Have Bombers become obsolete in Modern warfare?

[sandeepdg]

^^i agree with you sandeepdg,however there is very less probablity that we will have to fight war in which we have to destroy entire cities,as we can ,future wars will be proxy wars ( limited to a region like kargil conflcit )

We never know what's gonna happen in the future, so let's not speculate about it. I am not saying that we have to use bombers mainly for carpet bombing cities, they can used to carpet bomb a large airbase, a naval base or a port, vast defense industrial production complexes etc.. Hell, they can be put to use to take out a variety of targets, so its more cost effective. All i am saying is that its good to have a small fleet of these heavy capacity, versatile aircrafts which have proved their mettle since the advent of military combat aviation.

 

[Yusuf]

^^i agree with you sandeepdg,however there is very less probablity that we will have to fight war in which we have to destroy entire cities,as we can ,future wars will be proxy wars ( limited to a region like kargil conflcit )

In DFI HQ, we are discussing preemptive strike. I think a dedicated bomber like the Tu22 can be and will be a very useful weapons platform. A single sortie can take out vital targets. The best thing about a bomber is flexibility that a S2S missile lacks.

 

[sandeepdg]

In DFI HQ, we are discussing preemptive strike. I think a dedicated bomber like the Tu22 can be and will be a very useful weapons platform. A single sortie can take out vital targets. The best thing about a bomber is flexibility that a S2S missile lacks.

Exactly, Yusuf ! That is what i am trying to put through to everyone.

 

[StealthSniper]

Do we need Bombers in today's wars?

Yes we absolutely do. Let's just say that it will complete and reinforce our nuclear triad for India. We will have land capability, nuclear submarine launch capability, and then air strike nuclear launch capability.


And by the way, I absolutely adore the Tu-160 BlackJacks. Their is a eerie innocence to them, but you and me know that it can destroy countries. I get chills just thinking about India having 5 or 6 of the Tu-160 in IAF livery. Pakistan and China will wet themselves.

 

[Yusuf]

But to maintain dedicated bombers, we have to have have capable escorts and good ECW system. We cannot afford B2s that will bomb and come back undetected. So we have to protect our bombers. Air dominance would give the bombers are free run.

I am not sure bombers would be an effective platform against China. Their vital targets are far away. Even if the bombers have the range, escorts will not. Bombers will be flying ducks in Chinese airspace.

 

[StealthSniper]

Well I assume that we will maybe have a Awacs in the air and air superiority fighters like the SU-30 MKI defending the Tu-160 BlackJacks if they had to bomb a target. And Yusuf I do agree that we might not be able to bomb targets in China but having the capability to, is more then enough for India. Besides India has a no first strike policy, so Bombers used by India in my opinion won't be used except for defensive purposes.

 

[Yusuf]

Bombers are not a defensive platform but offensive. How are you going to use a bomber in a defensive role? It's only use is to blow the hell out of the enemy. Also Indias no first strike policy is limited to the use of nukes, not conventional weapons. But in the case of China, I don't think bombers will be an effective choice, definitely not with a fleet of 5-6.

But in the case of Pakistan where we can establish air superiority, the bombers will be devastating. Be it taking out vital bridges, oil storage and most importantly their command, control snd communication.

 

[bengalraider]

As a defensive weapon the Tu-22M is a far better choice than the Tu-160 (even though i adore the Tu-160) the blackjack was built for strategic bombing and being an offensive weapon , it was supposed to hit the enemy hard before a massive soviet ground offensive even began, the backfire was built for another purpose altogether. the Tu22M was built for the destruction of carrier battle fleets and one or two squadrons armed with Brahmos or comparable anti-shipping missiles can make life hell for any future Chinese CBG.Also the Tu-160 while highly desirable would be a maintenance and operational nightmare for the IAF.

 

[StealthSniper]

Although I do love the Tu-160 BlackJack, I think it's fair to say that they are a little to much for India and maybe we have to look at our political and geographic area to see what we need and what we need to carry out. I was just thinking that maybe we don't need someting as big as a Tu-160, or TU-22M and just follow what the Russians are doing. I think it would be smart and actually quite feasible to acquire the SU-34 Fullback because of it's familiarity to the SU-30, cheaper to operate, and will be better suited to our mission parameters. I would say we have a squadron of them and they could even be built along the SU-30 production line, of course only if the Russians will let us.

 

[StealthSniper]

 

[bengalraider]

A Tu-22m provides a payload capacity of 21000 kgs, compared to 8000kgs for a Su-34 ,also the combat radius of a Tu-22 is 2400km compared to 1100 km for the fullback. These are two different aircraft with widely differing roles the Su-34 is built as an tactical strike aircraft, while the Backfire is built as a light strategic bomber.
however that being said you have a point in that the fullback could be built along the flanker production line as many of the components remain the same.also the operating costs would be lesser.

 

[sandeepdg]

Although I do love the Tu-160 BlackJack, I think it's fair to say that they are a little to much for India and maybe we have to look at our political and geographic area to see what we need and what we need to carry out. I was just thinking that maybe we don't need someting as big as a Tu-160, or TU-22M and just follow what the Russians are doing. I think it would be smart and actually quite feasible to acquire the SU-34 Fullback because of it's familiarity to the SU-30, cheaper to operate, and will be better suited to our mission parameters. I would say we have a squadron of them and they could even be built along the SU-30 production line, of course only if the Russians will let us.

Well, at almost three times the payload of an SU-34 and more than twice its range at just double its price, the TU22M seems to be better option for IAF to me. We have no need for an aircraft of TU-160 type for the foreseeable future. And yes, its maintainence will be a nightmare for the IAF.

 

[icecoolben]

India already operates tu-22m on mari-time survilance mode. So the infrastructure problems can be contained to an extent. But having the capability to operate bombers will help us to increase that air combat arm with ease when required that start building a doctrine in the future.

 

[bengalraider]

India already operates tu-22m on mari-time survilance mode. So the infrastructure problems can be contained to an extent. But having the capability to operate bombers will help us to increase that air combat arm with ease when required that start building a doctrine in the future.

I think you are confusing the Tu-22M backfire with the Tu-104 bear(Wikipedia is wrong on this), In fact there is no maritime surveillance variant of the backfire not even for Russia.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Rather than having long range bombers India needs to have ICBM'S first, most Indian missiles are restricetd by the MCTR once this restriction is resolved than bombers can be contemplated, but it is better to send many longer range missiles with MIRV than sending a plane which drops tons of conventional dummy bombs. Evn if India had long range bombers I can't see India using it against anyone especially since the treat is in the immediate neighborhood, and penetrating Chinese airspace deep into China maybe a difficult task.

 

[bhramos]

I think you are confusing the Tu-22M backfire with the Tu-104 bear(Wikipedia is wrong on this), In fact there is no maritime surveillance variant of the backfire not even for Russia.

Tu-22M3 is a maritime version for RuN.
IN operated them in some 1999 [Approx] for only 6-9 Months., when both Tu-132M and Il-36 May went for Russia for Some Kind of Upgradiation,

source MARITIME STRIKE - The Soviet Perspective

 

[bengalraider]

Tu-22M3 is a maritime version for RuN.
IN operated them in some 1999 [Approx] for only 6-9 Months., when both Tu-132M and Il-36 May went for Russia for Some Kind of Upgradiation,

source MARITIME STRIKE - The Soviet Perspective

The Tu-22m3 is a maritime strike version ,i was talking about maritime surveillance.

 

[bhramos]

The Tu-22m3 is a maritime strike version ,i was talking about maritime surveillance.

i think both are same after surveing only naa they can strike.

 

[bengalraider]

i think both are same after surveing only naa they can strike.

Maritime surveillance is carried out by specialized aircraft like the P8i Poseidon or the IL-38 sea dragon . a maritime surveillance electronics package needs to be mounted on a relatively slow platform in order to work.both are worlds apart a maritime surveillance aircraft is primarily a submarine hunter with a secondary role as a ship hunter is equipped with anti-shipping missiles, while maritime strike aircraft are completely designed to take out high value surface assets.the targets for a maritime strike aircraft are assigned to it by shore based radar or ship based radar while a maritime surveillance aircraft finds its own submarine or ship targets before launching cruise missiles or torpedoes at it.You can say one fulfills the role of an AWACS at sea(looking only at the surface) while the other is more like a Sukhoi SU-30MKI.

 

[jakojako777]

Why would you be bothered about SAMS when you are not going to be picked up on RADAR? Yes one F-117 was shot down, but give me an instance of the B-2 being shot down.
Bombers have their own place. Missiles were around 50 years back as well, but still that did not prevent the US and the USSR from coming up with bombers. Why would the US spend $2billion each on something that it does not find useful?

I agree with all you say except about the example you give..Perhaps the B-2 has never been shot down, but than how much risk did they take in missions?
Personally I don't thikn that USA would put in risk few billions worth plane if there is any higher risk involved.
Did they use them in Iraq? Perhaps only when all the defenses were down.
But than they didn't use F-22 neither...
Any country that has more than stone to throw at the plane would be "high risk mission" I guess. LoL !:lool::lool::lool:
On the other hand bombers like Pak Da will be true stealth and will be capable to fly any mission....:viannen_10: