Because we don't need it.
Yeah, just like we dont need to nuke Pakistan if they take out Delhi and Bombay. Right, very insightful strategic thinking.
Indian strategic arsenal is going to be mounted increasingly on missiles. We don't need bombers to target Pakistan when even Prithvis are good enough.
With China we need more missiles reach Beijing and Shanghai. I'd use missiles than send a pilot over hostile territory over himalaya, Tibet and other Chinese areas under a barrage of Air defence to reach Beijing and Shanghai.
Yusuf, you need to grow out of Asia, thats all I can say. Please stop limiting yourself to the region. It is that type of thinking by a lot of people that make decisions that is holding our country back, strategically and economically. Every single opinion piece I have read from you on India's strategic is fatally flawed.
When you have countries like the US who are not happy with having a base in Diego Garcia and are doing everything to setup a base right outside your doorstep, the alarm bells should not just start ringing, the sirens should be going off in South Block.
The PAKDA is going to be inducted between 2025-2030. The perfect time when we need to induct a stealth strategic bomber.
A possible PAK-DA configuration
PAK DA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am not limiting myself to Asia.
Even the Russian Army or some in there are against the bomber.
US base in Diego Garcia if at all can again be targeted with missiles. We don't have to risk our boys. Strategic bomber is anyways not going to be used in Deigo. we are not going to nuke that tiny island.
My analysis is not fatally flawed. You talked about not bombing Pakis back even if they did. But you missed out the reasons for it. It was not as if I was offering the second cheek.
US and Soviets kept a bomber fleet over arctic and Atlantic on 24x7 readiness. They were talking about MAD.
russia india relation since soviet times have been all about money.so i think india can just buy some of these bombers from russia like it brought tu-142 maritime bombers and il-38 when their production begin rather than invest in r&d like we have in pak-fa.another option is to have a manned bigger version of our stealth ucav-aura.
We dont need a bomber to take out Diego Garcia. We need a strategic bomber so we have global reach. Of course we will have global reach through missiles and subs too. But there is a reason why the US and Russians have always had bombers. You or I are not smarter than their strategic planners.
Even with all that the US is pursuing a base in Bangladesh. Think! Why would they want that?? By you rationale as long as we have missiles we dont need anything else. Dude!
If you want to be a global power, think like one.
And talking about MAD, what makes you think that we wont be threatened by the USA or Russia 20 years from now?
Neither does Ivan?
Rogozin Doubts Need to Develop New Strategic Bomber | Defense | RIA Novosti
Russia may or may not need it. It has to afford it in the first place.
I remain confused after post #3 says "not PAK-DA, something different" and balance of thread carries on in PAK-DA mode.
I have shifted some posts to Indian response to a Pakistani nuclear strike
Having strategic bombers like PAK-DA will greatly improve our strategic forces.
Bombers can do things like precision bombing an airfield with less collateral damage to so-rounded structures.
A stealth strategic bomber will carry a nuclear payload. You are not going to worry about precision strikes and collateral damage when nukes are used.
Developing the PAKDA is a very expensive proposition.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)