Honourable Mastan Khan’s post raises many interesting questions. Not being an ex- member the Armed Services; I am not biased one way or the other. From a lay man’s angle and with my limited intelligence; I will try to look at it one point at time. I seek your indulgence if some points have already been covered by other honourable posters.
Firstly, to the best of my knowledge A-10 was never seriously on offer to Pakistan; also to the best of my info, A-10 is in service with no other country except the USA. Therefore debating whether PAF could have, would have or should have acquired A-10 is pointless.
Secondly, A-10 is not a bomber in the traditional sense. A-10 is primarily an anti-armour aircraft (tank buster), main armament being the lethal 30mm Gatling gun. Being slow (380 Knots at sea level ‘Clean’) it can only operate to full potential when complete air superiority exists. In any India/Pakistan scenario this would never be the case.
Combat radius of A-10 is only about 250 miles; hence it is not suitable for deep interdiction in mould of A-7 Corsair II or A-6 Intruder. Absence of A-10 in the PAF inventory can best be compensated thru the acquisition of state of the art tank busting helicopters gunships such as AH-64 Apache or Mi-28 Hind; it does not call for bombers.
Pakistan has had no “Bomber” aircraft after B-57 was retired. These days except the USA, Russia & China, no other country can afford luxury of dedicated “Bomber” force. Last attack aircraft which could be classified as “bomber” outside the super powers was the Buccaneer, retired in 1993 by the United Kingdom. Modern trend is towards multirole aircrafts such as Mig -29, Su-27, Su-30, Chinese J-10, J-11 & J-16, US, F-18, F-16, French Rafael & Mirage 2000, European Tornado, Typhoon, Swedish Grippen etc.
A-5 was never a bomber. It was a decent ground attack/strike aircraft. PAF Mirage-3 & Mirage-5 aircrafts (when these are not crashing) with the Rose upgrade can do the strike/interdiction job much better that A-5 was capable of. Mirage -5 can carry 8,000 lbs of ordinance about 675 miles on a hi-lo-hi profile. This is more than F-16. Perhaps that is why Mirages are still soldiering on in the PAF inventory.
J-16 is a twin engine heavy weight (empty weight 38,600 lbs versus max take of weight of 42000 lbs for F-16C Block 52). Don’t think it can be classified as a bomber either. However being an improved version of J-11 (SU-27), J-16 is without doubt an excellent multirole aircraft. However these big birds cost an arm and a leg to buy & maintain. On a tactical strike mission an F-16 will carry 4000 lb bomb load 360 miles and defend itself against the best. Even though many members of this forum hate it because it is American, you can see why PAF pilots love it. If I were a PAF planner, I would buy additional second hand F-16 and the MLU kits instead. This would give me more bang for my buck.
Finally, it is true that after A-5 PAF has no twin-engine aircraft. Single engine versus twin engine debate has been going on for a long time. It has not been conclusively proven that aircraft with 2 engines is better nor is it relevant to fighter versus bomber debate. True multi-role capability requires large platform which implies a heavy aircraft; which in turn require higher thrust power plant to compensate for heavy weapons load. Easiest solution is to put two engines instead on one.
Safety and survivability of twin-engine aircraft both during peace (bird strikes and technical failures) and war (enemy action) have been quoted as the most important driving factors for such a configuration. However, modern jet engines are extremely reliable and are being made as bird-proof as possible. With advances in engine technology a single engine can develop very high thrust. Lockheed Martin’s production of the multi-role single engine F-35 Lightning II, Joint Strike Fighter has a single Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine at 25,000 lbs (dry) and 40,000 lbs (with reheat). In other words, it produces as much thrust as the combined thrust of power plants fitted on the twin-engine General Electric F-414 powered US F-18 Super Hornets. On the other hand, the single-engine variety enjoys one distinct edge; it is consumes less fuel hence cheaper to operate and it is also less costly to buy as one engine costs less that two.
Based upon the above explanation I don’t think that PAF is dominated by the fighter jockeys and preference of single engine combat aircrafts is probably due to cost considerations.
