Hillary may push for fighter aircraft deal with India

[SupermanKaPapa]

Definitely you are trying 1=2 ... reality.. B-2 still exist after mission and can be used in future.. but Agni-V cant... once launched the system disappears in air..

In a mission the cheapest and deadliest option is always prepared.. To take high value targets which are guarded heavily missiles will be used... Apart from that it is the bombers job...

Why do India need bombers??? How many countries have bombers these days? Yes sometimes Bombers exists after mission, but sometime they don't. If one lose single B-2, it is equal to lose of 150 Agni 5s. One can tear apart a countary with 150 Agni 5s. B-2 also need two pilots, ground crew, and a lot of maintainance. Plus the fuel cost of the plane for training and mission. And all this headache for no clear target!!! All in all, Bombers (especially B-2) don't fit in IAF's plans and we don't need them.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Why do India need bombers??? How many countries have bombers these days? Yes sometimes Bombers exists after mission, but sometime they don't. If one lose single B-2, it is equal to lose of 150 Agni 5s. One can tear apart a countary with 150 Agni 5s. B-2 also need two pilots, ground crew, and a lot of maintainance. Plus the fuel cost of the plane for training and mission. And all this headache for no clear target!!! All in all, Bombers (especially B-2) don't fit in IAF's plans and we don't need them.

Any way being off topic.. B-2 or bears have been a fantastic asset for both US and Russia.. there are plans to develop next generation bombers too...

If you compare Bombers and missile the armed force will be comfortable with bombers than missile because of the reliability... A missile when fired is not 100% accurate are sure will hit the target... for (e.g.) US Tomahawk has numerous misfires.. even during Gulf war or to some extent in others it is the bombers which did the job perfectly or took the maximum assets.... while you think B-2 only has maintenance and supporting infra structure .. the same applies to missile.. a missile needs a vehicle or launchers to carry ... which also need crews and other supporting system... a missile is not fired just like that of a rock in diwali ... Infact missile need super computers or a kind of equivalent computers to track and guide them.. it is more complex to set up than a bomber

 

[tvsram1992]

no STOBAR aircrafts require heavy modifications to the landing gear and lower fusselage in order to enable them to be launched from Catapults and the MKI is no small aircraft it's huge so u need a lot of power to stop such aircrafts on aircraft carriers when they land and no1 has more skill at operating aircraft carriers than the US navy which have the world's largest 100,000 tonne aircraft carriers in their service but even they dont use f-15s from them simply because these Planes are too large and as you know mass of the aircraft will increase it's momentum so i doubt we'll operate N-PAK FA

I mean vice versa is not possible , any way we will have n option of using crafts meant for stobar configuration to catobar configuration.
Any way the Russian succeeded in Making naval version of Su27, a heavy aircraft .