Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
26,390
Likes
116,893
Country flag
Yes, India needs strategic bombers in it's inventory.

it doesn't matter even if they are never used, but there should be capability to drop atleast 20-30 thousand kgs of munitions at one go, in the non-nuclear domain.
there are too many small islands around us, which can be used as launch pads against us.
 

flanker99

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
1,499
Likes
8,395
Country flag
Yes, India needs strategic bombers in it's inventory.

it doesn't matter even if they are never used, but there should be capability to drop atleast 20-30 thousand kgs of munitions at one go, in the non-nuclear domain.
there are too many small islands around us, which can be used as launch pads against us.
Given our budget constraints i say we buy more su30's paired with hypersonics it can fill some of the roles and in the future a supersized manned ghatak if budget allows
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
26,390
Likes
116,893
Country flag
Given our budget constraints i say we buy more su30's paired with hypersonics it can fill some of the roles and in the future a supersized manned ghatak if budget allows
not now, let's say 10-15 years from now.

look at it from munitions perspective, there is a limit to how much damage 200-1000 kg munition can achieve in non-nuclear domain.
pentagon sent about 60 tomahawk to attack a syrian airbase during trump administration, which translates to brahmos or nirbhay for us. what if there is a situation developing 1500 km away and there are no destroyers deployed in that area.

in this scenario we are not talking about pak or china.
 

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
1,567
Likes
3,807
Country flag
not now, let's say 10-15 years from now.

look at it from munitions perspective, there is a limit to how much damage 200-1000 kg munition can achieve in non-nuclear domain.
pentagon sent about 60 tomahawk to attack a syrian airbase during trump administration, which translates to brahmos or nirbhay for us. what if there is a situation developing 1500 km away and there are no destroyers deployed in that area.

in this scenario we are not talking about pak or china.
10 years from now - then look at unmanned flying wing bombers. No more manned birds for what is essentially a suicide mission against our principal opponent.
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
26,390
Likes
116,893
Country flag
10 years from now - then look at unmanned flying wing bombers. No more manned birds for what is essentially a suicide mission against our principal opponent.
this scenario is not against principal opponent.
not sure if even U.S used bombers against principal opponent USSR at that time, they kept flying as a second strike option and some even crashed with nukes onboard.
 

Arjun Mk1A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2022
Messages
1,025
Likes
6,042
Country flag
Whats even more sad or should i say pathetic is he blames the IAF pilots indirectly,
"“200-plus pilots have been killed in [MiG-21] crashes. They are supposed to eject. Why did they not eject? That is what pains me,”" said Dhanoa

BS Dhanoa also refutes high crash rates of Mig-21, says this is because IAF just had more Mig-21, hence there were more crashes.
"874 MiG-21 fighter variants that entered IAF service since 1963, more than 400 – or almost half the overall number – were lost to crashes"
According to BS Dhanoa close to 50% crash rate is not a big deal.

Now for the real reason for not phasing out MIG-21 which BS Dhanoa fails to mention
"The Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project was designed to provide a large number of light, inexpensive fighters that would replace the MiG-21. But instead of working hand-in-glove with the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to develop and certify the Tejas, the IAF kept demanding greater capabilities from the Tejas, leading to cascading delays in bringing the indigenous fighter into service "

Instead of fast tracking the induction of tejas the IAF kept moving the goal post and now our pilots and the nation in general are paying the price.

Inshort BS Dhanoa is only good for spewing BS

This is nothing put some pussyfooted reply from former IAF chief. We build nearly 1200+ Mig 21 and 874 crashed in its operation years. This is absolute joke.

Mig 21 has some highest landing speed and also tricky to operate when fuel load decreases due to change in CG of the aircraft (Something F-7 rectified it). This is not the fault of plane rather the plane was designed at the time where FBW systems are not even in infancy stage, It is a demanding plane with two much sensitive to external factors.

But the Tejas is much superior in every aspect but still it went on upgrade after upgrade without any order and the got 123 orders.

AFAIK IAF first Tejas squadron started to form from 2015 rather limiting it 2 squadrons if we give bigger orders atleast we have some good number of IOC and FOC planes and we can simply retired out the MIG's while pushing other platform like Mig 29, Mirage 2000I, Su-30 MKI in QRF (Expensive but still better than 21)
 

Adm Kenobi

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
129
Likes
821
Country flag
Yes, India needs strategic bombers in it's inventory.

it doesn't matter even if they are never used, but there should be capability to drop atleast 20-30 thousand kgs of munitions at one go, in the non-nuclear domain.
there are too many small islands around us, which can be used as launch pads against us.
Against who & where? What would be the threat level that the bomber will be facing?
 

Adm Kenobi

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
129
Likes
821
Country flag
-Posturing that we have the capability in IOR region.
-giving the adversary (both the whole number and decimal) a reason to weigh their options even more carefully.
Question for you -
What can a bomber do that a CSG can't? (assume a large deck carrier at the center)
What are the argument for a bomber other than being cheaper & faster than a CSG?
 

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
1,567
Likes
3,807
Country flag
Question for you -
What can a bomber do that a CSG can't? (assume a large deck carrier at the center)
What are the argument for a bomber other than being cheaper & faster than a CSG?
Good one.
This is the IAF's white elephant as it were. Much more reasonable to suggest large UCAVs with the range and payload.

The bombers will be limited to airfields, and we know just what China intends to do to our airfields if proper war broke out.
 

flanker99

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
1,499
Likes
8,395
Country flag
Question for you -
What can a bomber do that a CSG can't? (assume a large deck carrier at the center)
What are the argument for a bomber other than being cheaper & faster than a CSG?
faster reaction time,more expendable ,less cost ,manpower requirement etc etc.....saying all this i dont think there is any comparison between a bomber and a CSG both have their unique usage.
IMO we could use a medium stealth bomber (around 10ton payload) that can penetrate inside hostile territory lob long range missiles and get back home or loiter around IOR(with hostile presence) and be capable of lobbing missiles at chinese targets on the other side
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top