mattTrue; however it’s not surprising that journalists and others don’t care about those little details.
Anyway would the European engine manufacturers be willing to share that technology? Would Eurojet be obliged to do so if India becomes a full Eurofighter partner?
Two different consortiums! However GE is setting up a JV in China to produce gas turbines and although it is not directly related it does signal a potential.
Really upto India to get the contract with SNECMA worked out ASAP!
mattBut it is a solution to a problem that is very rarely going to exist, i.e. high-intensity warfare with the combination of permissive airspace for one side, & powerful ground forces on the other. I can imagine it in Korea, after the N. Korean air force & SAMs are out of the picture, but where else?
BTW, an airliner-based bomber doesn’t surprise anyone who still has functioning radars. And note than an aircraft can’t be ‘sitting’ behind attacking forces. It has to fly round in circles, or back & forth along a track, while other aircraft fly back & forth from one side of its route to the other. There won’t be a front line of aircraft providing a ‘thrust’. That’s ground warfare. There will be a dynamic situation, with fighters & strike aircraft thinly scattered, & frequently completely absent.
As long as the enemy air force exists, your big bomber/missileer will need an escort if it’s going to stay close to the front on the ground. An escort will negate the advantage gained from its endurance, since the fighters needed to protect it could otherwise be bombing, or pursuing the enemy air force.
As I keep saying, it only works when the enemy no longer has a functioning air force or GBAD.
50/50 agreement with your comments, I can not agree with all of them on the simple basis that I am not talking about a dedicated platform for only droping paveways or short range glider munitions, i am talking about an ability to fire from an alititude of 33,000 feet guided rockets, cruise missiles such as nirbhay which i think has a 600 km of range or there about and actually using those types of long range missiles to do the anti radiation work for the aircraft.
I do agree that if persistance is required then the aircraft would have to make potentially predictable circles and this would be a major weakness.
I do not agree that that is the only way an aircraft of this type can operate. Also in the same breath there are not that many PINAKA’s or SMERCH MLRS that can traverse over large distances in the mountain regions of Sikkim etc in a short time span with the ability to shoot and scoot, I also will reiterate what i am proposing isnt anything revolutionary and is already in operation or has been thought of already with things like heavy bombers and or Spectre gun ships (however I am not advocating the addition of a cannon onto the bomber! or using something like a bomber to take out a target that is close enough to be taken by land based howitzers).
I do agree that I am concerned about high intensity war far, however I do not agree that north korea could be the only location of such a conflict, thinking of the numbers involved on both sides in a potential conflict even a fraction of the force from both sides would produce high intensity conflict (relatively speaking).
Also thinking of the disparity in logistics and lines of comunications at the border between the two countries for India to have a flying bomber that can extend the range of its cruise missiles and also provide mobility to rocket artillary is not a solution looking for a problem it is mitigation action.
Now I know i have not spend 6 months doing a dissertation on all of this or run war games but for me a need similar but possibly not exactly the same exists for the Indian Armed forces not least because of the disparity between the two sides.
mattMMRCA pie was every one wanted to have , but have left many dis pointed , saab still hopes to sell gripen , Russian still pushing mig-35 , us topping it with their f-35 offer ,i blame Indian government for not listening to IAF , to many aircraft’s were involved and only RFI / RFP were not send to china for J-10
no one knows who fault it really is, i mean the big mess the MMRCA is, and to be honest even if they had listened to the IAF they would have paid the same money but for Mirage 2000-5 aircraft and India would still not have been better off!
The gripen was the perfect choice for the MMRCA competition considering that the IAF will be getting PAK FA, Super 30’s , MCA, MMRCA, LCA…
They IAF potentially put a kulhadi in their own feet when they kicked out the other aircraft instead of going for a more pragmatic approach of saying most of them could have done the job.
mattIf you have the degree of air dominance for such an aircraft to be viable in the first days of a war, then you probably don’t have any use for it.
You have a solution looking for a problem.
not really, the issue isnt the capability of aircraft currently in service the issue is of being quicker and more efficient in delivering payload that can knock out systems on the ground or enemy formations without having to go back to base to reconfigure your aircraft all the time.
its a case of needing fewer fighter aircraft to do the SEADS, bomding raids etc and sharing the job with a flying missilier/bomber type aircraft that can sit behind the thrust and provide additional support where needed, reducing reaction times and also providing a significant element of suprise.
just because it does not have a TVC engine or a canard doesnt mean it is not a solution.
mattYes, but B-52s only fly into airspace dominated by the USAF nowadays. The last time they bombed anything that was defended by anyone who still had the ability to shoot down anything at altitude was about 1972.
You have to think about what you want this hypothetical bomber to do, & what opposition it will face. Bombing ground targets where there are no air defences, e.g. Iraq after Tomahawks, F-117s, & several hundred fighter-bombers have given its air force & GBAD system a good working over, as in 1991? Fine. Bombing China? Absolutely not.
BTW, a modern fighter-bomber should be able to identify things on the ground pretty well. A radar with SAR & maybe GMTI modes, plus other sensors . . . and also being fed information from other sensors.
Fair enough, but also in the same breath does the utility not depend on how it is flown, what supports it and also what it is carrying?
i can imagine that it, imagining now, could be in the initial days of war behind the front line fighter bombers, the Harpys etc supporting them by lobbing radar seeking Nirbhay land attack cruise missiles etc and possibly something like a air launched artillery rockets.
mattIndeed it does. For my part as I said earlier I expect PAK DA will more closely resemble the Tu-22M in gross characteristics (size/ range/speed) than Tu-160 or B-2/NGB.
Fair point, and in that case i take my comments back as i do not know in the long run if it would be cheaper to design and make PAK DA or modify the fuselage of a 737MAX type of aircraft.
but maybe maintenance and repair would be a lot cheaper and life of the aircraft based on a 737 would be somehow longer?
mattExcept that India doesn’t need it now and can’t afford it now. Collaborating with Russia on PAK DA for introduction post-2025 makes a lot more sense than going it alone on Tu-22M4 for introduction in 2015 and retirement in 2030.
depends on the requirements of the PAK DA. The IAF out of the two partners is most likely to fight in a war of attrition, for that it needs something that can weed quickly and efficiently, it needs a garden hoe not a kitchen table fork.
For a Tu-22M4 yes, but not for converted A320’s or 737 Max type of system…
mattA Boeing 737 equipped with JSTARS/Sentinel-type sensors is a high value asset, & is very vulnerable to enemy air defences. It’s slow, not agile, & is a big easy target. You do not put bombs on it! Fitting it with Paveways & expecting it to drop them would force it into just the sort of territory it should avoid. It’s like fitting your AEW aircraft with AAMs & sending them out over enemy territory to achieve air superiority.
The purpose of a JSTARS/Sentinel is to find targets for other assets (fighterbombers, UAVs, attack helicopters, etc), not to be a bomber.
I understand your point, I should have been more specific about what I meant when i said JSTARs’ i was thinking more on the capability to identify armed units on the ground not the full bag of kit you get from JSTARS (what ever that may actually be as i do not know).
Please also keep in mind my previous comments of being able to loft weapons at stand of distances or atleast at a minimum safe distance (what ever that is).
What i am talking about isnt revolutionary on the grander scheme of things as B-52’s etc are already in existence being able to deploy most of the kinds of weapons I have mentioned, it would just be a new concept for the IAF.
I also understand there will be retorts mentioning multi role and omni role capabilities of fighter aircraft however for me those items although suitable and useful are an additional or complement.
And considering that India could potentially get into a war of attrition i do not think it a bad idea but that is personal opinion of-course.
mattFrankly, a stealth bomber of its own seems a possibility only in dreams. The Tu-22M now, is more in the realm of possibility. The basics on the bird are more than enough for INdia’s needs – combat radius of 4000km+ and payload of 20tons. What India should do is maintain at least a sqd worth of Tu-22Ms suitably modified:
1) Rotary launcher for 3-6 Brahmos/Nirbhay
2) Due application of RCS reduction measures
3) Terprom and nap of earth flight at supersonic speeds
4) State of the art self defence and EW suite
5) Possible engine upg. for better range/speed characteristics
6) Setup of infallible supply chain for maintenance and upkeep of the fleet
7) Glass cockpit, better MMI, and crew comfortTHis can be a very quick answer to all its potential threat perceptions. Probably will be expensive, but still it’ll be worth it considering other options are totally beyond its needs/budget.
Sounds reasonable! and something that is practical and possible to do now and not a pipe dream that may or may not work after 30 years of R&D as is normally the case.
I would go even more basic, considering that the IN is already buying 737’s heavily modified and with the ability to carry harpoon anti ship and air to surface missiles (around 24 is the latest planed number of aircraft to be bought apparently) why could you not buy 5-10 more with JSTARS/Sentinel kind of capability with the ability to fibre air to surface munitions and I do not think they need to be super sonic or hyper sonic stick some basic guided rockets or ability to loft or lob something like CBU 97 or paveway 2.
mattThe SDB i believe was one of the biggest reasons that the B-2a was still considered relevant and affordable during early budget reviews.
mattImho, what India needs is a broadband stealth successor to the Tu-22M3, namely a rapid response, long range (~7,000km)/endurance strike bomber primarily for area denial of enemy naval combatants in the Indian Ocean, but also to reach their interests in the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea.
I guess the Indian MoD will take a serious look at such an aircraft probably next decade, as such a platform would be well suited for internal carriage of the hypersonic BrahMos 2 (with its 600 mile range). Perhaps like a scaled-down NGB, as the intercontinental PAK-DA may be too big, expensive and surplus to requirements. Maybe even a large UCAV packing 2 BrahMos 2s would be the cheapest option- something like a scaled-up X-47B but with twice it’s range (~4,000nm).
Nuclear deterrence can be left to their IRBMs and future SSBNs, as I don’t envisage such an aircraft overflying the Chinese mainland (or around the coast of SE Asia) to attack coastal targets in the PRC.
I am thinking of something that is fit for purpose not really darth vaders new death star… although that would be cool… Something that can loft a few guided rockets, nirbhays at the enemy from a good range and do a lot of damage. Something that can loiter around or land some missiles in the required area before a ground movement quickly without showing to many hands or directions which even mobile land artilary may do. also something for conventional strike not nuclear so no need for stealth etc…
mattPAK DA as a joint Indian-Russian collaboration seems likely if the PAK FA collaborative experience turns out to both nations’ satisfaction. I suspect both nations will be looking for an aircraft closer in gross characteristics to the Tu-22M than Tu-160 or B-2/NGB.
Thanks for the info.
On a vaguely related note: is there by any chance a recently published tome out there on the history and/or status of the Indian Air Force and/or Navy? Or even works with a more strategic/geopolitical bent? I’d appreciate any recommendations.
not specifically for the IAF or IN but there is a lot of good reports and strategic insight written in Foreign Affairs lot of articles can be found through NOSI.org
mattEADS tried to interest France in A340s converted into cruise missile carriers some years ago, & either EADS or MBDA also came up with a palleted SCALP/Storm Shadow launcher which could be carried in military freighters, enabling missiles to be launched from the rear ramp.
A bomber designed to penetrate air defences would need much more expensive development than modifications to other aircraft to enable them to fire long range stand-off weapons, such as the above.
Against an enemy lacking air defences, an airliner with bomb bays built into the underfloor cargo hold would be enough.
I was thinking of mainly the use to increase range and versatility in battle not necessarily for strategic nuclear bombing. It would also allow your multirole fighters etc to concentrate more on the SEAD, Air patrols etc kind of roles and not worry about being bomb trucks.
mattWould be nice if they buy some Gripen NG’s makes perfect sense for the IAF especially with the PAKFA (high end) Su 30mki (medium end) and Gripen (lower end but not low end).
mattEOTS has a full coverage of the aircraft’s bottom hemisphere with an almost full front hemisphere coverage as well…
possibly, but we do not know the compromises made and the requirements of the eots vs the irst of the packfa.
Sign In
