can Snecma Kaveri be power-plant of indigenous Indian bomber?

[tvsram1992]

Bomber is highly unlikely but we can use them for cruise missiles , UCAVs , CM launchers , AWACS plane, Cargo planes , transport planes and business jets which are unlikely to be shot by enemy

 

[kṣamā]

As said earlier, the bomber project would not hurt but it should be unmanned. Live UCAV. We can design UBAV !! Just a crazy idea. Even with two engines, w/o AB it con produce enough thrust to complete a A2G mission with UCAV as support.

My idea make a low cost composite body with affordable passive stealth. If on mission things go south, one always have the option of going Kamikaze !!

 

[IND151]

The thrust that most of you talk about here is the After Burner thrust, but bigger aircrafts don't have an AB and just use dry thrust, but Kaveri don't produce anywhere close the thrust that would be needed

Also, India don't need bombers because they wouldn't be useful against the 2 main opponents. Pakistans size and distance makes most targets in reach of even our ground launched cruise missiles, while the main Chinese targets are at their eastern sector and any bomber would be easily intercepted way earlier. That's why SSGNs, SSBNs, more capable carriers and long range balistic missiles are beeing developed, just with deterrence against China in mind!

then how about an bomber specific more powerful engine based on kaveri?

or how about non afterburner version of Russian Soloviev D-30?

that version is already in use

Russians need money they may sell that engine to us in large numbers(it will also make them available funds for maintenance for Mig 31 fleet)

Non-afterburning commercial D-30KU-154, utilized in the Tupolev Tu-154.


http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...qLXTBg&usg=AFQjCNHMxvo6riKf5Tcf7WK22ElADCZWGg

without afterburner it produces 9,500 kg thrust

we cant get better engine than this from Russians like NK 25 or NK231 as they are their best engines and it will raise objections from US

D 30 is NAB version is used for passenger jets so buying it wont create problems for us i think

 

[jha]

Bomber aircraft does not suite India's doctrine. With the huge advancement in seeker technology and the kind of adversaries India is likely to face, boosting LRCM research is a priority. A bomber like this will requires significant amount of resources and India does not have the luxury to spare that.

If required we can always buy a squad of dedicated strike aircraft like Su-34...

 

[IND151]

^^ i have already said that this bomber can be used as nirbhay ALCM launcher

with a range 0f 8,000 Km (non refueled) and 15,000 KG payload (both speculated by me) it can carry 10 to 12 Nirbhays

remember a MKI can carry just 3 nirbhays with 1,000 KM range

so this bomber can pack punch of 4 to 5 MKIs and with 100 to 120% greater range

or it can carry 6 to 8 Nirbhay 2 with 2000 KM range (note this is imaginary version by me)

 

[jha]

^^ i have already said that this bomber can be used as nirbhay ALCM launcher

with a range 0f 8,000 Km (non refueled) and 15,000 KG payload (both speculated by me) it can carry 10 to 12 Nirbhays

remember a MKI can carry just 3 nirbhays with 1,000 KM range

so this bomber can pack punch of 4 to 5 MKIs and with 100 to 120% greater range

or it can carry 6 to 8 Nirbhay 2 with 2000 KM range (note this is imaginary version by me)

Question is do we need to fire a missile with range 1000 Km. that far from our mainland....
And BTW Nirbhay-2 is not just ur imagination. The long range sub-sonic Cruise missile will not stop with Nirbhay. The main hurdle is the engine used in such missiles. Once that is mastered, Nirbhay-2 and 3 will keep coming...

 

[Sergi]

^^ i have already said that this bomber can be used as nirbhay ALCM launcher

with a range 0f 8,000 Km (non refueled) and 15,000 KG payload (both speculated by me) it can carry 10 to 12 Nirbhays

remember a MKI can carry just 3 nirbhays with 1,000 KM range

so this bomber can pack punch of 4 to 5 MKIs and with 100 to 120% greater range

or it can carry 6 to 8 Nirbhay 2 with 2000 KM range (note this is imaginary version by me)

You have a point. Even 1000 Km range fired from high in the air will travel longer.
But the actual point will be how feasible this platform will be ??? We have to keep this kinda plane well within the Indian territory and will need 4/5 defenders. Of these defender are to be MKIs then they themself can carry 4*3=12 missiles. Which will question the need of such platforms.
Main point being MKI can fire these missiles and can defend themself. But this kind of plane will be a huge target in BVR era.
I personally think if IAF ever go for a dedicated Bomber it will be like B-2 bomber. Not like B52 bomber

 

[KS]

The bombers wont come into action unless there is complete air superiority achieved..Are you sure India is going to achieve that?

Exactly...In Indian context bombers dont make sense.

We have two rivals and potential enemies - Pakistan and China.

Pakistan : In a future war, even if we achieve complete air superiority over Pakistan - I personally dont think we will coz any future war will most likely not extend beyond three weeks and achieveing complete air superiority within that time frame is a stretch. Even if we achieve that Pakistan's geographical limitation in its size does not make it necessary for us to have dedicated bombers. Even the MKIs and the Su-34 [I wish we acquire a couple a squadron of those beasts sometime in the future] are enough for the limited military targets in Pak. As for strategic uses, it is not needed in the context of Pak as we will be having the triad soon enough.

China : Achieving complete air superiority over Chinese skies is impossible. Period.

 

[IND151]

^^ but B 52 like design is simple

we should go for simple design

also with Nirbhay 2 missiles (if we develop) with 2,000 KM range our bomber will be able to fires nirbhays while remaining 1000-1200 KMs away from target in international airspace

 

[KS]

^^ but B 52 like design is simple

we should go for simple design

also with Nirbhay 2 missiles (if we develop) with 2,000 KM range our bomber will be able to fires nirbhays while remaining 1000-1200 KMs away from target in international airspace

The whole geographical width of Pakistan is about 300 odd km and the distance of Chinese east coast is >2500 km. So in either scenario it is useless. One is an overkill and another is insufficient.

 

[kṣamā]

then how about an bomber specific more powerful engine based on kaveri?

or how about non afterburner version of Russian Soloviev D-30?

Not a bad idea. The thing is having an airborne platform increases the versatility and tactical advantage of a strike weapon. Also as stated above the improvements in precision weaponry one can do the job in 3 - 4 weapons where thousands where deployed. Having a LRCM is a nice idea and will place India a very esteemed club, but this will be serving the same objectives with greater advantage.

If one manages to make it cheap and small (though with lesser payload capacity) then we have a CM type characteristic but enhancing precision, also add to it the loitering ability, and the ability to abort the mission without loosing the warhead. And it will be cheaper to mount an UBAV coupled with a UCAV escort than a LRCM. It can be used to counter cross-border insurgency attacks where a silent quick-in-quicker-out in enemy territory is required.

 

[Sergi]

^^ but B 52 like design is simple

we should go for simple design

also with Nirbhay 2 missiles (if we develop) with 2,000 KM range our bomber will be able to fires nirbhays while remaining 1000-1200 KMs away from target in international airspace

We should go if and only if IAF needs one we can't achieve the transport requirement of IAF by ourselves. We are buying them from uncle Sam.
I will say if this design is simple the transport design is very very easy but can we make one is the question.

And when we are at war we are at war everywhere. Even in international airspace too

 

[Icewolf]

I hope Indians make a bomber like B-2 in 3000

 

[Sergi]

^^^ and I hope your country exists till then so we can use it
Go somewhere else to troll or stick to topic

 

[kṣamā]

Also UCAV and UBAV are basically the same kind of air vehicle with UBAV being more expendable. Also owning a fleet of unmanned vehicles is a gr8 asset, it dose not risk pilots. I think that alone should do the trick. Apart from that two same kind of planes but with diff task will be easier to maintain and difficult to intercept.

Even if intercepted, the losses are less than a loss of a human pilot.