top of page

Strategic Bombers for Indian Military :Futuristic/Operational Appreciation

Gp Capt TP Srivastava

Author's Note : 


Kindly revert to year 2016. Few psuedo military strategists ably supported by ignoramuses in uniform started a sustained campaign to acquire the S-400 Russian system claiming astronomical capabilities. Irony is that Russia is finding it hard, rather impossible, to protect this acclaimed ABM System.


I challenged the  system capabilities calling it a 'JUNK'. My sustained efforts of nearly three years failed to convince the powers that be not to invest INR 39,000 Crore. I-5s had won.

A similar campaign following identical footprints to acquire RUSSIAN MONSTER, THE STRATEGIC BOMBER. I purposely do not mention names of any Russian Bombers because all of them are a 'JUNK'. I have 11 posts from various sites authored by pseudo ignoramuses including two in blues, which are advocating the need for acquisition of so called strategic bombers offered (?) by Russia.

Note - All photographs for symbolic representation only
Note - All photographs for symbolic representation only

If the I-5s succeed in convincing the powers that be to acquire this 'JUNK ' ; T WILL BE A BIGGER WHITE ELEPHANT THAN OUR CARRIERS.


My views below: 

Background

 

The term ‘Strategic’ replaced the more appropriate word ‘Dedicated’ to define a heavy Bomber after 2nd World War. Only two nations USA and then USSR had dedicated long range bombers carrying more than five times the weapon load, the best fighter could carry. B-52s of USAF and Tu-16s of USSR were the leading bombers. UK also pitched in but did not succeed in matching with US/USSR platforms. China was nowhere in the picture.


The word ‘Strategic’ has a different connotation, which is essentially related to ‘Decision Making’. However few military experts used their clout to replace the word ‘Dedicated’ (which is role related) to ‘Strategic’ (which is decision related) in respect of long range, huge weapon load carrying monsters.


One of the major aircraft manufacturer France did not follow the rat-race to produce the so called ‘Strategic Bombers’. Although it had/has the capability to do so. A sane ‘Strategic’ decision indeed.


Only three countries USA, USSR and China have embarked on producing the long range heavy monster.

 

USA

 

Without doubt USA leads the pack by a huge margin from its main adversaries, possibly unbridgeable in near future. B-52s of USAF will become the first war machine to remain in service for 100 years and more. USAF is already undertaking upgrade of B-52s, which includes re-engining.

In addition to B-52s there are three more platforms; the B-1, B-2 and to be inducted B-21s. Each programme has been prohibitively expensive. For instance initial B-2 programme envisaged production of around 100 B-2s but the production line had to be suspended (read closed) due to budgetary constraints. Only 21 B-2s were produced of which two have crashed. B-21s are the new monsters likely to be inducted around 2030.


The core issue to note is that even USAF has had to fall back on supposedly primitive (technology wise) B-52s of 1950s. That sums up the cost factor aspect of maintaining these monsters.


It would be pertinent to mention that at least four major heavy bomber projects undertaken by Boeing and Lockheed were shelved, primarily due to two considerations. First was the production and maintenance costs and second was its ‘assessed survivability’ in intense Air Defence Environment.

 

USSR (now Russia)

 

Erstwhile Soviet Air Force inducted the Tu-16s and termed it as a game changer in the ongoing intense cold war with USA. Tupolev (Tu) family has produced three more bombers. Tu-22s, Tu-95s and Tu-160s.


Tu-16 is nearly out of genuine operational employment. According to open source information (Jane’s) Russia has about 120 bombers of Tu family. However a fair guess would be that barely 50% of the fleet will be operationally active. With ongoing war with Ukraine it might have reduced to around 30%.

 

China

 

Mention of China is by default since it is aspiring to unseat USA from numero-uno position as global super power.

 

China’s present bombers do not even deserve a mention because existing and proposed platforms are not comparable with top rung USAF and Russian bombers.

 

Suffice to mention that current and future Chinese bombers pose no threat to India. Indeed PLAAF is welcome to use its bombers on a ‘ONE-WAY’ mission.

 

India’s needs for Strategic Bombers

 

During past one year few strategists, both military and civil, have been advocating for IAF to acquire strategic bombers from Russia. Incidentally these are same people, who went hammer and tongs advocating India acquire the ‘JUNK’ S-400 platform. Sadly none of them have had the guts to talk about (non) performance of S-400 during ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. In fact it is an irony that Russia has to deploy older SAM systems to protect deployed S-400s from Ukraine drone attack.

 

Before even proceeding for acquisition few fundamental questions merit a serious consideration. These are: 



 Does India need a strategic bomber fleet? India must decide on what are the targets for these monsters. All Pakistani targets can be reached with existing fleets with sufficient amount of tonnage. As regards to targets deep inside Chinese main land existing IAF fleets cannot reach with any degree of effectiveness. But even if we had a strategic bomber will we be ready to send it deep inside China on a ‘ONE WAY’ ticket? On purpose it is considered waste of words to discuss size of bomber fleet etc. Strategic Bomber, if acquired by India, will be one of the biggest military disaster with regard to weapons acquisition from a foreign/Indian vendor. SSMs of AGNI family can reach China with nukes and conventional warheads.


·        Can India Maintain Russian Bomber? Russia itself is facing major hurdles in sustaining and maintaining its existing bomber fleets. Record of utilization of Russian strategic bombers in the ongoing war is not worth mentioning. If Russia succeeds in selling these monsters to India it will be the most useless and operationally impotent platform to ever join the IAF fleet.


·        Has India Considered Record of Operational Employment of USAF/Russian Bombers? Proponents of strategic bombers for Indian Military have obviously not bothered to look at and examine utilization of these behemoths. For instance USAF used B-52s extensively during Vietnam war ‘Op Rolling Thunder’. What did it achieve? Russian record of using strategic bombers is even more useless after 2nd world war.


·        What are the Chances of its Survivability against a Potent Air Defence Environment? NIL. To prove the point merely review USAF strategic bomber employment to fight Houthis in Red Sea region. Till date USAF has used just one mission of B-2 and that too against targets having no Air Defence protection.

 

Conclusion

 

On purpose details/capabilities of various strategic bombers roaring into skies has not been discussed because at this stage in India-Centric debate this data will be irrelevant.

 

Simply worded justification stated above on ‘Why Indian Military must not commit professional harakiri’ of even thinking of acquiring these wasteful monsters having ‘NEGATIVE’ operational capability clearly and unambiguously establishes the operational uselessness of heavy bombers for Indian Military. Because if it does happen IAF will have to devote considerable resources and effort in protecting these on the ground.

 

Hoping that I-5s (Intellectually Impoverished Ill Informed Ignorant Individuals) advising the powers that be on weapons acquisitions would not succeed in India acquiring yet another ‘JUNK’ platform.

212 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All

2 Kommentare


D.S. Sarao
D.S. Sarao
29. Dez. 2024

I am in total agreement.

A bomber!-- the word itself is of the WW 2 era. Irrespective of a 'bombers' stealth capabilities, weapons suite and speed; a missile can give you the same the same result

(and perhaps better ) at a much lower cost.

The ' bomber' and the 'aircraft carrier' both belong to the last war -- for which a certain lobby seems to be planning for.


Bearbeitet
Gefällt mir

ravindersingh144
28. Dez. 2024

Absolutely agree with the author. The author has forcefully conveyed, in a well researched article, that Russian bombers are "junk".

One fails to understand how anyone can be so daft as to suggest a bomber fleet for the IAF. In this day and age their survivability is zilch.

Gefällt mir
bottom of page