The Accountant
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
- Messages
- 8,504
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
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.
Before we go into specific aircraft, can we first please discuss the types of missions where large munitions drops from the air are needed?
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.
Ok lets discuss this from theoratical point of view ... a big plane like b52 can give you an immense fire power specially in support of ground troops ... but this aircraft is highly vulnerable due to its size and speed ... so more close you try to come to enemy more vulnerable it becomes ... even a short range low end sam can easily take it down ... and remember these type of same are part of mechnized corps of india which will be the first line of offense after cold start doctrine ... so we cant use them unless we have complete air suoeriority atleast 300km inside indian borders and succefully clear all sams through sead oprations ... can we achieve that without even having one to one match with india in terms of fighter aircraft ? On the contrary usa always starts with getting air superiority and sead mission then b52 enters for cleaning of making havoc on adversaries ground forces ... and finally they send in tbeir troops ... so bombers are very much suited to their doctrine ...
Second use of these bombers are long range strikes ... lets consider a hypothetical scenario of need to strike israel (just hypothetical ao israeli members are requested not to derail thread by discussing strikes) ...
Again in that case first we need to take out air defenses and ai suoeriority for which we need to have a base like an aircraft carrir or a neighbouring country base ... fighter aircrafts with tankers will also have very limited effect as turn around time will be huge ...
Even if we get tbe base we will not be able to get air superriority easily ... infact it will bee near to impossible ...
Third scenario is using them against weak nations like afghanistan ... so i would say due to political and diplomatic reasons we need to avoid confrontations with other countries and we can handle afghanistan with much cheaper solution like border managmenet so there is no need to invest in such heavh platforms ... to kill a bird you dont purchase anti air missile ...