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

[Humble Analyst]

Your post shows that you have no idea of defense planning ...

Doctrine always incorporate your current abilities and resources ... so if something is in doctrine than it is based on your current resources ... so we dont have bombers as of now ...

Secondly there is a huge difference in bombers and air superiority role fighter .. we are discussing bombers like B52 ... who is denying need of a air superiority fighter ,, and if we could get a long range air superiority fighter like j20 or su35 then it would be ideal...

BUt thread is about bombers not air superiority fighter ...

if needed bombers can be purchased easily infact you can convert many of your existing big planes in bomber roles ... but if have money we should invest it on multirole capable (But more towards air superiority fighter


I completely agree .. just want to add two things ...

attack on economy means attack on military economy ... i.e. military complexes so that enemies fighting capability could be destoryed ...

second if it comes to do and die situation then nuclear weapons come in ... and remember nuclear weapons are for mass killing ... that is why there are so much restrictions on this capability ... sadly so but reality is ... nuclear missiles will definitiely be targetting mumbai, dehi, lucknow, karachi, lahore and islamabad ...

I am not aware of defense planning great comment, what about a country full of corruption not allocating proper resources and then calling it doctrine. The reason I am writing is because of people saying we do not need offensive planes. Without neutralizing certain Airfields/Missile batteries a country with lack of depth is very vulnerable. Look at what Israel did in wars. A defense by attacking the enemy. Among all the planes PAF has only Mirage is a reliable bomber and they are very old. JF 17 ground clearance, you have noticed? Can F16 be used as a bomber without restrictions? Pakistan Air Force fell in love with EF Sollah but did not come out of romance and stayed in the comfort zone. I do not want to write more about it.

 

[wiseone2]

I have said it before and I'll say it again. PAF needs to think outside the box. The IAF has an ability to run sortie after sortie against PAF and through numerical superiority and the use of long ramge SAMs like S400 reaching deep into Pakistan, will eventually overwhelm Pakistan in the air. The hope is to prolong air war with IAF to force a stalemate or prevent an attack to begin with. Strategic bombers if used as cruise missile trucks rather than bombers (as the H6K can do) will be able to overwhelm IAF Forward bases and SAM batteries in a matter of hours. An Air launched version of babur would have a theoretical range of at least 1000km. An H-6K could sit comfortably inside Pakistan airspace under the protection of PAF fighters and SAMs and launch strikes against S400 and FOB. This would push the IAF deeper into India. Meaning IAF fighters going out or returning would need to fly further meaning they carry less weapons and more fuel and arent able to turn around fighters as quickly as they otherwise could it would also eliminate many fighters from entering PAF airspace due to short legs, without a2a refueling (exposong tanker assets to PAF attack. S400 would not be able to operate in close enough proximity to hit PAF fighters in Pakistani airspace. 1 H-6K carriers 6 LACM and PAF would be able to overwhelm an IAF FOB's defenses with 1 or 2 H-6K. That coupled with Ra'ad strikes from PAF fighters would help level some of the playong field for PAF. It would not give parity but wpuld give the IAF a bloody nose knowing that even before they eliminate the PAF, they would lose most if not all their FOBs amd many S400 facilities (likely in first few hours provided PAF can equip enpugh LACM on sufficient number of bombers). 10-12 would likely be sufficient though even 6-8 would be a game changer.

Russia uses Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers as cruise missile trucks. They have the range to help Russia hit Western Europe and USA. But they are large and easy targets for enemy fighters. India is next door to Pakistan. You do not need large aircraft similar to the size of Russian bombers. PAF would need something smaller and faster. My first thought is that someone would have to build such aircraft for Pakistan

 

[Tank131]

Russia uses Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers as cruise missile trucks. They have the range to help Russia hit Western Europe and USA. But they are large and easy targets for enemy fighters. India is next door to Pakistan. You do not need large aircraft similar to the size of Russian bombers. PAF would need something smaller and faster. My first thought is that someone would have to build such aircraft for Pakistan

Again, it has to do more with the amount of ordinance to deliver on target and how safe the aircraft delivering the weapon is. For Pak/India yes they are next door, but even woth the longest range ALCM in PAF (Ra'ad) you need 3-4 aircraft to equal 1 H-6K in ordinance and without using a 1000km plus range weapon, your aorcraft are going to meed to enter Indian airspace to do hit IAF FOBs and S400 batteries and most your aircraft will get shot down as they approach the border by S400 or IAF fighters. You need to push IAF away from Pak border amd to dp that you need saturation attacks on IAF SAMs and FOBs with fighters cant do without committing significant resources. A missile truck bomber is far more cost effective in this role and you arent exposing it to the same level of threat that you would your fighters simply based on the range of its weapons... Something you cant say about airstrikes by fighters.

As for who would make such an aircraft for PAF, there is a reason i keep usong H-6K as the example... Cuz its a chinese aircraft that PAF should be looking at.

 

[wiseone2]

Again, it has to do more with the amount of ordinance to deliver on target and how safe the aircraft delivering the weapon is. For Pak/India yes they are next door, but even woth the longest range ALCM in PAF (Ra'ad) you need 3-4 aircraft to equal 1 H-6K in ordinance and without using a 1000km plus range weapon, your aorcraft are going to meed to enter Indian airspace to do hit IAF FOBs and S400 batteries and most your aircraft will get shot down as they approach the border by S400 or IAF fighters. You need to push IAF away from Pak border amd to dp that you need saturation attacks on IAF SAMs and FOBs with fighters cant do without committing significant resources. A missile truck bomber is far more cost effective in this role and you arent exposing it to the same level of threat that you would your fighters simply based on the range of its weapons... Something you cant say about airstrikes by fighters.

As for who would make such an aircraft for PAF, there is a reason i keep usong H-6K as the example... Cuz its a chinese aircraft that PAF should be looking at.

if Su-30 mki can be modified to fire brahmos missiles I am assuming variant of JF-17 can be modified.

 

[Rank]

The era of bomb truck is over...

 

[CriticalThought]

Brother if it had to be launched from within pak boundries than why fro airal platform ?

Babar can have 1000 km range and can be launch from ground ... you guys has no knowledge of air defense ...


Brother now a days there is no single bomb which cant be droped from fighters except for heavy weights ... why the hell you guys do not understand that it is not about utility of bombers ... ofz they are handy due to their range and load carrying capacity ... but guys in case of pakistan it is not worthwhile as our adversary is in our neighbourhood and bombers are easy target ... they will never able to achieve any mission ...

If you still insist you can modify il76 tanker to do this job but will it be able to ever enter indian airspace ?

We are resource short ... so if i would be paf planner my first proirity would have been air defense ... then air superiority over border region ... then air superiority deep inside adversory and fourth qould be land attack within enemy area ...

You guys cant see we are stugling in getting first priority ...

We should invest in long range and medium range sam and advance air superiroity fighters and then we can think of bombers ...

Take a deep breath and relax. Now, put yourself into a military planner's shoes and do a quantitative analysis. Let us say your ground forces have reached a stalemate against 1000 enemy tanks and they have called in air support. Suddenly you are faced with questions such as how many aircraft do I send? Which missiles will deliver the most damage? How many sorties will I need to fly? Remember, time is of essence. The more sorties you have to fly, the more time the enemy has to come back with a response.

The point is, you can't say point blank 'we do not need bombers'. I am trying to take along everyone on this analysis journey so we can look at hard facts and then decide what kind of capabilities do we need? Do we need bombers? Look, given our limited budget, it will always be the case that what we need is much more than what we have and what we can get in a meaningful timeframe. But the crucial element is to know where we need to get and know it quantitatively and objectively. Otherwise we delude ourselves into a false sense of security.

OK, can we now get back to the discussion I am trying to have? Thank you.

Both India and Pakistan have refrained from mass bombing of cities and civilian targets in previous wars

Thank God for that! Humanity is not entirely lost. And hopefully, it will not be lost in the future either.

 

[The Accountant]

Babur has a range of 700km. Even if they extend the range of the ground launched version, the air launched version will always have more range, that is why you look at the strategic bomber, the more range the missile has, the deeper the bomber will push the IAF bases and SAMs back. The US navy is wary of the H-6K for that very reason, enough to develop entire doctrines against its potential in the South China Sea, perhaps you know more about the utility of these bombers then them. Its not like the Chinese are planning on bombing from thousands of miles away...their main target is right next door too. As for fighters being used, they cant deliver the amount of ordinance on target from the same range as the H-6K, a single H-6 will deliver more firepower to deep within India from deep within Pakistan where it is relatively protected. You would need 3-4 F-16 flying into Indian airspace to do the same thing plus another 4-5 protecting them from IAF fighters and all would likely get shot down by S400. That is why it is a force multiplier...it will perform the role of 3-4 F-16s while staying safe and sparing another 4-5 fighters from escort of which all 7 -9 fighters would likely get shot down over India doing exactly what 1 H-6K can do from deep inside Pakistan where it is far safer.



Ra'ad is a 350km ALCM which does not carry the same ordinance as Babur. It is more likely to be launched from fighter aircraft and while it has its uses in that respect, it is more of a tactical weapon than a strategic one like an air launched Babur would be from an H-6K. While I agree that PN and PAF could use a fighter like JH7B, that is a different matter from what I am refering to. As above, you will need 3-4 JH-7B to equal the number of weapons delivered onto target that 1 H-6K can deliver, and it would require a fighter escort (even with Ra'ad's 350km range). While H-6K will also need a fighter escort in times of war, it will also be protected by its distance from Indian airspace and the amount of fighters and SAM's IAF fighters would need to go though just to get within firing range of it. Basically the huge range that Babur would afford it is a protective perk in and of itself.

Ohhh bhai why are you comapring apples with oranges ... before comparing China with us please answere the following :

1. Do we have 4th air superiority fighters like China SU35 and Su30
2. Do we have 5th generation j20 ..
3. Is the main adversary of China shares border with them like we do with India ?
4. Do we need to go thousands of kilometers away from our main land to bomb india travellng over nutral space ... China will travel to nutral borders when then want to bomb usa and will come close enough to launch cruise missile ... whereas no fighter aircraft can travel that long ...
5. If USA attacks china who will have air space of south china sea ? is it china or usa ... usa will be supported by 2 to 3 battle groups whereas china will have whole of its navy air force abttle group supported by ground radars so china can flew an easy target like large bomber as it will be chinas border and china will have primary air superirotiy unless USA turns the table ..

uys grow-up now you are comapring pak india tussle with china usa ... I can't win with this type of thinking infact no one can ...

I am not aware of defense planning great comment, what about a country full of corruption not allocating proper resources and then calling it doctrine. The reason I am writing is because of people saying we do not need offensive planes. Without neutralizing certain Airfields/Missile batteries a country with lack of depth is very vulnerable. Look at what Israel did in wars. A defense by attacking the enemy. Among all the planes PAF has only Mirage is a reliable bomber and they are very old. JF 17 ground clearance, you have noticed? Can F16 be used as a bomber without restrictions? Pakistan Air Force fell in love with EF Sollah but did not come out of romance and stayed in the comfort zone. I do not want to write more about it.

Ohh bhai giving example of israel ,,, how many bombers they have ? despite having complete air superirority in case any cnflict with its neigbouring nation ...

Brother corruption is another issue ... but the fact of the day is you have to prioritize with whatever budget you have .. and priority cannot be different than this ...

1. Area denial and anti access over our own air space ...
2. Air superiority over bordering areas ....
3. Air superiority over enemy air space ...

Brother fact of the day is currently we are struggling in maintaing first priority ... we do not have long range SAM .. Currently other than F16 blk 52 are of ourplatform are inferrior or at par (only jf17 and old blk of f1) to enemy's mirrages migs and mkis... and even if we ignore the technical edge then even in quantity we are low ...

Are you living in a dream world of buying a bomber of B52 size ... in case of potential conflict the moment bomber came close to border it will be shot down by SAM even if we manage to engage other attacking aircraft ...

Stop this fan boy stuff

Take a deep breath and relax. Now, put yourself into a military planner's shoes and do a quantitative analysis. Let us say your ground forces have reached a stalemate against 1000 enemy tanks and they have called in air support. Suddenly you are faced with questions such as how many aircraft do I send? Which missiles will deliver the most damage? How many sorties will I need to fly? Remember, time is of essence. The more sorties you have to fly, the more time the enemy has to come back with a response.

The point is, you can't say point blank 'we do not need bombers'. I am trying to take along everyone on this analysis journey so we can look at hard facts and then decide what kind of capabilities do we need? Do we need bombers? Look, given our limited budget, it will always be the case that what we need is much more than what we have and what we can get in a meaningful timeframe. But the crucial element is to know where we need to get and know it quantitatively and objectively. Otherwise we delude ourselves into a false sense of security.

OK, can we now get back to the discussion I am trying to have? Thank you.



Thank God for that! Humanity is not entirely lost. And hopefully, it will not be lost in the future either.

Finally a good post ...

Much appreciated ...

Brother ,,, what I need is guarantee of our airspace security so at this point of time where I am shortage of fighter aircraft SAMs I can't think of having bombers as they will not helpful in prime objective ....

Regarding close airsupport through bombers ,,, our military planners introduced much dangerous (in diplomatic terms) tactical nukes whereas they could have bought bombers ,,, the reason is mechanised inventory of our adversary includes moveable SAMs so if we have a cold start doctrine where enemy forces comes with heavy mechanised attack they will bring those SAMs as well furthermore, the moment these bombs will take off from the air base they will activate the redars and will force a retaliatory attack from enemy fighters ... remember enemy fighters are not only fast but can easily target those bombers from longest range of BVR ... In case of potential conflict there is a high risk of these assets cecoming liability rather than asset due to size only ...

I can agree they can be handy if we could get air superiority over atleast 200 KMs of indian air space which menas all the basis of indian territory within 500Km from Pakistani borders are wipped off ... than these bombers can hit ground forces and destroy military installations ... but can we achieve that ??? I don't think so ....

More better investment could be having heavy fighters like su30 which have multipurpose role of air superiority and can carry enormous amount of bombs as well ...

 

[MastanKhan]

Indian economy is much larger than just Mumbai. Anyway, on a public forum, a civilian like myself shouldn't be scheming for mass murder. I want to be respectful of the sensitivities of our Indian members as well. Strikes on major cities will be thoroughly calculated by the top brass. They are definitely not unaware of their potential. I just want to discuss military tactics against military targets. Thanks.

Hi,

Please don't assume that the targets are simply civilians or that civilians will be targeted---. The targets will be of tactical and military importance---and there will be 100's of them---.

You should know that when discussing military matters---the targets are of military importance and just not random targets---.

If the military brass knew---they have not shown anything to counter it---and if they have some plan---it really is not worth anything so far---.

And again---please don't assume that the " military brass " is more intelligent in planning than any other civilian.

They have failed so far.

Hi,

If you look at this map---the best tactical solution is shamsi base---dalbandin which is right on top of gwadar---.

They aircraft can fly 400---500 miles parallel to the enemy coastline and position itself to strike at targets in areas that have never been hit before---dash in and from standoff distances let lose their weapons at the mumbai coastline and its assets---and be gone.

The purpose is to create a major panic in the lower states of the enemy lands---and with proper subversive tactics---to create a situation of chaos and civil unrest---destruction of water supply---fuel dumps---bridges in major cities---create chaos---mayhem and panic---in the city and let the city public destroy it itself---.

You children have to clue how to fight a war---. Bomb this and bomb that---defensive here and defensive there---what is this---a frigging weed smoking contest---.

 

[rustom]

Hi,

Please don't assume that the targets are simply civilians or that civilians will be targeted---. The targets will be of tactical and military importance---and there will be 100's of them---.

You should know that when discussing military matters---the targets are of military importance and just not random targets---.

If the military brass knew---they have not shown anything to counter it---and if they have some plan---it really is not worth anything so far---.

And again---please don't assume that the " military brass " is more intelligent in planning than any other civilian.

They have failed so far.

View attachment 365117

Hi,

If you look at this map---the best tactical solution is shamsi base---dalbandin which is right on top of gwadar---.

They aircraft can fly 400---500 miles parallel to the enemy coastline and position itself to strike at targets in areas that have never been hit before---dash in and from standoff distances let lose their weapons at the mumbai coastline and its assets---and be gone.

The purpose is to create a major panic in the lower states of the enemy lands---and with proper subversive tactics---to create a situation of chaos and civil unrest---destruction of water supply---fuel dumps---bridges in major cities---create chaos---mayhem and panic---in the city and let the city public destroy it itself---.

You children have to clue how to fight a war---. Bomb this and bomb that---defensive here and defensive there---what is this---a frigging weed smoking contest---.

Laws of unintended consequence can happen to Pakistan if even it attempts the above scenario. Which means India will own Pakistan.

 

[aliyusuf]

Hi,

And again---please don't assume that the " military brass " is more intelligent in planning than any other civilian.

They have failed so far.

Agreed Sir.
Especially if we see the following sequence of events ...

Attack on NCO Mess / MRF Kamra airbase ... January 18th, 2008
Attack on GHQ ................................................ October 5th, 2009
Attack on PNS Mehran (Airbase) .................... May 22nd, 2011
Attack on 3 AEW Planes Kamra airbase ......... August 16th, 2012

After the GHQ attack stringent measures were needed to be taken. But taken by surprise 4 times? That is not something one can overlook. Lives of diligent, motivated and valuable personnel were lost and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons and equipment were destroyed or damaged. We are still in the process of recovering from those losses.

This is just one aspect of the level of their awareness of the situation around them and the depth of their perception on what is needed to counter that situation.

Despite their professional acumen and dedication ... they have seemed to be lacking at times ... in being proactive and thinking out of the box when anything extra-ordinary happens.

 

[Humble Analyst]

Ohhh bhai why are you comapring apples with oranges ... before comparing China with us please answere the following :

1. 
   

Ohh bhai giving example of israel ,,, how many bombers they have ? despite having complete air superirority in case any cnflict with its neigbouring nation ...

Brother corruption is another issue ... but the fact of the day is you have to prioritize with whatever budget you have .. and priority cannot be different than this ...

1. Area denial and anti access over our own air space ...
2. Air superiority over bordering areas ....
3. Air superiority over enemy air space ...

Brother fact of the day is currently we are struggling in maintaing first priority ... we do not have long range SAM .. Currently other than F16 blk 52 are of ourplatform are inferrior or at par (only jf17 and old blk of f1) to enemy's mirrages migs and mkis... and even if we ignore the technical edge then even in quantity we are low ...

Are you living in a dream world of buying a bomber of B52 size ... in case of potential conflict the moment bomber came close to border it will be shot down by SAM even if we manage to engage other attacking aircraft ...

Stop this fan boy stuff


Fan boy??
Dream of B 52 brother how can you conclude this? Our multirole planes are not up to the task for offense. PAF needs to change the so called "Doctrine". How many persons PAF has per plane? Has anybody looked into the Air Force?
I understand the struggle but look at the waste in Air Force. Has anybody questioned how the planes were acquired? PAF needs to get out of the comfort zone and ask for their share. While corruption is a different topic but is directly related. Stop thinking that others are stupid.

Fan boy??
Dream of B 52 brother how can you conclude this? Our multirole planes are not up to the task for offense. PAF needs to change the so called "Doctrine". How many persons PAF has per plane? Has anybody looked into the Air Force?
I understand the struggle but look at the waste in Air Force. Has anybody questioned how the planes were acquired? PAF needs to get out of the comfort zone and ask for their share. While corruption is a different topic but is directly related. Stop thinking that others are stupid.

 

[nana41]

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?

Introduction of Ballistic missile also has reduced the need of Bombers ,I think.

 

[The Accountant]

Fan boy??
Dream of B 52 brother how can you conclude this? Our multirole planes are not up to the task for offense. PAF needs to change the so called "Doctrine". How many persons PAF has per plane? Has anybody looked into the Air Force?
I understand the struggle but look at the waste in Air Force. Has anybody questioned how the planes were acquired? PAF needs to get out of the comfort zone and ask for their share. While corruption is a different topic but is directly related. Stop thinking that others are stupid.

Arey mery bhai idher udher ki baat q ker rahy ho ... topic is need of bombers in PAF ... bhai when did I said Pakistan multi-role platform are enough ... I am saying infact we are strugling to even maintain aerial defense and our priority is to maintain airial defense and offense ... I am strong supporter of Pakistan should go for another 4+ generation fighter or should work with china to expedite delivery of J31 and buy them too in numbers ...

Whereas in this thread we are discussing heavy bombers like aircraft ... like b52 strategic bombers ...

 

[SQ8]

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? .

Why do you want carpet bombing? What is the purpose of it?

 

[Humble Analyst]

The thread is PAF Bombers? Where is strategic or tactical?

c

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?

Let PAF get first planes required for Air Superiority and then yes they need bombers to take out Forward operating bases.