A single article from the telegraph isnt enough to support what you are proposing. The opening days of OEF were all precision strikes. When unguided munitions were used for effect, it was to support the offensives of the NA. If the large bomb runs are going to remove an entrenched enemy, then similar effects can be done by a 4 ship formation which can carry the equivalent bomb load and provide the same effect over the area.
The effectiveness of USAF bombers was not in the ability to unleash the large number of munitions but rather the long loiter time they provided.
Visuals seem impressive - battle damage assesment is not.
Compare a JDAM strike in Afhgnaistan from B-52s. Precise and exactly where the enemy is.
Versus a standard carpet bombing run.
Both look awesome, but only one really achieved exacting results.
The same can be achieved by a flight of 4 F-16s for the guided munitions or 4 x mirages(PAF has tested the F-16 loadout for 12 Mk-82s.. so theoreticaly a four ship could carry out the required effect of the unguided B-52 load.
Lets go further into costs (something that somehow escapes all new and "senior" members in their ideas), because that is where we tend to favour larger aircraft.
An average B-52 sortie costs around $70000 per hour to operate.. that is less the weapons which will run the cost to anywhere between $60000 for the unguided carpet bombing using 500lb MK 82s (51 bombs @ $1250 each) using to $768000 for the guided munitions(each 2000lb Jdam is around $48000, 16 bombs). Assuming a sortie of 1 hour.. the cost can be $130000 for unguided as average to $838000 for guided.
A similar F-16 sortie is around $22000 per hour, 12 Mk.82s are $15000 , 4 JDAMs are $192000.
Mission costs for a flight of 4 F-16s range from $148000 to $856000 for guided.
Based on that metric, the F-16 is an expensive option to utilize for the mission you suggest. However, we are ignoring that the carpet bombing mission is the only mission the PAF has to fly. The F-16s would be able to on the same mission defend themselves from both air to air and air to ground threats and still be able to complete the mission in case one of them goes down. the F-16s can be retasked, split and can continue to use their cannon to deter troops once the bombs are delivered. The B-52 can loiter overhead , provide bombing support to one AoR; but cannot do beyond that.
Finally, besides being a bomb truck for what is one single scenario, the B-52 adds up as a liability to the PAF in all other operational scenarios which make up the greater aspect of its operational tempo. All this while we are assuming that the B-52 is for sale as a point of argument.
Realistically, the heaviest aircraft that the PAF can purchase is the J-16 which when added with weapons and training alone with the increased operating costs add up to a impractical budget for the already thrify PAF.
So what then would be the costs to the PAF if it decides to purchase a heavy aircraft to carry out this carpet bombing? Even a heavy strike fighter like many factless folk here promote requires estimation of costs and not just blind wish-upon-a-star ideas that any child from the 5th grade can think of.
With an estimated budget of $2 billion next year, where will the PAF be best utilizing its money? These are the questions that plague the Air Planning Staff that also thinks of various scenarios the exist and those that could develop in the next ten years(as last years actions and this years actions will have the effect ten years later and also in anything that happens within the next 6 months).
Now lets focus on the scenario itself. The Afghan Army is currently a dysfunctional force with very little coordination in anything beyond groups of 2000 men. These men are generally basic troops that are sufferring from poor maintenance in equipment and lack of cohesive training and command.
The recent border clashes are a simple indication that they lack any basic will to stand up anything that can penetrate their usual "hide behind a rock" tactics. On their terrian, they are effective because they know it. Anything outside of it they are incapable of mounting effective offensive operations.
Lets assume the unlikely scenario that they are able to muster 10000 troops without our intelligence sources catching it. These 10000 troops and men who are on the move towards the front in differrent formations that are spread out over a large area. One fallacy you make is thinking that to stop the advance or halt the enemy's plans; all 10000 need to be killed. That is not the case and never has been the case in modern warfare. What is important is that percentage is killed or vehicles destroyed that limits the morale and mobilty of the enemy. So even 800 troops and 50 vehicles taken out can have a disorienting and even defeating effect on such a offensive. These are similar ideas to those developed for AirLand Battle in the 1980s and still apply today.
Clearly one large aircraft cannot cover the required ground on its own even with effective UAV coverage as it will have to make multiple passes to cover each avenue of attack even with smart munitions.
Multiple smaller aircraft can however, use smart munitions to cover the various axis and hit key targets that serve as wrenches within an advance. These aircraft can also return, refuel and rearm in a much shorter time than a larger aircraft to provide effective support again. Hence generating a greater number of sorties and providing a similar effect that a large aircraft may provide.
1. They carry big ECM equipment but against a modern ADGE they dont stand a chance.
2. Stand off from where? Land where.. think in terms of Pakistan and not the USAF.
3. The MALD is also used by US fighters, they all need it against the modern Air Defence systems during the opening act. Please see the budgetary allocations for such decoys.
Im surprised how inherintly blind most people are to costs.
or JF-17 lover hit me back let me say some about this bird. JF-17 is blessing for Pakistan
