Modern Heavy Bomber News, Pictures Thread (Non-Chinese)

kwaigonegin

Colonel
I wonder why wouldn't India want to build a heavy bomber? They want to be seen as a upcoming super power right? Well the other super powers on the block have them why not them?

In short because it's very very $$$$$.

They will, just not there yet at this point in time. LR heavy bombers are strategic assets and I'm sure in due in time they will also want to develop the third arm of the nuclear triad but for now they are concentrating on the land and sea while in the air domain their focus is more on tactical fighter/strike type assets.

LR strategic bombers is usually one of the last pieces of assets to be developed or acquired when a country's military matures to a certain stage. It's also darn expensive as can be seen on the cost of each B2.

Not counting pre cold war bombers, China is probably the only nation outside of the US that is in any meaningful stage of developing any kind of new modern long range bomber in the forseeable future.

Noticed I stressed probably because I don't think anything is official in regards to that but I think it's pretty much an open secret. At least to me anyways.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Tu-95MS6/16 (Bear H for NATO ) carry a max 15t of weapons in one internal weapons bay MS-16 get also 4 hard points use the more powerful engine propeller,contra-rotating, 14,800 shp.
Can carry 6 AS-15 in weapons bay and in more 10 under wings for MS-16 variant.
KH-101 more big only 8 external.

BMB Tu-95MS.jpg

Tu-95.PNG

8 KH-101
Tu-95MS   KH-101.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I wonder why wouldn't India want to build a heavy bomber? They want to be seen as a upcoming super power right? Well the other super powers on the block have them why not them?
I always wondered why the Indians never purchased any Tu-95s.

They could certainly have done so and operated them...they did buy eight TU-142MKE aircraft in 1988.


Tupolev_Tu-142_Krivchikov_2007.jpg
Indian TU-142MKE Naval ASW/MPA aircraft

I always thought that the TU-95 Bear was a natural...but it never happened.

We shall just have to wait and see what India does in this regard in the future.

Right now, they are about full up trying to replace their Mig-21s and Mig-27s with the new Tejas aircraft, and getting the new Rafales. This still falls far short of where they want to be tactically (meaning either more SU-30s or bringing forward their PAKFA deal. Seems like they have their hands full with that from an air force standpoint.

So I think it will be quite a while yet before they focus on the bombers.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
Well, India didn't have very much in the way of long range cruise missiles in the 1980s, and the Tu-95 would have taken up a lot of their budget, unless New Delhi had a sudden need for carpet bombing.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Well, India didn't have very much in the way of long range cruise missiles in the 1980s, and the Tu-95 would have taken up a lot of their budget, unless New Delhi had a sudden need for carpet bombing.
Well, we need not wonder just about the 80s...they also did not do it in the 90s, the 2000s, or now.

At any of those times, the first (Tu-95) would beget the other (ALCMs)

Clearly, they did not decide it was a priority because they did not do it.

But it was not a lack of funds, particularly in the last ten years, because they have been spending billions and billions on C-17s, C-130Js, P-8Is, etc.. The Bears and the Cruise missiles would have been far less expensive, and Russia would have been in a mood to give them a deal.

So, it was a matter of what they considered their priorities were...and they do really need those other things as well.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
as the Title it's self says this is a Opinion/editorial
OPINION: Ageing US nuclear bombers not fit for a superpower
By:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LONDON
Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

12 hours ago
The United States’ nuclear bomber force has something of a morale problem.

This is not because of a lack of training or professionalism but, as the general in charge of the force put it to Congress recently, it’s because “we have airmen flying bombers that their grandfathers flew”.

The bomber squadrons see inconsistencies and uncertainty surrounding replacement aircraft, and this impacts morale. “It makes them question just how important the mission really is,” the general says.

This is the stark reality that America – arguably the world’s foremost superpower – faces today with its 53-year-old
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
fleet.

But the B-52 – and the comparatively new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Spirit – are America’s only nuclear-capable bombers. Both face critical parts shortages because industry sees no business case for supporting small numbers of outdated aircraft.

As one congresswoman notes, America’s nuclear deterrent is at a “critical inflection point”. Does it get by for another few decades with Cold War weapons and geriatric aircraft, or acquire 21st Century equipment?

Sometime between now and September, the US Air Force will pick
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or Northrop to develop and build the long-range strike bomber, or LRS-B. The requirement is for 80 to 100 aircraft at a cost of about $600 million apiece. It is going to be expensive and controversial. Those quantities must be maintained or the same support problems will recur.

There have been numerous attempts over the last 25 years to begin a next-generation bomber, but each has been pronounced dead on arrival.

Fleet modernisation has time and again been put on the backburner in favour of expensive and poorly executed fighter programmes.

It might be nice to have a few dozen squadrons of pricey, fifth-generation fighters, but the ability to deliver “shock and awe”, as it were, is vital.

Thanks in part to sabre-rattling by Russia, there is no better time to start the project from a political perspective. LRS-B has advocates in Congress – but protests, technical problems and competing funding priorities all stand in the way.

Indeed, one of the biggest threats to the nascent programme is the USA’s requirement to upgrade the rest of its nuclear arsenal, notably submarines.

But with a bomber force whose age averages 39 years, the air force must get LRS-B across the line because its superpower shine is already looking a little tarnished.

getasset.aspx


We B2 old

Rex Features
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top