US B-52 Bomber Joins Indian Forces in Bay of Bengal Exercise

Underscoring the deepening strategic partnership between India and the United States, an iconic B-52 Stratofortress strategic bomber participated in recent joint exercises over the Bay of Bengal.

The exercise, termed Ex Tiger Triumph-2024, saw the USAF bomber integrate with the Indian Navy’s Hawks 132 trainer aircraft from INAS 551. A C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft from the USAF also joined the formation flight.

This collaboration marks a significant development in Indo-US defence relations and their shared commitment to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

It follows similar exercises in 2019, which featured a B-1 Lancer bomber. The participation of such powerful strategic bombers emphasizes the strategic alignment between the two nations.

The joint exercises highlight the growing military cooperation between India and the US in recent years. The strategic partnership allows both countries to share best practices, improve their interoperability, and send a strong message about the US commitment to India's security.

Defence experts view this military cooperation as mutually beneficial for both nations.

 

[beencensured]

Indian generals, Airforce, and planners should feel shame that America can update its ancient aircraft and not throw good aircraft away for strange reason like thirty years old that have impeccable service records and no losses. Updating is cheaper than buying new.

 

[Anant]

Indian generals, Airforce, and planners should feel shame that America can update its ancient aircraft and not throw good aircraft away for strange reason like thirty years old that have impeccable service records and no losses. Updating is cheaper than buying new.

What you are saying only partially applies to the B-52.

Firstly, the B-52 has been retained because it fulfills a role no other US bomber does. It has an excellent payload capacity, is relatively easy to maintain, and cheap to operate. None of the other bombers have all these characteristics rolled in one.

Secondly, the B-52s today aren't the same B-52s built in the 1950s. Most B-52s are becoming a Ship of Theseus in many ways, since they have been completely overhauled several times over, with most critical components already replaced with more modern counterparts. Other than parts of the fuselage, most parts of the B-52 don't date back to the 1950s and 1960s.

Finally, there is also the fact that it is the B-52s size and capability that has allowed the USAF to maintain the type in a more modern role: Stand-off range cruise missiles, and maybe hypersonic missiles in the future.

You say the IAF doesn't do something similar. Well, get the IAF a truly exceptional aircraft such as this, ensure it remains relevant 70 years down the line, and allow them to essentially rebuild the aircraft multiple times over that period. They'll do something similar.

You have to realise that not every aircraft can be stretched along for 70+ years. Stuff simply doesn't work that way.

 

[beencensured]

What you are saying only partially applies to the B-52.

Firstly, the B-52 has been retained because it fulfills a role no other US bomber does. It has an excellent payload capacity, is relatively easy to maintain, and cheap to operate. None of the other bombers have all these characteristics rolled in one.

Secondly, the B-52s today aren't the same B-52s built in the 1950s. Most B-52s are becoming a Ship of Theseus in many ways, since they have been completely overhauled several times over, with most critical components already replaced with more modern counterparts. Other than parts of the fuselage, most parts of the B-52 don't date back to the 1950s and 1960s.

Finally, there is also the fact that it is the B-52s size and capability that has allowed the USAF to maintain the type in a more modern role: Stand-off range cruise missiles, and maybe hypersonic missiles in the future.

You say the IAF doesn't do something similar. Well, get the IAF a truly exceptional aircraft such as this, ensure it remains relevant 70 years down the line, and allow them to essentially rebuild the aircraft multiple times over that period. They'll do something similar.

You have to realise that not every aircraft can be stretched along for 70+ years. Stuff simply doesn't work that way.

All aircraft can be overhauled, life extended, and modernized. Indian bureaucracy acts like /India is rich whereas rich countries like America do not throw out assets that are too old nor China does.

You need to look at that defect that makes current B-52 into the best aircraft in your mind as it had plenty of crashes. Tu-142 was one aircraft that could have been converted to bomber but was retired after 29 years a total waste of resources. .

 

[Akshat]

All aircraft can be overhauled, life extended, and modernized. Indian bureaucracy acts like /India is rich whereas rich countries like America do not throw out assets that are too old nor China does.

You need to look at that defect that makes current B-52 into the best aircraft in your mind as it had plenty of crashes. Tu-142 was one aircraft that could have been converted to bomber but was retired after 29 years a total waste of resources. .

So why isn’t US overhauling F14s instead of buying F35?

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

All aircraft can be overhauled, life extended, and modernized. Indian bureaucracy acts like /India is rich whereas rich countries like America do not throw out assets that are too old nor China does.

You need to look at that defect that makes current B-52 into the best aircraft in your mind as it had plenty of crashes. Tu-142 was one aircraft that could have been converted to bomber but was retired after 29 years a total waste of resources. .

Fighters are different than bombers. Thes old bombers had very toigh airframes to survive AA guns and flak cannons. That is why they can survive for so long. Fighters have much shorter life because they are high performance. They fly much faster and undergo much greater G force. They are built for speed, so materials used are lighter and not that strong.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

India should also buy old bombers like these. Instead of stealth bombers or supersonic bombers, these huge, slow bombers are excellent for yeeting a lot of missiles from far away. Russia is using its bomber fleet, similar to B52, to great effect in ukraine. They use multiple bombers and other aircraft to lauch dozens of air launched cruise and ballistic missiles at once in giant volleys.

India can also employ same strat vs chiina and pakis.

 

[Sandeep]

Sooner or later India will need bombers if it wants to be a superpower. It makes sense for the Air Force to buy half a squadron of old Russian or USA bombers so that we can learn how to operate them, the technology needed to fly them and the different type of weapons it can hold and use. Once we do that then we can develop our own indigenous bombers which are very lethal and can cause an immense amount of damage. India shouldn't worry about how expensive they are to maintain and operate them but it should instead see this as another threat that our enemies will face.

 

[beencensured]

So why isn’t US overhauling F14s instead of buying F35?

Why do they keep their B-52, and still have f-16(2048 planned retirement), f-15 and so on.

I know you cannot keep on topic bomber -52. Shows your illiteracy.

 

[beencensured]

Fighters are different than bombers. Thes old bombers had very toigh airframes to survive AA guns and flak cannons. That is why they can survive for so long. Fighters have much shorter life because they are high performance. They fly much faster and undergo much greater G force. They are built for speed, so materials used are lighter and not that strong.

I do not why people upvoted yours when I gave example of Tu-142 . There is very little stress on an airframe of cargo or military medium or heavy lifter unlike fighter, but you choose to diverge into fighter when topic is bombers and I have given in the comment tu-142 could converted into cargo/bomber and was a very strong frame. Su-30mki is getting upgraded and probably has a forty- fifty year service life, and tejas says it has 12000-hour airframe life which also translates to about 60 years' service life, and so Agreed. So why not use assets you have like tu-142 converted to bomber or cargo but were retire at 29 years for some mysterious reason after having good service record. Engine could be upgraded, avionics,and so on. Indian government keep up total nonsense and waste resource on non-critical areas.

 

[beencensured]

Sooner or later India will need bombers if it wants to be a superpower. It makes sense for the Air Force to buy half a squadron of old Russian or USA bombers so that we can learn how to operate them, the technology needed to fly them and the different type of weapons it can hold and use. Once we do that then we can develop our own indigenous bombers which are very lethal and can cause an immense amount of damage. India shouldn't worry about how expensive they are to maintain and operate them but it should instead see this as another threat that our enemies will face.

We had bombers, but shameless in Government Nehru lineage did not like.

Like "It was feared that Chinese would use their long-range IL 28 to bomb our cities. Today, supported by superior comprehensive national power, China holds supremacy in technology and organic strength against India, but the IAF is well-matched with a geographical advantage."Why India Needs Bombers?
To counter China’s expansionist moves at the borders and its H-20 stealth bomber
Gp Capt. G.D. Sharma (retd), for FOrce

There was news during Vajpayee government that t-22m3 would be acquired. Some say tu-142 could be used as bomber.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

I do not why people upvoted yours when I gave example of Tu-142 . There is very little stress on an airframe of cargo or military medium or heavy lifter unlike fighter, but you choose to diverge into fighter when topic is bombers and I have given in the comment tu-142 could converted into cargo/bomber and was a very strong frame. Su-30mki is getting upgraded and probably has a forty- fifty year service life, and tejas says it has 12000-hour airframe life which also translates to about 60 years' service life, and so Agreed. So why not use assets you have like tu-142 converted to bomber or cargo but were retire at 29 years for some mysterious reason after having good service record. Engine could be upgraded, avionics,and so on. Indian government keep up total nonsense and waste resource on non-critical areas.

India does use its transport aircraft for very long times. An example is the avro aircraft which is over 40-50 years old. It will be replaced by C-295. IAF is famous for using very old aircraft. The reason for retiring the Tu-142 was that they were outdated. They were used by Navy for ASW and recon roles. There were replaced by the P8I which is state of the art aircraft. The sensors and avionics on Tu-142 were outdated. It would have made no sense to replace everything on it. Also, we dont have knowledge of refurbishing these large aircraft. That is why we need foreign help to refurbish the IL-76 of the IAF, and for converting large airliners to tanker transport etc.

IAF always goes for refurbishment over replacement wherever possible. IAF is only country with proper modern military which still uses Mig21.

 

[Akshat]

Why do they keep their B-52, and still have f-16(2048 planned retirement), f-15 and so on.

I know you cannot keep on topic bomber -52. Shows your illiteracy.

The F16 they have are not merely upgraded old jets. Brand new jets are made every now and then with changes even to the airframe. Same for F15. Entire plane is changed.

The previous commenter has already mentioned that B52 is an exceptional and specific plane. You are the one who said ‘every plane’ can be modified. So it shows your illiteracy to bring every plane in the world into debate and then talk about the ‘topic’.

 

[beencensured]

The sensors and avionics on Tu-142 were outdated. It would have made no sense to replace everything on it. Also, we dont have knowledge of refurbishing these large aircraft.

Well, opinion is very wrong as there was never investigation to modify them for other roles, nor inquiry for the reason. The diabolical reason for retiring these was pressure from USA.

Worse response is india does not have capability of modifying large aircraft?

In fact large aircraft are easier to modify.
India upgraded the mig29, current upgrade of su30mki and modified to carry Brahmos, and even placed sensors, communication, and radar on erj145 and "Indian Navy, Coast Guard To Get 15 Maritime Patrol Aircraft Based On Airbus C-295."

It may not have will, but private sector can and will and any open tender to do so would have been appropriate.

 

[beencensured]

The F16 they have are not merely upgraded old jets. Brand new jets are made every now and then with changes even to the airframe. Same for F15. Entire plane is changed.

The previous commenter has already mentioned that B52 is an exceptional and specific plane. You are the one who said ‘every plane’ can be modified. So it shows your illiteracy to bring every plane in the world into debate and then talk about the ‘topic’.

B-52 is not exceptional. In the age of drone technology every flying plane can.

 

[Pink Panther]

Indian generals, Airforce, and planners should feel shame that America can update its ancient aircraft and not throw good aircraft away for strange reason like thirty years old that have impeccable service records and no losses. Updating is cheaper than buying new.

Don’t tell this to IAF and HAL, they both will get really excited, HAL will say that they can fit UTTAM radar, Brahmos NG, ASTRA and other missiles to all the retired MIG-21’s and make a variant called MIG-21 Elephant or something and after this they will talk about making Super Mirage and Super Jaguars, delaying Tejas for another 20-30 years and not allowing IAF to buy any MRFA jets also.

 

[Akshat]

B-52 is not exceptional. In the age of drone technology every flying plane can.

The user above has already given the reasons in why it is exceptional.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Well, opinion is very wrong as there was never investigation to modify them for other roles, nor inquiry for the reason. The diabolical reason for retiring these was pressure from USA.

Worse response is india does not have capability of modifying large aircraft?

In fact large aircraft are easier to modify.
India upgraded the mig29, current upgrade of su30mki and modified to carry Brahmos, and even placed sensors, communication, and radar on erj145 and "Indian Navy, Coast Guard To Get 15 Maritime Patrol Aircraft Based On Airbus C-295."

It may not have will, but private sector can and will and any open tender to do so would have been appropriate.

no large aircraft are very difficult to modify. The upgrades you talked about are all for fighters. We have many decades of experience in building and modifying fighters. We have not built a single large aircraft (civilian or military). The largest which we build is the dornier, which is hardly a large aircraft. All the transport aircraft that we have, in navy or airforce, is bought from abroad. The avionics on the Tu-142 was all russian. We didnt want those anymore.

 

[beencensured]

Don’t tell this to IAF and HAL, they both will get really excited, HAL will say that they can fit UTTAM radar, Brahmos NG, ASTRA and other missiles to all the retired MIG-21’s and make a variant called MIG-21 Elephant or something and after this they will talk about making Super Mirage and Super Jaguars, delaying Tejas for another 20-30 years and not allowing IAF to buy any MRFA jets also.

So, you are unfocus when talk a good viable aircraft like tu142 for bomber and you talk mig21 aviation junk. Where do you get your analogy?

 

[beencensured]

no large aircraft are very difficult to modify. The upgrades you talked about are all for fighters. We have many decades of experience in building and modifying fighters. We have not built a single large aircraft (civilian or military). The largest which we build is the dornier, which is hardly a large aircraft. All the transport aircraft that we have, in navy or airforce, is bought from abroad. The avionics on the Tu-142 was all russian. We didnt want those anymore.

They could have been updated, and bigger aircraft it is easier to do as they have more space. Stop talking out of head as we are now cleared making our own mma.