[Shreyans_Jain]

I’d like to think that there may be an acknowledgment on the Russian side that India will be fairly self sufficient in things like light and medium fighters and certain kinds of helicopters that we are prioritising, at least in the medium to long term.

Between homemade products and top notch stuff from the west, Russia’s overall share of the Indian arms market can only reduce. With their own economy struggling, they need all the partnering and bankrolling they can to keep up their R&D. It’s not like thay have countries lining up for that. China is fairly self reliant now, and it is only a matter of time before they perfect even the most complicated stuff like engines.

Russia needs the Indian defence market. And long term, they’ll have to fill in with niche products that we are still far away from making and others won’t provide us. Like strategic bombers.

[aim120]

Do we really need a strategic bomber, the other 3 big super powers have long borders or need to cross oceans.

Our foes are all within missile range and vice versa. Its not like we are going to fly around 300km away from Beijing and launch missiles. The tu160 will be spotted on radar the moment it takes off from our forward bases.

Although for some hypothetical future foes, who don't have that good air defenses or fighter jets. The bombers can dump a lot of firepower.

But if the russians provide us a PAK DA flying wing stealth bomber, then thats something to consider.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by aim120

Do we really need a strategic bomber, the other 3 big super powers have long borders or need to cross oceans.

Honestly this is a good question. To me a strategic bomber is an integral part of any air wing that needs to go deep into prohibitive A2/AD airspace to target key installations, but optically speaking its one of those primary sticks for projecting power (over oceans/multiple continents if necessary). If India's principle military posture is a defensive one (crucially limited to the subcontinent), you'd reckon that the missile truck concept (so take something like a Su-30 and load it to the brim with stand off munitions) would suffice for making relatively low risk strikes deep into enemy air space from within your own territory. From the atmanirbharta perspective, I'd say India logically reckoned it was more cost effective to develop in house missiles that can load out these missile trucks so to speak. Plenty of those would be very cost effective compared to a big new platform like the Tu-160. That being said I guess it's a new tool in the IAF toolkit, a capability which they haven't had before and the fact it's rare such a capability is ever put on the table, they reckoned it was worth going for.

Our foes are all within missile range and vice versa. Its not like we are going to fly around 300km away from Beijing and launch missiles. The tu160 will be spotted on radar the moment it takes off from our forward bases.

I guess the long legs of the Tu-160 would allow basing in southern India with missions enabling it to fly all the way around the Indian Ocean, swing east around the First Island Chain and then approach major coastal targets for China that way. I do agree it seems a bit pointless if it was based at any of the FOBs along either frontier, something that big would instantly light up on any radar warning across the border. Flying that Maritime Silk Road route (to borrow an analogy) would likely be the more practical option. That would definitely open up a helluva counter hook proposition for the IAF.


Just a rough estimate of the route I was suggesting if it started from a base at Nagpur for eg. If you include aerial refuelling over the IOR, that's probably within reach at least as a long range patrol.

But if the russians provide us a PAK DA flying wing stealth bomber, then thats something to consider.

I think we can fully rule this one out as a practical option. Even if the Russians weren't engaged in a major war that's draining their military and industrial resources, this programme was pretty much on life support. There's probably been precious little work done on this programme beyond the initial proposals and whatever design that is currently in the works would come with heavy compromises (all we have to go on is a recent patent disclosure for an engine intake on a schematic platform that could be the PAK DA). And by compromise I mean for eg the fact that the Russians have wisely focused what resources they have on achieving low observability in the frontal domain with the Su-57 and S-70 UAV, but the moment you look at the tail and crucially exhaust, you realise that's where the buck stopped because there's no LO treatment or design there at all.

The only chance this happens is just as with the Su-57, and then the Su-75 prototype, Russia invites India on board for its resources to provide monetary life support to the developmental programme for the PAK DA. I mean even to me it's fairly obvious that there's a contradiction between reviving the Blackjack programme and embarking on a costly new build flying wing strategic bomber. If funds are tight, and we all know they are, what's to stop the rationalisation towards the cost effective option (which seemingly should be the existing airframe, Tu-160)?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by aim120

Our foes are all within missile range and vice versa. Its not like we are going to fly around 300km away from Beijing and launch missiles. The tu160 will be spotted on radar the moment it takes off from our forward bases.

You can only control to an extent your capabilities each of which take years to develop. You cannot assume or choose your opponents - circumstances around you, ever fluid will decide who becomes your opponent. To assume that our defence needs to be only focused on China or Pakistan is to limit ourselves to the obvious. In an extreme situation risks can come from many directions. By the same logic you can ask why do we need the Agni missiles, why do we need SSBNs.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by aim120

Do we really need a strategic bomber, the other 3 big super powers have long borders or need to cross oceans. Our foes are all within missile range and vice versa. Its not like we are going to fly around 300km away from Beijing and launch missiles. The tu160 will be spotted on radar the moment it takes off from our forward bases.

On usage of strategic bombers, Russian and Chinese doctrine is different from that of USAF. Both Russia & China (and very likely India) is likely to use bombers as flying MISSILE TRUCKS. Eg:

Chinese xian H-6 bomber:



Russian Tu 22 bomber:



Large bombers like H6/Tu22/Tu160 can carry 6 or more long range cruise missiles. Theoretically, a heavy bomber will give IAF planners the ability to fly from Andamans or Coimbatore, lob 6 or more 1,500 km range Nirbhay cruise missiles at the enemy and fly back

[aim120]

I was wondering why can't the recently retired Indian navy TU-142MK which is based on the still flying TU-95, be used as a bomb truck. It had high operating cost as a maritime surveillance aircraft but as a bomber, it may make sense.

Obviously, some structural modification for hard points and general overhaul has to be done, but the bear can carry 15tons of bombs vs Xian H6 12 tons.

The TU-95 has had variants from a passenger plane to awacs and what not, so that airframe is highly modifiable and pretty rugged.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by aim120

I was wondering why can't the recently retired Indian navy TU-142MK which is based on the still flying TU-95, be used as a bomb truck. It had high operating cost as a maritime surveillance aircraft but as a bomber, it may make sense.

Obviously, some structural modification for hard points and general overhaul has to be done, but the bear can carry 15tons of bombs vs Xian H6 12 tons.

The TU-95 has had variants from a passenger plane to awacs and what not, so that airframe is highly modifiable and pretty rugged.

Infact, there were talks about the US Navy using their P8s as missile trucks as well, especially with the new LRASM stand-off missiles though its certainly smaller than the other platforms we are talking about here. Also, its a naval aircraft (not operated by either the Indian or US air force) and is certainly not nuclear-capable. So, if India wants bomb/missile trucks, there are certainly other options given that India already operates the P8 but if it's a requirement for nuclear deterrence, I can't think of a better option than the Tu-160 because it's pretty much the only strategic bomber currently in production. But this is assuming that the purchase doesn't interfere with other key requirements like fighter jets which might actually be needed during small-scale combat and skirmishes.

[fhdowntheline]

It may be a good way of projecting force and a flexible long distance /heavy weapon delivery platform. If I am not mistaken, India has operated An-12 airplanes as bomb trucks during '71, besides the dedicated Canberra light bomber.

[Alka panwar]

Originally Posted by ads11

I guess the long legs of the Tu-160 would allow basing in southern India with missions enabling it to fly all the way around the Indian Ocean, swing east around the First Island Chain and then approach major coastal targets for China that way. I do agree it seems a bit pointless if it was based at any of the FOBs along either frontier, something that big would instantly light up on any radar warning across the border. Flying that Maritime Silk Road route (to borrow an analogy) would likely be the more practical option. That would definitely open up a helluva counter hook proposition for the IAF.

Attachment 2344090
Just a rough estimate of the route I was suggesting if it started from a base at Nagpur for eg. If you include aerial refuelling over the IOR, that's probably within reach at least as a long range patrol.


)?

You do understand that IoR and South China Sea is littered with Chinese radars and air defense with china being largest navy!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Alka panwar

You do understand that IoR and South China Sea is littered with Chinese radars and air defense with china being largest navy!

War is about being able to deal with a comparable adversary and still find your solutions to go in and get out or go in complete your mission and divert your return to another's friendly territory. For every radar or sensor there is {usually} a counter measure. We should not assume radars are omni-seeing, omni-potent nor is the South China sea the only route to hit the Chinese with. I doubt the Tu-160, if their acquisition even has a sliver of reality, will be used to fly from India all the way to Beijing - too far. There are a dozen other uses, mainly around dominance of the IoR & Middle East and the parts of China around HK, Guangdong, Fujian, Hainan that might be its targets - and there are many routes to get there eg along the northern borders of Myanmar, Thailand and Laos!

India had toyed with the idea of leasing Tupolev Tu-22Ms in mid-1990s but our frayed budgets came in the way. Given that we are now facing an openly belligerent super power wannabe it is time we added some muscle.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

On usage of strategic bombers, Russian and Chinese doctrine is different from that of USAF. Both Russia & China (and very likely India) is likely to use bombers as flying MISSILE TRUCKS.

In fairness it's not entirely a doctrinal difference with the USAF, after all the venerable B-52 is absolutely the primary airborne arsenal ship for them, it's more a consequence of what is available to the PLAAF and RuAF. The PLAAF is simply making the most of the Xian by utilising the available airframe as both a missile truck and air launch platform amongst other uses, but the fact they're deep into the development programme for not just their own B-2/B-21 equivalent deep interdiction LO strategic bomber (Xian H-20) but there are rumours there's a secondary programme for a more nimble tactical bomber too, is proof that they too seek the same capability as the USAF. I mean the end goal is for the PLAAF to be able to fly out into the Pacific and strike Guam at the very least, if not further afield.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Infact, there were talks about the US Navy using their P8s as missile trucks as well, especially with the new LRASM stand-off missiles though its certainly smaller than the other platforms we are talking about here.

The P-8 is such a blank slate and I love that operators are continually thinking up new uses for it. I can definitely foresee it being modified to have much more prominence in terms of stand off strike (I really hope India doesn't pass up having Kongsbergs Naval Strike Missile on the IN P-8s if they're offered).

Originally Posted by Alka panwar

You do understand that IoR and South China Sea is littered with Chinese radars and air defense with china being largest navy!

I was just spitballing there, mostly to see how far along you'd get from a central Indian base.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I doubt the Tu-160, if their acquisition even has a sliver of reality, will be used to fly from India all the way to Beijing - too far. There are a dozen other uses, mainly around dominance of the IoR & Middle East and the parts of China around HK, Guangdong, Fujian, Hainan that might be its targets - and there are many routes to get there eg along the northern borders of Myanmar, Thailand and Laos!

Precisely, just because the Tu-160 has long legs doesn't necessarily mean the strike would be targeted at Beijing, there's an abundance of critical coastal targets along the south-eastern edges of China should the mission ever be formulated. There's the overland route for sure but I feel given the Andamans is available, borrowing a page from the RAF bombing mission during the Falklands, there's a possibility out there for a long legged platform like the Tu-160 taking off from there and going the long way round still. I mean even if it's just a long patrol along international airspace bringing it round the SCS, it's a new tool for the IAF.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

In fairness it's not entirely a doctrinal difference with the USAF, after all the venerable B-52 is absolutely the primary airborne arsenal ship for them, it's more a consequence of what is available to the PLAAF and RuAF. The PLAAF is simply making the most of the Xian by utilising the available airframe as both a missile truck and air launch platform amongst other uses, but the fact they're deep into the development programme for not just their own B-2/B-21 equivalent deep interdiction LO strategic bomber (Xian H-20) but there are rumours there's a secondary programme for a more nimble tactical bomber too, is proof that they too seek the same capability as the USAF. I mean the end goal is for the PLAAF to be able to fly out into the Pacific and strike Guam at the very least, if not further afield.

Interesting! Didn't know that the PLAAF was developing a B2/B21 equivalent though it does make sense considering how their capabilities have developed.

I was quite a bit confused on the doctrinal question as well. All American bombers that have been designated for nuclear strike have been used extensively in a conventional role whether its the B52 (as you pointed out), B1 or the B2. The B1s are even outfitted for an anti-ship role. Infact, I am not even sure if the Russians have used their strategic bombers to the same effect. Has the Tu-95 and/or Tu-160 been used for a conventional strike in Georgia, Syria or Ukraine? Can't ask the same about the H6 since the Chinese since they haven't fought a war since 1980.

At the end of the day, long-range bombers are as much about prestige as it is about real-world capabilities. It's an indicator that projects the said country as a military superpower that shouldn't be messed with (infact, I'd argue that the decommissioning of the Vulcan was amongst the last straws after which the British no longer remained a global power). So, it's hard not to see the appeal!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

At the end of the day, long-range bombers are as much about prestige as it is about real-world capabilities. It's an indicator that projects the said country as a military superpower that shouldn't be messed with (infact, I'd argue that the decommissioning of the Vulcan was amongst the last straws after which the British no longer remained a global power). So, it's hard not to see the appeal!

Excellent point, especially re: the Vulcan retirement! The fact the Tu-160 is held in such esteem by the average Russian, fits with how Putin could probably consider the revival of the build programme as a popular announcement. Similarly I guess the H-20 offers the aerial soft power big stick equivalent of a naval flat top for the PLAAF, much the same way the US undoubtedly exerts soft power through the displays of its B-2, and the fact you could have them take off from Missouri, fly halfway round the planet, bomb somewhere and come back unscathed. That's potent symbolism to the average Joe, not discounting the very credible utility from a military standpoint as well.

Interesting! Didn't know that the PLAAF was developing a B2/B21 equivalent though it does make sense considering how their capabilities have developed.

Basically about the same time Northrop Grumman was making waves with a flashy Superbowl commercial that featured some of their greatest hits in terms of flying wings, it tantalisingly included a tarp covering what their B21 Raider (the contract for the USAF's next gen bomber had been awarded already). Beijing shortly afterwards released a PLAAF recruiting video where it ends with a shot of the pilot (in aviators of course) looks up at a tarp covering a large flying wing aircraft, basically their H-20. Predictably a torrent of memes followed on all sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_hIUpJ8h8

The original NG Superbowl short. Notice the origin, past, present and future represented in the 4 flying wing platforms displayed.

https://youtu.be/wiiUtZDp9ME

3:45 mark and you'll see it. The resemblance is uncanny, though there's only so many ways you can spin a flying wing in all fairness.

Infact, I am not even sure if the Russians have used their strategic bombers to the same effect. Has the Tu-95 and/or Tu-160 been used for a conventional strike in Georgia, Syria or Ukraine? Can't ask the same about the H6 since the Chinese since they haven't fought a war since 1980.

IIRC the RuAF did run a few missions in Syria with the Tu-160. I could be wrong. The last big story I remember of a RuAF Tu-160 was when they flew it all the way to Venezuela a couple of years ago. I think they also completed some absurd duration flight within the Arctic circle.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

IIRC the RuAF did run a few missions in Syria with the Tu-160. I could be wrong. The last big story I remember of a RuAF Tu-160 was when they flew it all the way to Venezuela a couple of years ago. I think they also completed some absurd duration flight within the Arctic circle.

Ah yes, turns out Russia has used all their strategic bombers in Syria - the Tu-160s, the Tu-95s and the Tu-22s.

In the Ukraine war, the Tu-160s and Tu-95s were only used once to launch cruise missiles from a stand-off distance though that's understandable. Even the Americans would never use their bombers (except maybe the B2) in contested airspace.

Basically about the same time Northrop Grumman was making waves with a flashy Superbowl commercial that featured some of their greatest hits in terms of flying wings, it tantalisingly included a tarp covering what their B21 Raider (the contract for the USAF's next gen bomber had been awarded already). Beijing shortly afterwards released a PLAAF recruiting video where it ends with a shot of the pilot (in aviators of course) looks up at a tarp covering a large flying wing aircraft, basically their H-20.

The resemblance is uncanny, though there's only so many ways you can spin a flying wing in all fairness.

Thanks for catching me up on that, as you pointed out, indeed, any flying wing stealth bomber will wind up looking like the B2.

However, the stage of development at this point is anybody's guess though I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese. Based on media reports atleast, the J20 seems to be fully-operation at this point and has been deployed in along forward locations on China's frontiers unlike the Russian Su-57!

Speaking of 5th gen fighters, another story was going around Twitter a few weeks back on the F35s. The discussion started as the US Senate identified "intelligence collection capabilities, unmanned aerial vehicles, 5G, fourth and fifth generation aircraft, and joint research and development, as areas for cooperation with India". Clearly, the F35s aren't mentioned explicitly but there is only one fifth gen US fighter that is available for export. Just like the Tu-160 story, the claims of F35s being offered to India has been going on for a couple of years now and these stories just refuse to die. I can't imagine the uproar from Ankara if the F35s are actually offered to India considering that Turkey got kicked out of the program for purchasing the same S400s that India has acquired. Alternatively, it could also mean that the US would offer help on Tejas Mk-2 (the 4th gen aircraft mentioned) and AMCA (the 5th gen aircraft mentioned) since there is an emphasis on 'cooperation' rather than 'sales'.

[Reinhard]

The story of Tu160s being procured for the IAF has been in circulation since almost 2 decades that I remember. Its like some comets that make a regular visit to Earth for a vista . Of course its a potent weapon system and a significant deterrent to have in one's arsenal, but then as of now I think this is best categorized as speculation.

As for the similar stories of F35, I feel there is practically no chance of the F35 being offered to India, especially given that will put the F35 in direct contact with the S400 - which in my opinion was the primary reason of the treatment that Turkey got regarding this program.

And then - ok that the US/NATO may be open to offer the F35 to India (for the usual reason of making money) - what about the fact that India has managed to procure 36 Rafales since last many years and thats about it. Not a thing has moved since - not even follow-on orders for the trusted and revered Rafale, so for sure India doesn't have money to buy planes for its crucial air force (#sarcasm).