Dedicated Bomber for IAF : Arguments

[Innominate]

Lol, that's not frontal RCS, that's just average RCS. The frontal RCS of the Tu-160 is smaller than the B-1B's. And the latest version is even smaller. It's in the LCA, Rafale, SH class.

And the new bomber has many other self-protection features too.

Lol. When the Russians stick their TU-160s on poles like these...

...Then maybe I'll entertain such opinion. Until then the opinion of some Russian who is just guessing because he says so means squat! But I'm not surprised that someone like you believes such BS. Russians do love suckers when it comes to their equipment claims.

I'm gonna take a guess and predict you were going to bring up the TU-160 has some RAM coating, right? Lol. RAM on non stealth fighters or bombers is negligible. I think I know where you were getting this ridiculous claim... What about "spikes?" That TU160 would have to know exactly where that radar is and point its nose at it in such manner to make sure its frontal is always pointing at radars direction.

Opinions are like aholes... we all have one and they stink.

 

[smestarz]

I'm not understanding CAATSA won't let us buy Russian bombers. And I doubt Americans would want us to sell b1 lancers or b-52. A single b-1 would cost us around 300-500 million $. We could buy b-52 stratofortress but I have huge doubts if Americans will sell that to us. Although american b-52's would cost us 90 mil $ per unit. And they would fit our requirement well considering the Chinese have h-6k's. We could buy around 20-30 b-52's for around 3 billion $. Provided the Americans are open to selling them.
The most realistic options seems to be re-engining the navy's tu-142Mk-E's and do life extension in the interim and start investing in an indigenous bomber program.

or maybe try to convert A320 into a bomber? I mean no one has tried before, but does not mean it cannot happen..

 

[smestarz]

Consider this view point, if in such a crunch scenario we go for a bomber fleet, we go for it for things a Rafale or Flanker cannot do.

Like launching a dozen long range air launched cruise missiles, maybe tipped with nukes if used by SFC. Or Air launched ballistic missile or Air launched Hypersonic Glide System.

Using something like a JDAM from it will not be a priority.

Will US allow B1s to be armed with Indian Nuke tipped missiles ?

For using something like B-1B or Tu-160M we need to have air dominance to ensure that SAMs do not interfere in these operations, so first might be do develop smaller stealthy/VLO systems that can take down enemy air defence, once those are taken down, such bomb trucks will wreck havoc.
Tu-160 can carry 12× AS-16 Kickback on 2 rotary launchers, these AS-16 Kickback have weight of abt 1.2 tons, length of
Length 4.78 m Diameter 45.5 cm (17.9 in) would these be dimensions be close to that of Brahmos NG? If yes, then maybe the idea would be to go for a bomb truck that can fire 12 internal + 6 external Brahmos NG at targets..

 

[Adm_Kenobi]

would these be dimensions be close to that of Brahmos NG?

BrahMos NG is supposed to be ≤520mm and ≤6000mm & weigh around 1.2-1.5T
These figures are a few years old and are subject to change as the development goes on.

 

[randomradio]

Lol. When the Russians stick their TU-160s on poles like these...
View attachment 24243
View attachment 24244
View attachment 24245

...Then maybe I'll entertain such opinion. Until then the opinion of some Russian who is just guessing because he says so means squat! But I'm not surprised that someone like you believes such BS. Russians do love suckers when it comes to their equipment claims.

Yes, they have aircraft on poles like that. Been doing it since the 60s.

I'm gonna take a guess and predict you were going to bring up the TU-160 has some RAM coating, right? Lol. RAM on non stealth fighters or bombers is negligible. I think I know where you were getting this ridiculous claim... What about "spikes?" That TU160 would have to know exactly where that radar is and point its nose at it in such manner to make sure its frontal is always pointing at radars direction.

Opinions are like aholes... we all have one and they stink.

After the Cold War, both Russians and Americans studied and flew each others' bombers and fighters. So that's how we know the Tu-160 has a smaller RCS than the B-1B.

According to Bill Gunston in his Putnum book "Tupelov aircraft since 1922" "A second difference (the first was 79% more engine thrust) is that though significantly larger the the USAF bomber (B-1B), the Tu-160 has smaller radar cross sections and lower aerodynamic drag. Dr. Tupolev said 'We believe that this is the most aerodynamically efficient supersonic aircraft ever built'."

"The fuselage cross-section is the minimum necessary for crew, fuel, and payload, and is significantly less than that of the B-1B or Tu-22M. Drag and radar cross-section are further reduced by the acute angle of the conical nose, and by the use of special computer routines to achieve optimum shape and control machine tools in production. Of over 45 antennas, only 3 project as blades or spikes. Apart from the previously mentioned hinged flap fence, no fences or vortex generators were needed anywhere."

"structurally, this aircraft broke new ground with Tupolev in its very extensive use of honeycomb sandwich skin and precision controlled radar absorbant material covering."

 

[Innominate]

Yes, they have aircraft on poles like that. Been doing it since the 60s.

Page 22 (page 19 of the original document) outlines Soviet RCS research facilities. After the analysis of exisiting facilities at Aralsk, Kalinin and Voronezh, the authors conclude:

"With the advent of cruise missiles with inherently low radar cross sections, the Soviets require sophisticated facilities capable of measuring the radar cross section of smaller targets. In the past, such US ranges required carefully controlled, graded surfaces extending over great lengths - often several kilometers - against which precisely adjusted transmitters bounce radar waves onto pylon-mounted targets that, in turn, reflect the energy into closely calibrated receiver antennas. No such Soviet ranges are known to exist."

Tu-160 Blackjack

Opinions on this huge Russian bomber? Anyone know of any late developments or news on it? I like it.

www.key.aero

After the Cold War, both Russians and Americans studied and flew each others' bombers and fighters. So that's how we know the Tu-160 has a smaller RCS than the B-1B.

According to Bill Gunston in his Putnum book "Tupelov aircraft since 1922" "A second difference (the first was 79% more engine thrust) is that though significantly larger the the USAF bomber (B-1B), the Tu-160 has smaller radar cross sections and lower aerodynamic drag. Dr. Tupolev said 'We believe that this is the most aerodynamically efficient supersonic aircraft ever built'."

"The fuselage cross-section is the minimum necessary for crew, fuel, and payload, and is significantly less than that of the B-1B or Tu-22M. Drag and radar cross-section are further reduced by the acute angle of the conical nose, and by the use of special computer routines to achieve optimum shape and control machine tools in production. Of over 45 antennas, only 3 project as blades or spikes. Apart from the previously mentioned hinged flap fence, no fences or vortex generators were needed anywhere."

"structurally, this aircraft broke new ground with Tupolev in its very extensive use of honeycomb sandwich skin and precision controlled radar absorbant material covering."

Lol. So Bill Gunston who was a flying instructor from 1943-1948 and then a researcher of aircraft, has no access to RCS data of B-1B or TU-160 but has an opinion by looking at an aircraft, that determines and becomes official that the TU-160 RCS is smaller than the B1? Not only smaller but "same class" as Rafale?

Not happening. In fact B1B's RCS reduction was in the plans from the start when the program began.

-The B-1B is an improved variant initiated by the Reagan administration in 1981. Major changes included and additional structure to increase payload by 74,000 pounds, an improved radar and reduction of the radar cross section by an order of magnitude. The inlet was extensively modified as part of this RCS reduction, necessitating a reduction in maximum speed to Mach 1.2.

B-1B Lancer

Carrying the largest conventional payload of both guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory, the multi-mission B-1 is the backbone of America's long-range bomber force. It can rapidly

www.af.mil

Big engine nacelles no shielded S-inlet-ducts.... Sure bub.

Anyways TU-160 is a waste for IAF since it won't be able to get anywhere near chicoms IADS.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1556615357586362368

PS:
I don't like this guy supporting this. He is the most pro localisation Banda that I know of. And Russians have again and again proved us why not to buy from them. He should be the last one supporting this, that too now. When we should be trying to order a squadron or two of Rafale off the shelf instead.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1556616948712357889

 

[randomradio]

Page 22 (page 19 of the original document) outlines Soviet RCS research facilities. After the analysis of exisiting facilities at Aralsk, Kalinin and Voronezh, the authors conclude:

"With the advent of cruise missiles with inherently low radar cross sections, the Soviets require sophisticated facilities capable of measuring the radar cross section of smaller targets. In the past, such US ranges required carefully controlled, graded surfaces extending over great lengths - often several kilometers - against which precisely adjusted transmitters bounce radar waves onto pylon-mounted targets that, in turn, reflect the energy into closely calibrated receiver antennas. No such Soviet ranges are known to exist."

Tu-160 Blackjack

Opinions on this huge Russian bomber? Anyone know of any late developments or news on it? I like it.

www.key.aero

Lol. So Bill Gunston who was a flying instructor from 1943-1948 and then a researcher of aircraft, has no access to RCS data of B-1B or TU-160 but has an opinion by looking at an aircraft, that determines and becomes official that the TU-160 RCS is smaller than the B1? Not only smaller but "same class" as Rafale?

Not happening. In fact B1B's RCS reduction was in the plans from the start when the program began.

-The B-1B is an improved variant initiated by the Reagan administration in 1981. Major changes included and additional structure to increase payload by 74,000 pounds, an improved radar and reduction of the radar cross section by an order of magnitude. The inlet was extensively modified as part of this RCS reduction, necessitating a reduction in maximum speed to Mach 1.2.

B-1B Lancer

Carrying the largest conventional payload of both guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory, the multi-mission B-1 is the backbone of America's long-range bomber force. It can rapidly

www.af.mil

Big engine nacelles no shielded S-inlet-ducts.... Sure bub.

Anyways TU-160 is a waste for IAF since it won't be able to get anywhere near chicoms IADS.

Yeah, hum, okay. Keep comparing a Cold War relic with something the Russians plan on producing and operating even today.

 

[randomradio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1556615357586362368

PS:
I don't like this guy supporting this. He is the most pro localisation Banda that I know of. And Russians have again and again proved us why not to buy from them. He should be the last one supporting this, that too now. When we should be trying to order a squadron or two of Rafale off the shelf instead.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1556616948712357889

This is definitely worth supporting. The Tu-160M2 is not your ordinary bomber. Yeah, it cannot be compared to a proper stealth design for penetration, but it still has its uses, including over China today. 2 squadrons of 6 bombers each will be a massive boost for our offensive capabilities.

A Tu-160 purchase will also open up the path to a PAK DA deal. A stealth bomber is like the Holy Grail in aviation today.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

This is definitely worth supporting. The Tu-160M2 is not your ordinary bomber. Yeah, it cannot be compared to a proper stealth design for penetration, but it still has its uses, including over China today. 2 squadrons of 6 bombers each will be a massive boost for our offensive capabilities.

A Tu-160 purchase will also open up the path to a PAK DA deal. A stealth bomber is like the Holy Grail in aviation today.

It will be more trouble than the benefits it may provide. Particularly on cost, acquisition, maintenance side of things.

Capability wise you don't need to sell them to me , I sport a Bear in my avatar pic. Tu22, 95 and 160 I love them all for their flight characteristics.

But concerns outweigh for me.

 

[indicisivedivide]

Rapid Dragon completes system-level flight-test series

The US Air Force Rapid Dragon Program successfully completed its final system-level flight test on 16 December with “a live fire of a current inventory cruise missile...

www.janes.com

Much better idea than buying tu-160.

 

[randomradio]

It will be more trouble than the benefits it may provide. Particularly on cost, acquisition, maintenance side of things.

Capability wise you don't need to sell them to me , I sport a Bear in my avatar pic. Tu22, 95 and 160 I love them all for their flight characteristics.

But concerns outweigh for me.

During the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage delivered by coalition air forces. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the aircraft flew less than 1 percent of the combat missions while delivering 43 percent of the JDAMs used.

It will be extremely destabilising for the Pakistanis and a major headache for the Chinese. We will even be able to threaten Hainan.

In any case, it's really important for us to open our gates to more exotic tech, which will only increase our value in the eyes of our partners. It will force other partners to up their game. If we are getting SSNs and strategic bombers from one partner, the others are going to have to match that elsewhere.

So having a few is worth the cost, and not just for its combat capability. Plus it's a new jet and will have an active production line for many years. The Russians plan to buy 50 of them. Plus, if the Russians are working on the Tu-160 in parallel with their new strategic bomber, then there will be something about this bomber that makes it important.

This plan also explains why the IAF seems less spendy than usual. Fighter jets have been pushed to the long term, while this is the era of SAMs, helicopters and force multipliers; Netra Mk2, Sentinel, COMJAM, C&C, MRTT and strategic bombers. So we have interesting inductions lined up from now until MRFA delivers.

Rapid Dragon completes system-level flight-test series

The US Air Force Rapid Dragon Program successfully completed its final system-level flight test on 16 December with “a live fire of a current inventory cruise missile...

www.janes.com

Much better idea than buying tu-160.

No, it can't be compared to the Tu-160. This is just a makeshift bomber, we have something like this already.

 

[indicisivedivide]

During the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage delivered by coalition air forces. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the aircraft flew less than 1 percent of the combat missions while delivering 43 percent of the JDAMs used.

It will be extremely destabilising for the Pakistanis and a major headache for the Chinese. We will even be able to threaten Hainan.

In any case, it's really important for us to open our gates to more exotic tech, which will only increase our value in the eyes of our partners. It will force other partners to up their game. If we are getting SSNs and strategic bombers from one partner, the others are going to have to match that elsewhere.

So having a few is worth the cost, and not just for its combat capability. Plus it's a new jet and will have an active production line for many years. The Russians plan to buy 50 of them. Plus, if the Russians are working on the Tu-160 in parallel with their new strategic bomber, then there will be something about this bomber that makes it important.

This plan also explains why the IAF seems less spendy than usual. Fighter jets have been pushed to the long term, while this is the era of SAMs, helicopters and force multipliers; Netra Mk2, Sentinel, COMJAM, C&C, MRTT and strategic bombers. So we have interesting inductions lined up from now until MRFA delivers.


No, it can't be compared to the Tu-160. This is just a makeshift bomber, we have something like this already.

You fundamentally fail to understand the mutations either the b21 or b2 carry or will carry. B2 uses the same engine as the amca . So make our own bomber.

 

[indicisivedivide]

During the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage delivered by coalition air forces. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the aircraft flew less than 1 percent of the combat missions while delivering 43 percent of the JDAMs used.

It will be extremely destabilising for the Pakistanis and a major headache for the Chinese. We will even be able to threaten Hainan.

In any case, it's really important for us to open our gates to more exotic tech, which will only increase our value in the eyes of our partners. It will force other partners to up their game. If we are getting SSNs and strategic bombers from one partner, the others are going to have to match that elsewhere.

So having a few is worth the cost, and not just for its combat capability. Plus it's a new jet and will have an active production line for many years. The Russians plan to buy 50 of them. Plus, if the Russians are working on the Tu-160 in parallel with their new strategic bomber, then there will be something about this bomber that makes it important.

This plan also explains why the IAF seems less spendy than usual. Fighter jets have been pushed to the long term, while this is the era of SAMs, helicopters and force multipliers; Netra Mk2, Sentinel, COMJAM, C&C, MRTT and strategic bombers. So we have interesting inductions lined up from now until MRFA delivers.


No, it can't be compared to the Tu-160. This is just a makeshift bomber, we have something like this already.

B1 were used because b2 can’t be used for such dumb missions and b52 are quite old. When B2 is used it is always used for time sensitive and important targets. Without the B2 early barrage the B1 will not be used efficiently.

 

[randomradio]

B1 were used because b2 can’t be used for such dumb missions and b52 are quite old. When B2 is used it is always used for time sensitive and important targets. Without the B2 early barrage the B1 will not be used efficiently.

The advantage of a bomber like the B-1 is having the ability to bring a large amount of standoff weapons close to the enemy without being detected. Alternatively it can use its low flying capabilities to evade detection in support of ground forces and use its speed to escape once discovered. It doesn't need the B-2 to do this. Basically, neither the B-1 nor the B-2 need each other to accomplish their respective missions.

 

[Hydra]

During the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage delivered by coalition air forces. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the aircraft flew less than 1 percent of the combat missions while delivering 43 percent of the JDAMs used.

It will be extremely destabilising for the Pakistanis and a major headache for the Chinese. We will even be able to threaten Hainan.

In any case, it's really important for us to open our gates to more exotic tech, which will only increase our value in the eyes of our partners. It will force other partners to up their game. If we are getting SSNs and strategic bombers from one partner, the others are going to have to match that elsewhere.

So having a few is worth the cost, and not just for its combat capability. Plus it's a new jet and will have an active production line for many years. The Russians plan to buy 50 of them. Plus, if the Russians are working on the Tu-160 in parallel with their new strategic bomber, then there will be something about this bomber that makes it important.

This plan also explains why the IAF seems less spendy than usual. Fighter jets have been pushed to the long term, while this is the era of SAMs, helicopters and force multipliers; Netra Mk2, Sentinel, COMJAM, C&C, MRTT and strategic bombers. So we have interesting inductions lined up from now until MRFA delivers.


No, it can't be compared to the Tu-160. This is just a makeshift bomber, we have something like this already.

TU160 is a cruise missile carrier, i fear it wont even carry a simple gravity bomb.

 

[indicisivedivide]

The advantage of a bomber like the B-1 is having the ability to bring a large amount of standoff weapons close to the enemy without being detected. Alternatively it can use its low flying capabilities to evade detection in support of ground forces and use its speed to escape once discovered. It doesn't need the B-2 to do this. Basically, neither the B-1 nor the B-2 need each other to accomplish their respective missions.

No absolutely wrong. B1 and tu-160 cannot penetrate modern iads . The b2 and especially the b21 can.

 

[Sathya]

I don't have even 5% belief that we ll buy Tu 160.
How long will it take get those, train and get mission ready?

 

[indicisivedivide]

I don't have even 5% belief that we ll buy Tu 160.
How long will it take get those, train and get mission ready?

Oh I know like forever

 

[Hydra]

No absolutely wrong. B1 and tu-160 cannot penetrate modern iads . The b2 and especially the b21 can.

If fighters like MKI, LCA, Mirage, Mig29,Jaguar can penetrate enemy air defence, then ofcourse B1 can do, only it require is an escort or proper mission planning.