PAK DA - Russian Fifth Generation Stealth Bomber

[Yusuf]

what are you kidding do you really think mki can go deep inside and perform the task

Limited border war will not require sending any aircraft deep inside.

But yes, an MKI can go quite deep inside China given its range and air to air refueling.

 

[ice berg]

Limited border war will not require sending any aircraft deep inside.

But yes, an MKI can go quite deep inside China given its range and air to air refueling.

How deep it can go is solely based on range and air to air refueling? Only if the world is that simple.

 

[Yusuf]

How deep it can go is solely based on range and air to air refueling? Only if the world is that simple.

Range of 8000 kms.

 

[nrj]

We are working on something like PGS. Why put resources on Pak DA program? It will be redundant. We can lease few units if necessary.

Sent via Tapatalk from a galaxy far far away

 

[p2prada]

In today's scenario an Su30 MKI can be a good bomber with more sorties and less expensive. The FGFA can play the same role in the future. I don't see India sending fighters to Europe to bomb the hell out of London.

There has to be a doctrine for any acquisition. What is the IAF going to do with the bombers? What role IAF has in the strategic delivery? Will it work in tandem with SFC?

There seems to be no need for a bomber today, or tomorrow. Unless we start seeing Western Europe and the US as enemies.

Why would anyone need 50 - 100 bombers? Even the US built only 20 B-2's. (Agreed they have 100 B1's)

Between India and Russia not more than 50 planes need to be built.

50 between two countries are too few. Russia has only 19 because she can't afford it like the US can. The day Russia can, she will buy way more than a 100. India will be as big an economy as the US by 2025. Time will tell whether IAF needs bombers or not. As of today these are not needed.

what are you kidding do you really think mki can go deep inside and perform the task

Deep enough. No one is going to bomb Beijing. Chengdu should be 600-700Km away from Tezpur and Chabua.

 

[A chauhan]

Well ! we should have a few dedicated stealth bombers (5-8 i guess) for strategic bombings; you can't send missile for each and every target just like tiny military installations or buildings and if you want to win a war you must have all types of cards to play.

BTW if Su-30 MKI can serve the bombing purpose, then some dedicated Pak-Fa-T-50s/FGFAs can also do the same more effectively.So we should think about dedicated stealth bombers only when Pak-Fa/FGFA fails.

 

[trackwhack]

Stealth bombers are safer than missiles to deliver conventional warheads. Missiles can trigger a nuclear war.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Stealth bombers are safer than missiles to deliver conventional warheads. Missiles can trigger a nuclear war.

Because bombers can be recalled, or for another reason?

 

[Singh]

^^ enemy doesn't know whether the missile is conventional or nuclear, and retaliate as though it is a nuclear missile

 

[trackwhack]

Because bombers can be recalled, or for another reason?

Apart from what you stated.

When a ballistic missile is fired, what is the enemy supposed to assume? That it is carrying a nuclear warhead or conventional? What if the enemy incorrectly assumes it is a nuclear warhead and retaliates?

On the other hand a stealth bomber can go deliver conventional warheads and come back without this being a risk.

 

[Yusuf]

Strategic Bombers as a nuclear weapon delivery platform became more or less obsolete once advanced missiles came on to the scene. Now you can hit car 1000 kms away.

You will not see bombing raids like WWII for conventional bombings. even stealth aircraft can be caught as the Serbs showed. All depends on the doctrine at the end of the day. If the IAF saw a need for a bomber fleet, they would have gone for it long back. When we can afford carriers, we can afford bombers too. But there has to be a role for it.

Tomahawks proved very reliable and precise in taking out targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we have a blue water navy with all kinds of missile options, we will not require bomber fleet.

 

[trackwhack]

Strategic Bombers as a nuclear weapon delivery platform became more or less obsolete once advanced missiles came on to the scene. Now you can hit car 1000 kms away.

You will not see bombing raids like WWII for conventional bombings. even stealth aircraft can be caught as the Serbs showed. All depends on the doctrine at the end of the day. If the IAF saw a need for a bomber fleet, they would have gone for it long back. When we can afford carriers, we can afford bombers too. But there has to be a role for it.

Tomahawks proved very reliable and precise in taking out targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we have a blue water navy with all kinds of missile options, we will not require bomber fleet.

Yeah, so building these strategic bombers is probably because the ones who do have money to throw away. Yusuf, dont be ridiculous. It is one thing to state that strategic bombers are not necessary for India. Now you have taken it to a different level of arrogance by stating that bombers are obsolete.



DFI allows only 8 of these at one time!

 

[Yusuf]

Yeah, so building these strategic bombers is probably because the ones who do have money to throw away. Yusuf, dont be ridiculous. It is one thing to state that strategic bombers are not necessary for India. Now you have taken it to a different level of arrogance by stating that bombers are obsolete.



DFI allows only 8 of these at one time!

The US didn't find any role for it so capped the B2. Cold war over, bomber requirement over.
Why the Brits and French not making bombers?
Fighter bombers can do the job.

Let me ask you this, what role do you see for a long range stealth bomber in IAF. Please don't give the need to bomb US thing.

 

[p2prada]

Stealth bombers are safer than missiles to deliver conventional warheads. Missiles can trigger a nuclear war.

A stealth bomber is a bigger threat than a missile. Missiles are categorized into different threat levels, a bomber is not.

 

[trackwhack]

The US didn't find any role for it so capped the B2. Cold war over, bomber requirement over.

Let me ask you this, what role do you see for a long range stealth bomber in IAF. Please don't give the need to bomb US thing.

We have had the same discussion many times Yusuf, why pretend ignorance. Your doctrine makes you beleive that geopolitics is stagnant, mine does not.

I am neither naive or stupid to assume that the geopolitical scenario we see today will be the same in 2040. For all you know we may be at war with the freakin Canadians. All I know is that by that time India will have assets across the globe that require protection.

I do not forsee an India living in a cocoon like you do. If other world powers with the same spending power as India feels the necessity to have multiple strains of deterrence and offensive weapons, so should we.

Instead of asking me why I think India should have global reach, you should be asking instead, why the US or Russia or China or for Christ fking sake Britain and France need global reach with their weapons?

And please dont instigate with statements such as Please don't give the need to bomb US thing..


@p2p, thats a good thing then. More the deterrence, the better.

 

[Yusuf]

We have had the same discussion many times Yusuf, why pretend ignorance. Your doctrine makes you beleive that geopolitics is stagnant, mine does not.

I am neither naive or stupid to assume that the geopolitical scenario we see today will be the same in 2040. For all you know we may be at war with the freakin Canadians. All I know is that by that time India will have assets across the globe that require protection.

I do not forsee an India living in a cocoon like you do. If other world powers with the same spending power as India feels the necessity to have multiple strains of deterrence and offensive weapons, so should we.

Instead of asking me why I think India should have global reach, you should be asking instead, why the US or Russia or China or for Christ fking sake Britain and France need global reach with their weapons?

And please dont instigate with statements such as Please don't give the need to bomb US thing..


@p2p, thats a good thing then. More the deterrence, the better.

I am not living in a cocoon. I see a global role or India but no I don't see any role for a strategic bomber 40 years from now. Technology will advance. Who knows we will have space based assets. Hell we are moving to unmanned fighters. Drones are here already. Why would someone risk a pilot in a $2 billion (possibly more) bomber when it can be done so cheaper , more effectively and without risk to human lives?

 

[A chauhan]

One question,

If we use Pak-Fa-T-50 as a stealth bomber, how effective it would be ? Will it need design modifications for this purpose ?

 

[trackwhack]

I am not living in a cocoon. I see a global role or India but no I don't see any role for a strategic bomber 40 years from now. Technology will advance. Who knows we will have space based assets. Hell we are moving to unmanned fighters. Drones are here already. Why would someone risk a pilot in a $2 billion (possibly more) bomber when it can be done so cheaper , more effectively and without risk to human lives?

Really? Two billion bomber?

And again, you are not smarter than defence planners in the US and Russia who feel the need for these systems

@ A chauhan, like any fighter bomber, the limitations will be range and payload.

 

[Yusuf]

One question,

If we use Pak-Fa-T-50 as a stealth bomber, how effective it would be ? Will it need design modifications for this purpose ?

A pure bomber has far greater payload capacity. But yes, india prefers fighter bombers and that's how we have worked so far.

 

[Yusuf]

Really? Two billion bomber?

And again, you are not smarter than defence planners in the US and Russia who feel the need for these systems

@ A chauhan, like any fighter bomber, the limitations will be range and payload.

US capped B2, there are many in Russian security establishment who don't see any use for a new stealth bomber.