Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

[Speedster1]

I believe they will offer even the PAK DA to India. Even the PAK VA (stealth transport).

Given that we have operated the Tu-95 (Bear-F) in a maritime role, I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea of us getting some Blackjacks. But China is a factor we cannot ignore. PAK-DA is just too far into the future to speculate.

As for downgrading, it depends. The radar is largely irrelevant, but we need a robust EW suite, preferably Indian.

We'd probably be better off with a new design than MKI-zing Blackjack.

know, and that's fine over land against China. But against PLAN at sea, we will need the Tu-160's small RCS, high altitude, and supersonic persistence to survive. The weapons too, say, a subsonic Kh-555 stealth replacement, 3000+ km, to complement existing supersonic and hypersonic capabilities launched from sea.

Against China, our strategy is sea denial vs sea control for Pak. For the foreseeable future, that probably won't change.

We need to invest in a 200+ ship navy backed by shore-based AShBM (including hypersonics) and SSK + SSN in droves. The latter, in particular, would keep the PLAN on its toes throughout the IOR.

For the most part, maritime bombers are good only for posturing. Isn't that why Russia sends bomber patrols to the fringes of NATO every so often?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Given that we have operated the Tu-95 (Bear-F) in a maritime role, I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea of us getting some Blackjacks. But China is a factor we cannot ignore. PAK-DA is just too far into the future to speculate.


We'd probably be better off with a new design than MKI-zing Blackjack.


Against China, our strategy is sea denial vs sea control for Pak. For the foreseeable future, that probably won't change.

We need to invest in a 200+ ship navy backed by shore-based AShBM (including hypersonics) and SSK + SSN in droves. The latter, in particular, would keep the PLAN on its toes throughout the IOR.

For the most part, maritime bombers are good only for posturing. Isn't that why Russia sends bomber patrols to the fringes of NATO every so often?

Given the huge tussle on between the IAF & IN , wonder what makes people think the IAF will permit IN procurement of Maritime Bombers ?

It's another issue that stealth rules & presently there's absolutely nothing in the cupboard of our traditional allies viz France or Russia in terms of a stealthy bomber.

In fact the solution may lie closer home in the Ghatak. If the present one is certified double quick , we could think in terms of having our own B-2 equivalent powered by 4 KED perhaps uprated to offer 57KN - 60KN thrust per KED.

I'd go so far as to say even if we retain the existing KED which has a ~ 50KN thrust output that should be good enough.

This is what Sriram Thyagarajan was rooting for as the next project ADA / ADE ought to undertake after delivering the Ghatak.

 

[randomradio]

Given that we have operated the Tu-95 (Bear-F) in a maritime role, I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea of us getting some Blackjacks. But China is a factor we cannot ignore. PAK-DA is just too far into the future to speculate.

IN's unlikely to get bombers. It's not part of their mandate. Anyway, I am talking about 2035+. It's pointless right now, when there's no real Chinese threat and we don't wanna piss off the Americans. This bomber's necessary to counter the USN too.

We'd probably be better off with a new design than MKI-zing Blackjack.

Given the numbers the IAF talked about, like 6, we will have to depend on an import. And I doubt Russia's gonna make a new one anytime soon.

The question is if we want the Tu-160 or are willing to wait for a stealth bomber, prioritizing the IAF's mission. The IN needs supersonic.

The IAF has the option of developing a twin-engine Ghatak for use along the borders. 2 Dry AMCA engines can easily provide more than GCAP's 6500 km range on a flying wing design along with twice the payload. So their strategic needs are easily met by the Ghatak family eventually.

Against China, our strategy is sea denial vs sea control for Pak. For the foreseeable future, that probably won't change.

We need to invest in a 200+ ship navy backed by shore-based AShBM (including hypersonics) and SSK + SSN in droves. The latter, in particular, would keep the PLAN on its toes throughout the IOR.

For the most part, maritime bombers are good only for posturing. Isn't that why Russia sends bomber patrols to the fringes of NATO every so often?

The minimum is a given. 1500-2000 km range will be taken care of by fighters carrying large missiles, as planned, along with the P-18 destroyers. We can even extend the range of the LRAShM to 4000 km. But if we are to use the full extent of our satellite network, we will need true long range massive fires along the lines of the Kh-55/555 carried by supersonic bombers and supported by EW drones.

Simply because we cannot allow PLAN any space to willy-nilly operate in the IOR without being challenged. Especially if they wanna approach other islands in the South IOR we are mandated to protect, Seychelles, Mauritius, Reunion etc, that fighters cannot reach and ships take their own sweet time to get to. We need to develop persistent presence from the coast of Madagascar to Australia, that's roughly 5000-6000 km from TN. That can only be provided by supersonic bombers alongside refuelers.

 

[Speedster1]

Simply because we cannot allow PLAN any space to willy-nilly operate in the IOR without being challenged. Especially if they wanna approach other islands in the South IOR we are mandated to protect, Seychelles, Mauritius, Reunion etc, that fighters cannot reach and ships take their own sweet time to get to. We need to develop persistent presence from the coast of Madagascar to Australia, that's roughly 5000-6000 km from TN

One way to do this is by securing more bases like Agalega, and joint patrols with allies like France (Reunion). We also need to build up Lakshadweep big time. If push comes to shove, take a leaf from China's book and build some artifical islands along key SLOCs. Ultimately, it is intent that dictates capability. Before we can acquire bombers, our doctrine will need to change.

 

[randomradio]

One way to do this is by securing more bases like Agalega, and joint patrols with allies like France (Reunion). We also need to build up Lakshadweep big time. If push comes to shove, take a leaf from China's book and build some artifical islands along key SLOCs. Ultimately, it is intent that dictates capability. Before we can acquire bombers, our doctrine will need to change.

The islands are too few to hold mass if 1 or 2 Chinese CBGs show up. But you can imagine how far away such an eventuality really is.

Anyway if ACM Raha was talking about Tu-160, their new 2022 doctrine likely covers it.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

CAUTION - topic of thread getting derailed.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Some ADA pics

View attachment 43793
View attachment 43794
View attachment 43795
View attachment 43796

This CAD Vs artist Satwik Sadhukhan's CAD, width equalized :