Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters

[p2prada]

With strong chinese air defense systems any normal plane will not be able to penetrate 300 Kms into china without being noticed. Perhaps we should go for F35 or F22 .

We have to rely on BMs for China. The SFC's main focus is Pakistan because they are the primary nuclear threat to India.

 

[captonjohn]

With strong chinese air defense systems any normal plane will not be able to penetrate 300 Kms into china without being noticed. Perhaps we should go for F35 or F22 .

Usually during wartime nuclear weapons are used as last option when no military could serve the purpose. At this situation both military lose its full potential and its defense system doesn't remain that much effective. For example if India and China engaged in war and both have used their military and feels that nobody can win this war without using nukes then China will rely on missile and they know very well that we are also rely on missiles hence active ABMS can kill our missiles.

Due to both forces have used up most resources to weaken each other hence India can operate such operations with stealth plans having superior EW capabilities. Chinese SAM system won't be that much effective at that time and India can perform such operation.

I personally think that such operations are like "one way" operations that is your fighter plans will be most likely not to return and shot down while returning. So India must buy most advanced fighters with stealth and superior EW capabilities. I vote for F-35, it is stealth and it is supposed to equipped with superior EW suites.

 

[civfanatic]

For this role, there is only one fighter-bomber that we require, and that is the one and only Sukhoi/HAL Su-30MKI Flanker-"H"

 

[joe81]

2 squadrons - Does it mean Rafale

I think the govt is toying with the idea of Rafale for these 2 squadrons as the French are ready to provide the same number of flights off the shelf. Also the French are very eager to use the Rafale in the Libiyan Bombings maybe to show the Indians the prowes of Rafale.

If the strategic command requires a battle proven carrier, then B52 Stealth fighters suits our req. Maybe the US will be willing to share B52 with us.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

i have never heard of b-52 stealth fighters.you are confusing it with b-52 heavy bomber which is a 1950's design vintage bomber.

 

[debasree]

i seriously think s.c. really needs 1 perhaps 2 heavy bomber squadrons like b-52 in their arsenal, they can carry a big payload & create havoc in enemy territory by dellivering both nuke & conventional weapons.

 

[whiplash]

i seriously think s.c. really needs 1 perhaps 2 heavy bomber squadrons like b-52 in their arsenal, they can carry a big payload & create havoc in enemy territory by dellivering both nuke & conventional weapons.

B52s are only useful against countries with no air defence. Or after conducting SEAD. What we need is bombers in the class of Tu 160 blackjack or B1-bone. If they are intent on more maneuverable aircraft and are willing to compromise on payload then the Su34 would be the best choice. If they want to go in for a fighter bomber then I believe The su30mki with the super 30 mod is the best option. Cheapest too in terms of training and infrastructure.
And finally, for the future we should be very seriously looking at the PAK DA. The truth is we're going to have to look beyond Pakistani air defences in the future. And we WILL need stealth. The PAKFA will not have a high payload. Especially in the internal weapons bays. And I don't see any other programmes on the planet for a stealth bomber.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

i seriously think s.c. really needs 1 perhaps 2 heavy bomber squadrons like b-52 in their arsenal, they can carry a big payload & create havoc in enemy territory by dellivering both nuke & conventional weapons.

the b-52 is a conventional design bomber of 1950's vintage design.it can no longer penetrate sofisticated enemy air defences like the ones possesed by plaaf and even with fighter escorts.plus it is a subsonic platform.it is mainly used by usaf as a bomb truck after total air-superiority is established which is unthinkable in case against china.i think a strategic bomber has no role in of air-doctrine and in case the iaf thinks of a strategic bomber post 2025 then it should join the pak-da bomber programme.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

A Perfect Fit..

 

[debasree]

the b-52 is a conventional design bomber of 1950's vintage design.it can no longer penetrate sofisticated enemy air defences like the ones possesed by plaaf and even with fighter escorts.plus it is a subsonic platform.it is mainly used by usaf as a bomb truck after total air-superiority is established which is unthinkable in case against china.i think a strategic bomber has no role in of air-doctrine and in case the iaf thinks of a strategic bomber post 2025 then it should join the pak-da bomber programme.

dude do u really think that russians will ever sale pak da to us, and in case of b-52,it can be very usefull with modern avionicks & b-52 will not venture alone in enemy territory it will be well protected by flankers like mig-29 or miraje or lca.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

b-52 is a 50 year old design why not go for something more recent or develop something??It is doubtful USA would sell their B-52's.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

dude do u really think that russians will ever sale pak da to us, and in case of b-52,it can be very usefull with modern avionicks & b-52 will not venture alone in enemy territory it will be well protected by flankers like mig-29 or miraje or lca.

B-52 are heroes of the past. They were operated long ago when their were no air to air missiles and guided SAM`s. Today one SAM through a B-52 and all your escort will watch a 54 million bomber getting downed for no good reason and also to mention one of the post where it was said that we need a bomber like B-2 or B-1 or something like that then buddy today no nation can afford to purchase or construct the squadrons pf B-2 and then maintain them. Its out of question for atleast IAF.

And I totally agree with KB sir on that choice, and also after operating bombers like Jaguar SEPECAT I dont think they would go for B-52`s. And I would be surprised if those planes could posses stealth.

 

[whiplash]

dude do u really think that russians will ever sale pak da to us, and in case of b-52,it can be very usefull with modern avionicks & b-52 will not venture alone in enemy territory it will be well protected by flankers like mig-29 or miraje or lca.

If I remember right it was India who voluntarily stepped away from the PAK DA programme. Dude.. India is practically funding most of the research done by the russian defence industry. They'd never deny tech

 

[whiplash]

B-52 are heroes of the past. They were operated long ago when their were no air to air missiles and guided SAM`s. Today one SAM through a B-52 and all your escort will watch a 54 million bomber getting downed for no good reason and also to mention one of the post where it was said that we need a bomber like B-2 or B-1 or something like that then buddy today no nation can afford to purchase or construct the squadrons pf B-2 and then maintain them. Its out of question for atleast IAF.

And I totally agree with KB sir on that choice, and also after operating bombers like Jaguar SEPECAT I dont think they would go for B-52`s. And I would be surprised if those planes could posses stealth.

The B 52 is still in use. On account of it's huge payload. And bombing today is not the way you imagine it to be. With the advent of standoff missiles a B52 could attack ground targets from hundreds of kilometers away without getting into the hotzone. Such cruise missiles (AGM 86 for example) are exclusively carried by the B52. So it isn't obsolete. But not for our requirements

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Tupolov were once offered to India, were they rejected??

http://www.russiajournal.com/node/5506

 

[whiplash]

Tupolov were once offered to India, were they rejected??

http://www.russiajournal.com/node/5506

There have been many reports on that front. Very cloudy.
Some state that the planes were delivered and are in use. Some state that they were returned after completion of lease. And many deny it completely. Numbers vary. 3,4 or 6.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

The B 52 is still in use. On account of it's huge payload. And bombing today is not the way you imagine it to be. With the advent of standoff missiles a B52 could attack ground targets from hundreds of kilometers away without getting into the hotzone. Such cruise missiles (AGM 86 for example) are exclusively carried by the B52. So it isn't obsolete. But not for our requirements

I dont find it extensively operational today and have mostly seen them in museums. Exceptions are everywhere and that weapon upgrades you are talking about B-52 are obvious and I wasnt surprised hearing that as if according to you, B-52 still fly then they must have sufficient upgrades because the Aerospace of 21st Century is entirely different as of that 50 years ago.

And for todays environment I dont think that such large B-52 must be used as bombers by any nations. They can be modified into gunships(like AC-130) or AEW&C.

 

[whiplash]

I dont find extensively operational today and have mostly seen them in museums. Exceptions are everywhere and that weapon upgrades you are talking about B-52 are obvious and I wasnt surprised hearing that as if according to you, B-52 still fly then then must have sufficient upgrades because the Aerospace of 21st Century is entirely different as of that 50 years ago.

And for todays environment I dont think that such large B-52 must be used as bombers by any nations. They can be modified into gunships(like AC-130) or AEW&C.

The B52s you've seen in museums are very different from the one's USA uses today. Just the airframe is the same. No small planes can carry the ALCMs I mentioned. And you can't always rely on navy to deliver cruise missiles. AC 130, contrary to what you think has very limited use. And is easily replacable with CAS planes like A10 or in certain scenarios, helicopter gunships. But hardly any planes can carry as much ordinance as the B52, deliver cruise missiles and loiter for long periods like the B52. I agree we don't need the B52. But it is far from obsolete

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Tupolov were once offered to India, were they rejected??

http://www.russiajournal.com/node/5506

According to wikipedia, has 4 Tu-22M operational with IN. God knows whether to trust it or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Current_operators

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Tupolov were once offered to India, were they rejected??

http://www.russiajournal.com/node/5506

There have been many reports on that front. Very cloudy.
Some state that the planes were delivered and are in use. Some state that they were returned after completion of lease. And many deny it completely. Numbers vary. 3,4 or 6.

According to wikipedia, has 4 Tu-22M operational with it. God knows whether to trust it or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Current_operators

TU-22M3 were in IN once, but soon returned as their maintenance and flying cost were proved to be higher than expected, Many in IN argue that TU-142 have more range than TU-22M3 hence its requirement was not in need any longer for anti-ship strikes..


The main reason IN bought TU-22M3 was for Long range anti-ship trike with mounted SUNBURN supersonic missiles..