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

[The Accountant]

There are two advantages bombers provide: range and capacity. Range may not be an issue but more capacity is always welcome.

And, I haven't touched the topic yet, I am going to post in detail later, but the naval theatre obviously needs both range and capacity.

Finally, given the enemy's strategic depth, bombers open up lots more possibilities.

A country short of attack aircraft is planning of bombers ... which bomber you want which role cannot be performed by jf17 ? Days of bombers are over ... now with heavy percision guided weapon multi role platform can do much better

 

[mdcp]

Offense is the best form of defense. So we must not totally ignore bombers though with missiles we got fire and forget but still bombers will put pressure on enemy.

 

[MaMo]

Look if the Afghans want peace in Afghanistan here is what they need to do:

1. Completely move away from the Indian camp.

2. Work with Pakistan to completely eliminate TTP, BLA, RAW from Afghanistan.

3. Under no circumstance must they attack Pakistan or its interests.

If not, there won't be an Afghan government left to ask for peace. Very simple. Even a child can get this.

No, what Pakistani government needs to do is protect their own borders and civilians first. Other nations don't have to adapt their existence for our benefit all the time, it's time to come out of the habit of making others do what we want.

Pro-India sentiment is run among general Afghan public and believe it or not, that is not because of their hatred towards Pakistan. Indian entertainment industry and artists are booming in Afghanistan. Currently a lot of Indians run some of their big cities' health, eyes and dental clinics, and also provide support for their science, biology and mathematics students. What did our government do when we had the Taliban running them? We have them madrassas where more terrorists were being trained.

You can't expect them to co-operate and eliminate TTP in Pakistan, but support Taliban to run their country. Good and bad Taliban don't exist, only animal Taliban exist and they exist on both sides of the border. They cannot attack our interest if we want to, our general public police are more powerful (mentally and physically) than the entire Afghan army. Their forces are no big deal and any sane person, child or infant, knows this.

Afghan government may or may not exist, but their people will. You can destroy the government within seconds, but you cannot force their people to believe what you believe. Again, like I pointed out previously, had you been in the country, or around their people, or read about fall of Najibullah and fall of Taliban, you would've known better.

 

[Humble Analyst]

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 ...

Please do not give the name of inability to doctrine and stop glorifying it

A country short of attack aircraft is planning of bombers ... which bomber you want which role cannot be performed by jf17 ? Days of bombers are over ... now with heavy percision guided weapon multi role platform can do much better

We need long range multipurpose and air superiority planes now if we do not have will or money it is another thing. Do not say days of bombers are over. There were people who said days of dog fight are over, days of guns on planes are over but they never were.

 

[SQ8]

Simple question: Do they even exist? Do we have any plans to acquire any? Once air-superiority is achieved, bombers would be an effective way to counter advancing strike corps. I wonder if any attention has been given to this aspect?

Are you referring to B-52 sized beheamoths or Tornado sized strike aircraft

 

[Ultima Thule]

There are two advantages bombers provide: range and capacity. Range may not be an issue but more capacity is always welcome.

And, I haven't touched the topic yet, I am going to post in detail later, but the naval theatre obviously needs both range and capacity.

Finally, given the enemy's strategic depth, bombers open up lots more possibilities.

we don't need a dedicated bomber like B-52, B-1 etc etc how fighter bomber, we had one option JH-7A,JH-7b with a weapon load 9 tons so what is your thinking about Fighter bombers

 

[CriticalThought]

No, what Pakistani government needs to do is protect their own borders and civilians first. Other nations don't have to adapt their existence for our benefit all the time, it's time to come out of the habit of making others do what we want.

Pro-India sentiment is run among general Afghan public and believe it or not, that is not because of their hatred towards Pakistan. Indian entertainment industry and artists are booming in Afghanistan. Currently a lot of Indians run some of their big cities' health, eyes and dental clinics, and also provide support for their science, biology and mathematics students. What did our government do when we had the Taliban running them? We have them madrassas where more terrorists were being trained.

You can't expect them to co-operate and eliminate TTP in Pakistan, but support Taliban to run their country. Good and bad Taliban don't exist, only animal Taliban exist and they exist on both sides of the border. They cannot attack our interest if we want to, our general public police are more powerful (mentally and physically) than the entire Afghan army. Their forces are no big deal and any sane person, child or infant, knows this.

Afghan government may or may not exist, but their people will. You can destroy the government within seconds, but you cannot force their people to believe what you believe. Again, like I pointed out previously, had you been in the country, or around their people, or read about fall of Najibullah and fall of Taliban, you would've known better.

I know what the media reported about the fall of Taliban. Women discarded the burqa and men cut off their beards. And actual reports from the ground filter through the grapevine at some point. The West in general and people like yourself like to portray this as the 'true Afghani people'. I know the reality and I shall not get deluded. In the end, truth will out and everyone will see. Wait and watch.

Are you referring to B-52 sized beheamoths or Tornado sized strike aircraft

Well, my question which no one on the thread has directly answered but which I have surmised myself is: can F-16s and JF-17s carry out carpet bombing? I have a feeling the answer is no. The second question then is, what would be a good fighter/bomber aircraft to carry out carpet bombing? Or is this capability limited to specialized behemoths like the B-52?

I am going to write a post on this thread about naval bombers... just haven't got around to it yet...

we don't need a dedicated bomber like B-52, B-1 etc etc how fighter bomber, we had one option JH-7A,JH-7b with a weapon load 9 tons so what is your thinking about Fighter bombers

See above.

 

[wiseone2]

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 ...

why did the PAF have Canbeera bombers in the past ??

There are two advantages bombers provide: range and capacity. Range may not be an issue but more capacity is always welcome.

And, I haven't touched the topic yet, I am going to post in detail later, but the naval theatre obviously needs both range and capacity.

Finally, given the enemy's strategic depth, bombers open up lots more possibilities.

can bomber survive without escort fighter ?

 

[Naif al Hilali]

you can only use bombers when you have complete air-superiority or have stealth or long-range weapons.

you only need bombers when you have to fly far without the facility of bases close to the operation theater or tankers.

in that case, you probably won't have the three things mentioned in the first paragraph and so you cannot use them anyway.

bombers are more expensive per piece and one hit will take out more of your man and meteriel.

bombers cannot self-defend or self-escort.

a few bombers just adds one more thing to support and maintain and pay training & infra-structure costs for.

Effect of Strategic (Carpet) Bombers vs. Tactical (Precision Strike) Aircraft on a Battle/War:
https://warisboring.com/americas-over-hyped-strategic-bombing-experiment-b0310dd12407#.sfjck4d29

(Carpet) Bombers used for CAS:
https://warisboring.com/in-1944-ame...-killed-scores-of-u-s-ae0c11159d0c#.24aqkxt8q

Comparing PAF's favorite bomber ever and their (2nd?, 3rd now with the JF-17 online?) most favorite fighter ever:

B-57 Canberra:
Max. takeoff weight: 53,720 lb (24,365 kg)
Maximum speed: Mach 0.79 (598 mph, 960 km/h) at 2,500 ft (760 m)
Ferry range: 2,720 mi (2,360 nm, 4,380 km)
Guns: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) M39 cannon, 290 rounds/gun
Bombs: 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) in bomb bay, including nuclear bombs
2,800 lb (1,300 kg) on four external hardpoints, including unguided rockets

General Dynamics F-16AM, Lockheed Martin F-16 C/D:
Max. takeoff weight: 48,000 lb
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,320 mph)
Ferry range: 2,520 nautical miles
Guns: Six-barelled 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 cannon, 500 rounds
Bombs: 12 x 1,000 lb. bombs + 4 missiles

for a medium-sized airforce, it is hard to support an airframe you have less than three squadrons (70-odd aircraft) worth of.
PAF usually likes to procure 110+ of a type. maybe an Su-35 type aircraft would work for the PAF if procured in quantities of 40+ but sights are set on J-31 type aircraft which would be more likely to get through enemy defenses and actually deliver a meaningful payload or fight their way back.

please see what a USAF pilot says about buying (and supporting) multiple airframe types for the airforce with the deepest pockets and practically unlimited technical prowess:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7fy6U3cmCGc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

modern carpet bombing is called tactical nuking. don't even need an aircraft for that, in fact it is better with land- and sea-based missiles.

 

[MastanKhan]

you can only use bombers when you have complete air-superiority or have stealth or long-range weapons.

you only need bombers when you have to fly far without the facility of bases close to the operation theater or tankers.

in that case, you probably won't have the three things mentioned in the first paragraph and so you cannot use them anyway.

bombers are more expensive per piece and one hit will take out more of your man and meteriel.

bombers cannot self-defend or self-escort.

a few bombers just adds one more thing to support and maintain and pay training & infra-structure costs for.

Effect of Strategic (Carpet) Bombers vs. Tactical (Precision Strike) Aircraft on a Battle/War:
https://warisboring.com/americas-over-hyped-strategic-bombing-experiment-b0310dd12407#.sfjck4d29

(Carpet) Bombers used for CAS:
https://warisboring.com/in-1944-ame...-killed-scores-of-u-s-ae0c11159d0c#.24aqkxt8q

Comparing PAF's favorite bomber ever and their (2nd?, 3rd now with the JF-17 online?) most favorite fighter ever:

View attachment 364930
B-57 Canberra:
Max. takeoff weight: 53,720 lb (24,365 kg)
Maximum speed: Mach 0.79 (598 mph, 960 km/h) at 2,500 ft (760 m)
Ferry range: 2,720 mi (2,360 nm, 4,380 km)
Guns: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) M39 cannon, 290 rounds/gun
Bombs: 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) in bomb bay, including nuclear bombs
2,800 lb (1,300 kg) on four external hardpoints, including unguided rockets

View attachment 364933
General Dynamics F-16AM, Lockheed Martin F-16 C/D:
Max. takeoff weight: 48,000 lb
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,320 mph)
Ferry range: 2,520 nautical miles
Guns: Six-barelled 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 cannon, 500 rounds
Bombs: 12 x 1,000 lb. bombs + 4 missiles

for a medium-sized airforce, it is hard to support an airframe you have less than three squadrons (70-odd aircraft) worth of.
PAF usually likes to procure 110+ of a type. maybe an Su-35 type aircraft would work for the PAF if procured in quantities of 40+ but sights are set on J-31 type aircraft which would be more likely to get through enemy defenses and actually deliver a meaningful payload or fight their way back.

please see what a USAF pilot says about buying (and supporting) multiple airframe types for the airforce with the deepest pockets and practically unlimited technical prowess:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7fy6U3cmCGc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

modern carpet bombing is called tactical nuking. don't even need an aircraft for that, in fact it is better with land- and sea-based missiles.

Hi,

Very poor assessment---you are getting worst by the day---. The fluff wore out very fast.

Major weapons systems are procured to counter the enemy assets---larger the enemy---means your weapons have to give some hurt and pain somewhere to make the enemy cringe---.

The bombers of today are not the conventional type of bombers---that you have to lay your load right on top of the enemy---. With the ability to launch multiple standoff weapons from far away and from an unpredictable location can create chaos in enemy areas never hot before----.

Heavy strike aircraft have taken over some load from conventional bombers---because a current day strike aircraft and do 8-9 tons of weapons load

And for that---the arabian seas and indian ocean gives enough room and time to make strikes over a wide arena to make a serious hurt on the enemy.

Prophet Muhammad---maybe you may know that name---had 9 swords hanging on the walls of his house when he died---but not money for lamp oil or bread---.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

ok the trolls are here. i am out.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hi,

Very poor assessment---you are getting worst by the day---. The fluff wore out very fast.

Major weapons systems are procured to counter the enemy assets---larger the enemy---means your weapons have to give some hurt and pain somewhere to make the enemy cringe---.

The bombers of today are not the conventional type of bombers---that you have to lay your load right on top of the enemy---. With the ability to launch multiple standoff weapons from far away and from an unpredictable location can create chaos in enemy areas never hot before----.

Heavy strike aircraft have taken over some load from conventional bombers---because a current day strike aircraft and do 8-9 tons of weapons load

And for that---the arabian seas and indian ocean gives enough room and time to make strikes over a wide arena to make a serious hurt on the enemy.

Prophet Muhammad---maybe you may know that name---had 9 swords hanging on the walls of his house when he died---but not money for lamp oil or bread---.

Sir!!!!!!!! You plagiarized the arabian sea/indian ocean idea straight from my brain. I was going to give that reply. I sue you for charges of 10c per word that you have plagiarized straight out of my mind.

ok the trolls are here. i am out.

Brother, plz stay. If you are willing to overlook some of his words, we can have a good discussion.

@MastanKhan Sir, plz no more personal attacks. I would like all our brothers to come forth with their inputs. We are all learning here. Thanks.

why did the PAF have Canbeera bombers in the past ??


can bomber survive without escort fighter ?

In general no, but mission planning can change everything.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir!!!!!!!! You plagiarized the arabian sea/indian ocean idea straight from my brain. I was going to give that reply. I sue you for charges of 10c per word that you have plagiarized straight out of my mind.



Brother, plz stay. If you are willing to overlook some of his words, we can have a good discussion.

@MastanKhan Sir, plz no more personal attacks. I would like all our brothers to come forth with their inputs. We are all learning here. Thanks.



In general no, but mission planning can change everything.

Hi,

If you have not noticed yet---he only posts technical stuff---.

But he has no tactical insight---he has no strategy output---he does not talk about how to fight a war and what the strategy and game plan would be. He does not say how to knock out a larger enemy---or how to put a hurt on a larger enemy---.

and no---it is not me who 'plagiarized; the idea---. My idea of this route has been posted on this board for many a years---. Take the air war and deep strike from over the arabian seas---and you will spread the enemy air force thin.

In the beginging---I got impressed with his knowledge and information---but then I realized---he is a fake---he is only one dimensional---. War is not one dimensional---air war is not one dimensional---.

Paf has become one dimensional---that is why I have issues with the Paf---.

He does not miss a beat about bringing in religious lectures---I just gave him the example of Prophet Muhammad---pbuh---the prophet of the muslims---.

Now he is going to run to his daddy and cry---.

 

[Naif al Hilali]

Sir!!!!!!!! You plagiarized the arabian sea/indian ocean idea straight from my brain.

Brother, plz stay.

Thank you.

From my post:
"maybe an Su-35 type aircraft would work for the PAF if procured in quantities of 40+"

From a previous post:
https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-f-16-discussions-2.15226/page-650#post-8936789
"Tactically, it has been found to be better to send a multi-ship formation of fighters with two to four deliverable munitions, precision navigation and targeting capabilities, and the ability to evade enemy defenses and / or fight their way in and out of contested airspace.

Their is a reason the PAF would prefer an Su-35 in the anti-shipping role over the Su-34 or JH-7. They might actually like the F-16 for this (better for the logistics train) but cannot integrate modern longer-range weapons beyond the Harpoon here.

Building your force around one or two multi-role types pays huge dividends during a war also. We have to remember that the enemy will be attacking us as well, destroying our infrastructure, bombing our airfields and our fuel and ammunition reserves, and killing our personnel.

The survivable (or 'victorious') force will be the one that has a large bank of trained pilots for its aircraft types, whose fuel and weapons reserves (and airfields) are sufficiently distributed, and whose aircraft are adaptable to as many tasks as possible, and are plentiful, light, and frugal enough to take off from half-destroyed airbases, use as little as possible of precious JP-4/5, and be effectively able to take the fight to the enemy."

From another post:
https://defence.pk/threads/vixen-1000e-aesa-with-irst-showcased-at-ideas.462778/page-9#post-8962879
"I also understand the rationale for the Pakistan Navy's desire for the Su-35 - the ability to fly out 600 nautical miles with one or two heavy anti-ship missiles each, search out 200 nautical miles with powerful PESA radars, strike beyond the capabilities of Indian air defense, and self-escort themselves back to base is a mouth-watering proposition and would leave no place for the Indian Navy to hide.

However, the ground reality still remains that half your own infra-structure would possibly be destroyed in the first 72 hours (maybe even 24 hours) and you would be out of fuel and ammunition (and ways to produce more) before the week is up.

This is where the PAF needs to school the Navy on the need to maintain maximum parts commonality and a widely-distributable and manageable logistics train. The Su-35s could make do if they fly only from Masroor Air Base, but they are likely to be either out of the battle or down for repair by the end of the first day.

There is a reason the USAF wants to limit itself to two tactical types and the US Navy to just one (ideally). Logistics even for a superpower with untouchable manufacturing and strategic assets, seemingly limitless resources, tanker and carrier assets, is still a big hassle."

Su-35 @76,000 lbs. is heavier than many bombers in the past.

Hence, oscar's pithy response above:
https://defence.pk/threads/paf-bombers.469738/page-4#post-9065945
"Are you referring to B-52 sized beheamoths or Tornado sized strike aircraft"

which I was actually elaborating without directly referencing it.

 

[CriticalThought]

A country short of attack aircraft is planning of bombers ... which bomber you want which role cannot be performed by jf17 ? Days of bombers are over ... now with heavy percision guided weapon multi role platform can do much better

Copying this again from my earlier post:
--------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

B-52 Stratofortress
The bomber is capable of carrying up to 70,000 pounds (32,000 kg) of weapons,[5] and has a typical combat range of more than 8,800 miles (14,080 km) without aerial refueling.

The B-52 completed sixty years of continuous service with its original operator in 2015. After being upgraded between 2013 and 2015, it is expected to serve into the 2040s.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/paf-bombers.469738/page-2#ixzz4UTgcP8Ks
--------------------------------------------

Question: Why did they upgrade them again in 2013-15 and why do they expect them to serve into the 2040s?
The point I am trying to make is that it is incorrect to say 'Days of bombers are over'.

Secondly, everyone understands that acquiring even 1 stratofortress like aircraft is beyond the realm of possibility.

That said, what I am trying to do is enumerating the various mission scenarios where intensive air offense will be needed. I am hoping other members can join the analysis with information like what is the enemy concentration we may face, how much munitions (1000s of kg) we may need to drop, and how much distance we may need to travel. Remember, in an actual operation, you don't move in a straight line from X to Y. Mission planning determines areas of enemy's weakness where radar coverage is low, enemy SAMs and fighters are not a threat, and then a route can be determined. Such a route can require a very long distance to be covered.

Given the various scenarios and inputs on the previously listed points, what would be a good bomber for PAF? Let's find the theoretical answer. Once we know the ideal, we can try to approximate it as best as we can.

@pakistanipower @Naif al Hilali plz read my response above.

Thank you.

From my post:
"maybe an Su-35 type aircraft would work for the PAF if procured in quantities of 40+"

From a previous post:
https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-f-16-discussions-2.15226/page-650#post-8936789
"Tactically, it has been found to be better to send a multi-ship formation of fighters with two to four deliverable munitions, precision navigation and targeting capabilities, and the ability to evade enemy defenses and / or fight their way in and out of contested airspace.

Their is a reason the PAF would prefer an Su-35 in the anti-shipping role over the Su-34 or JH-7. They might actually like the F-16 for this (better for the logistics train) but cannot integrate modern longer-range weapons beyond the Harpoon here.

Building your force around one or two multi-role types pays huge dividends during a war also. We have to remember that the enemy will be attacking us as well, destroying our infrastructure, bombing our airfields and our fuel and ammunition reserves, and killing our personnel.

The survivable (or 'victorious') force will be the one that has a large bank of trained pilots for its aircraft types, whose fuel and weapons reserves (and airfields) are sufficiently distributed, and whose aircraft are adaptable to as many tasks as possible, and are plentiful, light, and frugal enough to take off from half-destroyed airbases, use as little as possible of precious JP-4/5, and be effectively able to take the fight to the enemy."

From another post:
https://defence.pk/threads/vixen-1000e-aesa-with-irst-showcased-at-ideas.462778/page-9#post-8962879
"I also understand the rationale for the Pakistan Navy's desire for the Su-35 - the ability to fly out 600 nautical miles with one or two heavy anti-ship missiles each, search out 200 nautical miles with powerful PESA radars, strike beyond the capabilities of Indian air defense, and self-escort themselves back to base is a mouth-watering proposition and would leave no place for the Indian Navy to hide.

However, the ground reality still remains that half your own infra-structure would possibly be destroyed in the first 72 hours (maybe even 24 hours) and you would be out of fuel and ammunition (and ways to produce more) before the week is up.

This is where the PAF needs to school the Navy on the need to maintain maximum parts commonality and a widely-distributable and manageable logistics train. The Su-35s could make do if they fly only from Masroor Air Base, but they are likely to be either out of the battle or down for repair by the end of the first day.

There is a reason the USAF wants to limit itself to two tactical types and the US Navy to just one (ideally). Logistics even for a superpower with untouchable manufacturing and strategic assets, seemingly limitless resources, tanker and carrier assets, is still a big hassle."

Su-35 @76,000 lbs. is heavier than many bombers in the past.

Hence, oscar's pithy response above:
https://defence.pk/threads/paf-bombers.469738/page-4#post-9065945
"Are you referring to B-52 sized beheamoths or Tornado sized strike aircraft"

which I was actually elaborating without directly referencing it.

Before we go into specific aircraft, can we first please discuss the types of missions where large munitions drops from the air are needed?

Hi,

If you have not noticed yet---he only posts technical stuff---.

But he has no tactical insight---he has no strategy output---he does not talk about how to fight a war and what the strategy and game plan would be. He does not say how to knock out a larger enemy---or how to put a hurt on a larger enemy---.

and no---it is not me who 'plagiarized; the idea---. My idea of this route has been posted on this board for many a years---. Take the air war and deep strike from over the arabian seas---and you will spread the enemy air force thin.

In the beginging---I got impressed with his knowledge and information---but then I realized---he is a fake---he is only one dimensional---. War is not one dimensional---air war is not one dimensional---.

Paf has become one dimensional---that is why I have issues with the Paf---.

He does not miss a beat about bringing in religious lectures---I just gave him the example of Prophet Muhammad---pbuh---the prophet of the muslims---.

Now he is going to run to his daddy and cry---.

Everyone has their own specialties, a focus on some particular aspect of things. I like to learn from everyone's specialties and I think that's what makes the forum so diverse. If he has lots of technical knowledge, I find that impressive. I can learn from that and then apply it to tactics and strategy.