PAK DA - Russian Fifth Generation Stealth Bomber

[W.G.Ewald]

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.

 

[LurkerBaba]

I have shifted some posts to http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...indian-response-pakistani-nuclear-strike.html

 

[Folk hero]

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.

 

[Yusuf]

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.

 

[p2prada]

Developing the PAKDA is a very expensive proposition.

 

[Folk hero]

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.

Nuking who?

I'am talking about limited border war with china, I don't we are going to use nukes for that.

 

[trackwhack]

Developing the PAKDA is a very expensive proposition.

But it is something that India can afford to do by splitting costs with Russia over a 15 year period.

 

[Yusuf]

Nuking who?

I'am talking about limited border war with china, I don't we are going to use nukes for that.

Then what do you need a strategic bomber for in a limited war?

 

[Illusive]

When we have Aircraft Carriers which gives us power projection capabilities, we could use AMCA or FGFA for those bombing role in fututre. PakDA is waste of money.

 

[Folk hero]

Then what do you need a strategic bomber for in a limited war?

HO!!! come on.

I don't know what your definitions of limited war with china is but mine is to destroy as many war assets as possible in Tibet if possible liberate Tibet.

Yes we can use missiles but it may trigger a nuclear war.

 

[p2prada]

But it is something that India can afford to do by splitting costs with Russia over a 15 year period.

Each of these bombers will cost something like $400-500Million a piece. Development cost included. There is no point buying a handful of these. IAF or IN need to figure out a way to use them first and that will take a few years to decide. Then it will take a few years to decide the requirements. All of this we can think of after a decade or so.

For our theater I am pretty sure heavy bombers are useless for us. Anything we want to hit is right next to us. Even LCA with 2 LGBs will do.

Anyway PAKDA was never offered to us and I doubt the Russians will offer it even if we ask for it. If we are to use a heavy bomber, we will have to build one ourselves.

Then what do you need a strategic bomber for in a limited war?

Bombers can carry a massive amount of conventional ordnance. Very useful if the enemy is bunched together.

 

[trackwhack]

Each of these bombers will cost something like $400-500Million a piece. Development cost included. There is no point buying a handful of these. IAF or IN need to figure out a way to use them first and that will take a few years to decide. Then it will take a few years to decide the requirements. All of this we can think of after a decade or so.

For our theater I am pretty sure heavy bombers are useless for us. Anything we want to hit is right next to us. Even LCA with 2 LGBs will do.

Anyway PAKDA was never offered to us and I doubt the Russians will offer it even if we ask for it. If we are to use a heavy bomber, we will have to build one ourselves.



Bombers can carry a massive amount of conventional ordnance. Very useful if the enemy is bunched together.

Agree with everything you say. But at the pricepoint you quote, we can afford to spend 10 billion over 15 years to procure 20 of these planes.

Our theatre is constantly evolving. No sorry, our theatre is constantly expanding. It is not a question of if we will need bombers, rather when we will need it. The development timeframe of the PAKDA is ideal for us. 2025-2030 in when we will need these birds.

I am also pretty certain that we will try to buy them, so the thought is more along, why not try to be involved in building them.

 

[p2prada]

Agree with everything you say. But at the pricepoint you quote, we can afford to spend 10 billion over 15 years to procure 20 of these planes.

Our theatre is constantly evolving. No sorry, our theatre is constantly expanding. It is not a question of if we will need bombers, rather when we will need it. The development timeframe of the PAKDA is ideal for us. 2025-2030 in when we will need these birds.

I am also pretty certain that we will try to buy them, so the thought is more along, why not try to be involved in building them.

A B-1B costs around $300Million today, flyaway cost and it is not as stealthy as what's planned for PAKDA. The Tu-160 costs $250Million apiece flyaway.

Maybe we will need them in a decade, but I don't think IAF will think that far ahead today considering it is so expensive in the first place. It will be nice if we aim for a fighter force half that of the USAF by 2025.

 

[trackwhack]

Chief, 10 billion over 15 or 20 years is 500 million to 750 million a year. Thats nothing for us today for an asset like this.

Wow, am I in a mood to troll on every thread today.

 

[p2prada]

Chief, 10 billion over 15 or 20 years is 500 million to 750 million a year. Thats nothing for us today for an asset like this.

Wow, am I in a mood to troll on every thread today.

That $10Billion will eat into other programs. It won't be over 10-15 years either because PAKDA is not for us. Something from the first page.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ifth-generation-steath-bomber.html#post191164

Anyway it is not a $10Billion program, it would be a $30-50billion program if we are serious about bombers. 10 would be the development price tag alone followed by 50-100 bombers. Buying a handful is not enough if we are to expand our theater. Even the Russians with all their money problems have around 50 Tu-95s and some 50-100 Tu-22s(probably mothballed or in storage by now) apart from 19 Tu-160s(total strength to be 30 by 2030).

The American NGB is slated to be a $79Billion program for 175 aircraft, all medium bombers apart from 100 B-1Bs and a larger number of B-52s. Even the Chinese have 100-150 H-6(9 tons payload) bombers.

Buying the aircraft is not an issue, maintaining one squadron for even 10 years is a big issue. Apart from that we don't have any kind of maintenance or training facility. Getting personnel will be even more difficult. If we are to go for bombers it would take over 20 years before we actually incorporate everything into our doctrine.

We need large numbers because the availability rate of a bomber is anywhere between 25-50%. So, you can say at least 1/2-2/3rds of your fleet is not available at a particular time.

 

[trackwhack]

That $10Billion will eat into other programs. It won't be over 10-15 years either because PAKDA is not for us. Something from the first page.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ifth-generation-steath-bomber.html#post191164

Anyway it is not a $10Billion program, it would be a $30-50billion program if we are serious about bombers. 10 would be the development price tag alone followed by 50-100 bombers. Buying a handful is not enough if we are to expand our theater. Even the Russians with all their money problems have around 50 Tu-95s and some 50-100 Tu-22s(probably mothballed or in storage by now) apart from 19 Tu-160s(total strength to be 30 by 2030).

The American NGB is slated to be a $79Billion program for 175 aircraft, all medium bombers apart from 100 B-1Bs and a larger number of B-52s. Even the Chinese have 100-150 H-6(9 tons payload) bombers.

Buying the aircraft is not an issue, maintaining one squadron for even 10 years is a big issue. Apart from that we don't have any kind of maintenance or training facility. Getting personnel will be even more difficult. If we are to go for bombers it would take over 20 years before we actually incorporate everything into our doctrine.

We need large numbers because the availability rate of a bomber is anywhere between 25-50%. So, you can say at least 1/2-2/3rds of your fleet is not available at a particular time.

A 30 billion program is still a $15 billion tag on us right? All those numbers do make sense. But a strategic stealth bomber is worth the price. No one will ---- with us if we have 2 squadrons of long range stealth bombers.

 

[p2prada]

A 30 billion program is still a $15 billion tag on us right?

No. I gave a price for our own participation assuming our bomber costs $400Million apiece for 50-100 aircraft. Russian funding will cater to their own needs and is separate from what I quoted.

The development costs can be over $20Billion which will be split between the two. That's why I quoted $10Billion in development costs.

Even PAKFA is $25Billion for purchasing 250 aircraft for IAF alone. $11-12Billion development costs will be split between the two countries. So, total cost incurred in the PAKFA program for IAF will be 25+6 = $31Billion. Now with 360degree AESA radars and other jazz, the cost will increase over time.

 

[trackwhack]

No. I gave a price for our own participation assuming our bomber costs $400Million apiece for 50-100 aircraft. Russian funding will cater to their own needs and is separate from what I quoted.

The development costs can be over $20Billion which will be split between the two. That's why I quoted $10Billion in development costs.

Even PAKFA is $25Billion for purchasing 250 aircraft for IAF alone. $11-12Billion development costs will be split between the two countries. So, total cost incurred in the PAKFA program for IAF will be 25+6 = $31Billion. Now with 360degree AESA radars and other jazz, the cost will increase over time.

Why would anyone need 50 - 100 bombers? Even the US built only 20 B-2's. (Agreed they have 100 B1's)

Between India and Russia not more than 50 planes need to be built.

 

[Yusuf]

The 80s-90s developed B2 costs 2billion a piece. I dont know If a 5th gen bomber will come as cheap as 450 million.

The US with all it's money power in. 90s capped the program as it was too expensive. Once the cold war was over, they actually didn't need it. Just because they built it, they used in Kosovo, more than anything to validate design features.

In today's scenario an Su30 MKI can be a good bomber with more sorties and less expensive. The FGFA can play the same role in the future. I don't see India sending fighters to Europe to bomb the hell out of London.

There has to be a doctrine for any acquisition. What is the IAF going to do with the bombers? What role IAF has in the strategic delivery? Will it work in tandem with SFC?

@folk,

India will be able to bomb the hell out of China in a border war using its MKIs.

 

[arya]

India will be able to bomb the hell out of China in a border war using its MKIs.

what are you kidding do you really think mki can go deep inside and perform the task