INDIA- Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters

[Mummai_guy]

Why not su-34 bomber. It have heavy range and also self protecting missiles and jamming capacity

Su-34 is quite old but we should consider new Su-35 with AESA along with Rafale.

 

[IBRIS]

Why not su-34 bomber. It have heavy range and also self protecting missiles and jamming capacity

I don't like it's altitude ceiling is very limited. 49000 Ft

 

[gowthamraj]

Su-34 is quite old but we should consider new Su-35 with AESA along with Rafale.

What su-34 is old


I am not saying su-24 its su-34

 

[saurabh]

Can some one explain, what makes a plane nuke capable. If a plane can act as a bomber, should not it be by default nuke capable cause nukes are just a special type o bombs?

 

[FNFAL]

what about the su-34FN (Fencer replacement) ????

The su-35BM is also not a bad choice i guess given its vastly reduced rcs..then again...who knows maybe these 40 jets is out to please someone out of the mrca deal...wat say guys???? The keyword being "proven"...out of all those contenders in the mrca deal, f-16 and the d-18 definitely had the edge when it came to trial by fire.. aslo both these platform have a well developed air to ground capability. just my 2 cents

 

[SpArK]

Su-34 is not old it just started to operate in russian Air force.It started with 2 fighters in 2007.

Russia gets first new fighters for 15 years as Sukhoi Su-34 debuts-04/01/2007-Moscow-Flight International



http://www.en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100730/160003543.html

 

[sudhir007]

MIG-31 is the cheapest answer to India's Strategic Nuclear Command fighter need supersonic speed to evade, high altitude 69000Ft ceiling It's got everything India requires.

Let's just be real, no one is going to sell us any of there stealthy nuclear capable fighters accept Pak-FA program. That too will take long to be inducted. Mig-31 can be ordered on short notice and acquired

If we want best dedicated bomber then why not india goes for TU-160 which is better then anybody.
Tupolev Tu-160 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if we can spend $500M for One C-17

 

[jha]

Even Russia does not have 40 Tu-160. I would rather have Su-34 or, even tweaked Su-35 will do the job.

 

[sudhir007]

Even Russia does not have 40 Tu-160. I would rather have Su-34 or, even tweaked Su-35 will do the job.

Im not say we can buy 40 these monster Im only want that we should have 5-10 these kind of dedicated Fighter bomber.

 

[redpearl75]

What I feel here is that we don't need to focus on the aircrafts capable of delivering nuks deep into enemy territory as that's something that soon is going to be a fairy tale as if India concentartes on its missile developement I don't think the IAF, IA, IN or the ISC would need any more fighter aircraft to deliver nukes... We have Short, Medium, Long range missiles in with us to do the same job, whay do you wanna risk a fighter aircraft and the pilot for that sake... India simply lacks the ICBM capability and that will also be there in the coming years... I don't understand the need of opting for nuke capable fighter aircrafts... We all know that a nuke war is something that's far from any of our imaginations and will be the complete end... A fighter bomber with powerful conventional warfare can do the same if the enemy airspace and landspace is in control.... I won't suggest to make this 40+ fighter bomber deal a part of the 126 fighter deal as we need those as a separate batch to boost the depleting AF squadrons... On top of that of the command decides to go for additional 40 jets then the best deal would be the Rafale... In IAF we already have Mirages that are going to be upgraded to 2000-Mk2 standards, Jaguars and the MKIs which are already capable of delivering nukes and above all increasing the MKI stock might solve the problem from the core of it... Su35BM is a great option but again as I said, if India has a strategic defence then this all won't be necessary... what say...?

 

[redpearl75]

Im not say we can buy 40 these monster Im only want that we should have 5-10 these kind of dedicated Fighter bomber.

I agree with you here... 10-20 should be enough as the rest will be done by the missiles and the second line attack aircrafts..... Even Russia currently operates around 12-13 Su 34s and has a plan to acquire 48 at most...

 

[trident2010]

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

this move may be a way of diversifying our nuke delivery methods.....also our strategic command acquiring these aircraft shows that the SC head is taking the decision of launching nukes out of the hands of the IAF based on the IAF's perception of the conflict to thinking in terms of the overall strategic ramifications about the war time situation and the wisdom about initiating or responding to such a strike....this move ought to organize our nuclear doctrine better and enable a credible and punitive response if deterrence fails.....

 

[su-47]

Guys, no need for Su-35 or Su-34. Just pimp up our MKIs. Use more Jammers, Pods and ECMs. we can try 'convert' it into a Su-34 like aircraft. And with a higher Top speed, and better Air to air capabilities, it will surely be capable enough

Seriously, why do we need another type of fighter in our inventory? Su-30MKIs are already being produced in large numbers and won't cause any additional logistical headaches.

But my fanboy heart would like to see SFC acquire one of these:

Tu-160 Blackjack

Tu-22M3 Backfire

B-1B Lancer

Though i know the chances of us getting them are virtually nil, it would still be a great platform to have. Remember, they will be capable of launching air launched cruise missiles (air launched Nirbhay maybe) which are harder to intercept than Ballistic Missiles. Even now, ALCMs are amongst the most effective way to deliver nukes. That's why USA and Russia still operates bombers.

 

[lilaspr]

Please have a look here:

Indian Strategic Forces Command (SFC) nuclear strike fighter race- Top contenders?

• PAK-DA
• Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit
• Su-30MKI
• Tu-160 Blackjack
• Dassault Mirage 2000N/2000D
• Su 34
• Rafale