H6K for Pakistan Strategic Forces

[Ultima Thule]

Similar arguments can be about AWACS systems of Pakistan, then Pakistan shouldnt have them.. thats why Pakistan will develop Tactics...

Awacs and Jammer, fighters High Alt (second Def measure) formation around H6Ks equipped with ALCMs (600kms+) or AntiShips(200kms+) weapons. and with a perimeter covered by fighters in Low formation/High Formation CAPs at 150-200kms for engagement with 60kms+ BVRs.
The pertimeter will extend the engagement parameter while the H6Ks can hit the targets.

Easy targets for the enemy if we will use H6K that it need escorts which means alt least 4 -6 f16/jf17 along with it so it would be useless for Pakistan, j16 or jh7a is more suitable for our need,and our enemy is in our next door not 3000-4000 miles away we need a fighter bombers not strategic bombers

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The Su-34 is the appropriate aircraft for this role...

...but there's 0% chance of the PAF getting it.

We should focus on how to tailor actual projects in the pipeline (JF-17B, Block-III and AZM) for strategic roles.

So, for example, the Ra'ad II looks like it was optimized for the JF-17. The design (especially stabilizers) seem compact enough so that it could fit under the wings. It also has a range of 600 km, which means the JF-17 can deploy it from within our borders (and offset the range loss from swapping out the fuel tanks).

The Block-III and JF-17B should both fare better in terms of range thanks to having increased internal fuel capacity and in-flight refueling capability. If anything, the PAF should acquire enough of these aircraft (...maybe an upgraded JF-17B variant with AESA radar etc) for the strategic strike role (using Ra'ad II).

It isn't ideal, but it's the most realistic way of making it work. For the long-term, the PAF's focus would be on AZM.

Let's see what approach they take. It'll be larger than the JF-17 for sure, but it might be smaller than the TF-X (it seems Turkey will use a GE F110-class engine? @cabatli_53 ). Still, it'll likely retain the ability to carry the Ra'ad II or some ALCM of the future. If Turkey succeeds in securing a non-ITAR engine, the larger TF-X (which the PAF did show interest in) could also factor in as a strike option, especially if it has a larger internal bay.

That said, for strategic strike -- and deep-strike, SEAD/DEAD, etc -- the PAF could be better of studying the utility of drones. It costs a lot of money to set-up design and testing infrastructure for AZM, why not extend its use to design a drone with a 3,000+ kg internal payload? You can load a UAV with warheads and send it on its merry way on one-way trips to targets, no care for loss or risk. You can re-use inputs from AZM (i.e., engine).

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

The Su-34 is the appropriate aircraft for this role...

...but there's 0% chance of the PAF getting it.

We should focus on how to tailor actual projects in the pipeline (JF-17B, Block-III and AZM) for strategic roles.

So, for example, the Ra'ad II looks like it was optimized for the JF-17. The design (especially stabilizers) seem compact enough so that it could fit under the wings. It also has a range of 600 km, which means the JF-17 can deploy it from within our borders (and offset the range loss from swapping out the fuel tanks).

The Block-III and JF-17B should both fare better in terms of range thanks to having increased internal fuel capacity and in-flight refueling capability. If anything, the PAF should acquire enough of these aircraft (...maybe an upgraded JF-17B variant with AESA radar etc) for the strategic strike role (using Ra'ad II).

It isn't ideal, but it's the most realistic way of making it work. For the long-term, the PAF's focus would be on AZM.

Let's see what approach they take. It'll be larger than the JF-17 for sure, but it might be smaller than the TF-X (it seems Turkey will use a GE F110-class engine? @cabatli_53 ). Still, it'll likely retain the ability to carry the Ra'ad II or some ALCM of the future. If Turkey succeeds in securing a non-ITAR engine, the larger TF-X (which the PAF did show interest in) could also factor in as a strike option, especially if it has a larger internal bay.

That said, for strategic strike -- and deep-strike, SEAD/DEAD, etc -- the PAF could be better of studying the utility of drones. It costs a lot of money to set-up design and testing infrastructure for AZM, why not extend its use to design a drone with a 3,000+ kg internal payload? You can load a UAV with warheads and send it on its merry way on one-way trips to targets, no care for loss or risk. You can re-use inputs from AZM (i.e., engine).

What about Anti Ship Role? Do you think RA'AD is suitable for Long Range Anti Ship Weapon? What about using J16 as Heavy Anti Ship Plateform?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

What about Anti Ship Role? Do you think RA'AD is suitable for Long Range Anti Ship Weapon? What about using J16 as Heavy Anti Ship Plateform?

The PAF is using the JF-17 to take lead on the strike role. It can carry 2 C-802. However, the Ra'ad II can also take on targets at sea (according to ISPR), so yes, it can support the anti-ship role.

The PAF's next step should be to get a supersonic-cruising anti-ship missile; if the JF-17B/Block-III can carry 2 Ra'ad-II, it can carry 2 supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Yes, the JF-17's range is going to be much less than say a Flanker-type, but it's a moot point as we don't have access to a Flanker-type. With longer ranged anti-ship missiles (AShM) and lots of JF-17s, we can at least defend our EEZ reasonably well.

 

[Ultima Thule]

What about Anti Ship Role? Do you think RA'AD is suitable for Long Range Anti Ship Weapon? What about using J16 as Heavy Anti Ship Plateform?

Yeah RAAD have both qualities ( to attack land as well as Sea targets) but remember bro j16 is based on Russian design (su30 mkk/mkk2) which might not available for Pakistan because of its design is Russian intellectual property

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

I dream of buying Bugatti when I can't even afford an full spec version of Honda accord with all goodies in one payment.
It seems it's easy to dream having stuffs like videogames where one can have different fighters and then even argue for the dream in a defence forum that it will work.

Someone wake me up already!!!

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

The PAF is using the JF-17 to take lead on the strike role. It can carry 2 C-802. However, the Ra'ad II can also take on targets at sea (according to ISPR), so yes, it can support the anti-ship role.

The PAF's next step should be to get a supersonic-cruising anti-ship missile; if the JF-17B/Block-III can carry 2 Ra'ad-II, it can carry 2 supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Yes, the JF-17's range is going to be much less than say a Flanker-type, but it's a moot point as we don't have access to a Flanker-type. With longer ranged anti-ship missiles (AShM) and lots of JF-17s, we can at least defend our EEZ reasonably well.

Why supersonic? Experts here in PDF say Subsonic ones are better

 

[Ultima Thule]

Why supersonic? Experts here in PDF say Subsonic ones are better

No one say subsonic are batter but remember supersonic gives extreme less reaction times for targets i would like to see Pakistan have hybrid anti ship missiles in our arsenal like Russian sizzler and Chinese yj-18. Which have both qualities of subsonic ( STEALTH/ sea skimming) and supersonic (LESS RECTION TIMES)( subsonic cruise/terminal supersonic)

 

[notorious_eagle]

No one say subsonic are batter but remember supersonic gives extreme less reaction times for targets i would like to see Pakistan have hybrid anti ship missiles in our arsenal like Russian sizzler and Chinese yj-18. Which have both qualities of subsonic ( STEALTH/ sea skimming) and supersonic (LESS RECTION TIMES)( subsonic cruise/terminal supersonic)

Agreed on the hybrid part about having both supersonic and subsonic in your arsenal.

But supersonic missile loses its potency against an enemy that has extensive radar coverage, coupled with excellent C&C and excellent systems to engage the supersonic missile. Supersonic missiles due their speed have to fly high, huge RCS and are compromised in their agility. Pitted against a tech savvy foe such as Pakistan's extensive C4I, the Brahmos will be immediately detected and engaged by multiple platforms reducing its potency. But a Brahmos fielded against a country such as Bangladesh will be an absolute nightmare for Bangladesh's Armed Forces.

There's a reason why the US still relies on subsonic and terrain hugging Cruise Missiles to get the job done.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The key is maintaining a diverse mix of anti-ship missiles.

Pakistan already has several subsonic cruising types, and (if it opts to arm it with a radar-guided seeker) an air-launched ballistic missile/rocket in the CM-400AKG. The last is supersonic-cruising.

You can find supersonic-cruising anti-ship missiles with sea-skimming capability (but I can't say if they'll cruise at their top potential speed) as well. The benefit of a varied mix -- especially if you fire at once -- is that you can stress the enemy's naval air defence, and stress can have an impact (Swift Retort).

 

[YeBeWarned]

Our enemy is right next to us, we don't need long range Strategic bombers ..CM , SHORAD's and MRLS can do the job ..

 

[HAIDER]

If this animal sitting in storage then use this ... Pakistan don't need long range bomber. Better have long range precision strike missiles.

Chinese new one ..

 

[mingle]

Not a bad plane, here it is loaded with cruise missiles

Abit of an overdose but maybe a dozen of these will be good for now, however i would prefer if Pakistan joined hands with China in their JH-XX project instead. Its range and payload would be more suitable to Pakistan's needs than the beast H6K.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-jh-xx-chinas-newest-and-fastest-stealth-bomber-120911

Not effective in india Pak scenario Distance is not big also we can cover deep india with CM

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

The Su-34 is the appropriate aircraft for this role...

...but there's 0% chance of the PAF getting it.

We should focus on how to tailor actual projects in the pipeline (JF-17B, Block-III and AZM) for strategic roles.

So, for example, the Ra'ad II looks like it was optimized for the JF-17. The design (especially stabilizers) seem compact enough so that it could fit under the wings. It also has a range of 600 km, which means the JF-17 can deploy it from within our borders (and offset the range loss from swapping out the fuel tanks).

The Block-III and JF-17B should both fare better in terms of range thanks to having increased internal fuel capacity and in-flight refueling capability. If anything, the PAF should acquire enough of these aircraft (...maybe an upgraded JF-17B variant with AESA radar etc) for the strategic strike role (using Ra'ad II).

It isn't ideal, but it's the most realistic way of making it work. For the long-term, the PAF's focus would be on AZM.

Let's see what approach they take. It'll be larger than the JF-17 for sure, but it might be smaller than the TF-X (it seems Turkey will use a GE F110-class engine? @cabatli_53 ). Still, it'll likely retain the ability to carry the Ra'ad II or some ALCM of the future. If Turkey succeeds in securing a non-ITAR engine, the larger TF-X (which the PAF did show interest in) could also factor in as a strike option, especially if it has a larger internal bay.

That said, for strategic strike -- and deep-strike, SEAD/DEAD, etc -- the PAF could be better of studying the utility of drones. It costs a lot of money to set-up design and testing infrastructure for AZM, why not extend its use to design a drone with a 3,000+ kg internal payload? You can load a UAV with warheads and send it on its merry way on one-way trips to targets, no care for loss or risk. You can re-use inputs from AZM (i.e., engine).

The crux of the matter for the TFX engine is it’s freedom from the external pressure!! This is the foremost condition in the written contract for the engine JV by RR and KALE Group....

 

[Yousafzai_M]

RCS is too big and will easily be targeted by airdefense assets. Such planes are good for softening the battles field after air defense assets have been neutralized. For a country like Pakistan which purely under defense offense doctrine such an assets is useless. Better invest all that money in extending range of cruise missiles and produce them en masse to level any strategic assets of enemy making them think twice.

Wouldn't the same apply to US B-52?