ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Bleh]

A platform which could carry around 20t would be a welcome inclusion in the armoury.

Oh yes! That madlad was based on Mirage-3, which had specs very comparable to Tejas Mark1 (7t empty, 13. 5t MTOW) was itself of 14t empty weight... It could carry more than 3 times internal fuel as Mirage-2000 & 10t ordnance.
But not too large either;

 

[aditya10r]

Oh yes! That madlad was based on Mirage-3, which had specs very comparable to Tejas Mark1 (7t empty, 13. 5t MTOW) was itself of 14t empty weight... It could carry more than 3 times internal fuel as Mirage-2000 & 10t ordnance.
But not too large either;View attachment 41692

Mirage 4000?

________________________________________________

 

[Bleh]

Mirage 4000?

________________________________________________

No! Mirage-4 is a tactical striker/bomber that was developed based on Mirage-3, two same engines but almost 4 times fuel & much larger (see previous page).

Mirage-4000 is the predecessor of Rafale, a slightly larger, twin-engine canarded Mirage-2000 based platform... Kinda like ORCA.

 

[IndianHawk]

Now there lies the problem. Whenever we talk about bombers, we just envision it as a World War era system which could be used only for carpet bombing. I have already mentioned that a bomber is more of a force multiplier. Agreed that we can't use a bomber in a highly saturated air defence scenario, but this holds true for any attack aircraft. We need to get air dominance first to use a bomber in enemy territory. But in our case in our western border, we could use it from within the relative safety of pour territory. In norther border, we would need to obtain serious air dominance even to use M2K or MKI in bomber role. So its square one for Bomber and Attack aircraft.

Now coming to use MKI as a bomb truck. Do you know that at present the mission computers of MKI doesn't allow it for a swing role? Means in Attack mode, it can't carry out the role of air dominance. The mission computer has to be completely reprogrammed for that and this can't be done in mid flight. There goes the multi role out of the window for MKI. M2k and Jaguar Darin III upgrades have the capability upto an extent, but there too M2k could carry out only a limited A2A role in attack mode. Tejas has that capability to switch role in a single sortie but it got a short leg and has the limitation of payload.

We are jumping on the program of slapping BRAHMOS on MKI. But we have effectively forgot that a MKI with BRAHMOS under its belly could take off, but can't land. It would be like the Khukri which would not go in scabbard unless it tastes blood. If a mission objective is changed or cancelled, which is common, then the MKI can't land unless it drops off the missile. A serious limitation I believe.

When we talk of economics, YES, we can't afford a sqd of bombers for sure. But saying that we don't need it is just.................
Do you think China is investing on Bombers to do a carpet bombing on US? Do you think Russia is investing on PAK-DA and flying Tu-160 to do a carpet bombing run?
Maintaining bombers is a costly affair. But saying that attack aircrafts could take place of bombers is like comparing a Sedan with a Pickup truck.

Yup strikers will have drawbacks against proper bombers but dedicated bomber too has huge drawback against modern enemy. Bombers are too huge and slow that they are easy prey for Sam's and long range aam.

Unless you have Stealth bombers enemy awacs would locate your bomber easily and Sam and aam will be coming for you.

Now of course bomber could launch standoff weapons from safe distance but given the cost of stand off weapons the quantity will be rather limited and perhaps it's better to use multiple strikers for same job then ! At least they can run away faster.

 

[IndianHawk]

A platform which could carry around 20t would be a welcome inclusion in the armoury.

Two su30 could deliver 16-17 ton of ordinance faster and runaway , they also have better protection from enemies sam/aam .

 

[Bleh]

Bombers are too huge and slow that they are easy prey for Sam's and long range aam.

Not if the bomber flies above your fighter's service ceiling or faster than your SAM can climb (not the huge strategic bombers that can only work in completely dominated airspace).

Today the perfect bomber platform is some good aerodynamic platform that can supercruise at about 70,000ft... Sorta similar to Mig-25 that flew over Islamabad, but couldn't simply be intercepted. Ideally hypersonic, atleast Mach 3.

 

[IndianHawk]

Not if the bomber flies above your fighter's service ceiling or faster than your SAM can climb... That's how most of those worked (other than the huge strategic bombers than can only work in completely dominated airspace).

Today the ideal bomber platform is some good aerodynamic platfirm that can supercruise at about 70,000ft. Sorta similar to Mig-25 that flew over Islamabad, but couldn't simply be intercepted.

Such a platform won't carry much ordinance thus negating the point of dedicated bomber. Also to drop bombs it will have to come lower ??

Mig25 flew at that height just to survey .

 

[Bleh]

Such a platform won't carry much ordinance thus negating the point of dedicated bomber. Also to drop bombs it will have to come lower ??

Mig25 flew at that height just to survey .

Says who? They can carry a lot a of ordnance, just like any other heavy platform. Especially if those can be stored internally to reduce drag... Not exactly like Mig-25.

Almost all upcoming bomber concepts of every country concentrate on getting as high & fast as possible. India could use one lightly larger than Su-30 at MTOW not more then 50t (thus the Mirage-4 example).
Also now-a-days bombs can be released from any height.

 

[IndianHawk]

India could use one lightly larger than Su-30 at MTOW not more then 50t (thus the Mirage-4 example).
Also now-a-days bombs can be released from any height.

I will have to read about bomb drop heights I'm not sure about it.

About mtow two su30 give us 64 ton mtow!!

 

[IndianHawk]

Anyway this is lca MK2 thread why are we discussing bombers here. Start a new thread to debate whether we need them or not.

With mwf carrying 6.5 ton it will be a good bomb truck itself carrying almost double the payload of mig27 and jaguars while being truly swingrole capable.

 

[Bleh]

Anyway this is lca MK2 thread why are we discussing bombers here. Start a new thread to debate whether we need them or not.

From this post #2896... Then we got on about how the very comparable Mirage series got a tactical bomber from subsequent jets that were much like LCA, MWF, ORCA & whether ours could too.

I will have to read about bomb drop heights I'm not sure about it.

About mtow two su30 give us 64 ton mtow!!

Yes, but also check the future bombers under R&D.

A fully loaded MWF is as manoeuvrable as a 747, even if its completely swing-role unlike those Su-30 as @Chinmoy pointed out. They can still get only as high as 50,000ft & easily shot down by BVR volley (considering jamming) at almost maximum range... Escorts won't protect it from that.
So you want a specially modified platform like our old Canberra bombers, that can internally carry the ordnance & climb as high as possible. Higher than most fighter's service ceiling & high enough so that SAMs run out of juice while climbing. Flown fast enough, most regular ones will never even reach them, let alone catch (Mig-25 example).

 

[IndianHawk]

From this post #2896... Then we got on about how the very comparable Mirage series got a tactical bomber from jets much like LCA, MWF, ORCA & whether ours could too.
Yes, but also check the future bombers under R&D.

A fully loaded MWF is as manoeuvrable as a 747, even if its completely swing-role unlike those Su-30 as @Chinmoy pointed out. They can still get only as high as 50,000ft & easily shot down by BVR volley (considering jamming) at almost maximum range... Escorts won't protect it from that.
So you want a specially modified platform like our old Canberra bombers, that can internally carry the ordnance & climb as high as possible. Higher than most fighter's service ceiling & high enough so that SAMs run out of juice while climbing. Flown fast enough, most regular ones will never even reach them, let alone catch (Mig-25 example).

I will check the developments but sam are also developing with increased flight ceiling. Our own akash has flight ceiling of about 66000ft . Next version might have even higher ceiling.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

I will check the developments but sam are also developing with increased flight ceiling. Our own akash has flight ceiling of about 66000ft . Next version might have even higher ceiling.

What about bombers like Tupolev Tu-160 which have capabilities to carry missiles big enough which can strike from standoff range of 3k-4k and stay out of SAM systems.
And can out run normal jets because of it's range.
But i don't think that we need such type of jet because whole Pakistan already come into our missile range.

 

[Bleh]

I will check the developments but sam are also developing with increased flight ceiling. Our own akash has flight ceiling of about 66000ft . Next version might have even higher ceiling.

What about bombers like Tupolev Tu-160 which have capabilities to carry missiles big enough which can strike from standoff range of 3k-4k and stay out of SAM systems.
And can out run normal jets because of it's range.
But i don't think that we need such type of jet because whole Pakistan already come into our missile range.

Well, is a race!

Still when at 65,000ft it'll be a miracle for any Akash (Mach 3) to climb up to almost max height & hit something moving at supersonic speed.
Also if the striker jet can be made to carry a few BVRs, it can effortlessly destroy all climbing SAM or jets from above. That's an advantage that should be sought of even if all Pakistan is within standoff range... but when the time is right. Right now there are other issue on the way.

 

[IndianHawk]

What about bombers like Tupolev Tu-160 which have capabilities to carry missiles big enough which can strike from standoff range of 3k-4k and stay out of SAM systems.
And can out run normal jets because of it's range.
But i don't think that we need such type of jet because whole Pakistan already come into our missile range.

Tu160 can't really outrun Sam as it's flight ceiling is just 52k ft. It's top speed is also 2 Mach nothing extraordinary.

But it can carry 45t of ordinance which is awesome.

If you have missiles capable of hitting 3-4k km far then you can launch them from missile boats designed for it. Russian did it in Syria from black sea! Missile boats might be cheaper solutions that way.

 

[IndianHawk]

Well, is a race!

Still when at 65,000ft it'll be a miracle for any Akash (Mach 3) to climb up to almost max height & hit something moving at supersonic speed.
Also if the striker jet can be made to carry a few BVRs, it can effortlessly destroy all climbing SAM or jets from above. That's an advantage that should be sought of even if all Pakistan is within standoff range... but when the time is right. Right now there are other issue on the way.

And the race is being won by sam. Older akash can hit above 60k ft. New and more capable s400 type system can hit at an altitude upto 30km!!
That's almost 100k ft.

Aircrafts have to go stealth because Sam are becoming to dangerous. Now either you make a stealth bomber which will be Uber costly or you destroy enemy air defence before bomb runs which is again very difficult to do.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

It's top speed is also 2 Mach nothing extraordinary

If a strategic bomber like this is used in correct way it will be able to stay away from enemies sam system and use it's long range missiles to snipe them out and then because of it's headstart and terrific range it will be able to out fly enemies aircraft because they will not be able to to match it's range and will finish all of their fuel. ( all of this is a guess tho
)
( i do think once enemy airforce is crippled then big bomber like Tupolev Tu-160 can also be used to bomb the shit out of the land based armed forces continuously.)

 

[Bleh]

And the race is being won by sam. Older akash can hit above 60k ft. New and more capable s400 type system can hit at an altitude upto 30km!!
That's almost 100k ft.

Aircrafts have to go stealth because Sam are becoming to dangerous. Now either you make a stealth bomber which will be Uber costly or you destroy enemy air defence before bomb runs which is again very difficult to do.

True, stealth is also necessary. So AMCA first.

If a strategic bomber like this is used in correct way it will be able to stay away from enemies sam system and use it's long range missiles to snipe them out...

I wonder they haven't tried to give these bomber BVRs (or have they?) Destroying a climbing SAM coming at you in a predictable path but won't counter-maneuvre, by shooting from high above should be quite easy!

Strategic bombers of that size are indeed too large with all the shortcomings mentioned above by @IndianHawk, including limited speed & difficult to reduce RCS.
But a 50t MTOW aircraft, just above the heavy fighter class, would be more manageable.

 

[IndianHawk]

it will be able to stay away from enemies sam system and use it's long range missiles

Long range missiles are costly like cruise missiles even long range bombs are costly over simple bombs. That means you can't use a lot of them unless you are as rich as uncle Sam. And if you can't use a lot of them them no need for a huge carrier just use your regular strikers like su30 with bramhos or rafale with scalp.

 

[IndianHawk]

I wonder they haven't tried to give these bomber BVRs (or have they?) Destroying a climbing SAM coming at you in a predictable path but won't counter-maneuvre, by shooting from high above should be quite easy!

To drop bombs you have to fly slow , to fire bvr you need speed ! And once a Sam has you on lock multiple will be coming plus enemy jets will be coming for you soon with more bvr. So it defeats the purpose. Bombers are only good for dominated air spaces. Even stealth one of USA was drowned iirc.