TU 160 aka Black Jack can be bought by IAF

[johnj]

Who tell you that?
Except some rumors from internet fanboys and Russian media, there is no official source to prove that.
The only place that Chinese can use Tu-160 is against Russia. Since 1990, the top potential enemy of China has always been US. Tu-160 is useless because she can't fly through the whole Pacific ocean to get close to US homeland.

then why h20 ??
Tu-160 range similar to b1b, about 12000km.
Also current tu 160 buy also rumor.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Looks like IAF is willing to buy anything - ANYTHING - to avoid saving money for Tejas.

You never know, they might start asking die refurbished Concordes next.

IAF has not asked for Tu-160.
It was one interview by Ex-ACM and then shit hit the fan.

 

[no smoking]

then why h20 ??
Tu-160 range similar to b1b, about 12000km.

From the public information, the H-20 is expected to match the B-21: stealth but shorter range (7000km), which are perfect for Chinese military targets - those American bases on the islands in the middle of Pacific.

Also current tu 160 buy also rumor.

The rumor is Russia is trying to sell Tu-160 to China.

 

[Kumata]

it all started with the statement of a former Iaf chief and a article published in IDRW...

IMO, exploratory talks always happen for such bombers but a decision is entirely separate ball games.

Porkis are worried IMO, I still remember that MIG25 sonic boom over Karachi and with swan guy, It, s all over.

in the bigger scheme, I am a favor of purchasing a long range Bomber. If. you want to be world power... u need the ability to be able to project power beyond your shores.

 

[Tridev123]

it all started with the statement of a former Iaf chief and a article published in IDRW...

IMO, exploratory talks always happen for such bombers but a decision is entirely separate ball games.

Porkis are worried IMO, I still remember that MIG25 sonic boom over Karachi and with swan guy, It, s all over.

in the bigger scheme, I am a favor of purchasing a long range Bomber. If. you want to be world power... u need the ability to be able to project power beyond your shores.

While not entirely disagreeing with you, the reference to Pakistan as being the reason for the proposed(what is the truth?.) purchase of the Tu160 is totally baseless.

Pakistan is right next door and why do we require an strategic bomber with a long range measured in thousands of kilometres to bomb targets there. Whether conventional or nuclear warheads used.

And the Tu160 cannot go into Pakistan airspace like the Mig25 and scare the Pakis.
It might well be shot down if the Pakistanis have long range SAM's. Too risky and endangering an very expensive plane. The Foxbat is mainly an fighter plane and can accelerate fast and also perform some aerial manoeuvres. Whereas the Tu160 is not designed for aerobatics and sharp manoeuvres.

The only probable targets for the Tu160 would be China or the USA. Imagine an hypothetical situation. An Tu160 takes off from an airbase in India undetected and flies near the coast of China(well away from Chinese air defence network) and about 2000 km away from Shanghai releases/fires an Nirbhay/ITCM cruise missile armed with an 200kn thermonuclear warhead. The target will be Shanghai.

The Tu160 will be detected by Chinese radars but before their manned fighters manage to intercept it, it manages to increase speed and flies back to the safety of Indian skies. So the Chinese may not be able to prevent the Tu160 from carrying out its task.

Anyway everything is hypothetical at this point of time. Maybe some psychological games are being played to unnerve the Chinese. And India may not buy any strategic bombers.

I would advocate a few tests of real large yield hydrogen bombs (at least 1 megaton strength) to send an big message to the Chinks. We need an tested and validated miniaturised thermonuclear warhead of 1 megaton yield (suitable for deployment on missiles) to establish the credibility of our nuclear deterrence.

That would send an stronger signal to Beijing. This is not to advocate against acquiring strategic bombers. Both the measures can be executed in parallel.

 

[johnj]

From the public information, the H-20 is expected to match the B-21: stealth but shorter range (7000km), which are perfect for Chinese military targets - those American bases on the islands in the middle of Pacific.
The rumor is Russia is trying to sell Tu-160 to China.

Lol, the this thread based on stupidity not even a rumor.
h 20 matching b21, lol.
Russia is trying to sell Tu-160 to China - I read just opposite, and Russia only tried to sell tu22<medium range>, tu 160 not for sale.

 

[johnj]

While not entirely disagreeing with you, the reference to Pakistan as being the reason for the proposed(what is the truth?.) purchase of the Tu160 is totally baseless.

Pakistan is right next door and why do we require an strategic bomber with a long range measured in thousands of kilometres to bomb targets there. Whether conventional or nuclear warheads used.

And the Tu160 cannot go into Pakistan airspace like the Mig25 and scare the Pakis.
It might well be shot down if the Pakistanis have long range SAM's. Too risky and endangering an very expensive plane. The Foxbat is mainly an fighter plane and can accelerate fast and also perform some aerial manoeuvres. Whereas the Tu160 is not designed for aerobatics and sharp manoeuvres.

The only probable targets for the Tu160 would be China or the USA. Imagine an hypothetical situation. An Tu160 takes off from an airbase in India undetected and flies near the coast of China(well away from Chinese air defence network) and about 2000 km away from Shanghai releases/fires an Nirbhay/ITCM cruise missile armed with an 200kn thermonuclear warhead. The target will be Shanghai.

The Tu160 will be detected by Chinese radars but before their manned fighters manage to intercept it, it manages to increase speed and flies back to the safety of Indian skies. So the Chinese may not be able to prevent the Tu160 from carrying out its task.

Anyway everything is hypothetical at this point of time. Maybe some psychological games are being played to unnerve the Chinese. And India may not buy any strategic bombers.

I would advocate a few tests of real large yield hydrogen bombs (at least 1 megaton strength) to send an big message to the Chinks. We need an tested and validated miniaturised thermonuclear warhead of 1 megaton yield (suitable for deployment on missiles) to establish the credibility of our nuclear deterrence.

That would send an stronger signal to Beijing. This is not to advocate against acquiring strategic bombers. Both the measures can be executed in parallel.

Very funny, at the end chinese hell rain 100s of megaN nuke into India.
where is now no first use policy ?
why ssbn ?
Bottom line tu160 not good against china or pak, may be africa.
If IAF want strategic bombers. - better look for super stealth or low cost one, not one which rarely fly, due to lack of spares. Import lobbies, they only need a small reason to loot Indians/goi, and they got a new one- strategic bombers.

 

[Tridev123]

Very funny, at the end chinese hell rain 100s of megaN nuke into India.
where is now no first use policy ?
why ssbn ?
Bottom line tu160 not good against china or pak, may be africa.
If IAF want strategic bombers. - better look for super stealth or low cost one, not one which rarely fly, due to lack of spares. Import lobbies, they only need a small reason to loot Indians/goi, and they got a new one- strategic bombers.

Cool down, Bro
I was only giving an example of how an strategic bomber could be used. Some members believe that its use would be Pakistan centric.

If you have an better example of how an strategic bomber should be used then please elucidate. Probably you visualise the bomber travelling 10,000km to the coast of the United States and bombing New York.

You are almost pissing in your pants in fear of the Chinese.
Firstly I had clearly said that it is an hypothetical situation.
Also the Chinese public are not as scared as many Indians in stating how their weapons including strategic weapons will be used. Remember at the beginning of the latest Chinese ingression into India hardly an year or so before many Chinese had proudly(foolishly) said that the PLA long range MBRL systems could target New Delhi easily and that their army will roll down the Himalayas and capture New Delhi.

And in the past when tensions with Washington had escalated many Chinese in online forums had talked about nuclear bombing Los Angeles and other US cities. Do you know the ratio of nuclear warheads in the US and China. At a minimum the US has at least 10 times the number of nuclear weapons that China has. It is an even more adverse ratio when compared to the Beijing - New Delhi strategic warheads balance.

A nuclear war is to be avoided by all. India will not launch an first strike and will only only respond to an nuclear attack by another country (holds true 99.99% but if an very adverse situation develops and our conventional defence proves inadequate then an Indian first strike could be warranted).

Suppose China has already hit an Indian city with a nuclear weapon and our Agni 5 launched in response has been shot down by Chinese ABM defences. They probably launched multiple interceptors thereby increasing the chances of success. We presently do not have IRBM's and ICBM's in hundreds or even in dozens of numbers. For carrying out an saturation missile attack on the enemy.

So having an strategic bomber gives us one more option to achieve our aims. Having an strategic bomber doesn't mean that SSBN's are not needed.
Or vice versa having SSBN's doesn't mean that strategic bombers will not be needed.
We are building redundancy by having more options for delivering strategic weapons. If one fails, the other option can be tried.

What is meant by a nuclear triad strategy. Why do the big powers possess the ability to deliver nuclear weapons by land based missiles, submarine launched missiles and aircraft launched missiles. By your logic since the US has lot of SSBN's (probably the best in the world technology wise), they should give up all their B52s, B1b, B2 bombers etc. The B52 is not an stealth bomber by any yardstick but the USAF still uses it. Why?.

In an ideal situation I do not want any imported strategic bombers. I want an fully indigenous strategic bomber manufactured in India. But is it possible now, at this point of time.

I am not an pro Russian lobbyist but an pro Indian lobbyist. Nor am I an pro US lobbyist. I think it is possible to avoid taking sides and stand for indigenous technology and weapons. I admit becoming fully indigenous will take a lot of effort and time. But at least we can aspire to the objective and try to plan accordingly. However long it takes.

I have not raised this issue of acquiring an strategic bomber fleet. It was raised by an ex IAF senior officer. We are only having discussions on the topic. Your views or my views will not be the determining factor.

 

[johnj]

Cool down, Bro
I was only giving an example of how an strategic bomber could be used. Some members believe that its use would be Pakistan centric.

If you have an better example of how an strategic bomber should be used then please elucidate. Probably you visualise the bomber travelling 10,000km to the coast of the United States and bombing New York.

You are almost pissing in your pants in fear of the Chinese.
Firstly I had clearly said that it is an hypothetical situation.
Also the Chinese public are not as scared as many Indians in stating how their weapons including strategic weapons will be used. Remember at the beginning of the latest Chinese ingression into India hardly an year or so before many Chinese had proudly(foolishly) said that the PLA long range MBRL systems could target New Delhi easily and that their army will roll down the Himalayas and capture New Delhi.

And in the past when tensions with Washington had escalated many Chinese in online forums had talked about nuclear bombing Los Angeles and other US cities. Do you know the ratio of nuclear warheads in the US and China. At a minimum the US has at least 10 times the number of nuclear weapons that China has. It is an even more adverse ratio when compared to the Beijing - New Delhi strategic warheads balance.

A nuclear war is to be avoided by all. India will not launch an first strike and will only only respond to an nuclear attack by another country (holds true 99.99% but if an very adverse situation develops and our conventional defence proves inadequate then an Indian first strike could be warranted).

Suppose China has already hit an Indian city with a nuclear weapon and our Agni 5 launched in response has been shot down by Chinese ABM defences. They probably launched multiple interceptors thereby increasing the chances of success. We presently do not have IRBM's and ICBM's in hundreds or even in dozens of numbers. For carrying out an saturation missile attack on the enemy.

So having an strategic bomber gives us one more option to achieve our aims. Having an strategic bomber doesn't mean that SSBN's are not needed.
Or vice versa having SSBN's doesn't mean that strategic bombers will not be needed.
We are building redundancy by having more options for delivering strategic weapons. If one fails, the other option can be tried.

What is meant by a nuclear triad strategy. Why do the big powers possess the ability to deliver nuclear weapons by land based missiles, submarine launched missiles and aircraft launched missiles. By your logic since the US has lot of SSBN's (probably the best in the world technology wise), they should give up all their B52s, B1b, B2 bombers etc. The B52 is not an stealth bomber by any yardstick but the USAF still uses it. Why?.

In an ideal situation I do not want any imported strategic bombers. I want an fully indigenous strategic bomber manufactured in India. But is it possible now, at this point of time.

I am not an pro Russian lobbyist but an pro Indian lobbyist. Nor am I an pro US lobbyist. I think it is possible to avoid taking sides and stand for indigenous technology and weapons. I admit becoming fully indigenous will take a lot of effort and time. But at least we can aspire to the objective and try to plan accordingly. However long it takes.

I have not raised this issue of acquiring an strategic bomber fleet. It was raised by an ex IAF senior officer. We are only having discussions on the topic. Your views or my views will not be the determining factor.

Points.
strategic bomber - designed to deliver strategic payload at long/medium range.
Nuclear strike against nuclear power - welcoming unknown no.of nuclear strike on their country.
ex IAF said about strategic bomber.
Rest.
Just irrelevant stupid comments,- to make some relevant comment - at least we need to know what kind of strategic bomber, subsonic, supersonic, stealth, payload, lrcm carrier etc. and why ?
Don't write a essay, one or more thing I cant understand is why attack china mainland or shore first with nuke ? why use strategic bomber if subs can do it silently with lrcm ?
Yes, you wrote an example, but a suicidal one, and that is what I raised question, why suicidal if strategic bomber can do a lot more than that.
strategic bomber can do secondary missions like dropping normal bombs, cas, normal strike. deep strike, anti ship etc. a single b1b can carry 24 lrasm. In the case of pak, if IAF able to destroy their anti air capability, strategic bombers can devastate their sea & land forces . In the case of china, a super duper strategic bomber can destroy their vital strategic command centers & nods by choosing low hostile path.
India use its nuke under nfu policy under nuclear, bio & chemical attack against country and troops, means indian nuke is to avoid wmd at any cost not to give a reason to use one.
''Suppose'' not helping, becz Chinese not so dump, and if they use nuke, they give more importance to Indian nuke delivery platform, and strategic bombers become easy target and ssbm is the best option of survive first strike.
nuclear triad strategy - big countries, again confused, what about china current strategic bomber capability.
Also why france don't consider one ?
Do you thing US going to use b52 for nuke bomb inside russia ?
Why strategic bomber limited to big countries ?
How many nuclear weapon used by b52/b1b/b2 ?
I never you r a lobbyist, but ones who comes with tu 160 first, and you are the prey falling for it.
Why b52/b1b/b2 ?
All are developed for strategic bomber capability, and mainly used as heavy bomber.
B2 - only stealth option.
B1b- huge range, supersonic, low rcs, low b2.
b52- low maintenance, huge value for money.
if situation arise under suppose, usa consider f35 for strategic bomber capability, or b1b cruise missile carrier hyper sonic, or b2 with jassam.
USAF keeps b52/b1b mainly for non strategic bomber capability & b2 due to its stealth capability.

 

[Tridev123]

Points.
strategic bomber - designed to deliver strategic payload at long/medium range.
Nuclear strike against nuclear power - welcoming unknown no.of nuclear strike on their country.
ex IAF said about strategic bomber.
Rest.
Just irrelevant stupid comments,- to make some relevant comment - at least we need to know what kind of strategic bomber, subsonic, supersonic, stealth, payload, lrcm carrier etc. and why ?
Don't write a essay, one or more thing I cant understand is why attack china mainland or shore first with nuke ? why use strategic bomber if subs can do it silently with lrcm ?
Yes, you wrote an example, but a suicidal one, and that is what I raised question, why suicidal if strategic bomber can do a lot more than that.
strategic bomber can do secondary missions like dropping normal bombs, cas, normal strike. deep strike, anti ship etc. a single b1b can carry 24 lrasm. In the case of pak, if IAF able to destroy their anti air capability, strategic bombers can devastate their sea & land forces . In the case of china, a super duper strategic bomber can destroy their vital strategic command centers & nods by choosing low hostile path.
India use its nuke under nfu policy under nuclear, bio & chemical attack against country and troops, means indian nuke is to avoid wmd at any cost not to give a reason to use one.
''Suppose'' not helping, becz Chinese not so dump, and if they use nuke, they give more importance to Indian nuke delivery platform, and strategic bombers become easy target and ssbm is the best option of survive first strike.
nuclear triad strategy - big countries, again confused, what about china current strategic bomber capability.
Also why france don't consider one ?
Do you thing US going to use b52 for nuke bomb inside russia ?
Why strategic bomber limited to big countries ?
How many nuclear weapon used by b52/b1b/b2 ?
I never you r a lobbyist, but ones who comes with tu 160 first, and you are the prey falling for it.
Why b52/b1b/b2 ?
All are developed for strategic bomber capability, and mainly used as heavy bomber.
B2 - only stealth option.
B1b- huge range, supersonic, low rcs, low b2.
b52- low maintenance, huge value for money.
if situation arise under suppose, usa consider f35 for strategic bomber capability, or b1b cruise missile carrier hyper sonic, or b2 with jassam.
USAF keeps b52/b1b mainly for non strategic bomber capability & b2 due to its stealth capability.

You believe that your post is very legible and readable. No paragraphs and listing out points wise. One continuous rant. Still whatever makes you happy.

I did not want to make it personal but you started it.

Forget about the type of strategic bomber. Do you feel that India(a large country) needs an nuclear triad which includes customised aircraft for nuclear weapons delivery. For use against an very large country like China.

If you feel we don't need any strategic bombers, now or in the future. Then no point in discussing. Better you directly enter the National Security Council of the GOI and offer your version of national security.

There can be different ways to use an strategic bomber. You cannot say that only your way is right and the rest are wrong.

If you have thought out the entire war plan against the Chinese and the PLA including the nuclear weapons deployment and use strategy, then please advise the Generals to follow it.

The US will not fly the B52 or even any stealth bomber into Russian airspace without first neutralising any air defence networks present. Why do these bombers carry long range stand off weapons.

If you very strongly feel that whatever you advocate is the last word, then be happy with it. I have no desire to argue with a person who is dogmatic and rigid.

Good Day.

 

[johnj]

You believe that your post is very legible and readable. No paragraphs and listing out points wise. One continuous rant. Still whatever makes you happy.

I did not want to make it personal but you started it.

Forget about the type of strategic bomber. Do you feel that India(a large country) needs an nuclear triad which includes customised aircraft for nuclear weapons delivery. For use against an very large country like China.

If you feel we don't need any strategic bombers, now or in the future. Then no point in discussing. Better you directly enter the National Security Council of the GOI and offer your version of national security.

There can be different ways to use an strategic bomber. You cannot say that only your way is right and the rest are wrong.

If you have thought out the entire war plan against the Chinese and the PLA including the nuclear weapons deployment and use strategy, then please advise the Generals to follow it.

The US will not fly the B52 or even any stealth bomber into Russian airspace without first neutralising any air defence networks present. Why do these bombers carry long range stand off weapons.

If you very strongly feel that whatever you advocate is the last word, then be happy with it. I have no desire to argue with a person who is dogmatic and rigid.

Good Day.

First of all I didn't made it for any personal attack, but yes a personal question ? what are you supposing ww3 only ?? yes, its is personal, becz it only represent your mindset, not mine, to me not personal, for you yes ? why you so interested in ww3 and how you to start to suppose india going to start it ? Rest irreverent and you know all, just wasting space, writing samething.
Q- when I said india don't need strategic bomber ?
Q- when I wrote a war plan ?
Q- how you come to the conclusion its is my theory ?
Q- do you even read my comment fully ??
For your knowledge except '' if IAF able to destroy their anti air capability, strategic bombers can devastate their sea & land forces '' rest were taken from Military/Military Planners/GOI etc, and if you having issue with, I can do anything. Bring the last question -
Q- why are you in this forum ?
I am asking questions, and answering yours, but you are just dogmatic and rigid without any answers, that sad.
Yes you are right ''a person who is dogmatic and rigid'' sorry I can't help it either, unless someone proves me wrong. But in here there is no dogmatic and rigid from me but from you, NFU, Indian nuclear weapon usage<offical>, stealth, long range same, spy satellite etc not developed by me,so why you want ww3 so bad ??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except WW3 starting, I don't see anything from you first comment I replayed.
In simple<suppose/eg.. whatever> India buying bomber to start WW3 and I, what the hell, and asking you, why WW3, if you can <suppose/eg> use bomber for other may purpose inisted of starting of WW3.

 

[Tridev123]

First of all I didn't made it for any personal attack, but yes a personal question ? what are you supposing ww3 only ?? yes, its is personal, becz it only represent your mindset, not mine, to me not personal, for you yes ? why you so interested in ww3 and how you to start to suppose india going to start it ? Rest irreverent and you know all, just wasting space, writing samething.
Q- when I said india don't need strategic bomber ?
Q- when I wrote a war plan ?
Q- how you come to the conclusion its is my theory ?
Q- do you even read my comment fully ??
For your knowledge except '' if IAF able to destroy their anti air capability, strategic bombers can devastate their sea & land forces '' rest were taken from Military/Military Planners/GOI etc, and if you having issue with, I can do anything. Bring the last question -
Q- why are you in this forum ?
I am asking questions, and answering yours, but you are just dogmatic and rigid without any answers, that sad.
Yes you are right ''a person who is dogmatic and rigid'' sorry I can't help it either, unless someone proves me wrong. But in here there is no dogmatic and rigid from me but from you, NFU, Indian nuclear weapon usage<offical>, stealth, long range same, spy satellite etc not developed by me,so why you want ww3 so bad ??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except WW3 starting, I don't see anything from you first comment I replayed.
In simple<suppose/eg.. whatever> India buying bomber to start WW3 and I, what the hell, and asking you, why WW3, if you can <suppose/eg> use bomber for other may purpose inisted of starting of WW3.

Ok, man.
I assure you as you are the the President that I as the Prime Minister will not buy any strategic bomber and will not start World War 3.

I guess this settles the matter and no further discussion is needed.
Don't tag me anymore.

 

[SKC]

There were only 36 units in total with 27 of these from Serial production. Only 16 Units were in service in 2016.
How on earth Russia will give away 12 units to any other country.

They are running project to modernize these remaining units. They had plan to restart the production line but it is still in plans only since 2014.

 

[no smoking]

Lol, the this thread based on stupidity not even a rumor.
h 20 matching b21, lol.

I am not saying that H-20 can match B21 on technical level, but the design concept!

Russia is trying to sell Tu-160 to China - I read just opposite, and Russia only tried to sell tu22<medium range>, tu 160 not for sale.

Really, showing me your source.

 

[johnj]

Really, showing me your source.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/...an-to-sell-tu-160-strategic-bombers-to-china/
https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/1/23/1473/?h

 

[Super falcon]

Heard from where?

From a YouTube news defence decode and alpha defence

 

[Dark Sorrow]

From a YouTube news defence decode and alpha defence

Buddy I appreciate your effort and hard work you are putting in your videos.

The sources you mentioned are all defence infotainment channels and a lot of their information is speculative.
Always verify from the original source what was reported.
Former ACM recommended Tu-160 for Strategic Force Command, to free up IAF's assets.
Somehow the above statement got morphed into IAF buying Tu-160.

Such statements and video will be consumed readily by general public like hot cakes but on defence community such videos will be heavily scrutinized and people will poke holes in the statements.

Always verify before posting.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

in the bigger scheme, I am a favor of purchasing a long range Bomber. If. you want to be world power... u need the ability to be able to project power beyond your shores.

Nah. Better to build our own strategic bombers post 2035. Instead of buying a few now when we don't got the monies and need is also not that pressing.

Funny enough, last time IAF had "medium" bombers in the mid-2000s, they carried less payload than the "Light" Combat Aircraft Tejas Mk1.

 

[no smoking]

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/...an-to-sell-tu-160-strategic-bombers-to-china/

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/05/31/russia-ruined-ukraines-plan-to-sell-tu-160-strategic-bombers-to-china/

Yes, as I said, the bomber like Tu-160 is only useful against Russia. This attempt was 1990s when Russia was still the top 1 enemy of China. Since 2000, US already replaced that role.

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/1/23/1473/?h

Just look at Tu-22M3's range: 5800km, similar to the speculated range of H-20.