Does PAF need (Strategic) Bombers?

[batmannow]

There are a lot of mess over bombers role in the PAKISTAN's WAR ON TERROR, the PA's misions in FATA and in northern areas arent working well, US preasure is mounting, and what US is to give pakistan to fight terror, which i guss ,not the real machine, AH-1F Cobra helicopter refurbishment and associated equipment to Pakistan.


I think, it is the time for pakistan to think seriously, about a couple of bombers to attack the terrorists, today and in future to come.
whatever, US had faced in TORA BORA, pakistan is facing today, PREDATOR's strikes in pakistani area's are being carried out on daily bassis.
sen.BARAK OBAMA, thinking clearly sugests that once,he will be sitting in the
WHITE HOUSE , he is bound to give orders for carpet bombings of the FATA.
As tlll yesterday, ISPR is anouncing that, it would be at least one month to finish the job in BAJUR.

so, dear comrads, i would like your help to discuss all that in this thread,
penly share your views.
thanks

H-6 Bomber



The H-6 (Hongzha-6 or Hong-6) is the Chinese copy of the Russian Tupolev Tu-16 (NATO codename: Badger) medium-range bomber. For more than three decades, the bomber has remained the backbone of the PLA’s long-range strike fleet. Today, the PRC is the only country in the world that still deploys the Tu-16/H-6 in operational service, serving in a wide range of roles from nuclear and tactical bomber, to naval missile bomber, tanker, reconnaissance/electronic warfare, engine testbed, and cruise missile platform. The service life of this 40-year-old design in the PLA is expected to continue beyond the year 2015.

The PRC obtained the Tu-16 blueprint from the Soviet Union in 1959 and the Chinese-assembled Tu-16 using Soviet-supplied kits made its first flight in 1959. However, the indigenised version designated H-6A using Chinese-made engines and parts did not fly until 1968 due to the Sino-Soviet split. The H-6A bomber entered the PLAAF service in 1969 and has been used for both strategic and tactical roles. The aircraft was also exported to Iraq and Egypt but it is no longer operational in these countries. The production of the H-6 continued at low pace through out the 1980s and 1990s, with new variants being introduced after 2000.

Like the Tu-16, the H-6 was originally designed to carry high-drag, free-fall general-purpose bombs inside its internal weapon bay to perform WWII-style level bombing missions. In order to perform such a mission, the bomber must be able to penetrate the enemy air defence composed of fighter aircraft and surface-to-air missiles. With its obsolete aerodynamic design and lacklustre performance, the H-6 would have a very low survivability in such an operation. Later variants of the H-6, however, are equipped with precision-guided, standoff weapon (SOW), which can be launched tens or even hundreds of kilometres away and find its target with the assistance of various guidance systems, while the carrier aircraft can leave the theatre shortly after the launch to avoid enemy air defence firepower.

Nuclear Weapon Bomber Project



In June 1963, Xi’an Aircraft Factory was ordered to convert one of the first two Tu-16 bombers assembled using Soviet-supplied kits into a nuclear weapon carrier under a highly secret programme codenamed “21-511”. The bomber (PLAAF serial 50671) was fitted with an air-conditioned weapon bay and special bomb mountings to carry a nuclear bomb. The conversation was completed in 1964. On 14 May 1965, this bomber flown by PLAAF officer LI Yuanyi and his crew drooped a 25kT yield enhanced atomic bomb with thermal nuclear material (lithium 6) at Lop Nor nuclear test site. On 17 June 1967, the same bomber flown by XU Kejiang dropped China’s first thermal nuclear bomb with a yield of 3,000kT. The formal production variant H-6A was designed for both nuclear and conventional strike missions, though some reports suggested that the PLAAF no longer operated any H-6 for the nuclear strike role after the mid-1990s.

H-6A/AII

The H-6A was based on the basic variant H-6/Tu-16, but with features borrowed from Tu-16A, which served as a strategic bomber in the Soviet Air Force. The H-6A was configured for both strategic nuclear strikes and conventional tactical missions. The batch production began in 1971 and reached its peak rate of 30 examples per year in the late 1970s. By 1986, a total of 140 examples had been delivered to the PLAAF.

The aircraft has mid-mounted, swept-back wings with blunt tips, fences on top of the wings, and landing gear pods extend beyond the wings trailing edges. Two XAE WP-8 turbofans are mounted in wing roots which extend beyond the leading and trailing edges of the wing root. The engines have a pair of round air intakes. The fuselage is long, slender, and bulging where the engines are mounted and tapered to the tail. The aircraft has a round, glassed-in nose and a stepped cockpit. The tail is swept-back, tapered fin and flats with blunt tips and a tail gunner compartment.

The bomber has seven 23mm cannons: a single-barrel Type 23-2 cannon is mounted on the starboard side of the glass-in nose compartment with 200 rounds; three twin-barrel Type 23-2H cannons are mounted in defensive turrets located on the back and belly of the fuselage and tail. These cannons are remotely controlled by optical sight/fire-control radar. The internal fuselage weapon bay can carry up to 9,000kg payloads including 250~3,000kg class high-drag general-purpose bombs or a single nuclear bomb.


H-6A bomber of the PLAAF 10th Air Division

The H-6AII is the improved variant of the H-6A fitted with an automatic bombing/navigation system. The aircraft development began in 1970 and the first flight took place in 1975. The design certificate was issued in 1981. From the 12th batch of the H-6A in 1982, the aircraft was built in the H-6AII standard. Existing H-6A bombers in PLA service were also upgraded to the H-6AII standard.

Improvements on the H-6AII include:

Improved variant WS-8 turbojet engines with enhanced performance
LHS-2 bombing/navigation computer
DPL-1 (Type 773) Doppler navigation radar
HL-3 air data navigator
KJ-3C autopilot
HZX-1 horizon gyro
WL-7 radio compass
BDP-4 altitude indicator
HL-2A (Type 244) bombing radar replacing the original HL-2 (Type 241)
HM-3 optical bombing sight replacing the original HM-1
WD-3 IFF
WJ-2A rear warning receiver
Type 211 fire-control radar for the tail cannon
Redesigned low-drag wingtips which help increase the maximum range by 350km

H-6I

In the 1970s, Xi’an Aircraft Factory (now Xi’an Aircraft Industry Corporation, XAC) proposed a four-engine H-6 upgrade package known as H-6I. The new design retained the airframe of the H-6, but replaced the two original WP-8 turbojet engines at the wing-root position with two Rolls-Royce Spey Mk512-5W turbofans, and also added an additional two Spey turbofans under the wings. The introduction of the new powerplant has increased the maximum range of the H-6 bomber from 5,760km to 8,060km, and sea-level climbing rate from 18.6m/s to 29.7m/s. An H-6I converted from an existing H-6 for test and evaluation made its maiden flight in 1978. However, the programme was finally cancelled in the early 1980s due to excessive costs involved in purchasing and maintaining the Spey engines.

H-6B Reconnaissance Aircraft

The H-6B was developed from the basic variant H-6A for reconnaissance roles. The aircraft is fitted with a HD-42 Infrared camera as well as optical cameras. The aircraft was design certified in 1979.

H-6C Bomber

This was the improved variant that entered development in 1977. the aircraft first flew in 1980 and entered PLAAF service in 1983. This variant was fitted with an electronic warfare suites that consists of electronic countermeasures (ECM) jammer, electronic intelligence (ELINT), radar warning receiver (RWR) and chaff/flare dispenser.

H-6 Target Drone Carrier

The H-6 target drone carrier was developed from the basic variant H-6, with a pair of under-wing pylons to carry two Ba-6 supersonic target drones (developed from the HQ-2 SAM). The development of the aircraft began in March 1969 and the first flight took place in 1970. The aircraft entered service in 1971.

H-6 Electronic Warfare Variant

An electronic warfare variant of the H-6 was said to have been developed but this has never been confirmed.



i guss, H-6 enough for any kind of adventure of terrorists, we are facing now?

 

[TOPGUN]

I totally agree i have said it many times before that we need a bomber even its in short numbers of qty!!

 

[dr.umer]

This bomber can certainly take out consulates funding TTP along Pak Afghan border.

 

[was]

This bomber can certainly take out consulates funding TTP along Pak Afghan border.

baburs are enough for this

i,m not sure but the c-130s can be moified for bombing roles???

 

[muse]

PAF do not need heavy or strategic bombers - but they do need larger fighter/bombers or strike aircraft - not to combat terrorists but to deter regional aspirants.

PAF has relied on light, tactical aircraft and this gives us some insight into the role it see for itself in the Defence of Pakistan -- to support the army, and even then, for no more than two weeks of hostility.

The PAF does or has not sought a air dominance role, rather a support role. In the evolving scenario vis a vis regional and non-regional threats, such a posture is a waste of money and men. If you play, play to win, there is no other option, otherwise PAF will be a jobs scheme.

 

[Muradk]

baburs are enough for this

i,m not sure but the c-130s can be moified for bombing roles???

We have used C130 very extensively for bombing role in war time the new c130 we got and the ones we upgraded have Gatling guns on the right side under the wing Attached to the fuselage.

 

[superbikez]

we must have atleast 2-3 B52 otherwise other but we must have 3 Bomber unfortuntly we dun have any carpet bomber!

 

[muse]

That's what BM are for. - What would be the point 2 or 3 heavy bombers? What kind of a conflict do you envision one could use 2 or 3 heavy bombers??

 

[Contrarian]

PAF doesnt need strategic bombers at all. Where do you imagine you would use them? To carpet bomb Bajaur? Against India such planes are useless and would be shot down even before the fighter escorts, much better as pointed out above are heavy strike fighters.

 

[Muradk]

That's what BM are for. - What would be the point 2 or 3 heavy bombers? What kind of a conflict do you envision one could use 2 or 3 heavy bombers??

I fully agree to what you are saying but Pakistan Missile tec is getting advanced every day, I dont thing we need Bombers.

 

[fatman17]

This bomber can certainly take out consulates funding TTP along Pak Afghan border.

precision strike by a F-16 with LGB would solve your problem! no need for bombers.

 

[Blackpearl]

As said in another thread of AC-130s, this aircarft is best suited for COIN ops, a place like Bajur.

 

[Al Shaheen]

precision strike by a F-16 with LGB would solve your problem! no need for bombers.

Agreed.

The days of the 'big bomber' are numbered in my opinion.

For instance, look at what happened to that Russian Tu-22-3M over Georgia, it didn't stand a chance even against fairly moderate air defences. The USAF's next-generation bomber will have more in common with the F-22 than the B-52. Future strategic airpower projection relies more on stealth, survivability and accuracy than take-of-weight and symbolism.

In my opinion, PAF should explore the UCAV options that are out there. China has some very interesting projects on the go, with similar options coming to fruition in Europe (Neuron for instance). In the meantime also, PAF (and the RAF) should look at specialist COIN aircraft that are more relevant to the theatre of operations they are involved in.

I'd trade 30 Eurofighters for just one squadron of second-hand A-10s for instance!! But that's just my opinion.

 

[batmannow]

PAF do not need heavy or strategic bombers - but they do need larger fighter/bombers or strike aircraft - not to combat terrorists but to deter regional aspirants.

PAF has relied on light, tactical aircraft and this gives us some insight into the role it see for itself in the Defence of Pakistan -- to support the army, and even then, for no more than two weeks of hostility.

The PAF does or has not sought a air dominance role, rather a support role. In the evolving scenario vis a vis regional and non-regional threats, such a posture is a waste of money and men. If you play, play to win, there is no other option, otherwise PAF will be a jobs scheme.

AFSOC Would (Almost) Kill for New Gunships


By Bryant Jordan Friday, September 19th, 2008 11:31 am
Posted in Air, Land


If Lt. Gen. Donald Wurster, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, could put his hands on one more dollar to spend he would buy a heavily armed version of the new Joint Cargo Aircraft. In fact, he wants them so badly that after spending that dollar, he’d “go down the table, stab the others in the back and take their dollars” for the program. Or at least that’s what he said during a roundtable of four-star generals at the annual Air Force Association conference.

The command, based at Hurlburt Field, Fla., needs a successor to the aging AC-130 gunship, and so it’s asking to redirect about $32 million from its current fiscal year budget to buy a prototype from JCA maker Alenia Aeronautica and its U.S. partner, L3 Communications.

The command hasn’t settled on what size cannon to go in the plane, but it wants something that can take out a truck or tank — probably something between a 25mm and 40 mm weapon, said Jason Decker, a spokesman for L3.

The AFSOC version would be called the AC-27J Stinger II, Decker said this week at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in Washington, D.C., where he stood before an oversized illustration of the proposed plane. Though it’s being called a gunship — gunship lite, in some quarters — Decker said that reference tends to draw the ire of Lockheed Martin, maker of the AC-130 family of gunships since the 1960s and the -130A and H model Spectre and the AC-130U Spooky.

But the AC-130s are showing their age and need replacing, AFSOC officials have said. Wurster, commander of AFSOC, said during a presentation at the conference that he wants 16 combat JCAs ready by 2015.

In March, in an interview with CBS Evening News, AC-130 pilot Lt. Col. Mark Clawson said the planes are seeing so much action in Iraq and Afghanistan that “it’s hard to keep them flying.”

Another pilot noted that for every hour of flying,the gunship requires 14 hours of maintenance. And cracks in the wings are prompting their replacement five years ahead of schedule, Capt. James May said, according to a transcript of the interview.

The original version of the Stinger was a C-119 manufactured by Fairchild and initially were deployed to Vietnam in 1969 and used by the 18th Special Operations Squadron, 14th Special Operations Group, at Phan Rang Air Base, but also were operated by detachments out of air bases at Da Nang and Phu Cat, according to the National Museum of the Air Force.


I guss, this artical can solve many of questions razed here, regarding the , role of (bombers) or as its described in USAF, "flying battle ships".
why, still USAF needs these bombers?
Are the command in USAF , is crazy ?
plz, remember battle of TORA BORA, its the B-1s & B-52s carpet bombings, which made TALIBANS lose thier , positions so quickly, also 1 should rewind the whole tape of US invation of AFGHANISTAN+ IRAQ.... I think, the bombers played a very vital role to destroy the enemy in just sevral hours.

F-16s, F-18's & F-22, only take the startagic targets, air defences, or limited strikes to clear the way for B-52s.

Whatever, PAKIASTAN ARMY is trying in its fight against these talibans, canbe reached in just sevral hours, if sombody thinks that ,recent opreation in bajur is going to finish the terrorists, i think he is living in the fools paradise, because still these militants have a clear way back into afghanistan, even if they retret & again the preasure will be on pakistan to finish these militants.

 

[Al Shaheen]

Stealthy and precision accurate UCAV's like Neuron or Terranis are PAF's future.

Not lumbering misguided carpet-bombers of yesteryear!




H-6?? With a guy looking down a faulty Chinese-made 1960s bombsite???!!! Do you think the Indians are thinking on the same level??? Of course not.

They're thinking stealth and GPS precision. Wake Up!