PAK-DA not for us : IAF Official

[jha]

this machine can be used for carrying out strikes on terrorist camps. Its features would give us advantage to bomb the area without being detected by any AAG or SAM Radars. It's capable of high Altitude bombing and can be used in hilly areas and that's we wanted. More like PAK-FA. But this seems better stealth wise. But still we need modification to carry missiles like Brahmos with it in a closed compartment.

Sending a strategic asset like PAK-DA to take out terrorist camp will be a huge over kill..These things carry ~50 bombs in one sortie and are user to carpet bomb a whole area..
It will be better to use FGFA for this role..

 

[Screambowl]

Sending a strategic asset like PAK-DA to take out terrorist camp will be a huge over kill..These things carry ~50 bombs in one sortie and are user to carpet bomb a whole area..
It will be better to use FGFA for this role..

but by the time they come into service its quite possible that those terrorist camps require a huge over kill plus we can reduce the pay load by 30% which will give aircraft advantage for high altitude bombing plus range in *hilly areas deep into their airspace.
Though FGFA can do the job but they look better on other fronts due to their maneuverability.

 

[jagjitnatt]

But from the sketches available, it really looks HUGE.. how many of them according to you will serve the purpose...??

I don't think we will need more than 12-15 of these. But no less than 10. And yes, it is huge. It would be 6-7 times larger than the MKI, and almost 15 times larger than an average fighter just

 

[arya]

form whom you gonna buy??

from U.S. - Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. lol

 

[TenjikuKensei]

Just my 2 cents.

Nowadays Strategic bombers like this would not be used to do conventional bombing/carpet bombing runs(yeah the Americans did for the Talibs and the Iraqis, but they had no air force/air defense left).

Most probably these Pak-Das would carry Standoff Air to ground missiles. One would ask why would one need pad da to launch these when you could do so with cruise missiles. The answer would be that these give immediate and standoff capability which cannot be provided with cruise or BMs in a fast paced battlefield deep inside enemy territory. Also with Standoff missiles these planes could simply launch their ordnance about 100/200 or even more kms out from their target and return.The last thing one wants to do when carrying out a high risk strategic strike like this would be to rely on conventional free-fall bombs or even LGB's....these would require the aircraft to be near or above the target...not a good option if one wants to increase survivability.

The TU 22 could carry 6 missiles on a rotary launcher(in bomb bay) and 4 more on wings. Pakda could probably have about 20 or 30. This is HEAVY firepower...thus these would be used as standoff missile launching platforms rather instead of "bombing" ones.

 

[Avatar]

For strike operations we will be developing MCA, so there is really no need for such heavy mobile firepower considering that our potential enemies are next door. Just 6-10 of these Heavy Bombers are enough Just-in-case. It will be more of a show off than any utility. PAK-FA along with MCA is sufficient for India's current requirements.

 

[Avatar]

For strike operations we will be developing MCA, so there is really no need for such heavy mobile firepower considering that our potential enemies are next door. Just 6-10 of these Heavy Bombers are enough Just-in-case. It will be more of a show off than any utility. PAK-FA along with MCA is sufficient for India's current requirements.

 

[luckyyy]

For strike operations we will be developing MCA, so there is really no need for such heavy mobile firepower considering that our potential enemies are next door. Just 6-10 of these Heavy Bombers are enough Just-in-case. It will be more of a show off than any utility. PAK-FA along with MCA is sufficient for India's current requirements.

it's not the PAK-FA but PAK-DA...

PAK-DA is a succeser of MIG-25/MIG-31 high altitude fighter series , it can fly as a high as 1,50,000ft ...
anyway , we will again make a JV deal as and when PAK-DA start flying...

 

[jagjitnatt]

it's not the PAK-FA but PAK-DA...

PAK-DA is a succeser of MIG-25/MIG-31 high altitude fighter series , it can fly as a high as 1,50,000ft ...
anyway , we will again make a JV deal as and when PAK-DA start flying...

First of all PAKDA is not a successor to Mig 25/31 series.
It is a successor to the Tu-160 Blackjack.

Secondly, it can not fly as high at 1,50,000 ft. That has to be a typo. Its actually 50,000 ft. Nothing can fly as high as 1,50,000 ft
Not even Mig 25/31 or even blackbird SR-71

 

[sunakaffck]

they did not agreed to invest in manufacturing but they can still buy when it is completed which will cost a little million dollars extra so what

 

[siegecrossbow]

First of all PAKDA is not a successor to Mig 25/31 series.
It is a successor to the Tu-160 Blackjack.

Secondly, it can not fly as high at 1,50,000 ft. That has to be a typo. Its actually 50,000 ft. Nothing can fly as high as 1,50,000 ft
Not even Mig 25/31 or even blackbird SR-71

I think 150,000 ft would be literally in space (US definition), wouldn't it .

I don't think India is particularly in need of strategic bombers. Ballistic missiles will probably do the job a lot better.

 

[PRACTICAL PATRIOT]

we have money that doesnt mean we should buy anything that looks nice and is
available.
do we really need a strategic bomber?
we dont have any enemy far from our territory like USA or RUSSIA.
our hostile nations are just in neighbourhood nad we are making a nuclear triad for them which is more than enough for them.
and if atall we ever need this birds really then we can lease them or buy them from our friends at quick notice.
so why to waste our money on this costly birds now?

 

[AMCA]

we have money that doesnt mean we should buy anything that looks nice and is
available.
do we really need a strategic bomber?
we dont have any enemy far from our territory like USA or RUSSIA.
our hostile nations are just in neighbourhood nad we are making a nuclear triad for them which is more than enough for them.
and if atall we ever need this birds really then we can lease them or buy them from our friends at quick notice.
so why to waste our money on this costly birds now?

Its not about Buying.... Russia Supported us when we were in Need, the only place where we can Invest is there defense sector as they do no produce much of Consumer goods My bad if they do, As a Good Friend It makes our duty to support there Economy with the necessary Cash Inflows and In return they are Giving the technology transfer Like No other country would ever which Benefits us the Most than the Machine we Buy from them....

Relationship is Valuable than Business....

 

[luckyyy]

I think 150,000 ft would be literally in space (US definition), wouldn't it .

I don't think India is particularly in need of strategic bombers. Ballistic missiles will probably do the job a lot better.

First of all PAKDA is not a successor to Mig 25/31 series.
It is a successor to the Tu-160 Blackjack.

Secondly, it can not fly as high at 1,50,000 ft. That has to be a typo. Its actually 50,000 ft. Nothing can fly as high as 1,50,000 ft
Not even Mig 25/31 or even blackbird SR-71

The PAK DA is a stratospheric reconnaissance plane.
ability to fly at stratospheric altitudes (50,000 meters) ie 1,50,000ft

read more at :
PAK DA

 

[Markus]

Its not about Buying.... Russia Supported us when we were in Need, the only place where we can Invest is there defense sector as they do no produce much of Consumer goods My bad if they do, As a Good Friend It makes our duty to support there Economy with the necessary Cash Inflows and In return they are Giving the technology transfer Like No other country would ever which Benefits us the Most than the Machine we Buy from them....

Relationship is Valuable than Business....

Oh Boy! You are are really getting emotional here.

India-Russia are political friends, alright but they have left no stone unturned in extracting more money from us (just like anybody else) wherever they could, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yes, they can provide us the tech that no other country would but we are paying a really big price for it, seriously!