IAF's Future Bomber

[AGNI 6 ICBM]

Future bombers of IAF will be discussed here

 

[AGNI 6 ICBM]

Is GHATAK enough for future antiship roles ?
Answer is both YES & NO

Above pic shows GHATAK is capable of carrying only 2 antiship missiles in one sortie which is less....


Ghatak is tiny and has limitations bcoz of its weapons bay dimensions and MTOW

So it might not carry BRAHMOS ER & VISHNU HCM ,Which is a big setback.

Weapons which it can carry are

it address today's requirements in both ground attack and antiship role...we might need a new bomber to carry 6-8 ER & VISHNU 🕉 HCM

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Should the IAF/ADA go for light manned stealth bombers, like reduced size version of B-1, B-2/B-21? We can call it ALBA (Advanced Light Bomber Aircraft).

 

[srev2004]

Should the IAF/ADA go for light manned stealth bombers, like reduced size version of B-1, B-2/B-21? We can call it ALBA (Advanced Light Bomber Aircraft).

They should convert old air India planes into brahmos carriers.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

They should convert old air India planes into brahmos carriers.

There have been animations & pics about using old big airliners or even military cargo jets, but USA or Russia didn't do it due to many reasons, 1 of them....
BBBBIIIIGGGGG RCS!!!
It is like announcing "I'm over here, come & kill me"

 

[AGNI 6 ICBM]

If they ask me to set specifications for future bomber

Configuration 1 "flying wing"

Un-manned

Engines
4 x DRDO JV engine with 75 kn dry thrust

Payload
6 x -ER
4 x Vishnu HCM 🕉
~15 Ton

Range
8000 Km

-------‐----------------------------------------------------------------

Configuration 2

2 pilots

Engines
4 x DRDO JV engine with 130 kn wet thrust

Payload
6 x -ER
4 x Vishnu HCM 🕉
8 x Lr lacm

Range
8000 Km

in short it all depends on DRDO JV engine & Vishnu HCM 🕉 dimensions

By 2032 our GDP would be 10 Tn USD & defense budget 250 Bn USD so bombers are affordable.....

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Is GHATAK enough for future antiship roles ?
Answer is both YES & NO
View attachment 17426
Above pic shows GHATAK is capable of carrying only 2 antiship missiles in one sortie which is less....

View attachment 17427
Ghatak is tiny and has limitations bcoz of its weapons bay dimensions and MTOW
View attachment 17429
So it might not carry BRAHMOS ER & VISHNU HCM ,Which is a big setback.

Weapons which it can carry are
View attachment 17431
it address today's requirements in both ground attack and antiship role...we might need a new bomber to carry 6-8 ER & VISHNU 🕉 HCM
View attachment 17435

There are +/- points of everything.
Since beginning, I've always been skeptical having mixed feelings about these boomerang shaped jets. Their payload is very less, like F-117. It is not that they're useless but once discovered they can't dogfight & will be shot down easily. Till that point it is a bet/chance to rely only on stealth. They might require fighter UCAV escorts.
We talk about SEAD/DEAD but 100% of IADS is difficult to destroy, especially mobile ones.
Pakistan is geographically thin & we don't need to go deep into China. So altough i casually mentioned ALBA above but i wonder that if UCAVs will be replacing fighters then IRBMs & Hypersonic missiles might replace bombers.
I'm obviously not expert on when to use bombers, fighters, ballistic missiles(BMs) to attack surface targets but i guess all the weapons carried by bombers can be delivered by fighters & BMs with different speed, range, guidance. BMs can have sub-munitions also.


We should compare R&D & lifecycle costs of IRBMs Vs bombers.

 

[Azaad]

There are +/- points of everything.
Since beginning, I've always been skeptical having mixed feelings about these boomerang shaped jets. Their payload is very less, like F-117. It is not that they're useless but once discovered they can't dogfight & will be shot down easily. Till that point it is a bet/chance to rely only on stealth. They might require fighter UCAV escorts.
We talk about SEAD/DEAD but 100% of IADS is difficult to destroy, especially mobile ones.
Pakistan is geographically thin & we don't need to go deep into China. So altough i casually mentioned ALBA above but i wonder that if UCAVs will be replacing fighters then IRBMs & Hypersonic missiles might replace bombers.
I'm obviously not expert on when to use bombers, fighters, ballistic missiles(BMs) to attack surface targets but i guess all the weapons carried by bombers can be delivered by fighters & BMs with different speed, range, guidance. BMs can have sub-munitions also.
View attachment 18944

We should compare R&D & lifecycle costs of IRBMs Vs bombers.

Bombers are usually sought for the sheer versatility it brings to your platforms plus to check for redundancy which is to say if a hypothetical BMD system is developed tomorrow which is capable of downing all such incoming ballistic missiles be it SRBM , IRBM or ICBM then you can always rely on your stealth bombers .

An extension of this line or argument is tomorrow if the enemy develops a system wherein stealth is detected & compromised , you have a bevy of ballistic missiles to choose from.

To that you can always add the age old argument that bombers give decision makers time to review & recall in case of last minute developments which you can't in case of missiles unless they come with auto self destruct system.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Bombers are usually sought for the sheer versatility it brings to your platforms plus to check for redundancy which is to say if a hypothetical BMD system is developed tomorrow which is capable of downing all such incoming ballistic missiles be it SRBM , IRBM or ICBM then you can always rely on your stealth bombers .

An extension of this line or argument is tomorrow if the enemy develops a system wherein stealth is detected & compromised , you have a bevy of ballistic missiles to choose from.

To that you can always add the age old argument that bombers give decision makers time to review & recall in case of last minute developments which you can't in case of missiles unless they come with auto self destruct system.

Both sides of Sword/Shield develop together.
China is ahead of us in Stealth & Hypersonic missiles but we will also catch up soon. Both of us have variety of BMs & also ABM interceptors. BMs get mid-couse updates so technically they can be instructed to self-destruct.
China's requirement is to fight with West due to South-China-Sea problem.
Our requirement is to deter, retaliate due much smaller & less critical regions of Ladakh & Arunachal Pradesh border areas. By less critical i mean not having busy business routes by surface, air.
I'm not worried about our forces dealing with Pakistan.
So in your opinion what should we do? Develop manned/unmanned dedicated bomber? Yes then what size, payload, range, speed?

 

[Corvus Splendens]

Unless it's a medium sized strike drone, I'll always advocate for manned bombers.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Unless it's a medium sized strike drone, I'll always advocate for manned bombers.

If medium sized then please give some size comparion & airframe type - boomerang / fighter type (shape,speed, payload). How do you imagine it?

 

[AGNI 6 ICBM]

Unless it's a medium sized strike drone, I'll always advocate for manned bombers.

Future bombers & FUFA would be together in sorties.....both being un manned reduces risk of life's in deep strike missions.......

Pilot cabin takes a good internal volume of aircrafts & contributes a lot to RCS..... so un manned configuration will increase Internal fuel capacity in even less RCS....

EMP bomb will have similar effect on manned & un manned jets