IAF's Tactical/Strategic Bombing capabilities

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Dhairya Yadav, Aug 28, 2014.

  1. Dhairya Yadav

    Dhairya Yadav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    India
    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: Aug 28, 2014
  2.  
  3. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    444
    Location:
    Lucknow
    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.
     
  4. Dhairya Yadav

    Dhairya Yadav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    India
    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?
     
    EXPERT likes this.
  5. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    444
    Location:
    Lucknow
    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.
     
  6. SajeevJino

    SajeevJino Long walk Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,657
    Likes Received:
    3,032
    Location:
    Inside a Cage
    .

    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
     
  7. JBH22

    JBH22 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,390
    India's Main rival are Pakistan and China, hence the need for strategic bombers is not warranted.
     
    sesha_maruthi27 likes this.
  8. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    The MKI is probably 20 times more capable than the Canberra.
     
    sesha_maruthi27 likes this.
  9. Anoop Sajwan

    Anoop Sajwan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    14

    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.
     
  10. rohit b3

    rohit b3 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    193
    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.
     
  11. Anoop Sajwan

    Anoop Sajwan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    14

    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.
     
  12. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,290
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Good luck sending a bomber to Beijing and get it back in 1 pc.
     
    TrueSpirit1, nirranj, fyodor and 4 others like this.
  13. Dhairya Yadav

    Dhairya Yadav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    India
    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.
     
  14. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    444
    Location:
    Lucknow
    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.
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  15. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,011
    Likes Received:
    2,251

    :heh:

    Hang on sir, what they call it.......may be.......'deep strike mission' or something.
     
  16. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,945
    Likes Received:
    10,325
    Location:
    India
    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.
     
  17. arnabmit

    arnabmit Homo Communis Indus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    5,858
    Location:
    Kolkata
    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.

     
  18. Dhairya Yadav

    Dhairya Yadav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    India
    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?
     
  19. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    444
    Location:
    Lucknow
    Agni series....
     
  20. Ashutosh Lokhande

    Ashutosh Lokhande Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    561
    Location:
    Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, India
    Strategic bombers are obsolute from indias point of view.
    Agni series is more than capable to do the job with respect to chinese.
     
  21. Dhairya Yadav

    Dhairya Yadav Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    India
    Agni with nukes is capable of doing the job. On a conventional explosive load, What you propose is quite expensive for India, Isnt it?
     

Share This Page