Dedicated Bomber for IAF : Arguments
- Thread starter Ankit Kumar
- Start date
The IAF has always wanted dedicated bombers instead of the make-shift bombers they generally use. But we can't afford them.
Let's get our fighter inventory up first. After AMCA progresses and we have a new engine, then we can think about designing our own bomber. That's in the 2030s.
If we get lucky, either the Russians or Americans will sell us a squadron of stealth bombers by then, although I'm not holding on hope for that.
The navy also needs bombers.
Let's get our fighter inventory up first. After AMCA progresses and we have a new engine, then we can think about designing our own bomber. That's in the 2030s.
If we get lucky, either the Russians or Americans will sell us a squadron of stealth bombers by then, although I'm not holding on hope for that.
The navy also needs bombers.
For a country like china , how many places do you think they will have AA missiles stationed ? How much area/target areas can their fighters do a CAP? Last thing is it puts pressure on enemy to ensure they allocate enuf resources (more patrols ) that these bombers dont have it easy.
Having a bomber fleet is certainly expensive but it also gives more options if your fighters can engage the enemy patrols. Against unguarded areas they can certainly wreak havoc at a lesser cost with dumb bombs. We can certainly use them against our cntries which provide sanctuary terrorists in north east.
I believe in a war or small skirmish, you are not invisible, so you are going to be hit, that's for sure. Now can you tell me? A bomber, who will be at a height of over 40,000 ft, won't be detected. Then we are doomed. I don't expect the bomber to fly low to bomb in Indian airspace. A few PGM or LGB are more than enough for a terrorist hideout.
US has never sold strategic bombers to anyone including zee Israelis. That's not going to change anytime soon.
Perhaps. But, as long as we have a requirement, if the US doesn't sell, the Russians will.
It will primarily be for conventional use since the IAF isn't much interested in nukes. Bombers have the ability to produce surprise, with their ability to attack from unexpected areas in large volumes.
The only realistic bomber option from the US is the B-21. All other bombers are way too old.
Tu-160 is still in production. And we only need to lease it for now. Buying it comes later. Leasing 5-6 Tu-160s will be very cheap, so it's not a major funding issue.
The Tu-160 has a very small frontal RCS as well, in the same class as the LCA or Rafale. So its RCS can be further reduced with active cancellation. Plus bombers can fly below horizon. So its ability to survive isn't such a big problem.
The H-6 is a copy of the Tu-16. It's nowhere near the Tu-160. In fact just 1 Tu-160 is more capable than a squadron of H-6.
Radar cross section: The measure of stealth - Military Embedded Systems
WARFARE EVOLUTION BLOG: The primary measure of stealth, or low observability (LO), is the radar cross section (RCS) of the target, whether it?s aircraft, missiles, or ships. The radar pulse goes out from the transmitter, hits the target, and bounces back. The radar receiver measures the energy...
militaryembedded.com
Having posted this from an article from 2017 , pls also be informed that the said article doesn't factor in the Russians having come out with a Mk-2 , for obvious reasons. But I doubt they can camouflage a bus this big even with state of the art technology in which they're obviously behind the US & Europeans & probably the Chinese too.
It's pretty much the same story with their Su-57 Mk-2 tbh . It'd probably turn out to be one of the best 4.5 G++ or 4.75 G+ MKI out there competing with the best in the world equipped as it would be thanks to IAF design specs with Israeli French & Indian inputs but it lacks stealth or is very limited in this feature which as of now the defining characteristic of a 5th G aircraft.
The Tu-160M2 is survivable even in penetration missions.
Yes, they talk of us being allies, but it's the Russians who provide what we want. In any case, B-21 vs PAK DA is a future requirement, this one seems to be for the Tu-160M2.
Lol. You just pulled that claim out of your butt.
Russia’s Tu-160 Bomber: Just How Capable Is It? A tricky challenge in defense analysis is grasping a potential adversary’s own perceptions of military capabilities and limitations. It’s hard not to project beliefs and assumptions from one’s own strategic culture onto another country’s. That can also lead one to inflate or misinterpret the effectiveness and purpose of foreign military systems already veiled in secrecy and propaganda.
For that reason, a 2018 article published in a Russian military industry journal criticizing the viability of Russia’s Tu-160 ‘Blackjack’ strategic nuclear bomber makes for interesting reading, revealing an authentically Russian perspective on the challenges facing a key component of Moscow’s airborne nuclear deterrence.
The author, Andrey Gorbachevskiy, who also posted a follow-up article replying to criticisms of his argument, is a radar specialist with experience managing the development of air-defense technology going back to the 1980s.
His take shouldn’t be taken as the final word on the Tu-160 Blackjack’s effectiveness—after all, even highly informed defense experts disagree all the time on the utility of various technologies and tactics. Nonetheless, his piece opens a window to internal debates regarding Russia’s nuclear deterrence priorities and offers insight as to how North America’s air defenses appear from the attacker’s perspective.
Due to its radar cross-section of 10-15 square meters, he warns “…even with the presence of electronic warfare systems, it won’t be possible to hide such a conspicuous target as the Tu-160 in the future.”
Though the Tu-160M2 model is receiving a modernized electronic warfare system, Gorbachevskiy estimates it would have to be ten times more powerful than its current 1980s-era Baikal jammer to be effective against contemporary jam-resistant Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars on U.S. fighters. That amount of power would necessitate increased electrical generation and weight.
He compares the Tu-160 unfavorably to the similar but smaller U.S. B-1B Lancer bomber, arguing the Soviet design’s much faster supersonic sprint is a poor tradeoff for the latter’s smaller radar cross-section (RCS), which also requires a less powerful electronic warfare system for self-defense.
Russia’s Tu-160 Bomber: Can It Strike America or Sink an Aircraft Carrier?
The Tu-160’s primary mission was, and remains, to lob long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles, at high-value targets in the United States,
www.19fortyfive.com
Come on bruh really?
If we are really moving into leasing Tu 160 then it indicates that we may be into development of ALBMs. Its a nice option to have and the fact that we are just leasing out also may be an indication that in future we will develop out own strategic bombers. All and all its very favourable to lease platforms coz that fulfills immediate needs and also doesnt hinder indigenous developments to extend that outright purchases do. Bombers plus ALBM (hypersonic & long range) is a good deterrent.
I also hope that rather than MMRCA purchase, we better lease 3 sqds of Rafale F4 for 20 yrs for IAF & 1 sqd Rafale M for IN. This may be accompanied by 1sqd Tu 160 lease for IAF and 6 Tu 22 lease by IN for 15 years.
All of them can be replaced by TEDBF/AMCA/unmanned bomber of future.
I also hope that rather than MMRCA purchase, we better lease 3 sqds of Rafale F4 for 20 yrs for IAF & 1 sqd Rafale M for IN. This may be accompanied by 1sqd Tu 160 lease for IAF and 6 Tu 22 lease by IN for 15 years.
All of them can be replaced by TEDBF/AMCA/unmanned bomber of future.
Lol. You just pulled that claim out of your butt.
Russia’s Tu-160 Bomber: Just How Capable Is It? A tricky challenge in defense analysis is grasping a potential adversary’s own perceptions of military capabilities and limitations. It’s hard not to project beliefs and assumptions from one’s own strategic culture onto another country’s. That can also lead one to inflate or misinterpret the effectiveness and purpose of foreign military systems already veiled in secrecy and propaganda.
For that reason, a 2018 article published in a Russian military industry journal criticizing the viability of Russia’s Tu-160 ‘Blackjack’ strategic nuclear bomber makes for interesting reading, revealing an authentically Russian perspective on the challenges facing a key component of Moscow’s airborne nuclear deterrence.
The author, Andrey Gorbachevskiy, who also posted a follow-up article replying to criticisms of his argument, is a radar specialist with experience managing the development of air-defense technology going back to the 1980s.
His take shouldn’t be taken as the final word on the Tu-160 Blackjack’s effectiveness—after all, even highly informed defense experts disagree all the time on the utility of various technologies and tactics. Nonetheless, his piece opens a window to internal debates regarding Russia’s nuclear deterrence priorities and offers insight as to how North America’s air defenses appear from the attacker’s perspective.
Due to its radar cross-section of 10-15 square meters, he warns “…even with the presence of electronic warfare systems, it won’t be possible to hide such a conspicuous target as the Tu-160 in the future.”
Though the Tu-160M2 model is receiving a modernized electronic warfare system, Gorbachevskiy estimates it would have to be ten times more powerful than its current 1980s-era Baikal jammer to be effective against contemporary jam-resistant Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars on U.S. fighters. That amount of power would necessitate increased electrical generation and weight.
He compares the Tu-160 unfavorably to the similar but smaller U.S. B-1B Lancer bomber, arguing the Soviet design’s much faster supersonic sprint is a poor tradeoff for the latter’s smaller radar cross-section (RCS), which also requires a less powerful electronic warfare system for self-defense.
Russia’s Tu-160 Bomber: Can It Strike America or Sink an Aircraft Carrier?
The Tu-160’s primary mission was, and remains, to lob long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles, at high-value targets in the United States,
Come on bruh really?
Lol, that's not frontal RCS, that's just average RCS. The frontal RCS of the Tu-160 is smaller than the B-1B's. And the latest version is even smaller. It's in the LCA, Rafale, SH class.
And the new bomber has many other self-protection features too.