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.