Indian Military Aviation

[nrshah]

Please enlighten me why iaf does not seem keen to have any dedicated tactical / strategic bomber units.

Even dedicated ground attack/stike fighter are out of wishlist

I know they are going for multirole fighters. I understand multirole can perform both ground attack and air missions. But are they as efficient as the dedicated one? If yes, then why countries like America (FE 15SE/A-10A/C Thunderbolt II), Russia (Su 32/34) UK (torndo) maintain dedicated strike fighter /bombers. Also then why we have dedicated Air superiority air crafts? Air superiority mission can be done by Multirole aircraft also.

-Nitin

[krishnan]

Doctrine might be the reason.

[nrshah]

Doctrine might be the reason.

Yes, i want to understand that doctrine only.

Gurus here will have approximate idea of the same.

-Nitin

[Rahul M]

Rahul,

what if we have a sticky thread with bold and caps thread name something like "Banned Links/websites" in which you can put up a list of links which are rated for unreliability etc?

Thanks,
Venkat

venkarl, these are not banned per se, just very strongly discouraged !

and the number of such sites is too low to warrant a thread. better to mention it as and when they appear. BRFites learn in their early days, as we did in ours !
regards.

[Vinito]

Please enlighten me why iaf does not seem keen to have any dedicated tactical / strategic bomber units.

Even dedicated ground attack/stike fighter are out of wishlist

I know they are going for multirole fighters. I understand multirole can perform both ground attack and air missions. But are they as efficient as the dedicated one? If yes, then why countries like America (FE 15SE/A-10A/C Thunderbolt II), Russia (Su 32/34) UK (torndo) maintain dedicated strike fighter /bombers. Also then why we have dedicated Air superiority air crafts? Air superiority mission can be done by Multirole aircraft also.

-Nitin

doesnt the Mig-27 Flogger fall under the dedicated ground attack fighter category?

[shiv]

Please enlighten me why iaf does not seem keen to have any dedicated tactical / strategic bomber units.

Even dedicated ground attack/stike fighter are out of wishlist

I know they are going for multirole fighters. I understand multirole can perform both ground attack and air missions. But are they as efficient as the dedicated one? If yes, then why countries like America (FE 15SE/A-10A/C Thunderbolt II), Russia (Su 32/34) UK (torndo) maintain dedicated strike fighter /bombers. Also then why we have dedicated Air superiority air crafts? Air superiority mission can be done by Multirole aircraft also.

-Nitin

Let me give you my take on this. My take, as an armchAir Marshal has been influenced by two books on the use of air power - one is the history of the "Bomber Offensive" by "Bomber" Harris of WW 2 and Jasjit Singh's seminal work whose name I am unable to recall (although I have the book)

You can look at the RuAF, USAF or IAF "from the outside" and say "The IAF has no strategic Bomber Command". But when you look "from the inside" you start getting an idea of what people in the Air Force are thinking and what role they see th force as playing.

The US's strategic bombers and the force of strategic bombers stemmed from their experience in WW2 when massed bombers attacked targets in Germany and Japan. In that era this mode of attack was imagined to be effective, but it was less effective that it was imagined. Germany's industries were hardly knocked out by these offensives and even Japan was gradually pushed back after its Naval Air power was defeated and it was forced back island by island until the A-bomb ended the argument.

Less than a decade later - exactly the same (type of) force of US bombers were used in Korea. In fact MacArthur actually wanted to nuke Korea, an idea that was scotched by Eisenhower (IIRC). Less than a decade after that a very similar force of US bombers was used against Vietnam. More tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped over Germany in WW2.

As you can see, history shows that all this "strategic bombing" failed to prevent the survival of communist North Korea or communist Vietnam, which were primary goals in the war. So what was the role of these "strategic bombers" if the strategy failed?

Another nation that had "strategic bombers" - Britain, got rid of them although it did not get rid of other classes of "strategic weapons" like nuke subs and aircraft carriers. But the US and USSR continued to develop their "strategic bomber" forces - with the US continuing to upgrade the B-52, later B-1 and B-2.

The US has once again used its "strategic bombers" in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have not yet read any unbiased assessments of the effectiveness of these forces - but the wars are still going on and the "strategic force" is not being used much. We need to see exactly what, if anything was achieved by them in terms of log term goals. It may wee turn out that the US could have managed without them and that the strategic bomber force was used merely because it was already there and has been used almost without break since world war 2.

None of these facts seem to be a very strong argument for the IAF to acquire and maintain "strategic bombers" - which may be more of a politico military need in the US in supporting their military industrial complex - which is different from what we have or need in India.

The role of A-10 and the Su 25 were even more specific. They were designed in an era when it was expected (by NATO and the US) that massed Soviet tank forces would roll across Europe and that a dedicated tank buster would be needed to deal with such an attack. But history and the fall of the Soviet Union ensured that these aircraft would not be used for the primary role for which they were designed.

Let me just say a few words about the terminology "interceptors/air superiority fighters" and "ground attack aircraft/strike aircraft". First of all I want to point out that the relationship between "interceptor" and "ground attack" on one side and "air superiority/air dominance" and "strike aircraft" on the on the other side like the use of the word "groovy" in the 60s "hip" in the 1970s and "cool dude" in a later era. They mean the same thing - with newer and more fashionable names to move with the times.

Groovy people had interceptors like the F 102, F 104 and Lightning. They had "ground attack aircraft like the A-4 and F-105. Hip people and cool dudes started getting "Air Superiority fighters" and "Strike Aircraft"

The reasons for having separate "interceptor/sir superiority fighters" and "ground attack/strike aircraft" were as follows (my take/IMO)

• Interceptors had to be fast, supersonic, high flying and missile armairftacted to shoot down strategic bombers. hey also had to be agile in dogfights and close-in combat. Range was less of a requirement for a "defender" - besides high altitude ensured range anyway.
• Ground attack aircraft could not be that agile (because of munitions carried), but they had to carry a big load, have a long range, the ability to fly low (terrain hugging, under the radar cover) with engines suitable for that role.

These requirements were so different that fighters and attack aircraft were designed separately for different roles.

So what has changed?

The changes the world has seen are as follows:

• Better air to air missiles that made close in dogfighting a requirement f lesser importance
• Better SAMs and ground defences (with AWACS) making low level attacks hazardous
• Better engines, better use of new materials and aerodynamics and fly-by-wire and FADEC enabling all aircraft to be able to have multiple characteristics required for interceptors as well as attack aircraft
• Advances in electronics and computers an communication enabling any aircraft to have the required electronic gizmos for ground attack, nigh attack, self defence and interception
• Smart munitions

These changes are making "multi-role" aircraft feasible and air forces benefit by reducing the requirement to maintain multiple aircraft types.

Finally, market forces, military sales and other factors sometimes come into play in keeping old production lines open or closing them down. At least some aircraft types survive because of this. The important point to remember is that advances in technology produce a new generation of aircraft every 10-15 years. But aircraft that have been bought survive for 30-40 years. So every air force will have a mix of "new generation" and "legacy" aircraft.

JMT

[Shameek]

Please enlighten me why iaf does not seem keen to have any dedicated tactical / strategic bomber units.

Do consider the MiG 23 MF (now retired), MiG 27 and Jaguars. They are dedicated to the tactical role you mention. But the advantage of having multi role aircraft is that they can also be put into that role if needed. Like the Mirages were during Kargil.

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv ji: thanks for the detailed write-up. Regarding your point about the effectiveness of bombers, I think its unfair to blame bombers for the inability to stop communism in NoKo or Vietnam. If you look at the body ratios of # of Vietnamese killed to American GIs, you can clearly make a case for bombers having done their job. Also, the inability to destroy German industries in WW2 has more to do with the lack of accuracy in bombing missions in those days. Things are different now. Even in WW2, the Dresden bombing played havoc on the German psyche and will to continue war efforts. This last point should not be underestimated.

Cross posting some of my other thoughts from the Naval thread.

Some reasons why it makes sense to have strategic bombers:

a) Sheer payload capacity. Precision attacks are great but they cant replace quantum of firepower. In a future conflict with say the Chipandas, we want to be able to destroy their infrastructure, industry, terrorize city dwellers etc. Not a pleasant thing to talk about - but that kind of serious deterrent is needed

b) Nuke payload: the MKIs will carry nukes but once again quantum wins. We should be able to lay waste to several cities in 1 pass.

c) Since we dont have LACMs, it may be early to comment on this. But a bomb truck seems definitely more suitable for unloading a dozen LACMs than a fighter

It is a white elephant no doubt. But thats the price of deterrence. Plus we dont need hundreds of them. A dozen or so will suffice.

I feel that some of our doctrinal approaches derive from the concept of "minimal" credible deterrence, as opposed to MAD. If you look at things from an MAD perspective, the need for a strategic bomber will be clear. Personally I prefer MAD to MCD for India, especially considering Chipanda's bravado about how their civilization will survive even after a nuke war.

[Kakkaji]

The US has once again used its "strategic bombers" in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have not yet read any unbiased assessments of the effectiveness of these forces - but the wars are still going on and the "strategic force" is not being used much. We need to see exactly what, if anything was achieved by them in terms of log term goals. It may wee turn out that the US could have managed without them and that the strategic bomber force was used merely because it was already there and has been used almost without break since world war 2.

Didn't the heavy bombing of the Shomali Plains, with 'Daisy Cutters' etc., break the Taliban resistance effectively and allow the Northern Alliance to move into Kabul with relatively little loss on the US+Northern Alliance side?

From the US POV, delivering huge amounts of ordnance over a target area much before the US land forces even get in the vicinity saves US lives and shortens the time of combat operations. They have assured air dominance, so that relatively vulnerable strategic bombers can get in, deliver their payload, and get out unmolested.

The IAF has to look at its own environment that it operates in. But IIRC, didn't the IAF Canberras serve the role of essentially what you would call strategic bombers in that they struck deep upto Peshawar with heavy payload in missions that neither the Hunters or SU-7 could have carried out? Is there a need for an aircraft that replaces those Canberras?

[shiv]

Shiv ji: thanks for the detailed write-up. Regarding your point about the effectiveness of bombers, I think its unfair to blame bombers for the inability to stop communism in NoKo or Vietnam. If you look at the body ratios of # of Vietnamese killed to American GIs, you can clearly make a case for bombers having done their job.

Didn't the heavy bombing of the Shomali Plains, with 'Daisy Cutters' etc., break the Taliban resistance effectively and allow the Northern Alliance to move into Kabul with relatively little loss on the US+Northern Alliance side?

From the US POV, delivering huge amounts of ordnance over a target area much before the US land forces even get in the vicinity saves US lives and shortens the time of combat operations. They have assured air dominance, so that relatively vulnerable strategic bombers can get in, deliver their payload, and get out unmolested.

Not disputing either Prem Kumar or Kakkaji. And my reply may be seriously OT for this thread.

But you need to look at war as an extension of diplomacy, to achieve some political goal - especially if you are instrumental in starting that war. Why go into war at all otherwise?

It is possible to fight a war for war's sake - simply to go bash someone up on some pretext. Bash someone who is "asking to be bashed" and because you think he can't hit back. The 26/11 attacks were war for war's sake. To me it appears that the US spends so much effort and money developing weapons that it tends to get into "war for the sake of war" - just to bash someone up, on some pretext.

The problem is that when you get into a war for the sake of war - you may not be able to get out, and if you get out you may be nowhere near "winning". It appears to me that once the US gets its military into a war with its fancy weapons and thriving military industrial complex, it reaches a stage when it can't get out because it has not won. The politicans and the military then start blaming each other or asking each other to do something. After Vietnam the US military have addressed this problem by conjuring up a "strawman statistic" to indicate that they (the military) are winning all battles, and it is up to politicians and diplomacy to end the war on a victorious note. That meaningless "strawman" statistic is "body counts".

I have referred to this in another thread too and Acharya suggested that we need a new thread for it. Perhaps we do..

The US says ":We won all battles. Just look at the body counts, US - 20 killed. Iraq 25000 killed. Vietnam - US 70,000 killed. Vietnam 3 million killed. So we won.

But this is rubbish. By this method Russia lost World War 2 and Hitler won. Korea, Vietnam and Iraq are all examples of US wars that they have jumped into without a goal in mind and "victory" is proclaimed in terms of "body counts"

Sorry to keep up with the digression - but the current discussion on the "alternative to 5.56 mm round" thread is yet another example of this. The US carpet bombed Afghanistan with its "strategic bombers" and guess what? The Taliban are still there. And the Taliban are taking pot-shots at the US at longer ranges than the US M-16s can reach. The "body count" ratios can't look good if this keeps up. So someone is saying "Hey OK - we now need 6.8 mm rounds" Take a look at that thread..

No more of this from me on this thread - unles it is Indian Military Aviation related.

My apologies..

[NRao]

The threatS that India faces really does not need a strategic bomber as a solution.

[KrishG]

The threatS that India faces really does not need a strategic bomber as a solution.

We can't assess the utility of a Strategic bomber by only taking it's intercontinental ranges into account. It also possesses the capability to carry large weaponloads which could be decisive in large-scale conflicts especially with our northern neighbour.

[shiv]

The threatS that India faces really does not need a strategic bomber as a solution.

gives me an idea for a poll...

[Shameek]

b) Nuke payload: the MKIs will carry nukes but once again quantum wins. We should be able to lay waste to several cities in 1 pass.

Do we really want to depend on bombers for our nuclear deterrence and delivery systems?

[NRao]

The threatS that India faces really does not need a strategic bomber as a solution.

We can't assess the utility of a Strategic bomber by only taking it's intercontinental ranges into account. It also possesses the capability to carry large weaponloads which could be decisive in large-scale conflicts especially with our northern neighbour.

Precisely my point.

So, per your argument, we do not it for "Pakistan" - there is conventional where we can use - but not worth it, and, there is this funny guy called non-state-actor where we cannot - waste of resources.

China: The only regions we can get bang for the buck is due east - across from Myanmar, Thailand, etc. Not in the Tibet area. (IF you differ please let me know.)

In areas such Hong Kong, etc missiles should be a better alternative, for "bomber" even in that region would actually carry CMs, and, not regular 1000lb bombs. Am I right? IF that is right, then for the time being MKIs should serve the purpose - a credible threat. Why would one invest in a technology that will rarely be used?

[Singha]

exp has shown precision bombing in mountains is very difficult. and we dont have 1000s of jdams to waste. a near miss converts to a miss by many tens of meters in mountains due to ridges and slopes.

B-52 type "lay a line of 80 bombs" along a ridgeline or deliver a stick of 30 bombs onto a grid is economical and effective compared to a squadron of smaller fighters having to use a fwd airbase.

thats where my EMB-190-mki concept comes in, as a economical truck for
small bombs and ALCMs that can fly quietly to and from south india on its
missions of mercy to the tibetan or paki fronts.

B-52/B-1 are long in tooth, but sure inspire a lot of respect.

[NRao]

My gut feel is that China has no guts. They will build all the roads and forward air bases, but, bet they will use Nepal or BD or SL to back up Pakistan at the very least to irritate India. On the economic front it is only India that is holding India back.

On the Pakistani front we have a bunch of yahoos - but, thankfully these yahoos are a threat to the West too. The West will have to ensure a working "Democracy" in Pakistan (whatever that means in a Muslim state!!).

So, a "strategic" bomber has really no meaning. I suspect Indian strategy would be to deter the conventional means (sorry BR) and actually deal with the non-state-actor (NSA, oh yeah, that acronym). Even with the NSA the center of gravity will move to the ME I bet. Pakistan has got to be too hot for these NSAs.

What India actually needs is SIGINT and HUMINT. And, let the West know that these countries cannot hide behind their skirts any longer. For there is bound to be a clash of national interests in the very near future.

[pyogi]

Interesting article here...
http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2009/0 ... ndian.html
---------------8<---SNIP--->8------
"Defence minister A.K. Antony informed the Rajya Sabha that the Indian Air Force (IAF) is extremely happy with its front line air superiority fight, the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, and will increase its fleet to 230 aircraft by 2015, notwithstanding the recent crash of one.

China has been increasing it's belligerence over the north eastern state of Arunachal Pradhesh and has a significant ground force superiority over India in the region. It is aided by two friendly governments -- the military junta in Yangon (Burma) and the Maoists in Nepal, leaving the entire and vital eastern half of India vulnerable."
---------------8<---SNIP---->8-----

[p_saggu]

I would say that a strategic bomber is like a nuclear weapon or an ICBM.
To possess it, is a ticket to big power military status. I don't envisage either of these things being used, but they are important, because should such a scenario ever arise, one bomber should be able to drop off enough ammo / stand off weaponry (I am talking trainloads here not truckloads) to lay waste to a complete airbase or big target all by itself.

That both India and China will not fight an overt war, and shadowbox just like the Americans and the Soviets, is a guaranteed fact for the future. Just as India is not fighting Pakistan overtly, although Pakistan is fighting us semi-overtly.

[Kartik]

Do consider the MiG 23 MF (now retired), MiG 27 and Jaguars. They are dedicated to the tactical role you mention. But the advantage of having multi role aircraft is that they can also be put into that role if needed. Like the Mirages were during Kargil.

correction- it was the MiG-23BN that was the tactical bomber. the MiG-23MF was an interceptor.

[NRao]

Agni-1 against Chinese occupied Tibet (CoT)

[a_kumar]

First off.. Thanks Shiv for the excellent summary. I was scratching my head last couple of days on these terms.

This could be OT (hey just following the lead here ), probably more appropriate in Indo-China thread.. but well....

All this talk of HK and other areas of interest brings me to a dissapointing turn of events. If one looks at future picture and wonder what are tomorrow's "knobs" of a country...

(1) China has its own 3G standard which didnt take off (but it was a start). Now they want their version of 4G (wireless communication) standard to be the world standard. They have successfully fostered soon-to-be-formidable manufactureres using market access to their advantage.

(2) I recently had a chat with a friend from Taiwan. Until not too long back Taiwan was dead against merging with China and its economy, especially its Fabrication strength gave it a lot of confidence. Now, China has successfully tagged along learnt the steps and is surpassing (if it hasn't already) in number of FABs.

(3) Same is happening with Solar energy and necessary technology.

We didn't even take off on (1) and (2), and (3) is almost leaving the station as we stand by.

I see the defences of Taiwan coming down one by one. Pretty soon, it won't be left with a strong reason to resist merging with China. Case in point, there is already a push to merge the Chinese/Taiwanese scripts (they diverged for the past 50 years) into one standard one. That would mean that in 10-20 years, significant majority of the advanced electronics in the world would be manufactured in China (assuming Taiwan merges or forms a coalition).

So, it starts with Hong Kong, continues with Taiwan. You can bet your ass China won't do anything drastic until then.

And after that, they don't have to launch Su-30MKK over the Himalayas to have their way around.

[Shameek]

correction- it was the MiG-23BN that was the tactical bomber. the MiG-23MF was an interceptor.

My Bad! BN it is.

[hnair]

thats where my EMB-190-mki concept comes in, as a economical truck for
small bombs and ALCMs that can fly quietly to and from south india on its
missions of mercy to the tibetan or paki fronts.

B-52/B-1 are long in tooth, but sure inspire a lot of respect.

Singha-saar, EMB type ones, even with higher rated engines have a disadvantage. without stealth, a strategic bomber need to have capability for very fast engine revv up and sustained mach 2+ flight. particularly when one is not armed and the RWR/EW gets noisy and one wants to do some fast pak-jernail style skiing out of the area. Hence the whole swing-wing thingies we see for the post-bear/B52 aircrafts. B52s are happy only when they had sanitized the area off any SAM sites and there are fighter escorts. We wont have that luxury with panda, maybe with pakis in the second week. for the first wave, they seem to sent in the B2s (stealth) and B1s (one way fast dash through hostile space).

(not going into the areas like Maulana N-saar's tailfin snapping off issues faced by a cushy, civvie oriented plane starting to behaving like a B-1B).

[Samay]

My gut feel is that China has no guts. They will build all the roads and forward air bases, but, bet they will use Nepal or BD or SL to back up Pakistan at the very least to irritate India. On the economic front it is only India that is holding India back.

On the Pakistani front we have a bunch of yahoos - but, thankfully these yahoos are a threat to the West too. The West will have to ensure a working "Democracy" in Pakistan (whatever that means in a Muslim state!!).

So, a "strategic" bomber has really no meaning. I suspect Indian strategy would be to deter the conventional means (sorry BR) and actually deal with the non-state-actor (NSA, oh yeah, that acronym). Even with the NSA the center of gravity will move to the ME I bet. Pakistan has got to be too hot for these NSAs.

What India actually needs is SIGINT and HUMINT. And, let the West know that these countries cannot hide behind their skirts any longer. For there is bound to be a clash of national interests in the very near future.

Its like a game of chess,that china has trapped us into, one by one its proxies will rage and collapse ,but the dragon waits and watches the development. If the biggest buffoon (porks) cant do the crack,they will step in,just before all these proxies vaporize, bringing the mighty red ants on the mission ,
It is where a strategic bomber leaves its airbase, when the subs,destroyers,the missles,the fighter acs fleet is weak, strategic bombers do the job whatever you want,other than the stealth role(when we dont have the b2) ,it will deliver the goods , wherever ,how quickly you want.

[Shameek]

^^ Whose strategic bombers are you talking about? Ours or Chinese? Also if the rest of the air force is weak, there is not much a strategic bomber can do.

[hnair]

Dont know if this has been posted:
Wg Cdr Murkoth Ramunny has passed away. A distinguished gentleman who served his country in different capacties, may his soul have peace.

Link to that nice BR Article about him and his contribution.

[nrshah]

Glad to see that there are many who support the need for strategic bombers.

For those who don't see the need based on some reason, Request you to please consider the following:

current threat perception does not need a strategic bomber as a solution.

We will not get considerable no of Strategic bomber in next 5 years. It will take at least 2 decades to build any considerable bomber force. 2 decades is too long time and threat perception can change. Decision on strategic bomber force should be taken only based on long term analysis. I suggest we don't loose this time for our short sightedness.
Going by this we also don't need to have ICBM. We have adequate deterrence with A3 with range upto 5K, of course with lower payload

Cost issues

While cost is definitely an issue, we don't require hundreds of them. Also the time horizon we are speaking of, is large enough to make them affordable considering India is one the fastest growing economies in the world. Even during recession we will grow at 6%. Even if we continue to grow at 3% on Real terms for next 20 years, our economy will be around 2.52 Trillion USD. Defense budget will be 75bn USD in real terms. This will allow us to have those monsters

History proves they are not sucessful

It is not that they were unsuccessful. Bomber fleet are to be used for against strategic targets. It is sheer coincidence we has started a thread on strategic bombing. Almost, all post mentions use of bombers against strategic targets. However, one cannot expect bombers to wipe out Taliban. You need to have ground forces for that. We have to give credit to bombers which dismantled all important bases, ports, communication lanes etc. On that note, they were successful.

They won't be used
Going by that, there is no need for MMRCA also.

The above is not to discredit all of you esteemed members. But only my take on the subject. It is high time we leave behind our thinking based on Pak and China. I salute to all those who take decision to built indigenious ATV even though threat scenario did not approved it at that point of time. If we don't have adequate muscle, our role will be more like Japan which has one of the largest economy but no say in the international forum. I want we have bigger role to play in international politics

-Nitin

[NRao]

We will not get considerable no of Strategic bomber in next 5 years. It will take at least 2 decades to build any considerable bomber force. 2 decades is too long time and threat perception can change. Decision on strategic bomber force should be taken only based on long term analysis. I suggest we don't loose this time for our short sightedness.
Going by this we also don't need to have ICBM. We have adequate deterrence with A3 with range upto 5K, of course with lower payload

True.

Plenty of holes:

1) Where is your threat located? Based on your "don't need to have ICBM" comment, it looks like that you assume the threat to be situated only with the Sino-Pak region. Is that right? What if India were to become a "global power"? Then a non-ICBM missile will NOT do - it cannot do. One will need an ICMB.
2) "threat perception can chnage" - OK, understandable. But "change" can also mean reduction. In which case why even think of a strat-ber?
3) What would be the targets of a strat-ber?
4) Could a MKI (as an example) be used instead?
5) Why 20 years? In today's technological environment that is old.

Have you done some basic research on the matter to see the thinking within the real community?

[nrshah]

1) Where is your threat located? Based on your "don't need to have ICBM" comment, it looks like that you assume the threat to be situated only with the Sino-Pak region. Is that right? What if India were to become a "global power"? Then a non-ICBM missile will NOT do - it cannot do. One will need an ICMB.

Sir,
I think there is a misunderstanding. I used that as a satire. I meant if we say that in current threat perception we don't need bomber than so is the case with ICBMs. With current threat situated in Sino - Pak region, A3 will suffice.

2) "threat perception can chnage" - OK, understandable. But "change" can also mean reduction. In which case why even think of a strat-ber?

Ya right. But again, do we still want to caught ill prepared as it was in 1962. As mentioned by me, since our economy will permit why not be prepared for the worst. I have used only 3% of GDP towards the defense budget as projected

3) What would be the targets of a strat-ber?

It will depend on the threat at that time. It can be anything from Kahuta Nuke complex to missile sites to east .......

4) Could a MKI (as an example) be used instead?
Yes, but will MKI carry the amount of firepower to such distance and return back. I think it will supplement Strag. Bomber

5) Why 20 years? In today's technological environment that is old.

I am saying it will take us 20 years to have considerable bomber force. All will not be acquired simultaneously. 20 years here refers to setting up of infrastructure, Doctrine and strategy, list of possible targets etc

Also, B 52 were designed in 1952 and are still active in consderable nos. Although plans are for new bomber, all of them till date are on papers. So is the case with TU 22M / TU 95..Consider first of our MKI are already 8 - 1o years old but still very potent. F 18SH first flew in 1999 and by the time we purchase it (if selected) will be 14 years old.

-Nitin

[NRao]

Nitin ji,

WRT Pakistan, a solution is already in place - even for their nukes (as far back as 1998ish). Even the last CAS mentioned - a month or so ago - China is the new challenge. The point being Pakistan at best, while she is going down, can take India along with her. But cannot come on top. (Check out Hanid Gul's statements on why Pakistan will have to use nukes.) So strat-bers WRT Pakistan is rather useless - waste of resources - when other entities can do the same.

China: check of one of the posts I made within the last page: Agni-I or there abouts is enough for COT (China occupied Tibet).

And, the other Agnis are enough for China.

The only reason I would like bombers (as opposed to strategic bombers) is that one can recall them. A similar option exists with missiles too, but their flight time is in minutes - very, very short when compared to bombers. So missiles pose a different set of challenges.

IMHO, India would be FAR better of trying to push China out of IOR. IF China is allowed to remain within IOR the game is up. China can do just enough to irritate India but not take it to the next level of escalation. Then repeat the process again every year. Never taking it to the point where India will have to use her missiles or bombers, but just enough to raise a division of mountain troops, another squadron of MKIs, etc.

I truly believe that Chinese troop induction, air bases, etc in COT is only nuisance value. They will not use it to escalate to a major confrontation. They will manage Indian threat perception - in fact their major control mechanism was/is the CPI.

Bombers of any type - I just do not see value.

[NRao]

Nitin,

Just BTW, the Su-30 MK was the first tactical bomber that was supposed to replace the Su-24 Fencer. Just a data point.

The MKI is way, way ahead of that plane.

IAF practices 6-10 hour trips with their MKIs.

[Gerard]

Indian Army bought choppers with technical flaws: Auditor

[Anujan]

Indian Army bought choppers with technical flaws: Auditor

Murky DDM-itis. From the article

HAL, however, failed to overcome the shortcomings in the ALH even after five years as of December 2006

It is very clear from HAL's website that the first test flight with a Shakthi engine was made in August of 2007. Dhruvs produced *after* the engine cleared the trials (some time in 2008) have the Shakthi engine in them, IIRC there was an article about replacing the engines in the older Dhruvs.

[Rahul M]

there was also an MSM issue which had IA feedback and they were most vocal in appreciation.
there have been similar reactions from other sources too.

as I said in some other thread, CAG is typically 2 years behind the curve.

[koti]

The US carpet bombed Afghanistan with its "strategic bombers" and guess what? The Taliban are still there. And the Taliban are taking pot-shots at the US at longer ranges than the US M-16s can reach. The "body count" ratios can't look good if this keeps up. So someone is saying "Hey OK - we now need 6.8 mm rounds" Take a look at that thread..

Well the Taliban, Vietcong, and recently Iraq have fought guerrilla wars and these tactics do not require or can be dealt with bombers.
Heavy bombers may seem to be of little use in Chinese context(against PLA and PLAAF) but due to their range and payload can cripple Pakistan of its attack capability and morale.
These bombers if stationed in say Farkhor airbase can devastate Pakistan in minutes. It creates enormous pressure on Paks Anti-air resources.

Now a Tu-22M not necessarily has to be dedicated to bombing missions only. If used as a maritime strike platform equipped with Brahmos and Klub-N, Not even the USN can dare to cone into IOR without dealing with these first.

They can be stationed in Lakshadweep, Nicobar, or any future bases and can create a virtual death trap to all kinds of challenges PLAN can throw at us.

These being supersonic adds to the enemy grievance.

[Lalmohan]

Koti - IIRC, the F14 was designed to deal with the Soviet strategic bombers that would be deployed against an US fleet. unless a long range standoff missile is used (and that too multiple wave attacks), a carrier group can deal with a lone Tu22 reasonably well with F18's and Aegis reasonably well. in our context 6 Su30's with brahmos can probably do a more effective long range hit against any PLAN task force better than a Tu22 could, but then again, it is tempting to have a few!

[shiv]

Heavy bombers may seem to be of little use in Chinese context(against PLA and PLAAF) but due to their range and payload can cripple Pakistan of its attack capability and morale.
These bombers if stationed in say Farkhor airbase can devastate Pakistan in minutes. It creates enormous pressure on Paks Anti-air resources.

With respect koti-ji you are using the language used by proponents of strategic bombing without any clear evidence that strategic bombing can either:

1) Cripple any nation's attack capability, or
2) Cripple any nation's morale, or
3) Devastate a whole nation in minutes

None of these has ever been achieved by any Air Force using "strategic bombers" in the history of aviation Why is it that the so called experts claim things that do not work? There is more hype here than we are willing to admit and I am certain that there is a "strategic bombing" lobby that has interests in the continuation of certain product lines rather than what actually works in conflict.

[sum]

need-for-a-military-space-programme

In the first segment of his study of the Chinese and Pakistan military programmes and their impact on India, M P Anil Kumar, a former fighter pilot of the Indian Air Force, noted how China's military space programme could pose a threat to India. In this concluding piece, he looks at India's muted plans for space warfare.

The Indian Air Force fancies its transformation into an expeditionary force, a continental air force with strategic reach to defend India's geopolitical interest. The AWACS (the first one inducted on May 28th) will be the bellwether of this expeditionary force.

With the acquisition of force-multipliers like the AWACS, aerostat radars, aerial refuellers, Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters, unmanned aerial vehicles, etc, that old gospel of point air defence was given a burial and area air defence was elevated as the new article of faith. Many strands of the new credo were tested and practised in the exercise Gagan Shakti in October 2006.

Pakistan tried to acquire an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform (Boeing 707-based E-3C) from the USA as early as 1979 but failed. The Pakistan Navy will soon have a flock of ten Lockheed P-3C Orion long range, high endurance maritime surveillance airplanes.

Three of these are to be fitted with E-2C Hawkeye-2000 AEW suite. The Pakistan Navy also has a pair of ageing Breguet Atlantique maritime reconnaissance aircraft. The Pakistan Air Force in a few years will fly six Swedish AEW&C platforms (PS-890 Erieye radar mounted on SAAB 2000 turboprop).

Pakistan in all probability will invest and collaborate in the development of the ongoing Chinese AWACS project KJ-2000 on the Ilyushin-76 airframe and KJ-200 'Balanced Beam' AEW&C project on the Shaanxi Yun-8 airframe.

Apart from its standard scanning modes, the AWACS is designed to operate and 'fingerprint' in a silent surveillance mode known as the passive detection system (PDS). In this mode, much ELINT could be gathered from electromagnetic emissions, meaning peacetime PDS can excavate significant details of the adversary's tactics and orbat (order of battle). This knowledge is inestimable as it could tilt the balance decisively during wartime.

In sum, in another five years, the PAF and Pakistan Navy could jointly keep a constant vigil on the assets as well as activities of the Indian army [Images], navy and air force.

Pervasive capabilities possessed by China and Pakistan have weighty implications for India during both peace and war.

To respond to China's calibrated hostility and Pakistan's incurable hostility, the Indian armed forces have to defend nearly 15,200 km of land frontier, 7,517 km of coastline (including Andaman and Nicobar and the Lakshadweep islands) and the airspace above it.

We need as many as 30 AWACS to patrol this vast geographical expanse round-the-clock, which is simply beyond our budget, which calls for a cost-effective, optimal deployment and employment of various ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) assets.

Since early warning is going to set the pace of air war and catalyse successful military missions, with the potential acquisition of AEW&C systems, Pakistan, through its force-multipliers, aims to nullify the IAF's superiority, and thereby shrink the asymmetry, achieve near-parity and blunt the Indian conventional deterrence in a way.

With Pakistan on course to achieve what can be termed 'AEW symmetry,' the IAF will perforce have to reboot with a different operational doctrine. (In all wars hitherto anchored by the AWACS -- from the Beqaa Valley air war in June 1982 to the 2003 Iraq war -- the Israeli Air Force and the United States Air Force blitzed and pulverised the adversaries under total AEW asymmetry.)

Should this disconcert us? Yes, and No.

Foremost, we need to acknowledge Pak capabilities and then use our heads to outwit, outgun and outgeneral the Pakistani military. Also, a state of symmetry does not mean a stallion will turn into a jackass. Force multipliers will retain its mojo and utility; AWACS will remain a strategic asset, retaining its punch. Operational tactics and strategies can be rejigged continually to beat the AEW-symmetry environment.

Among other things, the AEW symmetry will compel the IAF to relocate its combat aircraft squadrons further inland to increase survivability. This dispersed deployment in depth beyond the sweep of adversary's AEW/ESM systems is a long-term, capital-intensive process.

Even today, high-tech hardware is only as good as the man at the machine. Self-explanatory. Needless to add, the force with better leadership, training, innovation, motivation, aggression and tech-savvy personnel will naturally be the quicker one on the draw, and should carry the day.

Space ahoy!

How do we worst the AEW-symmetry in our unfriendly neighbourhood? One obvious first step is creating asymmetry through the assimilation of our space prowess. We need to develop and deploy space-based assets so as to cumulate sensor inputs, datalink it to the networked military command and control system from where it can be fed to the field units and commanders. This will enhance the battlefield situational awareness through real-time projection of the battlefield.

For this, the Indian armed forces will have to attain network centric warfare (NCW) capability, but they are just inching, not marching towards that goal. NCW will pivot upon the networking of terrestrial, nautical & aerospatial radars; AEW platforms; air defence fighters, missiles & artillery batteries; communication centres; electronic warfare systems and aggregation of other air defence assets of army and navy.

Thus, a net-centric apparatus will enable the military to interlock geographically scattered units to operate as a unified force, thus maximising our reach and offensive power, thus maximising our chances of aerospace dominance. Hence, the government's present piecemeal approach and hesitation to found an integrated, triservices NCW system are truly baffling.

Though we enjoy the edge over Pakistan in satellite technology, one cannot rule out China -- Pakistan's soul mate and an alleged, unapologetic proliferator -- sharing its know-how and intelligence with Pakistan. China is light years ahead of us in offensive space technology; so our endeavour should be 'space denial.' In case of Pakistan, we must go all out to achieve total 'space control.'

India must also prepare a contingency plan for the worst-case scenario -- China emerging as a 'rogue space power.'

These are easier professed than done. For, high-tech structures like an aerospace command require dedicated military satellites interlinked with other ISR infrastructure. Leave alone establishing a fully-operational aerospace command, we are aeons away from using space for real-time snooping, warning, jamming and guiding precision-strike munitions.

Policy stasis, the bane of this nation

With space having emerged as the fourth medium for military operations, the IAF had brought out its blueprint titled 'Defence Space Vision 2020' two years ago. The IAF had also laid claim to the aerospace command as natural progression for them, and therefore, wanted its bureaucracy to run it.

Since space-related technologies will be accessed by all three services, since future wars will be fought jointly and at theatre levels, since command and control will be executed via military networks, the Integrated Defence Staff is the most deserving agency to host the aerospace department.

Acknowledging this logic, last June, the defence minister announced the formation of an Integrated Space Cell under the IDS headquarters in Delhi [Images] to counter what he called 'the growing threat to our space assets.' The remit of this cell is, however, rudimentary -- to liaise with the relevant elements among the armed forces, the department of space and ISRO -- and the cell could degenerate into another talking-shop!

Though China's ASAT shocker and Pakistan's pains to attain AEW symmetry should have galvanised us into action, our establishment (the unhurried politico-bureaucratic setup) seems to be reading the hare and the tortoise fable, not 'Vision 2020' or related literature, and daydreaming about the Indian tortoise breasting the tape ahead of the Chinese hare! Well, the establishment is travelling mostly in time, not much in space!

(The US Department of Defense in 1973 created an Office of Net Assessment -- the Pentagon's [Images] internal think-tank. Many militaries have constituted a body comparable to the ONA since. Unlike military or national power, hard or soft power, Net Assessment focuses on intangible, even inconspicuous aspects that could be taken advantage of during a conflict.

For example, if a country's governmental decision-making is slack, strategists will flag this national character for exploitation. Hence somebody needs to drive home this point to our slowcoach mandarins that their chronic tardiness is in effect making them a fifth column.)

With space and time collapsing rapidly in modern warfare, the establishment of a triservices Space Command (under the IDS) cannot suffer further deferral. The Space Command should be charged with total administrative and operational control over the whole gamut of space warfare.

As space assets must be seen as auxiliary tools to serve our security requirements, let us develop a military space programme by investing in space technologies without being apologetic about it, without the typical Indian ambivalence, fence-squatting and dilly-dallying.

Given the national security implications, one can only hope that the defence minister will goad the lazybones and will infuse much-needed urgency, energy, purpose and direction to our military space programme.

Let me sign off on an optimistic note by quoting what General Colin Powell had said: 'Perpetual optimism is a force-multiplier.'

[Singha]

without stealth, a strategic bomber need to have capability for very fast engine revv up and sustained mach 2+ flight.

I never say strategic bombers are the soln to all problems (lord knows I have enough folks in my workplace moving around with solutions looking for problems)

its just a useful tool one among many to have esp when its
a decade long process of R&D, mods and finally induction for a conversion like EMBxxx. Embraer has experience with their AEW mods in airframe area, so they should be able to do stuff like making the floor stronger, handling extra point loads and enlarging the manouver margin.

But its never going to be low flying mach2 barnstormer of
the B1/Tu160 mould and we need to accept this bird could
undertake such "shomali plain" type missions only in sanitized airspace and where no medium alt SAMs are known to operate.

what it can do is having a 1500-2000km combat radius (i.e. operate from beyond enemy awacs and GLCM envelope,
fly to fireing areas, release long range low flying stealthy ALCMs and JASSM type weapons and fly back after delivering economically a heavy salvo (6-8) without tying up
vital assets like Su30s. being quite costly long range weapons these are best used against static targets like
C3I nodes, storage sites and ships cued by MPA/space assets.

Using nuclear tipped cruise missiles these would also form
part of the air force triad because I dont see us using tactical nukes.

some could be used for ELINT missions, standoff jammers,
escort jammers on naval strikes by fighters, JSTARS etc.
a kind of desi 707 shell to be utilized for all military C4I
tasks in various versions.

we need to settle on one such shell whether EMB or A321
and move forward.

rewards can always be doled out with IA and AI orders - these two arent going away anytime soon no matter how we rant