Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

Adm Kenobi

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
129
Likes
822
Country flag
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
I agree on the bomber and CSG having 'some' roles and abilities that are unique to them.
But for these roles -
-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.
A CSG makes more sense than a plain bomber sq.
 

tribendra bisoi..

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2022
Messages
521
Likes
3,052
Country flag
The Indian Air Force seems to be getting over the strategic hump, perhaps with a little push from the PMO, and will soon acquire the advanced and upgraded version of the Tu-160 Blackjack called the ‘White Swan’


Dont know if news is true . just posted the source .
 

Arjun Mk1A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2022
Messages
1,437
Likes
8,035
Country flag
The Indian Air Force seems to be getting over the strategic hump, perhaps with a little push from the PMO, and will soon acquire the advanced and upgraded version of the Tu-160 Blackjack called the ‘White Swan’


Dont know if news is true . just posted the source .

Ideally we have good chances of getting Tu-22M backfire compared to Tu 160 due to significantly higher inventory level. I don't think Russia will sell/lease TU 160
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
27,026
Likes
120,319
Country flag
The Indian Air Force seems to be getting over the strategic hump, perhaps with a little push from the PMO, and will soon acquire the advanced and upgraded version of the Tu-160 Blackjack called the ‘White Swan’


Dont know if news is true . just posted the source .
this whole article is based on just one statement.

a year or two later karnad will write another article saying Indian "Govt delay in acquiring strategic bomber",
and another year later he will write "Govt's utter failure in acquiring strategic bomber".

and then we have 10 pages of RR on some thread. 🍿 :pound:
 

jai jaganath

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2022
Messages
1,213
Likes
2,220
Country flag
The Indian Air Force seems to be getting over the strategic hump, perhaps with a little push from the PMO, and will soon acquire the advanced and upgraded version of the Tu-160 Blackjack called the ‘White Swan’


Dont know if news is true . just posted the source .
After Ukraine War I don't think we will go for any major deal with Russia
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
9,694
Likes
15,693
Country flag
India planning to purchase Tu-160 strategic bomber with hypersonic missiles from Russia

The Indian Air Force appears to be overcoming the strategic hurdle, possibly with a little push from the PMO, and will soon receive the improved and advanced Tu-160 Blackjack variant known as the White Swan.


Negotiations between Russia and India are at the final stage, which allegedly means that India will soon have its own strategic bomber. This was disclosed in a throwaway line about a “bomber” being acquired by IAF, which was preceded by a generous acknowledgement — “Mr Bharat Karnad will be happy to know”, by the former CAS, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha. He was delivering the keynote speech yesterday at the first edition of the ‘Chanakya Dialogues’ hosted by the Chanakya Foundation in New Delhi. On further questioning by me, he confirmed that the aircraft in question was the Tu-160.

By way of another casual remark, he also indicated that a nuclear-warheaded version of a hypersonic glide weapon may soon be on the way. No doubt it is an armament that will be carried in the White Swan’s weapons bay (probably Kinzhal missiles).

It will reverse the obdurately tactical and theatre-level orientation of the IAF brass for 70-odd years. It resulted in August 1971 in the IAF rejecting the Tu-22 Backfire bomber offered the Air Marshal Sheodev Singh Mission by the Soviet Defence Minister, the legendary Admiral of the Fleet, Sergei Gorshkov. Moscow had not reckoned with the obstinately nonstrategic mindset of Air Chief Marshal PC Lal — regarded, incidentally, as a great leader by the IAF!– and his cohort running the service at the time. Indeed, Gorshkov was so certain the IAF would jump at this offer he had a squadron of this bomber aircraft painted with IAF roundels and parked on a military base outside Moscow for flight to India. Nonsensical reasons were offered for this plainly idiotic nyet decision by IAF — the pilot needed to be winched up into the cockpit, the aircraft, ex-Bareilly, would not reach cruising altitude before crossing into Pakistan, etc. Pakistan! — for God’s sake, with no hint of China as the obvious threat to neutralise with this bomber and this, mind you, at a time when the Bangladesh War was in the offing and China had already threatened to intervene if India moved militarily against Pakistan! So what did IAF choose instead? MiG-23BN — no joke!! Worse, the IAF, dog-in-the-manger like, not only did not want the Backfire for itself, it later

prevented the Indian Navy from buying this aircraft for maritime surveillance, fearing the Navy was trespassing on its turf by expropriating the strategic bombing role. (These and other details first revealed and analysed in my 2002, 2nd ed 2005 book – ‘Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security.’)

Post-1974 and India’s possessing very basic 12 kiloton gravity nuclear bombs, the Tu-22 would have been a credible recallable manned option as nuclear deterrent before India obtained in the late 1980s the the first of the Agni land-based missiles. The Tu-22 could have been replaced with newer versions of the aircraft, including the latest, most advanced, Tu-22M3, and would now have comprised a more compelling two-pronged air vector in the nuclear triad along with the Tu-160.

It is always heartening when something one has ardently advocated over the years begins to take shape, becomes reality. [For the case made for a genuine strategic bomber, and this aircraft in particular, see pages 335-336 in my 2015 book –‘ Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)’.] The negotiations with Russia are apparently in the final stages for securing on lease six – a third of a squadron — better than nothing! of the supersonic, fly-by-wire, 4-man crewed Tu-160. It will leave the frontline Russian fleet with 29 of these aircraft, because only a total of 35 ‘White Swans’ have been built. Published material suggests the White Swan Tu-160 (the equivalent of the American B-1 strategic bomber) has a 70metres/second climb rate, max speed of 2,200 km/h and cruising speed of 960km/h, unrefueled range of 12,300km, and combat radius of 7,300km.

One version of the bomber runs on hydrogen fuel, which may be right up Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s plan for converting the country to a hydrogen economy. Though for reasons of fuel/fueling aspects, the aircraft India leases will likely stick with the variant run on enhanced aviation fuel.

To show off its astonishing endurance, the Russian Air Force staged a Murmansk to Venezuela sortie in 2008 (to show support for the regime of Left-leaning President Nicolás Maduro Moros at a time when the Obama Administration was tightening the sanctions screw on it), and in 2010 a 23 hour patrol covering 18,000 kms over the Russian landmass.

The options and possibilities this bomber offers should make the mouths of IAF warplanning and operations guys water. Preparatory planning should begin for nuclear targeting by the White Swans of the most distant Chinese targets — Beijing!, with the more critical, but relatively proximal, targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam and its system of downstream dams and the Lop Nor nuclear weapons complex in Xinjiang left, if necessary, for the Su-30MKIs embarking from Tezpur/Kalaikunda in the one case, and the Ainee base in Tajikistan, in the other, to take out.

The problem IAF will have is in basing the Blackjack. The Bareilly base — which ran the Canberra medium bomber and the MiG-25 Foxbat high-altitude surveillance aircraft, won’t do. Bareilly is too near major and satellite PLAAF airfields on the Tibetan plateau in the central sector of the LAC, not to pose risks to the White Swans based there. A base in southern central India will be the safest and best option considering the “long-legged” Tu-160 will still be able to hit deep inside China, and have IAF air defence/interceptor aircraft staging out of air bases in northern India as protective tier.
 

Cheran

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
6,249
Likes
52,864
Country flag
Let the war end we will grab some Tu-22M3 and spice up with DRDO avionics and some Brahmos and Nirbhay.
The Indian Air Force seems to be getting over the strategic hump, perhaps with a little push from the PMO, and will soon acquire the advanced and upgraded version of the Tu-160 Blackjack called the ‘White Swan’


Dont know if news is true . just posted the source .
Ideally we have good chances of getting Tu-22M backfire compared to Tu 160 due to significantly higher inventory level. I don't think Russia will sell/lease TU 160
Lot of people now talking about this.

1659888379714.png


1659888489456.png
 

mist_consecutive

Selling Wuhan Fried Bats
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
3,414
Likes
29,749
Country flag
We don't need dedicated long-range bombers, at least for now. Su-30MKI fulfills the role of a bomb/missile truck efficiently enough for our needs.

Instead of leasing/buying outdated cold-war era bombers, we should focus on making stealth bombers on our own.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
8,826
Likes
36,418
Country flag
We need strategic bomber to be able to bomb the shit out of any island in Indian Ocean In case it is occupied by enemies.

But I believe we should be building our own rather than outright buying from Russia.

Or it may be a deal like nuke subs where we buy few from Russia in exchange for help in building our own faster.

Let's see.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
8,826
Likes
36,418
Country flag
We don't need dedicated long-range bombers, at least for now. Su-30MKI fulfills the role of a bomb/missile truck efficiently enough for our needs.

Instead of leasing/buying outdated cold-war era bombers, we should focus on making stealth bombers on our own.
Stealth bombers are too costly to own and operate and don't have much benefit.

While older style bombers are cheap last long and easy to maintain.

And if you have to bomb that much payload somewhere stealth is hardly a priority you need total air dominance for that.

And if you have to drop limited payload for just few strikes stealth fighter jets and ucav are better bets.
 

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
1,843
Likes
5,240
Country flag
We need strategic bomber to be able to bomb the shit out of any island in Indian Ocean In case it is occupied by enemies.

But I believe we should be building our own rather than outright buying from Russia.

Or it may be a deal like nuke subs where we buy few from Russia in exchange for help in building our own faster.

Let's see.
bomb the shit out of any IOR island? Su30MKI not enough for you? Bombers are a strategic waste.
 

mist_consecutive

Selling Wuhan Fried Bats
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
3,414
Likes
29,749
Country flag
We need strategic bomber to be able to bomb the shit out of any island in Indian Ocean In case it is occupied by enemies.

But I believe we should be building our own rather than outright buying from Russia.

Or it may be a deal like nuke subs where we buy few from Russia in exchange for help in building our own faster.

Let's see.
There are two island groups we have, Andamans & Maldives. Both are easily within the combat range of Su-30MKIs. I don't reckon we will be taking over any other distant island groups in any near future.

Stealth bombers are too costly to own and operate and don't have much benefit.

While older style bombers are cheap last long and easy to maintain.

And if you have to bomb that much payload somewhere stealth is hardly a priority you need total air dominance for that.

And if you have to drop limited payload for just few strikes stealth fighter jets and ucav are better bets.
There is no current use case for long-range bombers in our scenario. The use-case of long-range bombers is delivering massive ordinance over long ranges.
However, their use case was outdated in the cold war era itself. Bombers are clumsy, high RCS, slow-flying planes, and ideal target practice for enemy SAMs and interceptors.
They are the only viable option if you have complete air superiority over your enemy.

Our immediate enemies, Pakistan & China, both have sophisticated, medium & long range SAMs and good 4th generation fighters to take on these bombers. We need multi-role fighters which can protect itself in hostile environment, and complete the mission.
 

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
1,843
Likes
5,240
Country flag
There are two island groups we have, Andamans & Maldives. Both are easily within the combat range of Su-30MKIs. I don't reckon we will be taking over any other distant island groups in any near future.



There is no current use case for long-range bombers in our scenario. The use-case of long-range bombers is delivering massive ordinance over long ranges.
However, their use case was outdated in the cold war era itself. Bombers are clumsy, high RCS, slow-flying planes, and ideal target practice for enemy SAMs and interceptors.
They are the only viable option if you have complete air superiority over your enemy.

Our immediate enemies, Pakistan & China, both have sophisticated, medium & long range SAMs and good 4th generation fighters to take on these bombers. We need multi-role fighters which can protect itself in hostile environment, and complete the mission.
There is no place for bombers in any scenario PERIOD.
Unless you intend to bomb afghanistan or some such non existent AD environment.
Bombers are too vulnerable, too much a hassle to protect, and dont bring enough to the mission profile to be worth any money whatsoever.

Take that money and buy/beg/borrow some tankers and AWACS.
 

Sarjen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
380
Likes
768
Country flag
During war if we're to take out Chinese Production capabilities, What would be the best Options >>> Angi with Conventional Munition, Ground attack Jets, Or bomber just as Tu-160 ?????/

In these Scenarios, Yes a bomber who can quickly go in bomb and sneak out would be a good option.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top