IAF's Tactical/Strategic Bombing capabilities

Dhairya Yadav

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
481
Likes
141
Since the retirement of Canberras in 2007, IAF has no bombers in its fleet. This a big disadvantage to our capabilities when countering China, which have quite sophisticated Strategic bombers. IAF is not even planning for induction of any bomber in foreseeable future. What's your thought on this guys? Shouldn't HAL/DRDO/ADA atleast start some work on bombers? Im familiar with AURA stealth bomber, but it would have a small range of only 300 km(Might be a understatement)
 
Last edited:

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
Since the retirement of Canberras in 2007, IAF has no bombers in its fleet. This a big disadvantage to our capabilities of China, which have quite sophisticated Strategic bombers. IAF is not even planning for induction of any bomber in foreseeable future. What's your thought on this guys? Shouldn't HAL/DRDO/ADA atleast start some work on bombers? Im familiar with AURA stealth bomber, but it would have a small range of only 300 km(Might be a understatement)
India has a bomber, Jaguar. And India is inducting Rafale mainly for its strike capabilities. So there is no shortage of strike aircraft per se. If we need higher payload/range, we can use our MKI which has been aptly described as a bomb truck. For short ranges, Mirages and upgraded Mig29s are also good enough for the job.
 

Dhairya Yadav

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
481
Likes
141
India has a bomber, Jaguar. And India is inducting Rafale mainly for its strike capabilities. So there is no shortage of strike aircraft per se. If we need higher payload/range, we can use our MKI which has been aptly described as a bomb truck. For short ranges, Mirages and upgraded Mig29s are also good enough for the job.
But those are strike/ground attack mission configs. Strategic bombers have long ranges that fighters don't provide, 10-20 times more weapons payload. What you said is correct too. We dont need strategic bombers as of now, but what about future, when we might need large bombing capabilities in global scenario?
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
But those are strike/ground attack mission configs. Strategic bombers have long ranges that fighters don't provide, 10-20 times more weapons payload. What you said is correct too. We dont need strategic bombers as of now, but what about future, when we might need large bombing capabilities in global scenario?
Those large bombing capabilities will come at a cost. Strategic bombers are WMDs. Once nations know they are in your range, it will invite their concerns and scrutiny. We already have ballistic missiles with ranges of 5000 Km. Spread beyond that and Europe will come in our range. There is simply no need to alarm those developed nations if we don't face any threat from them.

Another thing, its not easy to develop strategic bombers, much less maintain them. There is a thread running on this forum where people are crying that IAF cannot afford Rafale, and you think we have money to afford strategic bombers. Only large economic powerhouses have developed Strategic bombers. We are not even two trillion dollar economy. It will be a waste to spend large amounts of money on such a weapon. Strategic bombers for IAF, will come after a long long time, if they ever come. We have lot of other spending priorities. There is simply no need of a strategic bomber at present.
 

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
.

Our Navy had Long Range Bombers

I mean the P 8I it's not only a hunter but a Good Bomber too

also IAF uses An 32 for Similar Bombing Role although they already proved it
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,478
Likes
17,797
India's Main rival are Pakistan and China, hence the need for strategic bombers is not warranted.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Since the retirement of Canberras in 2007, IAF has no bombers in its fleet. This a big disadvantage to our capabilities when countering China, which have quite sophisticated Strategic bombers. IAF is not even planning for induction of any bomber in foreseeable future. What's your thought on this guys? Shouldn't HAL/DRDO/ADA atleast start some work on bombers? Im familiar with AURA stealth bomber, but it would have a small range of only 300 km(Might be a understatement)
The MKI is probably 20 times more capable than the Canberra.
 

Anoop Sajwan

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
80
Likes
14
But those are strike/ground attack mission configs. Strategic bombers have long ranges that fighters don't provide, 10-20 times more weapons payload. What you said is correct too. We dont need strategic bombers as of now, but what about future, when we might need large bombing capabilities in global scenario?

Indian militry has shifted its war doctrine from conventional enemies area capture to capture or destroying of strategic positions. ( sorry for layman words but cant find proper words).

Perhaps that's why IAF also don't need strategic bombers. Smaller fighter bombers are better in point interception. It is interesting see that Canberra were used as a recognition plane in its late service rather than a bomber due to low operating cost. So eventually IAF already shifted its bombing doctrine pretty much earlier than we think.

More over now a days, conventional bomber are just useless, unless it is not a stealth bomber. A purchase, operating and maintenance cost of this type of plane is just bomb in it self. A b-2 cost 2 billion dollar in 1990, just think ita cost today.
 

rohit b3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
815
Likes
1,400
Country flag
Multirole is the way to go in the 21st century. With both Air superiority and Ground attack capabilities. MKI,Tejas and Mirage2000 are true Multirole fighters. Mig29 Airsuperiority fighters are being upgraded for Multirole duties, with ground attack. Jaguars are ground attack aircrafts, being equiped with Air-Air missiles.
 

Anoop Sajwan

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
80
Likes
14
Multirole is the way to go in the 21st century. With both Air superiority and Ground attack capabilities. MKI,Tejas and Mirage2000 are true Multirole fighters. Mig29 Airsuperiority fighters are being upgraded for Multirole duties, with ground attack. Jaguars are ground attack aircrafts, being equiped with Air-Air missiles.

Every weapon system have role to play. Why do you think that strategic bombers are useless. USAF and RuAF have plans for bombers.

Don't get with wikipedia, mki's strike capability is just a littile above to mig29. They are not true multi role. Miraj, lca and Rafale are true multi role.

Jaguars are equipe to ASRAAM for self-defence of they engage in some battle. Fire the missiles, hope enemy will take time to engage with them and use that time to leave the field.
 

Dhairya Yadav

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
481
Likes
141
What i mean to say is , at present we dont need a bomber. But what about the future? Every superpower maintains strategic bomber fleets. As per my knowledge, China operates Xian H-6 since 1950s, at that time they were no better than India, And still maintain it as they consider it as an important part of their military.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
What i mean to say is , at present we dont need a bomber. But what about the future? Every superpower maintains strategic bomber fleets. As per my knowledge, China operates Xian H-6 since 1950s, at that time they were no better than India, And still maintain it as they consider it as an important part of their military.
China's doctrine has been different. They were a nation which became a strong military power much before they became a economic power. They maintained world's largest army even when their per capita GDP was way less than India. Also, in those days, ballistic missiles were not reliable. China got ICBM only around 1975. So the threat on them justified a strategic bomber in the late 1950s. However, we already have Agni V which can target any of our adversaries. We don't need to use the expensive option of Strategic bomber.

Also, we don't have technology to support strategic bombers at present. We don't have powerful ECM, we don't have indigenous PGMs, or long range cruise missiles. We have no experience in stealth.As for the future, we will probably start a project on it once we have perfected AURA. If India ever goes for a strategic bomber, it is always going to be unmanned.
 

rock127

Maulana Rockullah
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
10,569
Likes
25,230
Country flag
Bombers have a specific job to do which means dropping bombs in enemy territory.It was possible some while ago.Today it can be taken down by enemy much easier.

While US type of countries can have it(lot of $$$ is needed) we can't have such fleets just for 1 purpose.We need multipurpose planes.

We have enough heavy lift planes which can do the job and then there are missiles to match our jobs.

So basically we don't have that need or extra $$$ for that.
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
MKI is a bomb truck ideal for tactical bombing.

All strategic bombing in Indian doctrine has been delegated to missiles (BM/CM), which are far cheaper, more efficient and low-risk.

There are hardly any bombers in existence which can survive a SAM-rich neighborhood as ours.

Since the retirement of Canberras in 2007, IAF has no bombers in its fleet. This a big disadvantage to our capabilities when countering China, which have quite sophisticated Strategic bombers. IAF is not even planning for induction of any bomber in foreseeable future. What's your thought on this guys? Shouldn't HAL/DRDO/ADA atleast start some work on bombers? Im familiar with AURA stealth bomber, but it would have a small range of only 300 km(Might be a understatement)
 

Dhairya Yadav

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
481
Likes
141
I agree with everyone here, that using strategic bombers for nukes is a bad idea. But consider this scenario - India and China are at full fledged war. China has a large Air Force base quite inside Tibet, from where they launch aerial attacks, supply weapons, food and other logistics to its army. Its a important target for India. Without a bomber, we would need 15-20 multirole aircraft, and to send these many aircraft so deep inside would be a bad idea. To effectively destroy the base, we would need many BhraMos, as only one though effective in point targets, wouldnt destroy the base effectively. With all due respect to everyone, any other alternatives against strategic bombers?
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
I agree with everyone here, that using strategic bombers for nukes is a bad idea. But consider this scenario - India and China are at full fledged war. China has a large Air Force base quite inside Tibet, from where they launch aerial attacks, supply weapons, food and other logistics to its army. Its a important target for India. Without a bomber, we would need 15-20 multirole aircraft, and to send these many aircraft so deep inside would be a bad idea. To effectively destroy the base, we would need many BhraMos, as only one though effective in point targets, wouldnt destroy the base effectively. With all due respect to everyone, any other alternatives against strategic bombers?
Agni series....
 

Ashutosh Lokhande

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
1,285
Likes
568
Strategic bombers are obsolute from indias point of view.
Agni series is more than capable to do the job with respect to chinese.
 

Dhairya Yadav

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
481
Likes
141
Strategic bombers are obsolute from indias point of view.
Agni series is more than capable to do the job with respect to chinese.
Agni with nukes is capable of doing the job. On a conventional explosive load, What you propose is quite expensive for India, Isnt it?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top