Have Bombers become obsolete in Modern warfare?

[bhramos]

@ Bengalraider

even IN's Tu-142M & Il-36 Surelance planes can be converted to bombers with littile Modifications.
even IN is planning to put Brahmos Missiles on Il-36,
so is it Matitime Survelence or Strike Aircrraft?
even P-8I can launch Torpedoes and some kind of Anti-ship Missiles too.

 

[bengalraider]

@ Bengalraider

even IN's Tu-142M & Il-36 Surelance planes can be converted to bombers with littile Modifications.
even IN is planning to put Brahmos Missiles on Il-36,
so is it Matitime Survelence or Strike Aircrraft?
even P-8I can launch Torpedoes and some kind of Anti-ship Missiles too.

I have already covered that part in my earlier post wherein i have pointed out that the maritime surveillance aircraft have a secondary role as anti-ship missile platforms, the difference is that a purely strike aircraft like the Tu-22 has no means by which to carry the maritime surveillance package that the Tu-104 can, maritime surveillance requires an aircraft to be able to loiter over the ocean for extended periods of time something the Tu-22 is/was not good at.

 

[Vladimir79]

So is the question meant for strategic bombers or tactical bombers? IMO, tactical bombers are no longer needed with multi-role strike aerocraft. Strategic bombers will always be needed by large powers and have been adapting to meet air defence changes. Now the B-2 is stealth and unseen by radar, the Tu-160 is supersonic and can outdistance most SAMs--- but this is not enough. Now we are going to build hypersonic bombers to outfly missiles --- it never ends.

 

[Vladimir79]

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.

Actually, the Tu-22M3 is primarily designed as a maritime strike aerocraft. Only the latest modernisation can carry PGM land-strike weapons. The Su-34 can play both roles with only a limited loss in capability. With ariel refueling she can get the same range as Tu-22M3, and with lighter Yakhont missiles can accomplish the same task and even defend itself against attack. My favourite feature is the rear launch capability--- anyone on the tail are toast. Su-34 is fully intended to replace both Su-24 and Tu-22M3.

 

[sandeepdg]

Actually, the Tu-22M3 is primarily designed as a maritime strike aerocraft. Only the latest modernisation can carry PGM land-strike weapons. The Su-34 can play both roles with only a limited loss in capability. With ariel refueling she can get the same range as Tu-22M3, and with lighter Yakhont missiles can accomplish the same task and even defend itself against attack. My favourite feature is the rear launch capability--- anyone on the tail are toast. Su-34 is fully intended to replace both Su-24 and Tu-22M3.

From what i know, TU22M was developed as a long range strategic bomber as well as a maritime strike aircraft. Compared to its 21000 kg payload, the SU-34 payload of 8000 kg seems insufficient for bomber only roles. Plus, the TU22M can carry multiple ALCMs also.

 

[Vladimir79]

From what i know, TU22M was developed as a long range strategic bomber as well as a maritime strike aircraft. Compared to its 21000 kg payload, the SU-34 payload of 8000 kg seems insufficient for bomber only roles. Plus, the TU22M can carry multiple ALCMs also.

VVS long range strategic bombers carried Kh-55, of which Backfire never operationally did. It was strictly a maritime strike and dumb-bomb carrier, everything else was just a flirtation. Even today the modernisation will only see an improved dumb-bomb sighting system and anti-radiation missile carriage.

 

[sandeepdg]

VVS long range strategic bombers carried Kh-55, of which Backfire never operationally did. It was strictly a maritime strike and dumb-bomb carrier, everything else was just a flirtation. Even today the modernisation will only see an improved dumb-bomb sighting system and anti-radiation missile carriage.

The TU-160 with the Russian airforce is undergoing a substantial modernization program that make it a capable of everything that it is currently lacking, i.e. digital avionics, GPS assisted navigation and steering, ability to carry smart weapons, improved stealth features, updated engines etc. If India requests, then these things can be incorporated into the TU22M also by Russia, although I am not sure whether stealth features can be incorporated. As for the Kh-55, even Russian aircrafts cannot carry that missile under the SALT restrictions. We can use it as our Brahmos ALCM platform. A longer range air launched version with a conventional/nuclear warhead can be excellent weapon choice. The TU22M usually carries the Kh-15 missile which at near 6000 kg is twice as heavy as the Brahmos, and it can 3 of these missiles or in case of Brahmos, 6 missiles.

 

[Vladimir79]

The TU-160 with the Russian airforce is undergoing a substantial modernization program that make it a capable of everything that it is currently lacking, i.e. digital avionics, GPS assisted navigation and steering, ability to carry smart weapons, improved stealth features, updated engines etc. If India requests, then these things can be incorporated into the TU22M also by Russia, although I am not sure whether stealth features can be incorporated. As for the Kh-55, even Russian aircrafts cannot carry that missile under the SALT restrictions. We can use it as our Brahmos ALCM platform. A longer range air launched version with a conventional/nuclear warhead can be excellent weapon choice. The TU22M usually carries the Kh-15 missile which at near 6000 kg is twice as heavy as the Brahmos, and it can 3 of these missiles or in case of Brahmos, 6 missiles.

Uh right, we already tried selling India these planes and they didn't want them but on a lease. I doubt they will want them now after sitting in storage for another decade.

 

[bengalraider]

Uh right, we already tried selling India these planes and they didn't want them but on a lease. I doubt they will want them now after sitting in storage for another decade.

India offered the Tu-160 ! when was this? i know about the T-22 reports but not the blackjack.

 

[sandeepdg]

India offered the Tu-160 ! when was this? i know about the T-22 reports but not the blackjack.

BR, Vlad is referring to the lease of TU22M..

 

[bsn4u1985]

if this is n't true....then india should acquire tu-160 blackjacks...for their own security and global bombing capabilty...russia is now upgrading their own tu-160 fleet..then india should acquire this bombers in respect to china threat.......

 

[yostyle]

Yup! Bombers have become obesolete in modern warfare but they are still needed as they create hysteria in enemy`s mind and help in building psychological pressure or winning mind games

 

[rocky2]

what are the Bombers, currently in service with IAF. Do anyone know abt the actual no's. is tat we have a aircraft similar to B1 lancer

 

[bsn4u1985]

no we don't have long range bombers like USA and russia..we have many Squadrons of Jaguar (known as the Shamsher in Indian service) and MiG-27 aircraft serve as the IAF's primary ground attack force.[75] The twin-engine Jaguar IB, with a top speed of Mach 1.6, is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The IAF has 100 Jaguar IS and 8 maritime strike Jaguar IM aircraft. The single-seat MiG-27 carries one GSh-6-30 six-barreled 30 mm cannon, 4000 kg of general-purpose ordnance, SPPU-22 and SPPU-6 gun pods, and various guided air-to-surface missiles. and also indian navy has several tu-140 bombers and 4 tu-22m bombers only.
india does n't have a credible long range bomber force.

 

[Soham]

if this is n't true....then india should acquire tu-160 blackjacks...for their own security and global bombing capabilty...russia is now upgrading their own tu-160 fleet..then india should acquire this bombers in respect to china threat.......

Global bombing, eh ?
We are under-equipped to handle threats in our immediate neighbourhood(which should get reparations once the MRCA rolls in), and you are talking Global bombing ?
Bombers against China ? How many MKIs are you willing to sacrifice for escorting them, and how far will the bomber fleet get before being swarmed by PLAF ?

Our budget has no space for purchase and maintenance of such exorbitant machines just for show value.

 

[Soham]

what are the Bombers, currently in service with IAF. Do anyone know abt the actual no's. is tat we have a aircraft similar to B1 lancer

We have none. Our doctrine focuses on precision strikes.

 

[icecoolben]

Long range strategic bombers

The soviets pursued long range strategic bombers at the expense of high profile aircraft carriers. That kind of investment wouldn't go void just like that. May be aerial re-fueling has made up for it but their service ceiling can't be compromised. Investment in bombers are required not to pursue china would be unwilling to cross to himalayas but to counter pakis, and in future afghanistan. There platforms can also be developed into long range maritime reconnance aircrafts, these are strategic platforms which india would be fool hardy to not invest in.

 

[bsn4u1985]

Global bombing, eh ?
We are under-equipped to handle threats in our immediate neighbourhood(which should get reparations once the MRCA rolls in), and you are talking Global bombing ?
Bombers against China ? How many MKIs are you willing to sacrifice for escorting them, and how far will the bomber fleet get before being swarmed by PLAF ?

Our budget has no space for purchase and maintenance of such exorbitant machines just for show value.

i will not agree with u......india has capabilty enough to deter the imminent threats from the neighbourhood.....but doesn't have the capability of offenssive strike especially against china forget about others they r small country......so if u see the dream then there is no wrong try to fulfill it....i was just giving some suggestions........

 

[bengalraider]

soviets pursued long range strategic bombers at the expense of high profile aircraft carriers.That kind of investment wouldn't go void just like that. May be aerial re-fueling has made up for it but their service ceiling can't be compromised.

That was because the soviet navy's lack of winter warm water ports made it extremely difficult/cumbersome for it to operate large surface vessels both from an economical and operational viewpoint(submarines were another story altogether and at one time the soviet were operating more than 500 nuclear subs), hence the onus of long range strike fell on the air force.also in terms of operational doctrine the soviets came really late to the idea of aircraft carriers (the first kiev class was not operational till 1973). the entire operational strategy of the soviet fleet was not in using carriers but in countering them.

in bombers are required not to pursue china would be unwilling to cross to himalayas but to counter pakis, and in future afghanistan.

with regards to china It is not about crossing the Himalayas but the curtain of S-300 class missiles waiting for you once you cross the mountains .anyways Pakistan i get but Afghanistan?

platforms can also be developed into long range maritime reconnance aircrafts these are strategic platforms which india would be fool hardy to not invest in.

The only current bombers that can be used as maritime recon aircraft are the Tu-104's , India already operates a fleet of 10 mainly out of dabolim airfield in goa.

 

[K Factor]

Firstly, let me make it clear that by bomber, I mean "strategic" bombers like B-2 and Tu-160 only.

To operate strategic bombers during hostilities, you need either of the following two things.
1. Stealth - Can penetrate air defenses and bomb enemy targets at will (with careful mission planning).
2. Complete SEAD and Air-Superiority - which is nearly impossible to achieve for countries other than US to achieve.

Barring any of the above situations, bombers would be sitting ducks to either enemy SAMs or Air Defence fighters.

It is much more wise for countries like India to go for more missiles/rocket forces than a strategic bomber arm. We cannot afford to lose billion dollar aircraft and trained personnel trying to bomb some city, when fire and forget missiles can do the same job.