schedule
In September, Chinese social media websites showed photos of the J-20 being deployed in southwestern Sichuan province on the Tibetan plateau - not far from the border with India.
Ananth Krishnan | Posted by Dianne Nongrum
Beijing, March 10, 2017

Some more analysis here,with the Chinese use of missiles in a conflict to neutralise IAF bases first.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/475 ... ld-up.html
China's Tibet build-up
Air Marshal (rtd) M Matheswaran, May 5, 2015

With what are the current superpower LR strat. bombers testing each other's air defences flying just outside enemy" airspace, with escorts? They're flying mostly over water/friendly airspace of allies,not over enemy territory. Our strat. bombers must be able ,like our erstwhile Bears,be able to fly ranges of to S.Africa and back as they could. We would definitely want to send our supersonic bombers into the Indo-China Sea able to launch stand-off LRCMs against Chinese ports and naval bases like Hainan. Operating out of the A&N islands,some escort capability could be provided by MKIs if needed,but these bombers must be able to get into launch position themselves . The maritime dimension has been ignored and our flat tops not be able to carry the munitions of a strat./heavy bomber.Most of China;s main manufacturing centres are near their coastline.

Its 7 busiest commercial ports.

1) Shanghai. Shanghai is not only China's financial hub, but also plays a key role in China's heavy industry. ...
2) Shenzhen. ...
3) Hong Kong. ...
4) Ningbo. ...
6) Guangzhou. ...
7) Tianjin.

Main naval bases:

Yulin Naval Base, Hainan Island.
Guangzhou.
Haikou.
Shantou.
Mawei.
Beihai.
Stonecutters Island, Hong Kong - People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison.

The Yulin naval base is its most important and will have to be neutralised in any spat /maritime spat with China,as this base which dominates the Indo-CHina Sea is vital for any PLAN task forces and subs ingressing into the IOR. Unless we possess a large no. of AIP/N-subs ,armed with dozens of LRCMs like US Ohio SSGNs, LR air power which can carry large numbers of LRCMs will be sorely needed. Our P_*Is are specifically meant for ASW tasks,not anything more,unlike our just retd Bears which would've been able to carry WMDs if needed.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/chinas-m ... tary-base/
China's Most Important South China Sea Military Base
The Yulin Naval Base is shaping up to be the most strategically important military base in the South China Sea

Meanwhile,as it expands its growing military capability and reach across the globe,China is developing its own LR strat. bomber commensurate with its strat. interests. The US has responded to the increasing threat from China by beefing up its bomber capability out of Guam,where B-52s and now B-2s operate from.What are India's strat. objectives ? To remain permanently behind the Himalayas?

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... -bomber-it
China developing new long-range strategic bomber as it rapidly upgrades its military
Air force chief said the aircraft would significantly increase the nation’s long-range strike capability.
PUBLISHED : Friday, 02 September, 2016,

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 May 2017 17:32

Philip wrote: What showcased the IAF’s apparent institutional reluctance against transforming itself into a strategic force, however, was the decision by the Air Chief Marshal P.C. Lal-led regime to reject in mid-1971 the Soviet offer of the Tu-22 Backfire strategic bomber. The reasons trotted out verged on the farcical.

I hope everyone knows that there were 2 versions of Tu-22. Clearly Bharat Karnad has no clue when he accused the IAF of making "farcical excuses". That man is a buffoon who does not care to get his facts right

First, a comparison of the two in silhouette
1. Blinder

2, Tu 22 m

The earlier Tu 22 which was offered to us was the one into which the pilot had to be winched. It had a unique twin engine configuration mounted on teh rear fuselage under the tailfin. This was not a swing wing aircraft Here is an image

The Tu 22 we talk about now did not fly until 1972 - after PC Lal's time (PC Lal was air chief during the 1971 war)
Here is an image. Note the differences

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 May 2017 17:36

Wasn't the TU=22 called the "Blinder ?,BK talks about us being offered "backfires",what was actually offered?

There was this report late last yr.,updated in Oct. but nothing further reported and perhaps was talk of an offer,not sealed.

http://defenceupdate.in/india-buy-12-s- ... t-90-mbts/
India to buy 12 S-400 systems, 4 Tu-22M3 bombers, 2 Akula-2 SSN & 1000 T-90 MBTs
BY DEFENCEUPDATE · PUBLISHED JULY 13, 2016