Trust me Brahmos alone will not bring u victory. U need cheep CMs & capability to drop precision bombs in large quantity, this should be the criteria while inducting a bomber. B1B lancer any day over TU160
Both bombers are dogshit for dropping pgm. They will be shot down long before they even near the battlespace. All the future bombers have one thing in common. A very stealthy flying wing design.
Its a propoganda. How many B1b lancers were shot down sofar during war?
Yeas, they all have. Ultimately we will end up in operating one in future. That doesnt means that we should not induct a bomber now.
As Stand-off cruise missile carriers both are extremely effective, especially Tu-160M. Stealth bombers have their place, but so have supersonic ones, IMO.
I mean the IA is just correct? They shouldn't rely on the IAF for support beyond logistics and supply to the rear. Dedicated and robust rocket force is the need of the hour. Someone has to step up to the plate to lessen the horrendous power disparity between India and China, and it's clear the IAF has no interest in doing so.
Also, why should the IAF feel insulted? They allowed their capabilities wither to such an extent, it almost felt intentional. Maybe they have some secret 5th gen modernization program for the mig-21
What capability would 6-12 bombers provide that a few hundred ground based launchers wouldn't?
I think strategic bombers are overkill for the Pakistan front, and dead against the Chinese front. India won't be able to secure the skies against China, these platforms will simply be hunted down after a few sorties at most.
Maybe a squadron on the Andaman/Nico Islands to help with A2/AD. PLAN has to prove they can break out of the SCS first before it becomes a feasible option instead of a waste of funds imo.
Rather you should ask what few hundreds of ground launchers will provide which a strategic bomber cannot bring to the table.
Missiles are nowhere as reliable as the good ol' bomb. And comes at a cost that's not worth the effort.
If the IAF had jets, we wouldn't be spending as much under a whole new wing.
Anyway, a lot of it's bureaucratic. It's obvious the IA will have more say over the IRF. But bombers would mean the IAF will continue to retain some capabilities independent of the IA.
Also, why should the IAF feel insulted? They allowed their capabilities wither to such an extent, it almost felt intentional. Maybe they have some secret 5th gen modernization program for the mig-21
Dug their own grave. Of course, the govt is also to blame.
Speed and surprise. And range.
Anyway, who's gonna feed, clothe and supply all those ground troops? And who's gonna protect them? Ground troops have to operate in Assam and Ladakh. A bomber can operate from Maharashtra, or even TN, very easy to protect and supply.
A single bomber carries as much as one regiment of ground-based missiles in each sortie. And there's no rule saying you can't use multiple bombers in a single mission, and in conjunction with ground regiments.
Also, a bomber can exploit newly created gaps much faster. It can even penetrate enemy airspace and hit at greater depths. And in case enemy ADGE has collapsed, the bomber can create a lot of problems for enemy ground units.
Bombers have very low RCS, they are not easily detected, and have very advanced self-protection suites. The B-1B in particular has low-altitude penetration capabilities.
Have you guys read this article ? It says - " As per reliable sources, India’s future twin-engine Medium Class Omni-Role Combat Aircraft (ORCA) fighter is also in the works. It will weigh around 23 tonnes. An ambitious timeline of maiden flight in 2026 and production start in 2030 " . There are many other information if time permits do read .
www.indiatoday.in
Indigenous combat jets and Kaveri turbofan engine: All About IAF's new aerospace plan
As the deal to procure 114 foreign fighter jets (dubbed as MMRCA 2.0) progresses, simultaneous efforts are also being made towards acquisition of indigenous fighter aircrafts for filling up the gaps.
Dispersed lethality and greater availability. A handful of bombers will have relatively greater upkeep expenses associated to each unit versus the equivalent costs of ground based launch units. With such small numbers, losing 1 bomber might degrade force capability by 12% while it would take losing a multiple dozen ground based systems before an equivalent loss is felt.
I'll grant you that bombers have much better reaction speed to newly created gaps but I don't think there will be too much cost savings between a handful of strategic bombers and ground based launchers.
I get that bombs are cheap, but I don't forsee the IAF dropping 500lb bombs on Chinese positions. It will almost certainly be pgms and standoff munitions.
Drones and loitering munitions will probably fare better when paired artillery and ground based launchers.
A quick Google search tells me the RCS of the B-1B is over 10m^2, not exactly low observable...
I just don't see a scenario where a 4th generation bomber is survivable in any conflict with China. Maybe for use with very heavy stand off munitions, air launched cruise missiles, hypersonic, etc.
Instead of strategic bombers, I would rather the IAF spend more on air defence, upgrading the su-30s and buying more awacs and tankers.
The cost savings will definitely be high after the initial capex outflow.
I am referring to PGMs. Standoff munitions can be intercepted much more easily.
It's smaller than that, frontal.
Not as a first day of war aircraft, minus standoff strike contibuting to the SEAD/DEAD mission.
They are already doing that, but it will take them 10-15 years to contribute to the war effort to the level expected out of them. 6-12 bombers can allow them to do the same in less than 5 years, or at least by 2030. Any MRFA or LCA Mk2 effort will only deliver after 2030.
Upgrading the MKI isn't enough, it's just 250+ jets, it's necessary for air superiority missions. It's the remaining 500-600 jets that the bomber will act as a stopgap for.
I can't find reliable sources on costs for the B1B. I see some figures saying that it costs over $60,000 per flight hour and has a lot of maintenance related costs.
If I extrapolate numbers from this congressional budget office report from 2018, it seems to suggest that each B1B in operation costs $36.8M per year in operating and maintenance costs.
That's not figuring in the acquisition costs either.
I'm unsure how much a nirbhay/prahaar/etc equivalent setup costs to acquire and upkeep.
PGMs I have in mind are glide bombs and the like. I don't forsee any circumstances where large Indian aircrafts will be able to drop simpler laser guided general purpose/FAB style munitions and survive.
The IAF should plan for successfully SEAD/DEAD missions before acquiring nice to haves after thr mission is done.
Out of curiosity, if war breaks out in 2025, how would the IAF go about suppressing the PLAAF and its air defense capabilities? It's like expecting Saddam Hussein to perform SEAD against allied forces during Desert Storm
I personally don't think a squadron of strategic bombers will make much of a difference in the grand scheme as you suggest. Even if the RCS is somehow stealthy enough to get close, theres no way they will survive the threat environment for long.
The IAF lacking sufficient quality jets for cover means anything outside standoff range is basically suicide.
They will be limited in use against the PLAAF and will just suck away more resources from projects that more desperately need them. Not to mention having yet another platform, plus airframes that will be over 30 years old and heavily used during the middle-east conflicts...
My first pick is just as many loitering munitions and drones as can be squeezed into the sky.
If they have to buy old stopgap frames I would rather they purchase old mirage 2k. Or magically make HAL competent and fast track a composite framed AESA variant mki like the J-16.
If you're only looking at platform costs, then no, the bomber is more expensive. But if you look at all costs right from purchasing the batteries, manufacturing the missiles, storing and transporting them, using them, paying for all the personnel, costs associated with casualties etc, then costs go in the bomber's favour.
Otoh, the cost of a lease won't be much, any upgrades may give the airframes 10-15 years, which is enough time to replace it with something better.
The IA is paying 4300Cr for a new Brahmos regiment.
It depends on the progressive degredation of enemy SAMs allowing the IAF to operate closer to them. These bombers are not for first day of war, outside standoff strike.
Out of curiosity, if war breaks out in 2025, how would the IAF go about suppressing the PLAAF and its air defense capabilities? It's like expecting Saddam Hussein to perform SEAD against allied forces during Desert Storm
Rafales and M2000s have to do the honours, alongside missile strikes. The MKI can contribute with standoff missiles too. So can LCAs. Armed and attack helicopters will contribute to the mission as well.
It's all scenario specific. Not all areas of the battlefield will be protected by SAMs, fighters can always be engaged, and pretty much all areas of the battlefield will have unprotected PLAGF troops. Especially so post the SEAD/DEAD stage, where only the most important areas will be protected.
These can only complement the bomber, not replace it. And nobody can micromanage that many drones that's enough to replace a bomber or two.
Was the plan until all users decided they don't wanna sell their stuff to India. And if they do want to do it, it's gonna be a 10-year wait.
10-15 year effort.
And leasing 6 bombers will cost us about $2B. How much would 6 MKI squadrons cost? And 6 bombers can rapidly be increased to 12 in no time. And now you've thrown away money at 6 MKI squadrons that will take 20+ years to induct and will remain in operation until the 2070-80s or so, draining the exchequer while remaining useless. Money that could have been better spent buying 3-4 more LCA squadrons and 6 bombers, which is a much better idea.
And a bomber still retains other advantages, like launching attacks in the SCS, projecting power across the IOR and so on.
Lol. US ISR is able to track every Tu-160 that takes off full of cruise missiles that are launched at Ukraine. They get tracked deep over the Caspian Sea and know the moment they release their missiles to give Ukraine a precise ETA of those missiles.
Air Chief Marshal VR Chaudhari, CAS IAF visited AFS Tughlakabad, a Base Repair Depot (BRD) + lodger units today.
He inspected Surface to Air Missile with Assured Retaliation (SAMAR) & Missile Supply Vehicle, Pilot Rescue Cradle, Foreign Object Damage Barrier, etc
He inspected Surface to Air Missile with Assured Retaliation (SAMAR) & Missile Supply Vehicle, Pilot Rescue Cradle, Foreign Object Damage Barrier, etc
It's not as simple as that.
It's what I call NATO++ ISR in the current war. It's 'cause NATO can pick up Russian movements, but Russia cannot attack NATO assets. In a war with NATO, their satellites would obviously get hit.
Most of the IAF's jets are multirole, so they are adapted for all missions. Missions conducted depends on pilot training.
Lol. It's safe to say judging by their failing campaign in Ukraine which should have been a cakewalk... or is it piece of cake? Nvm. Where was I.... Oh yeah I don't think the US is concern about Russia taking out US SATs. And even if they do get lucky and take out one do you know how many ISR SATs US has? Also that would be Russia's only shot as Russian launchers get taken out. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has already weaponized space with orbital kinetic weapons of some kind but more than likely a weapon do defend US SATs. US was almost ready to disclose a space weapon but "something" came up.
Exclusive: Pentagon Poised To Unveil, Demonstrate Classified Space Weapon - Breaking Defense
The push to declassify an existing space weapon is being spearheaded by Gen. John Hyten, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.