Su-34 plox
Yes, India needs strategic bombers in it's inventory.
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 allowsYes, 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.
not now, let's say 10-15 years from now.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
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.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.
Why not ucav bombers
this scenario is not against principal opponent.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.
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
Against who & where? What would be the threat level that the bomber will be facing?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.
-Posturing that we have the capability in IOR region.Against who & where? What would be the threat level that the bomber will be facing?
With what is currently going on between Russia and Ukraine, I doubt we will ever acquire Tu-22M3Did you call me??
View attachment 166761
Kuznetsov NK 25 goes burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
With what is currently going on between Russia and Ukraine, I doubt we will ever acquire Tu-22M3
Question for you --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.
Good one.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.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?