What's new

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

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.

You fight with what you have, not what you wish you did. In the absence of a bomber one would have to make do with thermometric bombs, PGM's, and stand-off long range missiles.

A bomber, or cargo a/c converted into one, can only be used in very specific scenarios, where SEAD/DEAD has been achieved. On top of that, accuracy will be a major issue. Hence why Air Forces that can afford bombers prefer Long Range Strike Platforms.
 
You fight with what you have, not what you wish you did. In the absence of a bomber one would have to make do with thermometric bombs, PGM's, and stand-off long range missiles.

A bomber, or cargo a/c converted into one, can only be used in very specific scenarios, where SEAD/DEAD has been achieved. On top of that, accuracy will be a major issue. Hence why Air Forces that can afford bombers prefer Long Range Strike Platforms.

Right, wait for that post. I'll take me sweet time to post it.
 
I am almost inclined to respond to every single post which doesn't take into account my entire painstaking explanation with: BombedOstrich
With the exception super powers like USA , Russia and China, do you know how many countries have a dedicated bomber fleet? the answer is big NO they all prefer long range strike than dedicated bombers
 
A question was asked about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Namely, why did that war not confined to the borders since Iraq did not have heavy bombers.

Modern strategic warfare was made possible with the advent of air power. Sure, in the past, as in the swords and spears days, spies can poison the enemy king or some measure of economic warfare can be done. But those methods belongs to the political realm and results can be uncertain. Air power belongs to the military realm and results are immediately felt by the enemy.

So what happened in the Iraq-Kuwait War ? How did Iraq conquered Kuwait despite having no methods of strategic warfare ?

- Air Dominance. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces into subordinate postures.

- Air Superiority. The ability of an air force to achieve control of contested airspace, repeatedly if necessary, and if there are any losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to this ability.

- Air Supremacy. He flies, he dies.

Air power in the Iraq-Kuwait War was focused on Air Superiority.

The airspace over your ground forces is always contested. The enemy want it in order to rain down destruction on your ground army. Therefore, the first goal for your air force is to secure that airspace over your ground army.

A high level explanation...

The Kuwait Air Force did not posed much of a threat to the Iraqi military, ground and air forces, so it was not difficult for the Iraqi Air Force to provide air superiority cover for the Iraqi Army. Without strategic air capability, essentially, Iraq conquered Kuwait the old fashioned swords and spears way: Walked towards the conquest of Kuwait upon a chain of tactical victories.
 
If you are going to come up with that F-35/F22 networked with a cargo a/c - Don't.

Awww you underestimate me Sir. Hopefully it will be more original than that, but if @gambit keeps going on with his explanations, I might not have much to add very soon.

@gambit, you deserve 10 positive ratings! My future posts will try to operationalize much of the wisdom you are imparting. I hope I will succeed in this mission.

With the exception super powers like USA , Russia and China, do you know how many countries have a dedicated bomber fleet? the answer is big NO they all prefer long range strike than dedicated bombers

Prove this with facts, figures, and numbers. And, take into account all of my points. How many countries don't have transport aircraft that can be converted to bombers as and when needed? Where is the objective proof that they 'prefer long range strike than dedicated bombers'?
 
Hi,

Thank you very much for your comments---. Sir---maybe you lack in understanding english---and maybe Mark Twain is a tad bot beyond you---.

Neither had I addressed you prior before my post regarding this discussion---nor my comments were directed at you regarding the strike options---.

You chose to get into the discussion by coming up with ' stupid ' comments---. The Sheikh maybe a big thing in pakistan---but here in the U S---it don't mean didley sh-it---.

You want to tackle me---post something tactical--- .

Well flanked! :-)

Nothing to do with "opinion or semantics," very tangible results, how far from Kemari or Maripur were the bombs dropped? From what I had seen, very bad performance by IAF and certainly not collateral damage.

@Windjammer @war&peace @User @MastanKhan or someone more knowledgeable, could shed more light on this particular angle of the '65 war.
Not bombs but rocket and strafing attack, read the fourth from last paragraph in the attached AC Kaiser Tufail's article, hope its what your looking for.
http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/2010/12/air-defence-in-southern-sector-1971-war.html
 
Waiting for @MastanKhan proclaiming defeat to the Banya. Myself, I shall charge on Insha Allah.

Hi,

You have to have SUBSTANCE to charge on the ' baniya '---but you have not shown any yet---.

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?

About time for your detailed response.
 
Last edited:
And ask both Russian and American why they developed and still developing bombers.

1- Because they can achieve Aerial Dominance not just Air Superiority against their opponents (am not saying against each other)

2- Because of their Geographical requirement (Global & Regional Response to Crises & Threats)
 
Last edited:
Ordnance was used on strategic targets (i.e Kemari) and Naval ships, don't know why bombs in particular is of importance here (I'm probably missing the point), below are two links that might be helpful, they lay out war activities in 71 in an around Karachi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trident_(1971)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Python
Yes, you are missing the point. The IAF had a miserable time targeting Maripur, would drop any where they could, and run back. This I know from people who lost their loved ones, including a senior member on the forum.
 
Read my second post even Russia has dedicated bombers and still making another one.
Bhai russia china and usa have bombers as their main adversaries ar on other side of glob .. no fighter aircraft of usa can come to attack russia from usa ... sso if usa unable to keep a carrier within striking range of russia and china they cant attack witbout a bomber which can cover long distances ...
 
Yes, you are missing the point. The IAF had a miserable time targeting Maripur, would drop any where they could, and run back. This I know from people who lost their loved ones, including a senior member on the forum.
Actually I would love to know what the point is. Was there loss of civilian life as a result of IAF and Indian Navy targeting strategic targets like Mauripur base , Kemari, the port etc. I would say probably yes as you are confirming to me. The same thing was happening when we were targeting their bases and strategic targets, collateral damage. I do know for sure that both air forces were not intentionally dropping bombs over cities blitzkreig style like the Germans and the British did to each other during WWII. Was the target a military base or a strategic supply source yes, was their ordnance that missed its original intended mark, yes, happened on both sides.
 
Last edited:

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom