Does PAF need (Strategic) Bombers?

[Hayreddin]

simply PAF dont need it AND be realistically we cant had it now due to cost problem .

 

[ejaz007]

PAF does not need strategic bombers at the moment. We do need good fighter bombers though.

 

[Guest]

IMO, strategic bombers will never be needed for PAF.

those planes are very very expensive, not only the cost of the plane itself but the cost of extending the runway and the cost of maintaining. however, it's potential merits can be achieve by other means with lower cost. maybe every one here is aware of the capability of stealth fighters, but i guess not all of them realized that there is something even more powerful while affordable for PAF: CMs, especially the 2nd generation stealth CMs. provided that PAF can acquire European or Chinese (adding US or Russian if you wish) GPS navigation and terrain information, no targets within 3000KMs from Pakistain will be save. and the cost is so little compare to the cost of using strategic bombers: about 1 million each, no need for pilots and runways, can be mess producted only one month before launching (means no maintaining cost), difficult to intercept if not impossible.

in short, strategic bombers are to drop bombs, however, if the bombs managed to guide themselves to the target, why bothered.

the remaining questions are
1)can PAF get those weapons, CMs(>300kms) are classified as strategic weapons that are forbidden to be sold.

2)can PAF get the GPS information

 

[ice_man]

I was just making my point, everybody has its own viewpoint whether he is from native country or outside the country, his points looked convincing...Now tell me one thing why PAF did not induct Bombers since 1981-82 after the pahsing out of B-57?? Reasons??

PAf need MultiRole A/Cs like F-16s JF17s even they wnet for Mirage III for interception Role and then to Mirage V for Bombing Role both types of Mirage have the same Speed.

Even PAF opted to induct F-7s and then F7PGs and I think A-5s did a tremendeous job in Bombing Roles.

Inducting Fleet of Multi Role JF-17 and F16s MLUs/Block 52 will really make things easier...F16s C/D if u could see the picture have extra fuel capacity, hence they can hit long distant targets and will remain long time in the Air.

J-F17 fleet can be assigned into various i.e, Bomber. CAS, Night attack fighter etc.

Having Multirole Jets we can achieve maximum with limited options.

hey chill bro its not a personal attack towars you...but i agree with you 100% we need multi role fighters....besides now with targeting pods and laser guided weapons a bomber is not not necessary because the bomb finds itself home! so a bomber is or should i say will become extinct in a decade....bombers needs escorts that tie down many fighters that can be used elsewhere in the fight!

 

[Wingman]

hey chill bro its not a personal attack towars you...but i agree with you 100% we need multi role fighters....besides now with targeting pods and laser guided weapons a bomber is not not necessary because the bomb finds itself home! so a bomber is or should i say will become extinct in a decade....bombers needs escorts that tie down many fighters that can be used elsewhere in the fight!

Ohhhh Come on ICE MAN!!

It was not personal from you... I said earlier I was just making my point so did you.

 

[batmannow]

PAF is still busy in the projects of JF17, J10, IIL78, Saab etc. Lets just give them time... They are slowly but effectively developing their systems to match their counter parts.

1) If you talk about the Bomber then Why dont you talk on the aircraft carrier?
If you do so then will say PAF need to get an aircraft type which can land and take off from the carrier!!!!

2) I said earlier economic issues must also be considered, Hilly battle fields are not easier to deal with.

3) What type of bomber do we need?? Any idea..

The russian Tupolev Tu-160 strategic heavy bomber
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[26] (2,220 km/h, 1,380 mph, 1,200 knots) at high altitude
Range: 17,400 km (9,400 nm, 10,800 mi) unrefueled
Combat radius: 10,500 km (5,670 NM, 6,500 mi)
Service ceiling 15,000 m (49,200 ft)
Rate of climb: 70 m/s (13,860 ft/min)
Wing loading: 743 kg/m² with wings fully swept (152 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.37
Normal load 9.000 kg
Maximum load 40.000
Range 14.000 km (with a load of 9.000kg)
10.500 km (with a load of 40.000 kg)
Armament 12 H-55 or 24 H-15 missiles
free falling bombs

 

[Wingman]

The russian Tupolev Tu-160 strategic heavy bomber
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[26] (2,220 km/h, 1,380 mph, 1,200 knots) at high altitude
Range: 17,400 km (9,400 nm, 10,800 mi) unrefueled
Combat radius: 10,500 km (5,670 NM, 6,500 mi)
Service ceiling 15,000 m (49,200 ft)
Rate of climb: 70 m/s (13,860 ft/min)
Wing loading: 743 kg/m² with wings fully swept (152 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.37
Normal load 9.000 kg
Maximum load 40.000
Range 14.000 km (with a load of 9.000kg)
10.500 km (with a load of 40.000 kg)
Armament 12 H-55 or 24 H-15 missiles
free falling bombs

It really inspires me very nice work Batman, QUESTIONS

1) Two of them would enough??
2) Cost of the Plane?
3) Where to be based (probably in Masroor)?

 

[sathruvinasakh]

Well not exactly true


A Missile launche from Surface to Surface, will always follow a specific trajectory, up and down ..{Can you care to explain this?}

A stealth Bomber , is vital as , you can alter your strategy if you are a general

Example if My plant is to Bomb out xyz airports and there is a mission underway with 10 bombers, and in mid way , we recieve new intelligence. We can easily divert the bombers to a new target , a near by outpost for Indian army or another target.

Also with the man in control of the mission , literally the person can change the dynamics of the mission on the fly ... mean while the missiles alone can be neutralized by other missile counters.

Also if someone has the russian bear bombers these things fly really high high altitudes, and even now they are vital part of Russian army strategical goals - so if they are good for Russia they are good for Pakistan

Every army should have at least 10 bombers

A bomber could take out 30-40 sergical strikes , with laser guided weapons vs a fighter which can only take out few .....and also a Missile can do similar mission but
it may not care about human loss - and can also take out civilian structures

Some time reality bites right?

If SAM`s are giving the real hard time to fighters,how can bombers save their assss?

Modern long range SAM`s can go atleast 100+km altitude and more than 200km in range.While the medium range onces can reach atleast 25+km in height with a range of 25-60km.

Atleast fighters can manuever in the last milli sec,but not bombers.
They have to absolutely depend on passive weapons like jammers and ECM,ECCM,flares,....

Did u forgot that SA-2 in vietnam war shot down atleast 250 bombers+fighters during 1969?

Bombers were mainly used for sanitizing purpose in conventional role or only if the air defenses were neutralized.
Or else in the nuclear scenario,bombers just launch the long range CM`S far away from the target country`s air defenses.

 

[sathruvinasakh]

It really inspires me very nice work Batman, QUESTIONS

1) Two of them would enough??
2) Cost of the Plane?
3) Where to be based (probably in Masroor)?

and you think russia would simply throw them on sale? and that too for PAK to use against India?

Even if so, which AF base can hold them,so that no IAF radar can`t pull it on its screens?

 

[logic]

Newly accuired F-16 block 52+ C/D aircraft will be good for bombing. As far as dedicated bombers are concerned i do not think Pakistan needs them because it is not our intent to invade other countries.

 

[gambit]

Did u forgot that SA-2 in vietnam war shot down atleast 250 bombers+fighters during 1969?

Do not forget that it was the bombing campaigns, from fighter-bombers like the F-105 to the dedicated heavy bomber B-52, that compelled North Viet Nam to the negotiation table so they can have some respite. Viet Nam is not a geographically large country. Like Korea it was divided into two distinct political entities. Each side have its own political goals and political goals determine military objectives. In turn, successful military objectives support the final political goals. It does no good if I am losing every battle but am demanding my enemy to concede to my demands.

The North's political goal was to subject Viet Nam under communist rule. The South's political goal was to maintain partition, ala Korea. To maintain partition require that South Viet Nam and the US recognize and respect the legal and moral implications of that partition. It also require the alliance to prosecute any violations of the agreement that created that partition. It does not matter if the other side have the same respect or not. As long as one side carries that respect, it is obligated to support its political goal.

Had North Viet Nam been able to deliver to South Vietnamese territory the scale of bombardment it received from the USA/SVN alliance, the war would not have lasted as long as it did. Keep in mind that North Viet Nam's political goal was reunification. Either the USA/SVN alliance respond with greater military might in the face of enemy heavy bombers, or the US withdraw support and presence from the country. But since North Viet Nam did not have the dedicated bombing platform like the US did, it had to resort to a guerrilla warfare conducted by the Viet Cong (VC). Very low tech and because the USA/SVN alliance's political goal was to maintain partition, the alliance could not turn this dedicated weapon platform against its own territory. The result was the Vietnam War, for the US, lasted about a decade with the American public psychologically worn out.

The 17th parallel, the partition of Viet Nam, was de facto a border and yet heavy bombers like the B-52 was able to inflict serious damages enough to compel one side to plead for respite. So the argument that Pakistan does not need a dedicated heavy bombing platform because Pakistan have no plans to 'invade' other countries reveal a serious lack of understanding of military history in general. Remember that SUCCESSFUL military objectives support the political goal and successes are not possible if one does not have the means.

 

[batmannow]

and you think russia would simply throw them on sale? and that too for PAK to use against India?

Even if so, which AF base can hold them,so that no IAF radar can`t pull it on its screens?

dont you get emotional!
its simple, you wana get US hand on MRCA, fine ! let RUSSIA be free, & thn see wht it give more thn this.
we need stratagic bombers for our war on terror, not for india, plz take a cool glass of water, it wasnt directed towards india.

 

[batmannow]

It really inspires me very nice work Batman, QUESTIONS

1) Two of them would enough??
2) Cost of the Plane?
3) Where to be based (probably in Masroor)?

yes sure 2 of them enough.
well, who said it, that we should buy them, instead we should lease them for six months ,so our indian friends doesnt have any stomch problms?
its up too our AM, where ever he can put them, i guss he is right person to decide that!
thanks

 

[ice_man]

yes sure 2 of them enough.
well, who said it, that we should buy them, instead we should lease them for six months ,so our indian friends doesnt have any stomch problms?
its up too our AM, where ever he can put them, i guss he is right person to decide that!
thanks

batmaan if that is your aim then we should get 6 on lease like you said and send them up every night at 2am for bomber patrol close to the border...that will surely keep the indians awake...as to why PAF is sending up bombers for loitering in the middle of the night!

 

[Wingman]

1) Someone above got a valid point instead sending 10-12 aircrafts, send only one bomber and get the job done.

2) Two would be enough (for present scenario)

3) To friend from India....lets not forget our Missiles