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

[Sergi]

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.

Exactly if AURO is developed and become reliable platform. We can easily upgrade its design to carry more weapons or may be scaled up version if not exactly like B2

 

[sancho]

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

You can not simply develop anykind of engine out of Kaveri, it was developed for certain purposes and with certain specs in mind. For more powerful engines, that can be used on such aircrafts you have in mind, you need to make a complete new development. The whole point of a new engine based on Kaveri is mood anyway, since you normaly base new developments only on it, if the earlier was successful, but since it was a failure!
What they now have in mind is downgrading the current engine, to be used without AB and with less performance requirements in the AURA UCAV, but even that will be difficult enough, because of the size and weight restrictions.
If Kaveri would be useful as a base for another important development, the most logical choice would be to develop a higher thrust fighter engine for FGFA from it. But as we know, DRDO is not even able to further develop it to the 90 to 100kN (AB thrust), required for LCA and AMCA.

^^ 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 only count numbers here, without looking at the operational advantages and disadvantages of this scenario. A bomber is big, heavy and slow, especially when loaded with so many heavy missiles. It would be detected by Chinese radar or AWACS even before it enters their airspace and can be easily intercepted. That means it needs a lot of escort fighters to protect it, or as other members said, air superiority! In both cases, it would need to fly a long way till it gets in range to fire the missiles to any important targets, that again means a lot of time to be intercepted by air or ground targets.
All this explains why bombers have no importance for IAF from tactical reasons and why improve missiles and deep strike fighter capabilities for the mid ranges (Tibet area) are more important.
Even an MKI that in theory could carry 3 of such missiles, would practically carry only 1 or 2 at max, because you simply use more fighters, with lower numbers of weapons, to remain with better performance and spread the attack capability.

 

[IND151]

^^ agree but i am talking about 15 tons payload over 8000 km range

a B 2 like Indian bomber wont be able to carry 15 tons payload but could crry 6 to 8 tons of bombs over 4 to 5 k km range only

 

[sancho]

^^ agree but i am talking about 15 tons payload over 8000 km range

a B 2 like Indian bomber wont be able to carry 15 tons payload but could crry 6 to 8 tons of bombs over 4 to 5 k km range only

And would have the higher success rate, because it won't be detected and countered as easy as older bomber designs, btw the B2 has way more range, but I guess you mean UCAVs like AURA right?

 

[Sergi]

^^ agree but i am talking about 15 tons payload over 8000 km range

a B 2 like Indian bomber wont be able to carry 15 tons payload but could crry 6 to 8 tons of bombs over 4 to 5 k km range only

No B2 like bombers fly at huge altitude so range is generally great. Well I don't know any Indian stealth bomber programme ( ps: I don't belive the BS of Mr. Shiv ) I think you mean Aura. Even if aura is able to do the half of you say. IAF will order it in good numbers. Stealth is the key for future

 

[GR!FF!N]

lets use it on UCAV...and i think a cruise missile carrier Bomber will be not a bad idea as if partial air superiority is achieved,we can use it with escorts to take out targets far away..

 

[IND151]

^^ yes right

 

[ptltejas]

I think B-52 has Turbofan engines where as Kaveri is Turbojet. If no mistaking.

 

[surya kiran]

A strategic bomber of that size will set off alarm bells in all major capitals. Its like testing the Agni and saying its below 5000 Kms in range. A strategic bomber will have a range in excess of 5000+ kms easily. The only opponent it can be used against will be China. Easier done through strategic missiles which have lower maintenance costs and can be produced and deployed silently as compared to strategic bombers. Also, like people have mentioned, you would need air superiority before having these flying. The use of these bombers would be difficult against sea based surface combatants. That;s why we are procuring the P8I which can detect and attack. Also, response over sea will need to be swift. The Su30MKI is more suited for this role armed with BrahMos or Harriers/Mig29Ks with anti-shipping missiles like the Exocet.

 

[Devianz]

aprox 92-95 KN is required for the tejas program...i guess itl get there.

Even if it gets that much power I still doubt IAF would want to downgrade engine performance on their aircraft. Look at it, MK2 would use F414-GE-INS6 and they say it's the highest rated F414 variant. Normal F414-GE-400 are rated at 98 KN. I don't expect the INS6 to churn out more power than the EPE version which is @ 120 KN but it's definitely going to be well above 100 KN. IAF hates indigenous stuff, when the kaveri with M88 core is complete they would simply say it doesn't even produce the power generated by their current engines. I don't think Kaveri would ever power LCA. Maybe AMCA, if everything goes well.

 

[kurup]

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

By that time pakistanis will hopefully figure out how to make a bicycle .............

 

[Sergi]

lets use it on UCAV...and i think a cruise missile carrier Bomber will be not a bad idea as if partial air superiority is achieved,we can use it with escorts to take out targets far away..

Cruise missile carrier bomber: let's say 15 missiles. Escort needed 4 - MKIS/Rafels.
If we need to use MKIs then they themself can carry 3*4=12 missiles plus can defend themself. So what's advantage of Bomber ???
Unless we need to bomb a country with No air defence

 

[Bobby]

I thought Kavery engine program is call off....

 

[Sergi]

Even if it gets that much power I still doubt IAF would want to downgrade engine performance on their aircraft. Look at it, MK2 would use F414-GE-INS6 and they say it's the highest rated F414 variant. Normal F414-GE-400 are rated at 98 KN. I don't expect the INS6 to churn out more power than the EPE version which is @ 120 KN but it's definitely going to be well above 100 KN. IAF hates indigenous stuff, when the kaveri with M88 core is complete they would simply say it doesn't even produce the power generated by their current engines. I don't think Kaveri would ever power LCA. Maybe AMCA, if everything goes well.

Kaveri JV will power LCA Mark 2 in MLU. As LCA power requirements will be final by then. So IAF won't/can't change it.
AMCA being twin engin ( if I am right ) will too have enough power through two engins. So most likely issue is settled unless JV failed its promise

 

[GR!FF!N]

Cruise missile carrier bomber: let's say 15 missiles. Escort needed 4 - MKIS/Rafels.
If we need to use MKIs then they themself can carry 3*4=12 missiles plus can defend themself. So what's advantage of Bomber ???
Unless we need to bomb a country with No air defence

how??if even Su-30 could carry 3 LACM,they couldn't carry a single A2A missile to defend them.that means you'll have to send more escorts to protect all of them.what is better option???