What's new

Why A Medium / Heavy Strike Aircraft For Defense of Pakistan?

And your assumption is based on what? Your hatred for Pakistan?

STOP trolling and get lost .


Thermobaric bombs, to some extent, can replace carpet bombing.

Because that is what seems to be available to the PAF, if a precision weapon
is to be deployed at 250km range.
I would be surprised if more than a few hundreds were built.
Feel free to point out what else could be used.
 
The same message was conveyed with precise bombing as well in 2001. The B-52s were effective in "carpet" bombing because they used 2000lb JDAMs to draw a line on enemy fronts. We achieved the same load with sorties of 4 F-16s. There is greater psychological impact of a large bomb dropping accurately on an enemy than many all over the place.

On the subject, have summaried the cost that it takes to operate an aircraft like that?

Carpet bombing is also pretty ineffective against a Modern Army; so your suggestion would mean a sitting duck with the PAF in anything else other than Taliban incursions from the west. These incursion have already reduced and have been put under check. Which means that for now, there is no need for the psychological trump card you are suggesting.



Carpet bombing achieves squat against a tank battalion in most cases. The same can be achieved via a flight of aircraft carrying multiple small guided bombs like the GB-39. The other option is are smart anti armour clusters like the CBU-105 that India has. Those are going to devestate Pakistani armour like no one's business.
maybe i should have mentioned that the carpet bombing would be done not by bombs but by long range ir guided air to surface missiles which china has.
i recall a moment where you said your agm-65's are getting old now, some brimstone missiles would go nicely on the f16 or even the brimstone 2.

have you heard of the the spear 3. thats something pakistan can do on its own. its basically an air launched anti tank missile but instead of having a solid rocket motor it has a turbofan/jet engine. giving it a range of 100+km this would mean you dont even need to go into indian air space to take down tanks bunkers or possibly radar sites

when did india get cbu 105 and does pakistan not have any cluster munitions? im sure you guys do to, its not like you sit there twilling your thumbs doing nothing.

wait what.......you make your own!
hijara
2lsjj9j.jpg


in regards for medium strike aircraft your looking at the su-34/32 being a good realistic option but emphasis on the term realistic.
 
Hi Sir G,,, I agree with all of your statements about F16 and modern fighters of India ... I also agree that F16 and JF17 are not a complete answere to what India have ... But I would disagree with you on JF17 and not because of fan boy type of stuff but due to reality check ...

Sir all air force of the world have a mix of fighters from air superiority, interceptor, SEAD missions, attack etc etc ... Havign resource constraints air forces can keep only a certain no of tope end fighters (which in our case sadly just f16) ...

JF17 role is not to enter enemy air space and made a havoc in it ... its role is to defend our own air space for which we were required to have a low cost fighter having all the modern goodies and which we can control in terms of development ... JF17 has all those capabilities ... Now consider without jf17 you were putting F7s, mirrages against mig 29, mirrage 2000 and mki ... but now jf17 is way up in comparison to the legacy platforms ... flying within Pakistan you have support from ground radars, awacs, netcentric envirnment, SAM and lot of other benefits ... with all these benefits jf17 can face even MKI ... for example while mki coming towards Pakistan ... jf17 will have good inputs from ground radars and AWACS to engage MKI ...

Just I want to say that don't compare JF17 with typhoon or Rafael ... purpose of JF17 was entierly different ... Do you have any idea how much pressure JF17 must have taken off from F16 in patrolling and anti-terrorism role ... whereas F7 can't do anything other than interception ....

Having said this ,,, JF17 is low cost fighter and money saved from it should be used in procurement of top end fighters ... Actaully we are slightly in development of JF17 ... If we had achieved this program a decade earlier right now we should have been inducting another top end fighter till arrival of fifth generation ... But alaass,, initially there were pressler ammendment and our f16s were blocked ... than sanctions due to nuclear strike and ultimately Mr. Zardari ...

Although I think we should still be having one more top end fighter before moving to fifth generation but I think PAF will skip procurement of another fighter and might move directly to fifth generation ... however, it all depandents on PAF interest in FC-31 ....

Second prototype of FC31 just after finalization of Rafael deal seems like we are moving in that direction as last we all heard that FC31 has stopped as no one is showing interest in it ... but Allah knows the best ...

PAF has doen some mistake ,, but remember it was more back stabbing of USA rather then mistakes of PAF ...

My simple question is Y not???????????(the bold part)
That's the only disagreement of me to !!!!!!!!!!!! or only problem I have with JF-17 !!!!!!! Rest as I said its a blessing for Pakistan.
And You mention FC-31 , again its a MMSA ! its also have limitations. FC-31 cant do what a heavy can ! I am sorry but that's the truth and reality! That does not mean that FC-31 is no capable enough or not a good bird , But u jus cant use a hammer for digging soil ! can u ? u need proper tool for that ! don't U?
If F-35 is every thing then nations around the world will not have Typhone, Raffals , F-15Es++ , F-18 , and for China and Russia SU-35 , 34 , 30 , 27 and Migs and J-10 ,15 , 16 etcs
 
I think Musharrafs intentions were good and it was either a case of holding on to the Afghans or making an enemy of the US. I think where he failed was not to have negotiated harder to get a better deal out of the US. I think he buckled under very quickly. That is a debate in itself and conjecture at best as we dont know the hard facts.
However to call him a traitor is wrong.
A

Why at all are we talking bombers when we can talk missiles and drones? What have we developed them for? The days of the bomber are gone and unless you can have air superiority it is an expensive venture for very little gain.
A

i doubt musharraf could get a better deal in the days after 9/11
it is a bad time to be conducting a negotiation
 
My simple question is thot???????????(the bold part)
That's the only disagreement of me to !!!!!!!!!!!! or only problem I have with JF-17 !!!!!!! Rest as I said its a blessing for Pakistan.
And You mention FC-31 , again its a MMSA ! its also have limitations. FC-31 cant do what a heavy can ! I am sorry but that's the truth and reality! That does not mean that FC-31 is no capable enough or not a good bird , But u jus cant use a hammer for digging soil ! can u ? u need proper tool for that ! don't U?
If F-35 is every thing then nations around the world will not have Typhone, Raffals , F-15Es++ , F-18 , and for China and Russia SU-35 , 34 , 30 , 27 and Migs and J-10 ,15 , 16 etcs
J-10C/D with some trickle of 5th Gen tech would be a good replacement for our ROSE Mirages and with single engine it would be more economical to operate.
 
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.

Sir, I stand corrected. There is no such thing as a short, powerful, shock and awe bombing that will defeat a determined enemy. And let's be honest, we need to respect the enemy otherwise we sign our own death warrant.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3003_pp161-176.pdf

At Bai Beche on November 5, for example, a mostly al-Qaida defensive force occupied an old, formerly Soviet system of deliberate entrenchments. With proper cover and concealment, the defenders were able to prevent U.S. commandos
from locating individual ªghting positions for precision attack. Instead, the SOF commander ordered more than two days of carpet bombing across the extent of the defenses. Dostum’s Northern Alliance cavalry was then ordered to assault the defenses. Yet enough defenders survived the bombing to drive back this initial attempt. Observing the setback, U.S. SOF began calling renewed air strikes in anticipation of a second assault. In the process, a SOF warning order to the cavalry to prepare for another push was mistaken as a command to launch the assault, with the result that the cavalry
began its attack much sooner than intended. The surprised commandos watched the Afghan cavalry begin their advance just as a series of 500-pound bombs had been released from U.S. aircraft in response to the SOF calls for air
support. The SOF commander reported that he was convinced they had just caused a friendly ªre incident: the bomb release and the cavalry advance were much too close together for ofªcial doctrinal limits, and the air strike would
never have been ordered if the SOF had known that the cavalry was then jumping off for the second assault. As it happened, the bombs landed just seconds before the cavalry arrived. In fact, the cavalry galloped through the enormous cloud of smoke and dust that was still hanging in the air after the explosions, emerging behind the enemy defenses before their garrison knew what was happening. The defenders, seeing Northern Alliance cavalry to their
rear, abandoned their positions in an attempt to avoid encirclement. The victory at Bai Beche turned the tide in the north and led directly to the fall of Mazar-e-Sharif. But the battle involved serious close combat (attackers overrunning prepared, actively resisting defenses), and the outcome was a close call. The assault proªted from an extremely tight integration of movement with suppressive fire—far tighter than the cavalry’s skills could normally provide (indeed, far tighter than even U.S. troops would normally attempt).

...

The Afghan campaign thus shows evidence of several important combinations of ground force skill. When the United States’ indigenous allies faced unskilled opponents, as they did at Bishqab, Cobaki, Zard Kammar, and
Ac’capruk, the Afghan model annihilated the defenses at standoff range and obviated the need for meaningful close combat. Without the need to advance against ªre, the skills of the allied ground forces were irrelevant and outcomes
were one sided. But when U.S. allies faced better-skilled, less-exposed al-Qaida opponents, as at Bai Beche, Konduz, Highway 4, Sayed Slim Kalay, and Anaconda, precision strikes were insuffcient to destroy the enemy at standoff
range, and close combat was needed. Where friendly ground forces were better skilled than their opponents, asWestern infantry were in Anaconda, this close combat was one sided. Where friendly ground forces were not superior but nevertheless proved able to reduce their exposure and combine movement with suppressive ªre, as at Bai Beche and Highway 4, the results were closer calls but ultimately went the United States’ way, even when U.S. allies were outnumbered. But where friendly ground forces lacked their enemies’ skills, as at Arghestan Bridge and Zia’s assault at Anaconda, the result was failure— despite U.S. precision firepower.


NOTE: For this link, you will have to do a free registration.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20033168

WAR OF WORDS

Among the most important questions, however, is the new strategy's efficacy against the mid-size rogue states it was designed to defeat, such as Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. Before the Kosovo war, Clinton administration defense planners certainly believed in coercion on the cheap: they assumed a mere week or two of bombing would bring Slobodan Milosevic to his knees. The NATO victory took more than two months but still seemed to vindicate the new mantra. Indeed, that coercive air power alone can win wars at minimal cost has become conventional wisdom for many commentators.

For most of its 78 days of bombing, however, NATO was much less certain. As Benjamin Lambeth's lucid narrative reminds us, the received view at the time was that NATO was in real danger of losing the war. In fact, Milosevic's ultimate concession surprised many in the alliance, producing audible sighs of relif from Washington to Ankara.
 
My simple question is Y not???????????(the bold part)
That's the only disagreement of me to !!!!!!!!!!!! or only problem I have with JF-17 !!!!!!! Rest as I said its a blessing for Pakistan.
And You mention FC-31 , again its a MMSA ! its also have limitations. FC-31 cant do what a heavy can ! I am sorry but that's the truth and reality! That does not mean that FC-31 is no capable enough or not a good bird , But u jus cant use a hammer for digging soil ! can u ? u need proper tool for that ! don't U?
If F-35 is every thing then nations around the world will not have Typhone, Raffals , F-15Es++ , F-18 , and for China and Russia SU-35 , 34 , 30 , 27 and Migs and J-10 ,15 , 16 etcs

Sir that would be a different platform with different role ... normally air superiority of top end fighters are few in numbers ... have the best goodies as they are expensive ... let say we have to get 3 squadrons of such aircraft like max 55 ... it would not justify cost of research and we will be better off by purchasing off the shelf solution ... remember your work horse has to be effecient more but effective in its area whereas your shiny star must be effective in any scenario ... so jf17 is our workforce ... in our own air space with all supportive assetz like geound radar it will be capable of facing mki if not rafael as it will have support from sam ground radar terrain awacs etc etc whereas for attack on enemy air space we definitly need heavy / medium advance platform .. however as no required are less so we cant manufacture it at home as it can cost us even more than raptor ... remember in fighter cost of development is much much higher than variable manufacturing cost ....

Sir from strategic point concept of jf17 is marvellous for pakistan however its performance in actual battle is yet to be seen ...

Having said above we definitly need an air superiority fighter and we need it quick
 
i doubt musharraf could get a better deal in the days after 9/11
it is a bad time to be conducting a negotiation
Dealing with the US would have needed tact and delaying tactics. Timing was of the essence to them. They had a window and needed the infrastructure that they wanted in Pakistan. Without it war would have become somewhat more complicated and expensive. If Bush had turned to hard tactics the mess in the subcontinent would have been immense.
Musharrafs position as a dictator put him at an extreme disadvantage and I suspect this was why he was put in place and this was why he could not negotiate hard enough. Someone like Zia with a bit more guts and experience would have been a much more difficult proposition for them.
At the end of the day as I keep saying this is my opinion about the situation.
A
 
Dealing with the US would have needed tact and delaying tactics. Timing was of the essence to them. They had a window and needed the infrastructure that they wanted in Pakistan. Without it war would have become somewhat more complicated and expensive. If Bush had turned to hard tactics the mess in the subcontinent would have been immense.
Musharrafs position as a dictator put him at an extreme disadvantage and I suspect this was why he was put in place and this was why he could not negotiate hard enough. Someone like Zia with a bit more guts and experience would have been a much more difficult proposition for them.
At the end of the day as I keep saying this is my opinion about the situation.
A

Your leverage is limited when your economy is in doldrums, you are under sanctions and you refused previous entreaties by America to do something about terrorism
 
Thanks for that detailed response. So, in order to remove any last doubts in your mind that I am building up towards B-52 let me ask: do you mind giving the cost breakdown in the above scenario if we use our C-130 as a bomb truck?

@Oscar

The second post you have quoted is just explaining the capabilities of the B-52 because the other poster thinks such a large bomber cannot avoid radars. Yes, there is a cost but that's not the point.

Yes, the C-130 could be used as an effective bomber but they are better suited to act as round the clock attackers rather than carpet bombers. What you are forgetting is that the soviets tried the same tactics of carpet bombing against the Muj back in the 80s.

Its effect is better against civilian populations as a demoralizing effect, but on the front lines against a determined enemy it does not work.

wait what.......you make your own!
hijara
2lsjj9j.jpg


in regards for medium strike aircraft your looking at the su-34/32 being a good realistic option but emphasis on the term realistic.

The Hijara is nothing more than a local version of 1960's vintage CBU-55 with shaped charges put into it.
 
You have answered yourself ... Air superiority was never in doctrine of PAF and thats the reason we never invested in dual engine or heaver platform ... Our doctrine is Air defence and area denial ... Bombers no where fits in that doctrine ... Thats why a short leged light weight fighter JF-17 is being given so much importance by providing all the latest goodies ... whereas low turn around time kept intact ...

Wiki:- "The best defense is a good offense" is an adage that has been applied to many fields of endeavor, including games and military combat. It is also known as the Strategic Offensive principle of war.

That's why we need to develop offence capabilities to ensure the enemy is always defending and the war is kept on their territory.
 
Wiki:- "The best defense is a good offense" is an adage that has been applied to many fields of endeavor, including games and military combat. It is also known as the Strategic Offensive principle of war.

That's why we need to develop offence capabilities to ensure the enemy is always defending and the war is kept on their territory.

Wiki - "a publicly editable encyclopedia"

How it looks with many of the members here
C1LFn4mWgAEKQVm.jpg:large
 
Wiki - "a publicly editable encyclopedia"

How it looks with many of the members here
C1LFn4mWgAEKQVm.jpg:large
Smug pilots were once regular passengers like us! Demands of the airlines by the passengers determine where and if the airlines fly.
 
Wiki:- "The best defense is a good offense" is an adage that has been applied to many fields of endeavor, including games and military combat. It is also known as the Strategic Offensive principle of war.

That's why we need to develop offence capabilities to ensure the enemy is always defending and the war is kept on their territory.

Brother ... bhai tu kero na offense kis ny mana kya ha ... Sir unlike fan boy stuff war planning is different ... it is always mix of defense and offence ... First step is to always to defense your border and then send an offensive force ...
 
Smug pilots were once regular passengers like us! Demands of the airlines by the passengers determine where and if the airlines fly.
Incorrect logic. The passengers tell the airline where they want to go, the pilots fly them there. Untrained passengers who have zero idea what they are doing most of the time and cannot fly the place will never make it to the destination.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom