ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter

[Sancho]

Is that so? I didn't know that nukes had to be dropped to call it a strategic weapons delivery platform, I might have to 'revise' my definition of a strategic weapons delivery platform.
BAe hawk will make an excellent n-weapon delivery platform.

It's strange how he can comment on strategic roles, but at the same time admit, that he doesn't know the difference between strategic and normal roles.

 

[Jackd]

It's strange how he can comment on strategic roles, but at the same time admit, that he doesn't know the difference between strategic and normal roles.

Hahaha. He really makes me laugh with his stupid and ignorant posts.

I'd request you to see the Indian economy thread and see what he has been posting in the last 30 minutes. Head over there if you have an inkling about the 2008 financial crisis.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

It's strange how he can comment on strategic roles, but at the same time admit, that he doesn't know the difference between strategic and normal roles.

If you know the difference, why don't you explain? I am claiming that there is o difference and any plane that has the capability to carry any ammunition can also carry nuke of same dimensions and type. If a plane can carry 500kg conventional bomb, it can carry 500kg nuke instead, for example. But, since we no longer use drop nukes, we don't do it as far as possible.

My claim is that strategic role is fictional and has no meaning

Hahaha. He really makes me laugh with his stupid and ignorant posts.

I'd request you to see the Indian economy thread and see what he has been posting in the last 30 minutes. Head over there if you have an inkling about the 2008 financial crisis.

If you understand nothing speak nothing.

 

[Sancho]

Hahaha. He really makes me laugh with his stupid and ignorant posts.

He did the same in the Rafale thread too, claiming things about LCA and Rafales load capabilities, without even knowing how many weapon stations Rafale even has.

 

[Sancho]

If you know the difference, why don't you explain? I am claiming that there is o difference and any plane that has the capability to carry any ammunition can also carry nuke of same dimensions and type. If a plane can carry 500kg conventional bomb, it can carry 500kg nuke instead, for example. But, since we no longer use drop nukes, we don't do it as far as possible.

My claim is that strategic role is fictional and has no meaning

=>

If you understand nothing speak nothing.

Inform yourself before you claim things.

 

[Jackd]

=>




Inform yourself before you claim things.

I will suggest that you just laugh at idiocy and tick him off even more, so that he can be humiliated time and again.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

=>
Inform yourself before you claim things.

First learn to explain your point before speaking nonsense:

What is the difference between strategic role planes and normal planes in capability in today's context (excluding nuclear bomb dropping ability)?

 

[Pandeyji]

more than the basic flawed understanding

Said by the man who thinks that Typhoon is a better fighter than Rafale & Su30 is based on Su35. Bravo Sancho, bravo. What's your next comic act?

 

[Enquirer]

But, since we no longer use drop nukes, we don't do it as far as possible.

My claim is that strategic role is fictional and has no meaning

So, you're saying there's no nuclear 'traid'?? There won't be an aircraft delivered nuke? If an aircraft does deliver then how will it do it?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

So, you're saying there's no nuclear 'traid'?? There won't be an aircraft delivered nuke? If an aircraft does deliver then how will it do it?

I am saying that nuclear bombs are launched from common platforms like air launched cruise missiles but not in any specific "strategic bomber". For example, the Brahmos can carry nukes launched from air. The Nirbhay ALCM in future can also have nuclear warhead.

So, any plane that can launch these kind of ammunition like ALCM, Brahmos etc can also launch nukes. There is no special plane with specially designed strategic bombing ability.

The old style drop-nukes are no longer used as they are considered too inaccurate for launching such an expensive and powerful weapon like a nuke.

 

[Enquirer]

I am saying that nuclear bombs are launched from common platforms like air launched cruise missiles but not in any specific "strategic bomber". For example, the Brahmos can carry nukes launched from air. The Nirbhay ALCM in future can also have nuclear warhead.

So, any plane that can launch these kind of ammunition like ALCM, Brahmos etc can also launch nukes. There is no special plane with specially designed strategic bombing ability.

The old style drop-nukes are no longer used as they are considered too inaccurate for launching such an expensive and powerful weapon like a nuke.

It's still unsure if Brahmos will ever be nuclear tipped (given that it's a joint venture with Russia!). The jury is still out on Nirbhay !!

As such, the only option for aerial delivery right now is a 'nuke drop bomb'!!

Regarding your notion that their's no such thing as a 'strategic' fighter - you're incorrect!

Nuclear bombs cost in BILLIONS of $$$ per bomb (if you account for everything that goes into it!). And also given the criticality of timing when it has to be delivered (don't get too many chances) the delivery platform needs to be extremely reliable, long range (the weapon might need to be picked from some interior location & then flown in a completely different route to enemy territory), well protected from counter attacks and satisfy a tonne of other parameters! That is exactly the reason why Rafales are equipped with towed decoys and other enhancements that they're not publicly disclosing (perhaps some radiation hardening etc).

Tejas doesn't have the range, speed etc to become a reliable delivery platform for nuclear weapons!

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

And also given the criticality of timing when it has to be delivered (don't get too many chances) the delivery platform needs to be extremely reliable, long range (the weapon might need to be picked from some interior location & then flown in a completely different route to enemy territory), well protected from counter attacks and satisfy a tonne of other parameters!

The problem with this are:

• Attacking any important site will definitely have to evade SAMs. But with SAM technology advanced and missiles capable of doing 30-40g acceleration, it is difficult to evade them
• The glide bomb or other PGM can be shot down with simple systems like stinger missiles as they are slow flying. So, taking out a nuke PGM will not be hard
• The missile system like cruise missile, quasi ballistic missile with precision guidance etc have advanced a lot that they form very reliable delivery system for sensitive ammunition like nukes

Brahmos may be JV but India has been able to indigenise many components. Brahmos NG planned will likely be fully Indian. India will not simply follow arbitrary rules and restrict itself in nuclearising Brahmos, especially Indian made one. If JV causes nuisance, then it is better to get rid of it than compromise on capability. The Nirbhay is also under development and DRDO posters recently show of grand plans for Nirbhay in several roles like ALCM, Land based missile etc.

About Tejas not having the range and endurance, I agree with this view. But, if the target is nearby like Lahore (20km from border), then there should be no problem in striking with Tejas. Also, the new MCA (MK2 tejas) will likely have the required endurance for the strikes. So, claims that Rafale is strategic role fighter while LCA and MCA aren't, is incorrect. The difference is just difference of endurance rather than incapability.

 

[Enquirer]

As usual you're full of speculations without understanding the foundational principles.

The problem with this are:

• Attacking any important site will definitely have to evade SAMs. But with SAM technology advanced and missiles capable of doing 30-40g acceleration, it is difficult to evade them
• The glide bomb or other PGM can be shot down with simple systems like stinger missiles as they are slow flying. So, taking out a nuke PGM will not be hard
• The missile system like cruise missile, quasi ballistic missile with precision guidance etc have advanced a lot that they form very reliable delivery system for sensitive ammunition like nukes

You should read up on the nuclear triad philosophy!!
One type of delivery maybe better than the other, but that doesn't mean they'll eliminate the second best and third best option! Redundancy is the name of the game!!!

Brahmos may be JV but India has been able to indigenise many components. Brahmos NG planned will likely be fully Indian. India will not simply follow arbitrary rules and restrict itself in nuclearising Brahmos, especially Indian made one. If JV causes nuisance, then it is better to get rid of it than compromise on capability. The Nirbhay is also under development and DRDO posters recently show of grand plans for Nirbhay in several roles like ALCM, Land based missile etc.

Indigenizing the components (or getting rid of JV) doesn't mean India can violate the terms of the original agreement!
What makes you think Brahmos NG will be fully Indian, when the concept and tech for Brahmos NG is from Russia (& required a new inter-governmental agreement)??

About Tejas not having the range and endurance, I agree with this view. But, if the target is nearby like Lahore (20km from border), then there should be no problem in striking with Tejas. Also, the new MCA (MK2 tejas) will likely have the required endurance for the strikes. So, claims that Rafale is strategic role fighter while LCA and MCA aren't, is incorrect. The difference is just difference of endurance rather than incapability.

India will have around 1000 fighter aircraft (pooling all services) but only around 100+ nukes! Out of these a significant number will be earmarked for submarine launch, ground-based-missiles etc, leaving only a couple of dozens for aerial delivery!
I don't understand this puerile frenzy to make all 1000 aircraft to carry a couple of a dozens of nukes!!
2-4 squadrons of highly capable fighters is all that is required! Rafales can fly longer, faster & lower(nap of the earth) than even the yet to be built Tejas Mk2!!!

Strategic ops is not based on teenage whims, but in depth studies!!

 

[Saichand K]

Ok they started doing it in this thread too...

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

You should read up on the nuclear triad philosophy!!
One type of delivery maybe better than the other, but that doesn't mean they'll eliminate the second best and third best option! Redundancy is the name of the game!!!

This is true. I am only saying that the drop bomb technique is almost nill but not absolutely zero. So, I agree with you here

Indigenizing the components (or getting rid of JV) doesn't mean India can violate the terms of the original agreement!
What makes you think Brahmos NG will be fully Indian, when the concept and tech for Brahmos NG is from Russia (& required a new inter-governmental agreement)??

I don't think India will restrict itself in making best use of its arms. JV or Tot, if the missile has full Indian content, India will not agree with restrictions. It makes no sense as restrictions are conditional and not absolutely forever

India will have around 1000 fighter aircraft (pooling all services) but only around 100+ nukes! Out of these a significant number will be earmarked for submarine launch, ground-based-missiles etc, leaving only a couple of dozens for aerial delivery!

This is not correct. 100 is too small a number to be meaningful. Some fake surveys without any factual information spread such lies

I don't understand this puerile frenzy to make all 1000 aircraft to carry a couple of a dozens of nukes!!
2-4 squadrons of highly capable fighters is all that is required! Rafales can fly longer, faster & lower(nap of the earth) than even the yet to be built Tejas Mk2!!!

Rafale can have kill switch. So, even if some planes have to be designed for strategic bomb dropping, it will be jets which India can be sure of, not imports like rafale. Su30 has software, radar, engine etc as made in india and hence more reliable

 

[Enquirer]

This is true. I am only saying that the drop bomb technique is almost nill but not absolutely zero. So, I agree with you here

Cool!

I don't think India will restrict itself in making best use of its arms. JV or Tot, if the missile has full Indian content, India will not agree with restrictions. It makes no sense as restrictions are conditional and not absolutely forever

Brahmos deal was made 30 years ago (even before Pokran II).
OFB, BDL, BHEL, BEML etc manufacture hundreds of foreign licensed products - several of them 100% from indigenous materials, yet every single item made conforms to the 'licensing agreement'!

This is not correct. 100 is too small a number to be meaningful. Some fake surveys without any factual information spread such lies

100+ is the best guess most experts have given various constraining factors (like nuclear energy being given the rightful priority over missile use of available Uranium).
Increased production from Thummalapalle reserves might change the balance in the coming years though.

Rafale can have kill switch. So, even if some planes have to be designed for strategic bomb dropping, it will be jets which India can be sure of, not imports like rafale. Su30 has software, radar, engine etc as made in india and hence more reliable

True, that any foreign fighter could come with some black boxes! But France has been a very reliable partner for India; & India inherently trusts France.
In the long term a domestic aircraft/tech would be desired for strategic roles, but until an aircraft like AMCA can arrive Rafale is the best bet. Su-30MKI is also a better bet than Tejas Mk1/Mk2 - as such 40 Su-30MKI are under the Strategic Forces command.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

100+ is the best guess most experts have given various constraining factors (like nuclear energy being given the rightful priority over missile use of available Uranium).
Increased production from Thummalapalle reserves might change the balance in the coming years though.

Advanced countries don't use uranium bombs but plutonium bombs only. Uranium bombs are inefficient. Enriched Uranium is only used for 2 stage hydrogen bomb in second stage as tamper to enhance the blast. But even here, depleted uranium can be used trading off with reduced blast intensity. So, the uranium that goes intoo power generation gives plutonium which is used in Indian bombs.

Brahmos deal was made 30 years ago (even before Pokran II).
OFB, BDL, BHEL, BEML etc manufacture hundreds of foreign licensed products - several of them 100% from indigenous materials, yet every single item made conforms to the 'licensing agreement'!

The license is only about royalty and not about usage. There is no point having a permanent license that even after full indigenisation, the usage will be restricted. The conditional agreement for imports can exist but no usage conditions can be there for Indian made system even if design in foreign

 

[Enquirer]

Advanced countries don't use uranium bombs but plutonium bombs only. Uranium bombs are inefficient. Enriched Uranium is only used for 2 stage hydrogen bomb in second stage as tamper to enhance the blast. But even here, depleted uranium can be used trading off with reduced blast intensity. So, the uranium that goes intoo power generation gives plutonium which is used in Indian bombs.

Dude, you once again go on ranting without understanding!
Plutonium is derived from Uranium. To imply that Indian Plutonium bombs don't require Uranium raw material is bonkers!!
India did divert Plutonium by product from Canadian Uranium acquired for nuclear reactors - that's what triggered the creation of NPT in the first place!
India's access to world's Uranium was further cut off after Pokran II. As such nuclear power generation was severely impacted!
The 123Agreement with US has attempted to restore the uranium supply chain to India - with the requirement that Plutonium (or any by product) derived from the civilian nuclear reactors will NOT find its way into the weapons program!!!
You can spin conspiracy theories and speculations all day, but the facts of the matter remain pretty clear!!!

The license is only about royalty and not about usage. There is no point having a permanent license that even after full indigenisation, the usage will be restricted. The conditional agreement for imports can exist but no usage conditions can be there for Indian made system even if design in foreign

'License agreement' is not like 'law of gravity' that there's only ONE type!
A seller can impose whatever restrictions they want. The seller of the license might dictate who it could be sold to and can also impose the end user to sign their mandated usage agreement! More advanced the weaponry, the more stringent the end user agreements are!

We're off topic on this thread !

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Dude, you once again go on ranting without understanding!
Plutonium is derived from Uranium. To imply that Indian Plutonium bombs don't require Uranium raw material is bonkers!!
India did divert Plutonium by product from Canadian Uranium acquired for nuclear reactors - that's what triggered the creation of NPT in the first place!
India's access to world's Uranium was further cut off after Pokran II. As such nuclear power generation was severely impacted!
The 123Agreement with US has attempted to restore the uranium supply chain to India - with the requirement that Plutonium (or any by product) derived from the civilian nuclear reactors will NOT find its way into the weapons program!!!
You can spin conspiracy theories and speculations all day, but the facts of the matter remain pretty clear!!!

Please understand that the Uranium that goes into PHWR plant generates electricity and the waste has plutonium. India had Uranium production of 400tons in 2000 itself. It has grown now with Tumallepalli. Each ton or uranium on complete burning of U235 produces 5kg of plutonium. Each bomb needs 4-5kg plutonium for first stage which means that 1 ton of natural uranium an make 1 bomb. So, Indian origin plutonium itself is huge without needing for imported Uranium. The plants like Kaiga, Tarapur, Madras etc have reactors which are not civilian ones and have total non-civilian capacity of 2.4GW. These plants produce plutonium.

So, the idea that India has 100 nukes is not correct. As a result, need for just few strategic bombers is also not correct.

'License agreement' is not like 'law of gravity' that there's only ONE type!
A seller can impose whatever restrictions they want. The seller of the license might dictate who it could be sold to and can also impose the end user to sign their mandated usage agreement!

If India has the technology, then it can make its own product. Brahmos can be made on its own and renamed as Brahmind instead of brahmos. License is not for indigenously manufactured items if not a single part is imported.

 

[Enquirer]

Please understand that the Uranium that goes into PHWR plant generates electricity and the waste has plutonium. India had Uranium production of 400tons in 2000 itself. It has grown now with Tumallepalli. Each ton or uranium on complete burning of U235 produces 5kg of plutonium. Each bomb needs 4-5kg plutonium for first stage which means that 1 ton of natural uranium an make 1 bomb. So, Indian origin plutonium itself is huge without needing for imported Uranium. The plants like Kaiga, Tarapur, Madras etc have reactors which are not civilian ones and have total non-civilian capacity of 2.4GW. These plants produce plutonium.

So, the idea that India has 100 nukes is not correct. As a result, need for just few strategic bombers is also not correct.

It's hilarious that you think you can do simple math better than everyone else

If India has the technology, then it can make its own product. Brahmos can be made on its own and renamed as Brahmind instead of brahmos. License is not for indigenously manufactured items if not a single part is imported.

Complete BS.