PAF Long Range Capabilities

[Edevelop]

Its not impossible. It would require AWACS, Air Refuelling Tankers, Cruise Missiles, and F-16s, which the PAF already possess.

There is a rather more effective way to arrive at the 'long range capability'. Fire Shaheen 1A, Shaheen II, Ghauri II, and Tipu ? Missiles...

 

[Nishan_101]

For long range attack we have many missiles of different ranges and for reconnaissance we will INSHA ALLAH have Satellites for that.

 

[Armstrong]

Its not impossible. It would require AWACS, Air Refuelling Tankers, Cruise Missiles, and F-16s, which the PAF already possess.

There is a rather more effective way to arrive at the 'long range capability'. Fire Shaheen 1A, Shaheen II, Ghauri II, and Tipu ? Missiles...

Buttt Sahib tumm Kashmiriyooon neiii pichlei 65 saaal seh hamein Kashmir mein phasayaa howaa haiii...abbb Israel seh bhi lariiii moool lo !

 

[Edevelop]

Buttt Sahib tumm Kashmiriyooon neiii pichlei 65 saaal seh hamein Kashmir mein phasayaa howaa haiii...abbb Israel seh bhi lariiii moool lo !

o yaara mainay to nahi Israel ka thread kola. Bas wasayhee kuch hakikat batarahan hun !
wasay be Buttt nam lanay kay baad kuch kanay ka dil karta hain. Ajj nahi to kal hum khud atmi bumb ka salan banalay gayy.

 

[Armstrong]

o yaara mainay to nahi Israel ka thread kola. Bas wasayhee kuch hakikat batarahan hun !
wasay be Buttt nam lanay kay baad kuch kanay ka dil karta hain. Ajj nahi to kal hum khud atmi bumb ka salan banalay gayy.

lo kar lo baaat !

Waisee I've also heard a theory floating about that both Kashmiris & Pukhtoons are of semitic descent & if thats true tooo phir tou Netanyaho teraaa aur meraaa koi 10th cousin twic removed lagaaaa !

 

[Edevelop]

lo kar lo baaat !

Waisee I've also heard a theory floating about that both Kashmiris & Pukhtoons are of semitic descent & if thats true tooo phir tou Netanyaho teraaa aur meraaa koi 10th cousin twic removed lagaaaa !

wasay Buttt, kabi Netanyaho say be pooch na chaya hain kay wo or Irani aik loog hoh saktay hain. They both have Jewish people....

 

[Anotherangle]

Plans exist.. Almost implemented in the late 90's. If Israel would have hit our nuclear installations.

Looking at Israel's air defense systems, any attack by any Muslim country with hardware they have and capabilities they have demonstrated so far is bound to meet a disaster. Avoid adventures! We have not been proven good planners in documented history.

 

[Najam Khan]

Looking at the present set of internal and external threats faced by Pakistan, an attack on Isreal or ISAF/US forces in Afghanistan would be he last option in Pakistan's wishlist. Such adventure from any country (whether its Iran vs Isreal/US, Pak vs Isreal or India vs Pak) will result in a catastrophic aftermath everywhere.

 

[surya kiran]

Realistically, if you want to bomb Israel, one would need to fly over either SA, Syria or Jordan. This would also mean these countries are complicit, which would trigger an Israeli retaliation.

The element of surprise though can be achieved if you flew over the Red Sea and approach over the Med. Most SAMs, (assumption) would be pointed towards the Northern and Eastern borders. But, this would also mean you need a refuelling tanker over the Gulf of Aden on the way in and one for on the way out.

Or you enter the Red Sea with modified choppers hidden in a cargo vessel. The choppers launch at the closest point of contact.

 

[LeGenD]

PAF currently possesses assets to carry out offensive missions but their are some issues:

1. To attack Israel, Pakistan will need to seek permission from several countries that are situated between these two to grant PAF airspace to proceed.
2. US-Israeli relationship factor: USA may alert Israel beforehand about unusual movement of PAF assets towards near Israel. It is possible that Israel itself may pick on this unusual movement and prepare itself.
3. Israeli defensive capabilities should not be underestimated. Even if PAF makes it to Israel safely, their is no guarantee that the mission will succeed. It is possible that PAF may loose all of its assets before doing any critical damage.

In the nutshell, not an advisable/feasible plan. But still a contingency plan for worst case scenarios. Without long-range cruise missiles, chances of success are rather slim.

 

[Armstrong]

Looking at the present set of internal and external threats faced by Pakistan, an attack on Isreal or ISAF/US forces in Afghanistan would be he last option in Pakistan's wishlist. Such adventure from any country (whether its Iran vs Isreal/US, Pak vs Isreal or India vs Pak) will result in a catastrophic aftermath everywhere.

Of course, Khan Sahib ! I'm not sure if anyone was advocating bombing Israel to oblivion but I was curious what those plans were that Oscar mentioned & in response to what particular event in our 65 year history were they formualted !

And, may I ask you a question, specific to the topic, i.e 'PAF Long Range Cabilities' - Are MRBMs & Cruise Missles an able substitute to long-range aircrafts *think the MKIs, the F-15s* ?

 

[LeGenD]

Of course, Khan Sahib ! I'm not sure if anyone was advocating bombing Israel to oblivion but I was curious what those plans were that Oscar mentioned & in response to what particular event in our 65 year history were they formualted !

And, may I ask you a question, specific to the topic, i.e 'PAF Long Range Cabilities' - Are MRBMs & Cruise Missles an able substitute to long-range aircrafts *think the MKIs, the F-15s* ?

Missiles themselves may or may not accomplish objectives. Advanced Israeli ABM systems may neutralize MRBMs effectively. Long-range cruise missiles may pose much greater threat then MRBMs and are the most convenient option for Pakistan in current times, if developed.

 

[Armstrong]

Missiles themselves may or may not accomplish objectives. Advanced Israeli ABM systems may neutralize MRBMs effectively. Long-range cruise missiles may pose much greater threat then MRBMs and are the most convenient option for Pakistan in current times, if developed.

I see no reason why Pakistan cannot develop 'long-range cruise missiles' other than the fact that, as far as my understanding goes, they're not needed as per our current threat-assessment ! Israel doesn't pose an immediate threat to Pakistan nor even an indirect one for that matter; yes they may try to take out our Nuclear Facilities but as far as I've heard both the PA & the PAF have contingencies for such an event in place.

On a side note - Are ABM systems really that effective ? I thought even the Aegis was alleged not to be able to stop the Chinese long-range cruise missile *the one dubbed as the carrier-killer...was it called the DF-31 or something ?*

 

[punit]

Just a thought - If Israel Air Force bombs Iran's nuclear sites. If some how Pakistan gets involved in striking Israel Negev Nuclear Facility?

Does PAF train for long range bombing/strike targets and does it have experience in long range bombing with current aircraft. Can PAF come with a plan using its current fleet of aircrafts.

there are better ways to commit suicide

 

[Najam Khan]

Of course, Khan Sahib ! I'm not sure if anyone was advocating bombing Israel to oblivion but I was curious what those plans were that Oscar mentioned & in response to what particular event in our 65 year history were they formualted !

And, may I ask you a question, specific to the topic, i.e 'PAF Long Range Cabilities' - Are MRBMs & Cruise Missles an able substitute to long-range aircrafts *think the MKIs, the F-15s* ?

Isreal was a threat to Pakistan's nuclear program in the past, they attempted a strike at least three times from late80s to may1998. The counter strike plan developed in these days was subjected to those ongoing events. ( Now don't think that all PAF was going after strike on Isreal, it was just a bunch of guys trained to perform that role IF need arise...which never did and this concept was put to an end.)

Coming to your second question; Just like Iran, Pakistan belives in balancing out the military balance using N-weapons. They know their adversary is far better equipped, and its absolutely no way to balance them out in conventional weapons. But then again comes missile defence shield, it has its pros and cons. It gives wrong perception to its holders that everything is under control and the probability of ballistic missile strike is either minimum or its affects are bearable.

The case of India and Israel vs Pakistan is different; India's doctrine is subjected to short (but intense) war with Pakistan. Israel's case with Pak(not present on radar) or Iran will have more role of LRBM/MRBMs than conventional weapons. Israel knows that its small size is its biggest weakness. One strike from the adversary would mean loss...doesn't matter how much war objectives they meet before or after that strike.

Israeli defence forces has no room for error, they destroyed Lebanon in 2006 but had to bend in front of Hezbollah. They lost just 34 people and there was chaos in their country, how will they sustain a full scale war with a better equipped adversary like Iran?

In a nut shell, against Israel any country (Iran or Pak) that possess MRBMs have a trump card in their arsenal. God forbid, any adventure from both sides would result in complete annihilation of its participants.