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

[Ultima Thule]

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'?

yaar bro we don't have the global ambitions to attack a target 8000 miles from Pakistan go Bro search yourself with the exception of USA, Russia, China no one have dedicate bombers not even UK, France and Germany no one except past example 65 war b/w India and Pakistan and some Arab Israeli wars, and not to forget our eastern front has a extensive coverage of radar and SAMS and dedicated bomber needs escorts or before bombers come in to play its may need extensively clearing of enemy's air defense fighters so we don't need a dedicated bombers but certainly Srike planes like F111,Su-24, F-15E, Su-34, F/A-18, J-16 and JH-7A,B which can defend itself from the enemy, hope you understand bro

 

[The Accountant]

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/

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.

Sir very well written ... lets put the information above in the scenario of india pak war ... india pak war had always been more tactical but given the passing time chances of strategic war has increased so in this situation do pakistan require a strategic bomber ? And if yes how would it be effective when adversary can track it the moment it take off and whatever mission we are proceeding, enemy fighter aircrafts can reach at that position at the same time .. ideally big air craft like this can be targetted from 100s of km i.e. max range of a bvr fighter ...

 

[Hassan Guy]

Nope! We tried getting more F-16's instead - that didn't end well.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

A'ozo Billahi min ash-shaitaninirrajeem


The question is irrelevant since we don't need a strategic bomber like B-52 which cannot defend itself against HA-LRSAMs and can only be used against Taliban with stringers and AK-47s.



They practice for war time scenarios where short take offs become necessary as runways may be come under attack and get destroyed or rendered useless due to the use of cluster canisters like Durandal with timers etc.

Thanks brother, none of these were really questions. They were all statements of fact because some people here cannot think for themselves and i just wanted to give them a nudge in that direction, hence why they were addressed to all the "War College" graduates.

Sorry for the sarcasm flying over everybody's head. Don't have the time to waste on trolls and Mr. Know It Alls.

Once again, over and out.

P.S. Also, I have myself calculated the effects of hypersonic kinetic energy weapons theoretically and know the real-world effects of these and laser weapons and where they can be used.

Did not feel it worthwhile to answer questions that can easily be Googled so I bowed out here. Thankfully (for you people, I don't care), Oscar sated your need for spoon-feeding.

And please stop making fun of other people, making assumptions about their knowledge, or demeaning them or their religion. I am reporting all posts from now on that personally attack me.

 

[iby32]

You can have dedicated strike fighters instead if strategic bombers. If we do get bombers where we gona base them as we dont have stratigic depth. Heavy strike fighters like f15 j16 su30 su35 rafale but we dont have budget for these toys as nawaz is still hungery to eat all budget

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

A perfect example of hypocrisy---. A post did not go by him---where a religious lecture or quote was not highlighted as a major part of the discussion.

I did not see any mod and admin TT member comment on that---.

Fuel fractions are extremely important---but it would nice if the poster would put some of his own thoughts on the paper--rather than copying and pasting articles.

It is okay to post article once or twice for information sake---or to bolster your point claim.

 

[CriticalThought]

OK. Let's move this discussion along then.

Established: Use C-130 as bomb truck in Afghanistan. I like the idea by @Sarge of using autonomous drones but I want to propose a solution that can be adopted today or within a reasonable time. If such drones do become available and can match the payload of C-130, or for any reason they are found more viable, then let's go for it.

Next, CAS against Indian armor. OK I need everyone's input to make sure we got the scenario right. The Indians will definitely have short range SAMs. Furthermore, there will be a battle for air superiority between IAF and PAF with IAF trying to assert and PAF defending. In my solution I will consider IAF jets engaged by PAF already. Are we agreed so far?

Hi,

A perfect example of hypocrisy---. A post did not go by him---where a religious lecture or quote was not highlighted as a major part of the discussion.

I did not see any mod and admin TT member comment on that---.

Fuel fractions are extremely important---but it would nice if the poster would put some of his own thoughts on the paper--rather than copying and pasting articles.

It is okay to post article once or twice for information sake---or to bolster your point claim.

Sorry Sir I missed the context of this post. Could you plz elaborate further whom you are referring to?

 

[MastanKhan]

OK. Let's move this discussion along then.

Established: Use C-130 as bomb truck in Afghanistan. I like the idea by @Sarge of using autonomous drones but I want to propose a solution that can be adopted today or within a reasonable time. If such drones do become available and can match the payload of C-130, or for any reason they are found more viable, then let's go for it.

Next, CAS against Indian armor. OK I need everyone's input to make sure we got the scenario right. The Indians will definitely have short range SAMs. Furthermore, there will be a battle for air superiority between IAF and PAF with IAF trying to assert and PAF defending. In my solution I will consider IAF jets engaged by PAF already. Are we agreed so far?



Sorry Sir I missed the context of this post. Could you plz elaborate further whom you are referring to?

Hi,

I was referring to my ' step brother ' .

 

[Ultima Thule]

Established: Use C-130 as bomb truck in Afghanistan. I like the idea by @Sarge of using autonomous drones but I want to propose a solution that can be adopted today or within a reasonable time. If such drones do become available and can match the payload of C-130, or for any reason they are found more viable, then let's go for it.

When US using AC-130 and C-130 that drop daisy cutters there was no SAM and air threat for AC-130 and C-130 in Afghanistan but not just single or two UCAV but Swarm of mixed stealth UCAVs like sharp sword, Coventional indeginous UCAV like BURRAQ and other stand off weapons like babur and Ra'ad cruise missiles will do the job perfectly

 

[Signalian]

OK. Let's move this discussion along then.

Established: Use C-130 as bomb truck in Afghanistan. I like the idea by @Sarge of using autonomous drones but I want to propose a solution that can be adopted today or within a reasonable time. If such drones do become available and can match the payload of C-130, or for any reason they are found more viable, then let's go for it.

Next, CAS against Indian armor. OK I need everyone's input to make sure we got the scenario right. The Indians will definitely have short range SAMs. Furthermore, there will be a battle for air superiority between IAF and PAF with IAF trying to assert and PAF defending. In my solution I will consider IAF jets engaged by PAF already. Are we agreed so far?

Weapons which can be used against enemy armour:

1. MLRS.
A-100 ...300mm...Range 100+ km
KRL-122...122mm...Range 40+ Km
shoot and scoot.

2. Artillery.
M-109. It uses an anti-armour ammo round.
shoot and scoot.

3. UCAV's
Burraq with Barq Laser guided missile.

4. Gunships.
AH-1 and hopefully Z-10. maybe T-129.

5. Aircraft (PAF)
Mirage-III / V
F-7 P
K-8 or MFi-17 armed with ATGM or bombs.

F-16 or JF-17 if threat level is too high.

6. ATGM Carriers
Defender jeeps armed with ATGM.
M-901.(M113 with twin TOW)
Maaz (Talha with Baktar-Shikan ATGM)

7. Nasr. if all else fails.

Use a combo or above or just think about sending in PAF CAS jets. Thats upto you.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Weapons which can be used against enemy armour:

1. MLRS.
A-100 ...300mm...Range 100+ km
KRL-122...122mm...Range 40+ Km
shoot and scoot.

2. Artillery.
M-109. It uses an anti-armour ammo round.
shoot and scoot.

3. UCAV's
Burraq with Barq Laser guided missile.

4. Gunships.
AH-1 and hopefully Z-10. maybe T-129.

5. Aircraft (PAF)
Mirage-III / V
F-7 P
K-8 or MFi-17 armed with ATGM or bombs.

F-16 or JF-17 if threat level is too high.

6. ATGM Carriers
Defender jeeps armed with ATGM.
M-901.(M113 with twin TOW)
Maaz (Talha with Baktar-Shikan ATGM)

7. Nasr. if all else fails.

Use a combo or above or just think about sending in PAF CAS jets. Thats upto you.

you forget Abdali 1, 2 sir

 

[Signalian]

you forget Abdali 1, 2 sir

nasr kaafi nai hay , lol

 

[imadul]

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

Absolutely right about missiles and different armed/unarmed UAV's, but Pak should invest in armed and recon UGV's. This is one area where lot could be developed usong COTS parts. It will be economical and local grad/undergrad engg talent can be develpoped and encouraged to experiment and innovate. Not sure state of it at the relevant quarters, but cyber warfare is also a MUST.

 

[CriticalThought]

When US using AC-130 and C-130 that drop daisy cutters there was no SAM and air threat for AC-130 and C-130 in Afghanistan but not just single or two UCAV but Swarm of mixed stealth UCAVs like sharp sword, Coventional indeginous UCAV like BURRAQ and other stand off weapons like babur and Ra'ad cruise missiles will do the job perfectly

You are going to waste Babur and Ra'ad on the Afghans? Are you an Indian agent? OK just kidding you are not but you need to think minimal cost solutions for the Afghans.

Compare payload of current drones with C-130

 

[Tank131]

I am honestly at a loss when people here are talking about using C-130 as a bomb truck and poo pooing the idea of an actual bomber! I want people to sit and actually think about what they are saying. Here we have people advocating the use of a heavy strike fighter against India...that has its roles in a defensive posture (ie over pakistan) but, actually attacking India (which is what you will need to do in order to preserve your airforce in a full tilt conflict) is ludicrous. What would your strike aircraft be? If you are advocating Chinese Flankers, good luck, they havent come as of yet and they arent coming in the future...because China itself still relies on Russia for a significant part of its tech, they pissed them off by copying them which is why it took 10+ years for them to agree to sell another flanker to China, they arent going to aggravate them again by selling said flankers to Pakistan. Second option is the Su-35, IF it comes it will be a boon, but as of now, there is very little chance. Even if it comes, it will be in moderate numbers only (40 or so), and will be better utilized in an air superiority role to deal with Rafale (36) or MKI (220+) and other components of IAF strike packages. If not flankers that leaves JH-7B, but again, the number of strikes you will achieve over India will be insignificant compared to the loss of resources. These strike aircraft are better used defending Naval front where they will actually have a chance to survive and do significant damage to IN.

Over India to hit forward operating bases (FOBs) or SAM batteries, you will need a significant strike package. That would involve 2-3 Heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 Fighters to provide cover. People here operate under the assumption that a flanker (or leopard (JH-7)) can carry MRAAMs/LRAAMs so it can defend itself, thats only partially true. When in strike configuration, to participate in an actual fight, it would need to jettison its heavy strike weapons (bombs/stand off missiles) in order to maneuver adequately to 1) avoid being hit by enemy missiles and 2) actually fight in a dog fight. This is all if it makes it past Indian S400 which, with its 400km range will be unchallenged in hitting half your strike package and escorts out of the sky before they even reach the border (in time of war). Add to this the number of sorties that will need to be run to keep IAF from establishing air superiority over Pakistan will be 2X what IAF needs to run per aircraft given their numerical superiority, means PAF fighters will be on the ground 2X more than IAF fighters, increasing the risk that they will be destroyed on ground. Hence why people keep saying it would take a week to 10 days for IAF to establish air superiority, which would then lead to nuclear retaliation from Pakistan (once air superiority is there, there is little else that Pakistan would be able to do before it is gradually (over the next month or 2 months over run on the ground).

Now those strike aircraft would be better served on flying Air superiority missions over Pakistan, which would enable a full defense of the country. The way to push IAF back is to push back their bases of operations so that they need to carry more fuel and less weapons on route to Pakistan, so that they need to refuel before getting back to their base of operations, so that you expose their refuelers and other assets. Hopefully pushing them further and further back. This mean they will need to fly more sorties per aircraft and that many of their shorter legged aircraft may even be removed from the fight. Those who have the range will likey need to refuel before entering Pakistan otherwise risk running out of fuel due to facing a fight vs PAF and still needing to fly back. If they dont refuel prior to entering Pakistan they will need to refuel as soon as re-entering India (either way, you have brought their tankers in range of your fighters and SAMs (if PAF every acquires long range SAMs). You also want to push S400 back so that it isnt able to target your fighters over Pakistan.

To do this while preserving your fighting force you need a long range strike, far longer than what you currently have. The only way to do this is long range LACM or ALCM or Ballistic Missiles. A ballistic missile strike will likely be taken as a nuclear launch and would be met with nuclear retaliation even in the more likely event that it is carrying a conventional warhead, so I dont think you want to go that route unless you mean to escalate it to that level. That leaves LACM and ALCM. Ra'ad doesnt have the range to push S400 back sufficiently leaving Babur. Even the 700km range of a surface launched babur is not sufficient to push FOBs of IAF far enough back to protect PAF assets. They would only hit FOBs within ~500-600km of border. This is why you need strategic bombers. what was a 700km surface launched CM will become a 1000-1500km ALCM. One strategic bomber will be enough to overwhelm an S400 battery with SATURATION CM STRIKES. It can overwhelm IAF bases within 1000km of the border, pushing the range of most IAF fighters, hence decreasing their loadouts and the number of sorties they can fly, thus helping to coverup PAF's numbers shortage. That is why the Chinese created the H-6K. To hit Taiwan and overwhelm its airdefense without ever launching a fighter aircraft. That is why the US has started arming B-52 with JASSM-ER and AMG-86 (which is soon to be retired), to that in heavily saturated areas like Syria, it can sit well outside of SAM ranges and obliterate a countries defenses without risk to the bomber or stealth aircraft, although our B-52s are able to carry 20 JASSM-ER or AMG-86 vs H-6K's 6). THAT IS THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF FORCE MULTIPLIER. It takes the force you have and multiplies the efficiency and effectiveness by taking out many of the targets you would need and eliminating/reducing an advantage your opponent had to help level your playing field.

To those who say PAF isnt flying 8000km so doesnt need a strategic bomber, you miss the point, all while arguing that PAF should use C-130 as a f-ing bomb truck over India. You arent flying 8000km, you may only fly 1km, but your missiles will fly 1000-1500km and push back the IAF, and they wont be able to retaliate (you can station the bomber 500km inside Pakistan and still obliterate S400 batteries and keep slowly pushing the IAF back with CM strikes). So with one bomber, you did what 2-3 heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 fighter escorts likley couldnt do. destroy an S400 battery or FOB without significant risk to your asset.

Add to this the abiltiy of these bomber to also attack naval targets with Stand off CM (firing C602 or CM-400 in saturation style would overwhelm and IN CBG) (which is another of H-6K goals...deter US carrier groups).

This is the reason the US is still developing new bombers (LRS-B) as is Russia and China.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm