What's new

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

bombers are good as long as they fit in ur doctrine.
Today's heavy fighters like SU35 can do the same job with finesse as they can defend themselves and being supersonic they can complete the mission in less time...so no need to buy junk...USA has them because we made but no other country has bought those ...all are interested in fighters like F16, F15, F35s etc
 
Last edited:
.
Today's heavy fighters like SU35 can do the same job with finesse as they can defend themselves and being supersonic and complete the mission in less time...so no need to buy junk...USA has them because we made but no other country has bought those ...all are interests in fighters like F16, F15 F35s

Read my second post even Russia has dedicated bombers and still making another one.
 
. .
Today's heavy fighters like SU35 can do the same job with finesse as they can defend themselves and being supersonic they can complete the mission in less time...so no need to buy junk...USA has them because we made but no other country has bought those ...all are interested in fighters like F16, F15, F35s etc

You cannot make generalist claims like this. The bombers have their use even against a technologically advanced enemy. You need to know how to actually use them. War is not a black and white game. Many times you plan with a certain level of risk. The correct use of bombers has already been explained on this thread and you will see me incorporating the concept in my scenarios later. I consider the blanket pronouncement 'bombers are history' to be misleading and based on ignorance.
 
.
You cannot make generalist claims like this. The bombers have their use even against a technologically advanced enemy. You need to know how to actually use them. War is not a black and white game. Many times you plan with a certain level of risk. The correct use of bombers has already been explained on this thread and you will see me incorporating the concept in my scenarios later. I consider the blanket pronouncement 'bombers are history' to be misleading and based on ignorance.
We are talking about PAF and does it need dedicated bombers like B-52 and the answer is No,
Neither we have budget nor the need. Heavy fighter like Su35, EFT or JH7, J11, or J-20 can more than adequately fulfil that need.
You are free to think whatever delusions you want to indulge personally, I have no objection but if you quote me than you should come prepared. For example answer the question
What dedicated bomber India has? or plans to buy?..Do not start comparing Pakistan with USA, Russia and China..
 
.
We are talking about PAF and does it need dedicated bombers like B-52 and the answer is No, Neither we have budget nor the need. Heavy fighter like Su35, EFT or JH7, J11, or J-20 can more than adequately fulfil that need.
You are free to think whatever you want..

It's not so much what I think but what you wrote. If you go back (on a mobile so quoting is hard) you are talking about 'all countries' except USA. That's what I mean by generalization. Also terming them as 'junk', etc etc. is just ignorance.
 
.
It's not so much what I think but what you wrote. If you go back (on a mobile so quoting is hard) you are talking about 'all countries' except USA. That's what I mean by generalization. Also terming them as 'junk', etc etc. is just ignorance.
In Pakistan's particular case, those would be junk.. Do you know about their mission profiles?...How different is the flight profile of a bomber from a fighter? How many assets you will need to dedicate for each bomber.? and you still did not reply...which dedicated bomber IAF (3 times larger than PAF) has in her fleet?
 
.
No. 3 about using C-130 is against Afghanistan and any Indian targets of opportunity that present themselves. In later posts I'll expand on the role of C-130 but let's see how I am faring so far.

If C-130 is put aside since its main role is transport, can a few UCAV's do the job?
Probably upgrade Burraq or buy heavier UCAV from China like CH-5.

If it has to be C-130 then probably test UCAV with AAM like Aim-9's to escort it. lets see how that works out.
 
.
In Pakistan's particular case, those would be junk.. Do you know about their mission profiles?...How different is the flight profile of a bomber from a fighter? How many assets you will need to dedicate for each bomber.? and you still did not reply...which dedicated bomber IAF (3 times larger than PAF) has in her fleet?

Detailed response later but every country that has a transport aircraft and the technical ability has a bomber available for use. War is about deception and it suits countries to not list dedicated bombers in their inventory. Do you know what is the largest transport aircraft in Indian Airforce's inventory it's capacity and the latest date of purchase?
 
.
Humanity is a mixed bunch, some of them are artists while others are engineers. Some are naturally gregarious and extroverted while others prefer the solitude that could be classified as introverted behavior. They also come with their fair share of insecurities and social constructs that change from society to society, geography to geography, religion to religion, gender to gender.

Some of us like our fears and anxieties assuaged, so we will sometimes make up stories to get that attention. Some of us like for people to remember us as being more than the mere mortal existence, we inhabit. After all, not all of us are secret agents or information technology, multi billionaires or powerful politicians changing the fates of millions. It is those ordinary people that sometimes in a mixture of craving for attention or masking their own insecurities will invent or imagine events and realities that never exist or have never occurred. One must not confuse knowledge and factual information with opinion. Opinions are built upon information or can be just made up out of thin air. Some opinions are frivolous and prone to being changed easily due to a person not giving it too much weight. Others tend to hold onto their opinions with the much more ferocity, regardless of how nonfactual and illogical they might be.

A more common term for such ideas is nonsense. Previously, the only way for such ideas to propagate used to be drawing room discussions, tabloid columns or the trashy television show. The Internet, however, has changed the rate at which nonsense propagates and infects humans.

The year is 2001 and I am waiting on the teacher at my Cambridge Education Board school (Where the majority of the elite and middle class in Pakistan in the larger cities prefer to send their children) for Pakistan History to arrive and begin her verbatim recitation of the Cambridge assigned textbook that is supposed to teach our nubile minds on Pakistani history. This day was different, it was September the 12th 2001. As if by some odd sense of irony, the night before I was flying a Bell 204 Jetranger on Microsoft flight simulator 98 – a true classic, and had tried several landings on the 2nd tower of the WTC which had the helipad when CNN broke the news. I watched in silence till the early AMs of Pakistan standard time and went to sleep thinking Who would do it? Why would they do it? How airliners could be flown in so tightly in between buildings without trained pilot at the helm? Where was the USAF in intercepting these aircraft? Surely the New York and Washington Air National Guard would respond as it is standard practice to have a ten minute alert and so on and on….

Now, I failed to mention that I was obsessed with aviation as a child which is why my glasses were an unfortunate event in my life. That still did not keep me from buying every other book and magazine on aircraft and other defense matters from the various thrift book stores that line Islamabad and Karachi since the age of 10. So why the age of 14 I was quite well versed in topics much different than the usual occupations of boys that age.

Back in class, our teacher whose existence I detested with all my heart arrived in class looking more ashen faced than usual. In a rather callous manner I presumed that someone in her family had died. “Did you know what happened?!, The Americans will take revenge, my cousin told me that they have oxygen eating missiles that will asphyxiate all of us in 30 minutes” and then she burst into sobs. Most of the class looked bewildered and some of the more emotional sassy girls also decided to cry because it was important to score points and why not?

My mind however, drifted onto thermobaric warheads and the ridiculousness of her assumption since neither the Minutemen Series or Trident was equipped with them as they employed thermonuclear warheads which wont asphyxiate us as much as fry us or blind us. Furthermore, strategic ballistic missiles in general were not equipped with conventional warheads; so where did this woman who I already considered a stupid sass pick up this nonsense?

What did become clear to me at that age was that people in Pakistan will believe anything that their cousin, uncle or shopkeeper tells them. They don’t seem to want to verify anything with at least a few other sources; if it is what they want to believe or they don’t want to believe then nothing can change their mind.

What is it that is the Pakistani mind that it decides to accept hearsay and unverifiable information as factual and and believes it to an extent that it surpasses their own religious beliefs. As I would grow older I would realize this is not a Pakistan specific condition, but it extends across the human race. The majority of humanity is generally lazy and prefer willful ignorance to the verification of any information that they gather via all of their senses.
@Horus Why I know too much

@CriticalThought why I emphasize a LOT, a LOT of reading from multiple sources
Well put sir. That's why reading helps you to know different perspectives and brings depth in your discussions and helps you to have much refined thought process.
 
Last edited:
. .
Saturation bombing, aka 'carpet bombing', is for when there is a need for indiscriminate destruction inside a defined area.

That is -- indiscriminate INSIDE an area.

Saturation bombing a la B-52 is not as mindless as some people would like to believe and often they will bring up WW II or the Vietnam War to illustrate. In some ways, they are correct, but in other ways, incorrect.

Indiscriminate bombing is wasteful, even during WW II when the resources of the nation were mobilized to the war effort. But in WW II, technology were not available to reduce the CEP of each 'dumb' gravity bomb, so bombardiers and pilots did the best they could to do what have always been the goal -- indiscriminate destruction inside a defined area.

When, in the course of an air campaign, is there such a need and when will that area be available ?

- If you need precision bombing capable fighter-bombers elsewhere. In this case, if the target is high enough of a priority, saturation bombing will be needed, assuming you have that capability like the US does.

- If the target is far away enough from non-combatants. In this case, saturation bombing saves time and resources.

We are moving away from WW II where saturation bombing was used to break the will of a people along with means to wage a war.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

nVkAsuF.png


This was just one of many types of leaflets dropped on Japanese cities warning of impending destruction.

We do not want to return to those days.

Saturation bombing do have its place in the methods of air warfare, whether it is for tactical or strategic goals.

Saturation bombing at the tactical level immediately deny the enemy of vital front line resources, most vital of all is land. The destruction of land surfaces deny the use of tanks, artillery and rocket emplacements, troop movements, and even entrapment of large concentration of ground forces. Imagine a river at your back while the ground in front of you is afire.

Saturation bombing at the strategic level deny the enemy his own means to wage war and has political motivation and consequences.

Warfare has two main types: Tactical and Strategic.

Tactical warfare is for when the two sides wishes to fight to a stalemate. Armies either do not violate borders or trespass only into short distances. Air forces conducts quick deep strikes but the bulk of their sorties are for front line battles. Basically, the two sides want to demonstrate their resolves to each other into mutual withdrawal to their respective borders.

Strategic warfare is for when both sides absolutely seeks to subjugate each other. It is not enough that the army is destroyed on the front lines, its support at home must be broken as well. Occupation often follows such defeat. The defeated government is either removed and replaced or removed completely and the country is somehow possessed.

Strategic saturation bombing accelerate the strategic defeat of the enemy. It may sound strange, but saturation bombing today can be precise, or more precise than its WW II predecessor. There is no need to destroy a city, but deny that city electricity, food, and water maybe enough to induce into the government the desire for surrender.

Fighter-bombers are the air weapons of choice for countries that must import their defense. Because of this, wars between countries will lean more towards the tactical type. An example is the Iraq-Iran War. Both sides gained no real advantages over the other simply because neither side can make any strategic damages to the other. The result was the war were confined to the borders.
 
.
Detailed response later but every country that has a transport aircraft and the technical ability has a bomber available for use. War is about deception and it suits countries to not list dedicated bombers in their inventory. Do you know what is the largest transport aircraft in Indian Airforce's inventory it's capacity and the latest date of purchase?
Bombers are useless for Pakistan, we need heavy strike jets like F-15E, Su-34, J-16 or JH-7A,B, largest transport jets for IAF is C-17
In June 2009, the Indian Air Force (IAF) selected the C-17 for its Very Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft requirement to replace several types of transport aircraft.[128][129] In January 2010, India requested 10 C-17s through the U.S.'s Foreign Military Sales program,[130] the sale was approved by Congress in June 2010.[131] On 23 June 2010, the Indian Air Force successfully test-landed a USAF C-17 at the Gaggal Airport, India to complete the IAF's C-17 trials.[132] In February 2011, the IAF and Boeing agreed terms for the order of 10 C-17s[133] with an option for six more; the US$4.1 billion order was approved by the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security on 6 June 2011.[134][135] Deliveries began in June 2013 and are to continue until 2014.
Specifications:


General characteristics



Performance


  • Cruise speed: Mach 0.74 (450 knots, 515 mph (829 km/h))
  • Range: 2,420 nmi[194] (2,785 mi (4,482 km)) ; 5,610 nmi (10,390 km) with paratroopers
  • Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
  • Max. wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
  • Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
  • Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,300 m)[194]
  • Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,100 m)
 
.
Bombers are useless for Pakistan, we need heavy strike jets like F-15E, Su-34, J-16 or JH-7A,B, largest transport jets for IAF is C-17
In June 2009, the Indian Air Force (IAF) selected the C-17 for its Very Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft requirement to replace several types of transport aircraft.[128][129] In January 2010, India requested 10 C-17s through the U.S.'s Foreign Military Sales program,[130] the sale was approved by Congress in June 2010.[131] On 23 June 2010, the Indian Air Force successfully test-landed a USAF C-17 at the Gaggal Airport, India to complete the IAF's C-17 trials.[132] In February 2011, the IAF and Boeing agreed terms for the order of 10 C-17s[133] with an option for six more; the US$4.1 billion order was approved by the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security on 6 June 2011.[134][135] Deliveries began in June 2013 and are to continue until 2014.
Specifications:


General characteristics



Performance


  • Cruise speed: Mach 0.74 (450 knots, 515 mph (829 km/h))
  • Range: 2,420 nmi[194] (2,785 mi (4,482 km)) ; 5,610 nmi (10,390 km) with paratroopers
  • Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
  • Max. wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
  • Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
  • Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,300 m)[194]
  • Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,100 m)

Thank you. Now combine that knowledge with this

https://fas.org/man/eprint/benson.htm

https://warisboring.com/the-unusual-history-of-transport-bomber-planes-2ce280fbb546#.beskpqutt

With a payload of 77520 kg, the fact that just because of their quantitative advantage Indians can claim air superiority, tell me what would happen if even one of these giants was converted to the role of bomber? They ordered 10 and can order 6 more. Is this enough to open the eyes of everyone on this thread? If not, then well... I wonder what would come up if I did a giphy on BombedOstriches.

Waiting for @MastanKhan proclaiming defeat to the Banya. Myself, I shall charge on Insha Allah.
 
.
Thank you. Now combine that knowledge with this

https://fas.org/man/eprint/benson.htm

https://warisboring.com/the-unusual-history-of-transport-bomber-planes-2ce280fbb546#.beskpqutt

With a payload of 77520 kg, the fact that just because of their quantitative advantage Indians can claim air superiority, tell me what would happen if even one of these giants was converted to the role of bomber? They ordered 10 and can order 6 more. Is this enough to open the eyes of everyone on this thread? If not, then well... I wonder what would come up if I did a giphy on BombedOstriches.

Waiting for @MastanKhan proclaiming defeat to the Banya. Myself, I shall charge on Insha Allah.
C-17 can't converted into a bomber if they does it will be easy target for our SAMS and BVRAAM
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom