Does PAF need (Strategic) Bombers?

[fatman17]

So if you bomb the crap out of some place using F/A aircraft, the enemy will think you are kidding?

Yes, the B52 has a psychological effect - but bombs also have psychological effect, don't they? whether they are delivered by F/A aircraft or a grenade on a arrow fired from a bow.

It is interesting to note that the psychological effect has thus far been exhibited by combatants on whom the B52 was not designed to be used on.[/QUOTE]

carpet bombing the tora-bora mtns had no psychological effect on the taliban, they slipped away and their resolve was strengthened.

 

[Neo]

Batmannow,

B-52 long range heavy load strategic bomber is a very effective weapon which fits well in large airforces like USAF; they have the need and the funds to deploy this weapon wherever they want. Smaller countries like Pakistan don't have the requirement nor the doctrine where this massive weapon fits in.

For airfoces like PAF the emphasis is on precision strikes and range or even payload is relatively less important. This is where our missile arsenal comes into the picture with a rich diversity in designs, range and payload. Hence cluster bombs have almost same effect as carpet bombing in considerably smaller scale but very effective. A dozen cluster bombs can take out a runway, a highway or even halt forwarding army divisions and provide a lot cheaper alternative to B-52.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Muradk]

And why you think that only a decorated PAF pilot (MK) of PAF had the athourity to select or decide, what type of weapon pakistan need?

Answere to your question is BAT that this PAF pilot became the Director General Weapons Development and Chairman Weapons Acquisition and Chairman AWC for not only PAF but ARMY, NAVY, KRL.

 

[nightcrawler]

Salamz
You gonna be insane the fuel economy of such strategic bombers is quiet low & wth the fragile economy tht we have plz get over wth it. nO TO STRATEGIC BOMBERS yes to precise killing via missiles

 

[batmannow]

Salamz
You gonna be insane the fuel economy of such strategic bombers is quiet low & wth the fragile economy tht we have plz get over wth it. nO TO STRATEGIC BOMBERS yes to precise killing via missiles

Dear nightcrawler; sir
So is that means, we should stop our defences!

 

[TOPGUN]

hahah lol!!!!!!!!

 

[Patriot]

Dear nightcrawler; sir
So is that means, we should stop our defences!

I believe we have better things to do then buying strategic bombers which we don't even need.We don't even have enough fighter jets (If we compare with IAF) and you're talking about bombers which we don't really need and regarding defense.What do you want to do?Increase defense budget?which is already high and keep in mind common man does not care about weapons.The money could be used in education/development projects.A dedicated bomber is the last thing we need.

 

[su-47]

I believe we have better things to do then buying strategic bombers which we don't even need.We don't even have enough fighter jets (If we compare with IAF) and you're talking about bombers which we don't really need and regarding defense.What do you want to do?Increase defense budget?which is already high and keep in mind common man does not care about weapons.The money could be used in education/development projects.A dedicated bomber is the last thing we need.

exactly. the only air forces in the world with dedicated heavy bombers are US and Russia. They also have the largest airforces in the world. Even the PLAAF's H-6 bombers are more missile platforms than real bombers.

so many airforces in the world dont have bombers. the british, french, germans, israelis, chinese, indians, koreans, swedes etc have capable airforces without utilising heavy bombers.

also the israeli bombing of lebanon showed that strike aircraft can deal a lot of damage. considering the collateral damage even when using strike aircraft with LGBs, imagine the collateral damage if heavy bombers are used! it'll be a nightmare for the bombing side. international pressure would be too much

 

[bernard]

Salamz
You gonna be insane the fuel economy of such strategic bombers is quiet low & wth the fragile economy tht we have plz get over wth it. nO TO STRATEGIC BOMBERS yes to precise killing via missiles

nightcrawler, you said correct, a country dependent on daily foreign aid shouldn't concentrate on getting heavy strategic bombers and that again from from foreign aid, IMF certainly doesn't provides aid for this purpose or for for more nukes, definitely that effects future loans/aid as is the example of controversy on aid to PAF for f16 upgrades which was debated on pakistan army's use of aid for weapons against India . any such future help will be in troubles if pakistan doesn't changes its policy of showcasing weapons against India as an answer from china,such things wont work always for sure.

 

[bernard]

Dear nightcrawler; sir
So is that means, we should stop our defences!

^^ will pakistan get B52 to defend its from its current adversary USA ? seriously think then post

 

[Muradk]

Do you actually think that Nato or any other country will risk a Bomber for carpet bombing, When they know that they can be taken out by Fighters , Sams and a couple of Desi surprises waiting for them. Bombers can only be used for countries like Afghanistan, Iraq where they know that there will be no resistance, Iraqis had Russian SAM nato paid a hefty price to aquire the jamming codes , the 2 F-15s shot down during the war and one was a 1 star general who dies they thought that the Sams were Jammed but the Sams were Chinees not Russian.
Now a days you need bombers which are fast and incase they get into a dog fight they can fight it out without scremming help us out.

 

[fatman17]

nightcrawler, you said correct, a country dependent on daily foreign aid shouldn't concentrate on getting heavy strategic bombers and that again from from foreign aid, IMF certainly doesn't provides aid for this purpose or for for more nukes, definitely that effects future loans/aid as is the example of controversy on aid to PAF for f16 upgrades which was debated on pakistan army's use of aid for weapons against India . any such future help will be in troubles if pakistan doesn't changes its policy of showcasing weapons against India as an answer from china,such things wont work always for sure.

so only india holds the market for showcasing its weapons against pakistan & china. - get real man!

 

[Kharian_Beast]

Carpet bombing domestic terrorists is going to cause a lot of unnecessary casualties, remember these guys live with their families in some cases or they hide amongst civilians. Using them in this war is retarded. I still think my idea about converting C-130's into gunships is better for the war against terrorism as well as conventional wars.

 

[Muradk]

They have turned one C130 into a gunship. But the problem lies with right intell in the last 6 months 97 reports were issued from intell officers only 1 was right the rest were just speculations.

 

[araz]

Sir Muradk
Interesting! Is this gunship C130 a local effort and what about the other sensorrs and all that need to be on it. Would it be possible to enlighten us abit more.
Araz