Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
I think c130 could be used as a alcm pgm asm truck due to some ongoing work on launching griffin missiles and such. It is also qualified for sea patrols because us coast guard uses it.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
In 1971 the Dakota DC3s were used as gunships, maybe as bombers too, IIRC. Plus for paratroopers leapfrogging the rivers.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Ulan Batori ^^^ wrote "5) BTW, Pakistan PACQUIRED (i.e. begged and got free) B-58 BOMBERS in the 1960s, hain? supersonic too, IIRC. I don't remember them winning any wars. Perhaps because they could not afford to have more than a very few."
Close but it was the Martin B-57 Bomber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra
India got Canberras from the UK IIRC
The Convair B-58 'Hustler' (love that name) was a supersonic bomber. Beautiful aircraft
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the ... nder-16547
Close but it was the Martin B-57 Bomber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra
India got Canberras from the UK IIRC
The Convair B-58 'Hustler' (love that name) was a supersonic bomber. Beautiful aircraft
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the ... nder-16547
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
How much use would 5 C-130s be?Singha wrote:I think c130 could be used as a alcm pgm asm truck due to some ongoing work on launching griffin missiles and such. It is also qualified for sea patrols because us coast guard uses it.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Thanks Cosmoji. A pity. If they had given B-58s to the Pakis it would have reduced their air fauj to nothing through cr
B-70 was Mach 3+ and could carry H-bums. Now there's a sleek plane to buy! There's one at the museum in Dayton, if I remember correctly.Like the B-36 and the B-47, the B-58 never dropped a bomb in anger. The Hustler never contributed to the Vietnam War, although it continued in its nuclear role while older B-52 dropped conventional ordnance on North Vietnam. The B-58 could theoretically have taken on a conventional bombing role, although its great speed and poor handling at low altitudes made it difficult to drop bombs with much accuracy.
Although the Air Force emphasized the need for a high-performance penetration bomber, it never particularly loved the B-58. General Curtis Lemay effectively turned around the deficiencies of the B-58 in order to argue for the B-70 Valkyrie, an even faster, higher flying bomber that would replace the B-52. For good or ill, however, the B-70 fell victim to the same forces as the B-58; a Secretary of Defense convinced that high altitude SAMs and fast, missile-carrying interceptors would render the bomber obsolete.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
We cannot use the ones we have. Could always get more c130 fairly cheap vs b1b types.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
typical khan product of unlimited support system
Delta-winged with four huge engines, the B-58 could break Mach 2 while carrying a combination nuclear weapon/fuel tank slung under its belly. Launched from U.S. bases and supported by a ring of KC-135 tankers, the B-58 would penetrate Soviet airspace at high speed and high altitude, evading Soviet interceptor and delivering its nuclear load to a variety of different targets.
Delta-winged with four huge engines, the B-58 could break Mach 2 while carrying a combination nuclear weapon/fuel tank slung under its belly. Launched from U.S. bases and supported by a ring of KC-135 tankers, the B-58 would penetrate Soviet airspace at high speed and high altitude, evading Soviet interceptor and delivering its nuclear load to a variety of different targets.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Yes, I wonder about those "rings of tankers" - which obviously cannot keep up with the Mach 3 prima donna, so they have to fly out and loiter 10 hours before the Surprise Deep Penetration Ishtrike.
So what is left for the Strategic Bomber to do? Hammer places that have no air cover or defenses. Poland after its air force was destroyed on Day 1 of the BlitzKrieg. Hitler's first huge blunder was to send thousands of bombers over England without first destroying the Hurricanes, Spitfires and all their production facilities. Killing civilians made a lot of news, but it also destroyed much of his Strategic Bomber **AND** fighter forces - and opened his own factories to attack.
Success stories for Strategic Bombers: Vietnam and Korea after air superiority was established. Grenada. Panama. Iraq, after many months of SLCM, fighter-bomber and fighter campaigns to completely destroy all air defenses and fighter cover. Georgia after Putin's fighter-bombers had hammered its air force, runways and defenses. And Syria, as long as other air forces don't intervene, with S-400 and Su-35s to convince them to stay away.
India should, accordingly, invest in air cover, runway-independent fighters and transports that can launch missiles, plenty of Akash type systems, all India-genius except for desperately needed defensive systems and maybe a few air-superiority fighters. Huge numbers are needed, to deter any ambitions to suppress all of them. When the Mantris and Jarnails feel that there is too much baksheesh left on the table AFTER all these, then maybe consider converting some of those cargo designs to develop supersonic "deep penetration" bombers that can reach Fiji.
Which is the reality of the strategic bomber in a nutshell. The B-70 was as strategic as they get: a plane that could zoom at Mach 3. But the unit cost was so high that even the 1960s USA couldn't see how to acquire enough to make them worthwhile. The payload was good enough for a few H-bums but not to deliver huge loads of iron bombs. And you needed an army of suicidal tankers for each mission. How were these to avoid radar etc? Any cargo plane with machine guns would finish off these lumbering gas tanks. Chances of getting through were pretty slim because of fighter cover and SAMs.B-70 fell victim to the same forces as the B-58; a Secretary of Defense convinced that high altitude SAMs and fast, missile-carrying interceptors would render the bomber obsolete.
So what is left for the Strategic Bomber to do? Hammer places that have no air cover or defenses. Poland after its air force was destroyed on Day 1 of the BlitzKrieg. Hitler's first huge blunder was to send thousands of bombers over England without first destroying the Hurricanes, Spitfires and all their production facilities. Killing civilians made a lot of news, but it also destroyed much of his Strategic Bomber **AND** fighter forces - and opened his own factories to attack.
Success stories for Strategic Bombers: Vietnam and Korea after air superiority was established. Grenada. Panama. Iraq, after many months of SLCM, fighter-bomber and fighter campaigns to completely destroy all air defenses and fighter cover. Georgia after Putin's fighter-bombers had hammered its air force, runways and defenses. And Syria, as long as other air forces don't intervene, with S-400 and Su-35s to convince them to stay away.
India should, accordingly, invest in air cover, runway-independent fighters and transports that can launch missiles, plenty of Akash type systems, all India-genius except for desperately needed defensive systems and maybe a few air-superiority fighters. Huge numbers are needed, to deter any ambitions to suppress all of them. When the Mantris and Jarnails feel that there is too much baksheesh left on the table AFTER all these, then maybe consider converting some of those cargo designs to develop supersonic "deep penetration" bombers that can reach Fiji.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
The title of this thread needs to be changed from Strategic Long Range Bomber to Long Range Cruise Missile Carrier. It is pure fantasy to think of any hypothetical Indian bomber flying over a Chinese city to drop dozens of bombs a'la WW2 or Vietnam. No Indian aircraft can reach that far without getting shot down. And conversely, in any future Indo-CHina war, we are not going to see Chinese bombers carpet bombing Kolkata or Guwahati. If that happens, it means the IAF is wiped out and we have already lost the war. Having bombers of our own isn't going to save us. Might as well launch all our nukes against China and commit soosai at that point.
The H-6 and future CHinese bombers will be employed as cruise missile carriers by the CHinese. We can expect them to be part of Chinese strike packages which would launch their missiles from far enough away to minimize the threat from Indian fighters while still being able to strike targets deep within India. Vivek Ahuja saar's book for example mentioned attacks like this where the Chinese targeted Delhi and interior airbases like Bareilly etc. IIRC.
The IAF too sees immense utility in ALCMs or it would not have gone to the extent of making structural modifications on the MKI even though it enables it to carry only 1 Brahmos at a time. So it is natural to want a platform that can carry several without sacrificing combat range. It need not be dismissed summarily. However considering the enormous cost of buying and maintaining these aircraft, perhaps we are better served using our meager resources to plug capability gaps in other areas.
The H-6 and future CHinese bombers will be employed as cruise missile carriers by the CHinese. We can expect them to be part of Chinese strike packages which would launch their missiles from far enough away to minimize the threat from Indian fighters while still being able to strike targets deep within India. Vivek Ahuja saar's book for example mentioned attacks like this where the Chinese targeted Delhi and interior airbases like Bareilly etc. IIRC.
The IAF too sees immense utility in ALCMs or it would not have gone to the extent of making structural modifications on the MKI even though it enables it to carry only 1 Brahmos at a time. So it is natural to want a platform that can carry several without sacrificing combat range. It need not be dismissed summarily. However considering the enormous cost of buying and maintaining these aircraft, perhaps we are better served using our meager resources to plug capability gaps in other areas.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5360
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
For maritime roles, there might be an easier albeit expensive way out.... A sort of compromise
Buy or develop P8 lite.... But with capability of carrying 3 to 6 brahmos. Purchase around 12 for 2 billion. Should act as mpaa and missile carrier. India needs more mpaa in any case.
Buy or develop P8 lite.... But with capability of carrying 3 to 6 brahmos. Purchase around 12 for 2 billion. Should act as mpaa and missile carrier. India needs more mpaa in any case.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
SSGNnachiket wrote:The title of this thread needs to be changed from Strategic Long Range Bomber to Long Range Cruise Missile Carrier. It is pure fantasy to think of any hypothetical Indian bomber flying over a Chinese city to drop dozens of bombs a'la WW2 or Vietnam. No Indian aircraft can reach that far without getting shot down. ....
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
i saw a 2000 liter plastic spherical water tank today at a construction site. its huge around 6 feet in diameter. if filled with water will be 2 tons. if filled with a explosive perhaps 4tons or 5tons. a 1000 liter tank was also beside it.
I am thinking why not make cheap gola bombs out of it and push 4 or 6 of them out of the ramp on a AN32 or C130 on small wheeled pallet bases ? thats a cheap MOAB right there.
I am thinking why not make cheap gola bombs out of it and push 4 or 6 of them out of the ramp on a AN32 or C130 on small wheeled pallet bases ? thats a cheap MOAB right there.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
If the ordnance guys at ammo dumps had a better safety record, it might work. I still remember the Konkurs (?) going off during a press conference in some OFB plant (what remained after the whiz bang went off).Singha wrote:i saw a 2000 liter plastic spherical water tank today at a construction site. its huge around 6 feet in diameter. if filled with water will be 2 tons. if filled with a explosive perhaps 4tons or 5tons. a 1000 liter tank was also beside it.
I am thinking why not make cheap gola bombs out of it and push 4 or 6 of them out of the ramp on a AN32 or C130 on small wheeled pallet bases ? thats a cheap MOAB right there.
Else, they pose a greater danger to us than to the enemy. Many years ago, I met a crusty old US navy pilot who'd flown A4U Corsairs in WWII in the Pacific. He told me that ground crew rookies would check the gas tanks visually. More than once, he said they would use Zippo lighters to get a better peek—with predictable and explosive consequences.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Question: If 50 cruise missiles are still not enough (or barely enough) to take out one air base, what advantage is gained by saying that a plane carrying 4 cruise missiles is better than a plane that carries one CM? Both are useless no?
In fact 4 MiG 21s with 2 dumb bombs each took out Kurmitola airfield in the face of heavy anti-aircraft fire. No matter how many buildings you destroy on the air base it may be no use unless you take out the runway. Take out the runway and the air force base becomes a residential colony for personnel
Watch an Su-30 drop 26 x 250 kg bombs in a long straight line
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... MJmI#t=118
In fact 4 MiG 21s with 2 dumb bombs each took out Kurmitola airfield in the face of heavy anti-aircraft fire. No matter how many buildings you destroy on the air base it may be no use unless you take out the runway. Take out the runway and the air force base becomes a residential colony for personnel
Watch an Su-30 drop 26 x 250 kg bombs in a long straight line
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... MJmI#t=118
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
I must point out that self flagellation should not be taken too far. Ordnance factories make and handle a thousand times more explosive than Sivakasi or any diwali firecracker units. Yet it is the latter whose accidents we hear about more frequently. My personal feeling is that we must resist crinkly nosed contempt at our own especially if the lines in the poor record are fewer than the crinkles on our upturned nosesCosmo_R wrote:
If the ordnance guys at ammo dumps had a better safety record, it might work. I still remember the Konkurs (?) going off during a press conference in some OFB plant (what remained after the whiz bang went off).
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Mil grade explosives are designed for safety. I read some can even be thrown in fire without exploding.
These desi spherical moabs could be tried on terrorist and naxal camps away from collaterals
These desi spherical moabs could be tried on terrorist and naxal camps away from collaterals
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
^^^
That would basically be a 'barrel bomb'. Dropping sintex tanks or 20l plastic water cans filled with napalm could be an option but probably be exercised only in a extended conflict when we have expended most of the missiles and bombs.
That would basically be a 'barrel bomb'. Dropping sintex tanks or 20l plastic water cans filled with napalm could be an option but probably be exercised only in a extended conflict when we have expended most of the missiles and bombs.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
What a sad state of affairs! Nothing happening in Korea. Nothing happening in Syria. Nothing happening in DupleeCity. No cricket to watch. V r reduced to chai-biskoot on Strategic Bumbing?shiv wrote:Question: If 50 cruise missiles are still not enough (or barely enough) to take out one air base, what advantage is gained by saying that a plane carrying 4 cruise missiles is better than a plane that carries one CM? Both are useless no? In fact 4 MiG 21s with 2 dumb bombs each took out Kurmitola airfield in the face of heavy anti-aircraft fire. No matter how many buildings you destroy on the air base it may be no use unless you take out the runway. Take out the runway and the air force base becomes a residential colony for personnel
Watch an Su-30 drop 26 x 250 kg bombs in a long straight line
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... MJmI#t=118
Shiv, I think you asked the right question, whose answer is "What 50 (actually 59) cruise missiles?" Apparently 59 repetitions of a video of a launch occurred. 59 missiles disappeared from inventory. 3 ancient planes were shown shaheed, some burns and loose wires inside an open-air garage. Airbase back in operation. I don't think that says anything about the effect of 59 45-kg high-explosive packages hammering into well-aimed targets at Mach 0.4.
(Operating system update completed on other computer, time to go back to sleep).
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
imo its better to destroy a/c using PGMs than attempt to destroy runways...repairing runways is not difficult as the syrians have shown but its hard to replace a.c and repair infra.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Best to kill pilots. Not that many available per aircraft.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Of course planes must be hit, but planes are easier to hide than runways. One raid can take out a runway but even 5 raids may miss aircraft. Planes are very difficult to spot and any half-ass airforce will use decoys sitting in a visible place - 2 decoys for every aircraft while the real planes are hidden away/dispersed. 2 PGMs on runway will render the airbase inoperational for a day or 2 while air dominance is achieved. Even 10 PGMs may be ineffective in getting all the aircraft. Technically a single pass attack can take out the runway. Aircraft will need multiple passes. Syrians were not expecting the raid and were doing thumb-musharrafSingha wrote:imo its better to destroy a/c using PGMs than attempt to destroy runways...repairing runways is not difficult as the syrians have shown but its hard to replace a.c and repair infra.
Plenty of reading material on this matter. Repair of runways will happen, Reconnaissance and repeat raids are essential - no thumb-musharraf after hitting a runway or an airfield.
A rather sad-looking, partially deflated F-16 mockup/decoy from Aero India many years ago
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
The air intake looks like an old woman's flabby .......Well you know what.shiv wrote:Of course planes must be hit, but planes are easier to hide than runways. One raid can take out a runway but even 5 raids may miss aircraft. Planes are very difficult to spot and any half-ass airforce will use decoys sitting in a visible place - 2 decoys for every aircraft while the real planes are hidden away/dispersed. 2 PGMs on runway will render the airbase inoperational for a day or 2 while air dominance is achieved. Even 10 PGMs may be ineffective in getting all the aircraft. Technically a single pass attack can take out the runway. Aircraft will need multiple passes. Syrians were not expecting the raid and were doing thumb-musharrafSingha wrote:imo its better to destroy a/c using PGMs than attempt to destroy runways...repairing runways is not difficult as the syrians have shown but its hard to replace a.c and repair infra.
Plenty of reading material on this matter. Repair of runways will happen, Reconnaissance and repeat raids are essential - no thumb-musharraf after hitting a runway or an airfield.
A rather sad-looking, partially deflated F-16 mockup/decoy from Aero India many years ago
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
I think you missed a zero there. Should be 450 KG payload.UlanBatori wrote: 59 45-kg high-explosive packages hammering into well-aimed targets at Mach 0.4.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 14045
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Ah, yes, thx.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Now now - don't start me off.darshhan wrote: The air intake looks like an old woman's flabby .......Well you know what.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Like a gorillas mock charge i think most of those 54 thawks would have hit empty spaces. The syrian af cannot fill that base even if they put all assets together. They are down to bare bones like a squadron having 4 or 5 crates and no fresh incoming pilots or planes. The good stuff assad keeps in damascus to protect his elites.
No argument about quick repair of runways...middle eastern airbases were built by euro contractors to vast size and solid specs....the runway could a very thick and russi ac can operate off rough strips too.
No argument about quick repair of runways...middle eastern airbases were built by euro contractors to vast size and solid specs....the runway could a very thick and russi ac can operate off rough strips too.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
In a diving profile a 300kg warhead on a cruise missile at 900kmph will have good penetration and indeed we saw few holes in roofs of shelters.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Its the saaw garudaama type gliding weapons which are far slower and may not penetrate concrete targets
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/861640403275177986
Ready or not, but Tu-160s will one day fly in Indian colours. Mark this prediction
Ready or not, but Tu-160s will one day fly in Indian colours. Mark this prediction
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
^^ was about to post it. Looks like MoD is reading this thread.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
It might not be the airforce but the strategic command that gets to use the BlackJacks .. probably fly deterrent patrols with 4 to 6 Brahmos into the furthest reaches of the Indian Ocean and India China Sea
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
more than enough firepower to take out any chinese armada
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Esp near chokepoints like sunda and lombok straits south of indonesia. Or fly up into the scs via international airspace over one of the straits and just show the flag.
I wonder if malacxa strait is considered international airspace?
I wonder if malacxa strait is considered international airspace?
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
MoD?? Naah, most probably not. But Sjha does. I would take this as his personal educated opinion for now.Karthik S wrote:^^ was about to post it. Looks like MoD is reading this thread.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
There is no way, IAF even with long range Tu-160 can take off from Delhi and hit Beijing. Better way is SSN/SSBN carrying huge amount of cruise missiles firing from Bay of Bengal and South China Sea hitting Southern Eastern Coast of China and Beijing respectively.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
Taking off from delhi to hit beijing was never a use case unless a agni5 takes off.
Up until now even russia has no used the blackjack as a anti ship platform or 80xjdam thing...its purely a cruise missile shooter today..their alcm have upto 3000km range. In future when mk2 starts production and based on syria ops it could change.
The brahmosA is probably too large to fit inside the bomb bays rotary launcher..maybe adapters or internal racks could help....nirbhay will fit for sure.
Up until now even russia has no used the blackjack as a anti ship platform or 80xjdam thing...its purely a cruise missile shooter today..their alcm have upto 3000km range. In future when mk2 starts production and based on syria ops it could change.
The brahmosA is probably too large to fit inside the bomb bays rotary launcher..maybe adapters or internal racks could help....nirbhay will fit for sure.
Re: Indian Strategic Long Range Bomber
I know it's his opinion. But his observations are sensible and reporting reliable.JayS wrote:MoD?? Naah, most probably not. But Sjha does. I would take this as his personal educated opinion for now.Karthik S wrote:^^ was about to post it. Looks like MoD is reading this thread.