Indian Military Aviation

nits · Post by **nits** » 12 Sep 2010 15:29

India's Joint Nuclear Command Wants 40 Nuclear Strike Jets

A befuddling report on the wires. The Press Trust of India, reports that India's joint nuclear command -- the Strategic Forces Command -- is looking to procure 40 fighters for two dedicated strategic strike squadrons. The report indicates that while the Indian Air Force's Mirage-2000s, Jaguars and Su-30MKIs have so far been earmarked for the nuclear strike profile, the SFC wants two squadrons of its own. The report says nothing more.

If this report is accurate, the obvious questions would be: (a) Why does the SFC need its own fighters -- why can't it continue to depend on available IAF assets? (b) Why the need to ramp up the air-delivered leg of the nuclear triad when Indian doctrine points to more substantive deterrence from strategic land-based missiles and an SSBN fleet, and far less on air-delivered deterrence? (c) Why does a nuclear strike fleet need as many as 40 aircraft? (d) Does India have the kind of stand-off nuclear weapon capability to justify such a fresh induction of assets? (e) If the SFC were to get its own "mini air force", would these still be operated by the IAF? (f) In which case, what difference would it make?

A totally separate but tantalizing coincidence -- in June, Dassault offered the IAF a fast-track sale of 40 Rafales to shore up squadron strength ahead of the MMRCA induction. The Rafale is also the only aircraft explicitly described in its bid document as a nuclear capable strike fighter.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 12 Sep 2010 15:30

Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Strategic ... 99141.aspx

With an aim of increasing its lethal power, India's tri-services strike force is planning to acquire 40 fighter planes capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has submitted a proposal to the Defence Ministry for setting up two dedicated squadrons of fighter aircraft which will act as "mini-Air Force", ministry sources said.

This will be the first time that SFC, which at present depends on the Indian Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons under its command, will have its own aerial assets, they said.

The SFC does not want untested fighters but the ones which are battle proven and have capabilities to deliver nuclear-tipped missiles, the sources said.

The aircraft planned to be procured are part of efforts to strengthen the nuclear delivery system which right now is based on land-based ballistic missiles such as the Agni and Prithvi and nuclear-capable fighters such as the Mirage 2000, Su-30 MKI and Jaguars.

Created in January 2003, the SFC is part of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) and is responsible for the management and administration of the country's tactical and strategic nuclear weapons stockpile.

Attempts are underway to complete the nuclear triad by developing the indigenous Arihant class nuclear submarine and under-sea launched versions of the existing ballistic missile systems.

India's nuclear doctrine envisages building a credible minimum deterrent for maintaining a 'second strike capability' which will be massive and designed to induce unacceptable damage on the enemy.

The SFC is headed by a three-star officer from any of the three services and is responsible for implementing directives of the NCA. At present, the force is headed by Lieutenant General B S Nagal.

The force manages and administers all strategic forces by exercising complete command and control over nuclear assets, and producing all contingency plans as needed to fulfil the required tasks.

The operational missile groups of the Army are armed with the 150-250 km short-range Prithvi missiles and the others with the Agni missiles of ranges above 1,5000 km form the nucleus of SFC.

Dassault rafale does not fit to bill then (by virtue of not being "Battle Proven")..

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 12 Sep 2010 15:50

This will be the first time that SFC, which at present depends on the Indian Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons under its command, will have its own aerial assets, they said.

The aircraft planned to be procured are part of efforts to strengthen the nuclear delivery system which right now is based on land-based ballistic missiles such as the Agni and Prithvi

These two seem to be contradictory statements.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Sep 2010 16:34

nits wrote:India's Joint Nuclear Command Wants 40 Nuclear Strike Jets

A befuddling report on the wires. The Press Trust of India, reports that India's joint nuclear command -- the Strategic Forces Command -- is looking to procure 40 fighters for two dedicated strategic strike squadrons. The report indicates that while the Indian Air Force's Mirage-2000s, Jaguars and Su-30MKIs have so far been earmarked for the nuclear strike profile, the SFC wants two squadrons of its own. The report says nothing more.

If this report is accurate, the obvious questions would be: (a) Why does the SFC need its own fighters -- why can't it continue to depend on available IAF assets? (b) Why the need to ramp up the air-delivered leg of the nuclear triad when Indian doctrine points to more substantive deterrence from strategic land-based missiles and an SSBN fleet, and far less on air-delivered deterrence? (c) Why does a nuclear strike fleet need as many as 40 aircraft? (d) Does India have the kind of stand-off nuclear weapon capability to justify such a fresh induction of assets? (e) If the SFC were to get its own "mini air force", would these still be operated by the IAF? (f) In which case, what difference would it make?

A totally separate but tantalizing coincidence -- in June, Dassault offered the IAF a fast-track sale of 40 Rafales to shore up squadron strength ahead of the MMRCA induction. The Rafale is also the only aircraft explicitly described in its bid document as a nuclear capable strike fighter.

hmm....I thought he would add...LRCM that i recently for the first time unveiled through Livefist appears almost like ASMP-A, the french N missile that equips Rafale is earmarked as Air component of its Nuclear strategic asset, he he he he and it all just coincidence he he he.

Anyway he himself answered Q (d). As for as Q (a) is concerned, i think, India is shedding its ambiguous role and proclaiming openly its ascendancy as Nuclear power with nuclear triad.

Answer to Q (c) is India is announcing publicly it has or will deploy 40 Air deliverable N weapon at minimum. And it also means, we are very much capable of playing the Nuclear game of escalation as the way we please.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 12 Sep 2010 17:02

Compared to current missile ASMP, the ASMPA will offer a greater range (500 to 600 km) and a greater diversity of trajectories, including final penetrations man_uvrantes at very low altitude. The development of the ASMPA is also prepared by an operation, called Vesta, financed to the title of the line " work of aerobic transition " from the law of programming, which will make it possible to test in flight a vector with ramjet common to the improved ASMP and anti-ship missile future ANF.

The Air-Sol Longue Portee (ASLP) was a longer-range version of the ASMP proposed as a co-development project with Britain. It would have had a range of 1,000-1,200 km and would replace the WE177 nuclear gravity bombs providing the Royal Air Force.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/france/bomber/asmp.htm

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Sep 2010 17:04

dinesha wrote:Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Strategic ... 99141.aspx

Probably that explains the expense for the 42 new MKI ( ~ $4 Billion ) since this is hard wired to deliver nuclear weapons and only Russia or France will do that for us and MKI is the only proven platform in the IAF with the leg and payload to justify its nuclear capability.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Sep 2010 17:08

^ I guess N capable aircraft will be configured very differently. So there is a possibility. Why is that it should be only fighter planes but no bombers. Russians can very much sell their stock for a price.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 12 Sep 2010 17:24

Austin wrote:Probably that explains the expense for the 42 new MKI ( ~ $4 Billion ) since this is hard wired to deliver nuclear weapons and only Russia or France will do that for us and MKI is the only proven platform in the IAF with the leg and payload to justify its nuclear capability.

You could be right. deal value was reported to be $3.3 billion approx. .. Thus 42 MKI@$78.5 mill.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 12 Sep 2010 17:51

AWACS Developed by DRDO to Roll Out in January 2011; Flight Tests in 2011

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4515

Agency reports out of Bangalore have quoted Mr. Prahlada, R&D Chief of DRDO, confirming that indigenous Airborne Warning and Control Systems developed by DRDO will begin to roll out in January 2011. The DRDO is working on integrating these AWACS onboard the Brazilian aircraft EMB-145 as per Indian Air Force's requirement

Flight tests are expected in India later in 2011. Prahlada termed the indigenous AWACS as "very cost-effective" and "probably the cheapest in the world".

Officials said the AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) was being developed by the Bangalore-based Center for Airborne Systems (CABS), a lab under the DRDO for the IAF. Under a deal signed between India and Brazil in 2008, Embraer aircraft manufacturer was entrusted to modify its EMB145 to carry Active Array Antenna Unit by India on the aircraft's fuselage.

Three modified EMB-145 aircraft would be developed under the agreement. The indigenous AWACS would detect, identify and classify threats present in the surveillance area and act as a command and control center to support air operations.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 12 Sep 2010 18:22

Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters

The Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has submitted a proposal to the Defence Ministry for setting up two dedicated squadrons of fighter
aircraft which will act as "mini-Air Force", ministry sources said.

This will be the first time that SFC, which at present depends on the Indian Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons under its command, will have its own aerial assets, they said.

The SFC does not want untested fighters but the ones which are battle proven and have capabilities to deliver nuclear-tipped missiles, the sources said.

I am out of words, what about Pandas...

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 12 Sep 2010 19:33

why do 40 numbers reminds me of French offer of 40 aircraft's of Rafale ?

,French never made any buzz of M2k carrying nuke payload but Brits did for Jaguars

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Sep 2010 20:00

I hope its Qatari M2k-9 which they will swap out for new rafale. with a single centerline nuclear bomb or nirbhay and two wing tanks, the M2K has a respectable combat radius .... it will be our mirage2000N and beef up the 50 mirages we have at reasonable cost.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Sep 2010 20:21

Kanson wrote:^ I guess N capable aircraft will be configured very differently. So there is a possibility. Why is that it should be only fighter planes but no bombers. Russians can very much sell their stock for a price.

Isnt MKI a fighter/bomber and has the range , payload and electronics to do the task. Russia cant sell bombers it has international implications nor does IAF has any concept/doctrine of Strategic Bombing.

It makes perfect sense to turn the MKI in to Nuclear Delivery Platform reason being.

1 ) IAF has more then a decade worth of familiarity with the MKI , so it does know how this aircraft performs has developed training/tactics around MKI ,plus reliability is a key factor for such Nuclear Delivery.
2 ) MKI as mentioned has the Range , Payload and Internal Volume for Sensors to carry the Weapons ( Free Fall and Cruise Missile )
3 ) These aircraft needs to be built from scratch and needs to be hard wired for Nuclear Payload , which means fail safe mechanism and command/control built into the platform for nuclear delivery , the entire electronics of the aircraft needs to be suitably hardened for radiation impact.
4 ) The M2K though had served as nuclear platform , it was a very rudimentary approach and could only carry free fall weapons , certainly only Paki specific.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Sep 2010 20:32

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hailstone

this is the kind of combined air-sea blow we need to dish out to spread some pain during wartime.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Sep 2010 21:34

I think this is a wonderful news and step towards nuclear maturity.

Here is my attempt to answer the questions raised by Livefist:

(a) Why does the SFC need its own fighters -- why can't it continue to depend on available IAF assets? -

for a simple reason that relying on IAF assets burdens IAF to earmark Aircraft and Squadrons and Infrastructure for the said task. For an IAF struggling with numbers and Squadron strength, that is not a good thing to have. This is a dedicated role and requires speacialized training - from aircrews to weapon handlers to C3. Should be done by dedicated team - and not one which is subset of an existing squadron. Then, there is the angle about security.

(b) Why the need to ramp up the air-delivered leg of the nuclear triad when Indian doctrine points to more substantive deterrence from strategic land-based missiles and an SSBN fleet, and far less on air-delivered deterrence? -

What does he mean by ramping up? Does anyone know about required asset levels for air-leg of the triad? And what assets are earmarked for this role? What if the required a/c strength is the minimum number of a/c and squadrons required?

Another important point - there is difference in the size of warhead carried by Agni-SL and ASMP. The wiki articel has interesting explanation of ASMP-A - " Part of the Force de frappe, in French nuclear doctrine it is the last-resort "warning shot" prior to a full-scale employment of strategic nuclear weapons.". And one must not forget the inherent flexibility in deployment of aircrafts.

(c) Why does a nuclear strike fleet need as many as 40 aircraft? : Well, only the SFC can answer this question. There must have been threat assessment and scenario analysis done to arrive at this number.

(d) Does India have the kind of stand-off nuclear weapon capability to justify such a fresh induction of assets?

As Kanson said, the LRCM and SFC news seem to be too much of coincidence. And what is known to power that be is not necessarily known in general public.

(e) If the SFC were to get its own "mini air force", would these still be operated by the IAF?

IMO, the administrative control will be with IAF while Operational Control will be with SFC. This is something like SFC having the control of Nuclear tipped missiles. These are also manned by IA Personnel. Does that mean SFC has a private army to itself? I don't think so. These a/c will be SFC assets - to be moved and deployed as per directives from SFC.

(f) In which case, what difference would it make?

As I said earlier - such critical assets will be under dedicated command and take the burden away from IAF.

PS: I think MKI is the aircraft cut out for the role. Long range, payload, endurance, two-man crew, existing infra in the IAF. All the cards are in it's favor. Or something like SU-34. Though, that would make satellite tracking easy for the other countries.

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 12 Sep 2010 21:50

sumshyam wrote:Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters

The Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has submitted a proposal to the Defence Ministry for setting up two dedicated squadrons of fighter
aircraft which will act as "mini-Air Force", ministry sources said.

This will be the first time that SFC, which at present depends on the Indian Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons under its command, will have its own aerial assets, they said.

The SFC does not want untested fighters but the ones which are battle proven and have capabilities to deliver nuclear-tipped missiles, the sources said.
I am out of words, what about Pandas...

Pretty agressive move something inline with what US does considering the fact we have no first use doctrine

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Sep 2010 21:55

I remember reading an article in Frontline in late 90s about placing two squadron worth of M2K with SFC for nuclear bombing role. Remember, then there was no MMRCA competition - it was all about acquiring the 126 M2K or seven squadron worth

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 12 Sep 2010 22:23

^^^
Even the Russians don't have 40 Blackjacks..

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Sep 2010 22:43

Marten wrote:Could someone educate me on how many T-142s remain in active service and whether they can play a similar role?

Marten mia, the Bear is not the correct aircraft for the said requirement. It is slow and too large. You need high speed fighter bombers which can ingress and do the required job and fly back home easily.

If anything, these birds can be used as flying ALCM Platform - like the B-52 used by USAF. Equipped with long range Cruise Missiles - either conventional or nuclear tipped.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Sep 2010 22:55

A small correction is in order - TU-95 is the mother design and TU-142 is the Maritime version of it.

Tu-22 Binder was their first supersonic bomber - Tu-22M Backfire was the advanced derivative of this aircraft. And then, of course, you have the bid daddy of them all - the Tu-160 Blackjack.

Check this link for quick idea about the Soviet Long Range Aviation -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SovietBomber.jpg

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 12 Sep 2010 23:19

In addition to SFC, do the IAF/IA have their own Strategic command?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Sep 2010 23:28

While we are at it here are two good videos of Tu-22M3 doing some stunt

Tu-22M3 doing low level pass ( watch it with sound )
Tu-22M3 what looks like experiencing landing problem

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Sep 2010 23:30

I read an account of B-52 ops in a godforsaken place called "Ia drang valley" in vietnam. thickly wooded with heavy infiltration of viet cong. a american airmobile division (their 1st) with 400 helicopters landed in clearings and established firebases supporting each other with small howitzers.
now in a neighbouring highland the viets had established their usual network of tunnels and underground c4i network to direct the efforts in the flat area below.

but one day a troop of b52 unseen and flying high arrived and unleashed total hell on the highland....scary carpet of explosions that collapsed and crushed
all the underground infra.

there's a reason why stuff like b1/b52/blackjack are kept around at huge expenses...when its time to kick a**, nobody kicks more a** and more painfully than these big boys...the equivalent of a size14 boot.

we have seen the crump crump crump of b52 bombs in the shomali plain...and boy was it fun to see the taliban get their backsides kicked.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/ARC_LIGHT

takleef seems to be dropped from so high there is no sound of planes and hence no warning. suddenly 10s of heavy bombs start exploding all over...

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 13 Sep 2010 00:50

Can planes like Su30MKI be used by SFC if the Chinese cities in the east are to be targeted? Wouldn't the range be inadequate, unless they will fire LRCM?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 13 Sep 2010 05:34

If this news is true, then it is a good move by India. I hope SFC gets a combination of aircraft like Tu 160 / F-111 / F 15 Eagle / SU-34/32FN. Such planes should be under the control of SFC and not the IAF, with top of the line pilots on deputation from the IAF to SFC. This type of setup would allow the air crews to train as teams for long periods and build the skills to go on history altering missions.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 13 Sep 2010 06:03

How about ?
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Sep 2010 06:16

Singha wrote:
there's a reason why stuff like b1/b52/blackjack are kept around at huge expenses...when its time to kick a**, nobody kicks more a** and more painfully than these big boys...the equivalent of a size14 boot.

we have seen the crump crump crump of b52 bombs in the shomali plain...and boy was it fun to see the taliban get their backsides kicked.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/ARC_LIGHT

takleef seems to be dropped from so high there is no sound of planes and hence no warning. suddenly 10s of heavy bombs start exploding all over...

The other side of the coin is that US propaganda apparatus will talk as if they are war winners which they are not and fail to mention that only 5 km out of 200 km of tunnels was ever taken out by carpet bombing. The US keeps them basically to bomb the crap out of tribals, gooks, ch1nks, n1ggers and other undesirables to make a big show of dominance. Everyone believes them but they never win the war because despite the propaganda the said tribals, gooks, ch1nks, n1ggers are not eliminated.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Sep 2010 06:18

csharma wrote:Can planes like Su30MKI be used by SFC if the Chinese cities in the east are to be targeted? Wouldn't the range be inadequate, unless they will fire LRCM?

China gets missiles. The planes are for Pakistan I guess.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 13 Sep 2010 06:52

They may have a lot of firepower, but aren't these strategic bombers giant slow moving targets for a reasonable air force?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Sep 2010 07:34

Carl_T wrote:They may have a lot of firepower, but aren't these strategic bombers giant slow moving targets for a reasonable air force?

Carlos, most of these buggers the likes of the Buff, White Swan, Bone, Backfire, Bear ityadi will always employ stand off tactics. In todays world if you are facing a competent enemy with a proper AD, AF and C4I infrastructure then carpet bombing will never be the first arrow to hit home. You need to go for the protective defensive cover first before you can fly right overhead and release the rain.

Also a lot of times these bombers will be flying with their own fighters for AD.

For the defenders if these bombers employ their stand off ALCMs it becomes quite difficult to track a target that will attack from hundreds of kilometers away with these missiles.

In the case of the Blackjack, Bone and the Backfire the issue is further complicated as these buggers can go supersonic and stay in that regime for a while in which case the best of the fighters will have a tough time trying to catch them.

As we saw in Vietnam the Buff suffered losses in Carpet Bombing against the SA2 (Telphone Pole)

and the Vietnamese Migs.

In that regard I would say the Vulcan (GD's a fan) raid by the RAF on Argentina was quite successful as they didnt suffer any losses, however the Arg AF was quite engaged already trying to support their army and at the same time attack RN assets and fend off against Harriers.

In the 21st century I dont think we will be seeing the carpet bombing technique employed unless the bombers are attacking a massed formation/civilian assets (infrastructure)/large military targets, but then as mentioned before if they are facing an enemy who can throw fighters, Sams ityadi against them they will have to revert to standoff weapons and when they do use stand off weapons its going to create a lot of head aches for the defenders.

JMT onlee.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 13 Sep 2010 08:08

Good point, appreciate the response.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Sep 2010 10:02

though these long range bombers evoke the idea of deep strikes, I tend to think they are more useful in a tactical role provided some element of SEAD/air cover is around - it has to be for protection of the ground troops on the front as well.

they can loiter for a long time and respond to calls for tactical firepower support with a lot of ordnance both unguided and guided compared to the 2-3 hr lag in calling up a few fighter bombers . moreover with long range their bases are not vulnerable to counter-attack, they can strike and disappear out of range.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Sep 2010 10:10

Singha wrote:though these long range bombers evoke the idea of deep strikes, I tend to think they are more useful in a tactical role provided some element of SEAD/air cover is around - it has to be for protection of the ground troops on the front as well.

they can loiter for a long time and respond to calls for tactical firepower support with a lot of ordnance both unguided and guided compared to the 2-3 hr lag in calling up a few fighter bombers . moreover with long range their bases are not vulnerable to counter-attack, they can strike and disappear out of range.

400% Agree GD, as a matter of fact in the recent AFM there was a big article on ze Bone B-1B and there was a detailed description of a combat support mission by a Bone in Afghanistan circa 2008 which laster for hours and ended up in three jdam strikes on talibunny positions with allied soldiers in close proximity.

The thing is though when we think of these bombers for the IAF the issue becomes very complicated because the forces that we may face in the east and the west of our borders will have integrated AF support and a solid AD cover in terms of multi tiered sams and lots and lots of organic AAA and shorads. In that case loitering for hours with a nice big CM/ARM load would be prudent where they can stay out of harms way (relatively speaking) and still rain missiles on Big Birds

in the high mountains....

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 13 Sep 2010 10:13

yes the revisit footprint.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 13 Sep 2010 12:25

VinodTK wrote:If this news is true, then it is a good move by India. I hope SFC gets a combination of aircraft like Tu 160 / F-111 / F 15 Eagle / SU-34/32FN. Such planes should be under the control of SFC and not the IAF, with top of the line pilots on deputation from the IAF to SFC. This type of setup would allow the air crews to train as teams for long periods and build the skills to go on history altering missions.

Guys stop with the wet dreams

It's only going to be the MKI and some of the one that wins the MMRCA. Dedicated Bombers would be great though.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Sep 2010 12:46

The only bombers that have delivered a N-strike have been the good old warbirds of WW2! Perhaps the B-52s and their Soviet equivs. too have also delivered some (any idea?) before testing of N-weapons in the atmosphere were banned.Currently,the only strategic nuclear bombers that would be available to India come from France-Mirages and Rafales and Russia.Russia have SU-24 Fencers,which are being replaced by SU-34s.The Russians also have the Blackjacks in limited number with reports about new ones being built from time to time,but do have a large number of TU-22 Backfires available,which the IN wanted some time ago.These will have to be upgraded a lot.If you add the venerable,but still deadly TU-142 Bears,then we already have 8 of them with the IN which can launch a stand-off N-tipped missile if we have one.

One presumes that the strategic missiles to be carried will be the long-range cruise missile (1500km) and the future hypersonic Brahmos.If so,then only a large Russian bird will be able to do the business.I don't think that the Rafale can carry a Brahmos.In a def. mag,there was an article about the great ranges required for an aircraft to reach the key critical Chinese cities and military centres.It appears that if our requirement is basically to deter China,then either the mothballed Russian sqds of Backfires or newer Su-34s,of which Russia is acquiring in significant numbers would be ideal.NOne of the other western contenders barring what the US possesses have the range and enndurance.They would also come in cheaper than a western equiv.

nits · Post by **nits** » 13 Sep 2010 12:48

nits wrote:India's Joint Nuclear Command Wants 40 Nuclear Strike Jets

A befuddling report on the wires. The Press Trust of India, reports that India's joint nuclear command -- the Strategic Forces Command -- is looking to procure 40 fighters for two dedicated strategic strike squadrons. The report indicates that while the Indian Air Force's Mirage-2000s, Jaguars and Su-30MKIs have so far been earmarked for the nuclear strike profile, the SFC wants two squadrons of its own.

Sukhoi Su-34 can be front runner for Strategic Force Commands fighter requirements: Experts -

What makes this aircraft front runner is it has shares many of the spares and components with IAF’s Sukhoi su 30MKI platform and will not require separate logistics to maintain them; Aircraft has been designed for precision weapons carrying capability that includes Nuclear weapons, and cockpit layout for pilot has been optimized for bombing roles and features side-by-side seating for a crew of two.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 13 Sep 2010 15:55

Su-34 is definitely a good option, however IMHO, using them solely for Strategic command forces wouldn't be a good option. The enemy could easliy identify that india is supposed to deliver N weapons just by seeing the aircraft. Addition of more Su-34 for Mig-27 replacement for Indian Airforce would make this idea feasible.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Sep 2010 15:56

Saras-Duet saga is resolved for good

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Sep 2010 18:40

Willy wrote:
Guys stop with the wet dreams It's only going to be the MKI and some of the one that wins the MMRCA. Dedicated Bombers would be great though.

^^This! The article clearly states that IAF's M2Ks, Jaguars and MKIs are nuclear capable but the SFC wants its own squadrons. It clearly mean that the the SFC wants a few MKIs of its own (MKIs because they have a much larger payload than the M2Ks and Jaguars). The 40 will either come from the 270 that the IAF has ordered or more likely 40 more directly ordered from the Russians since HAL is booked to capacity.