What's new

Search for Pakistani Strategic Bomber

@pakistanipower it is an attack aircraft that can carry air launched cruise missiles, anti ship missiles along with dumb and guided bombs. If we want to deploy cruise missiles in a huge amount then simply launching them from the ground would be a better option.
Disgree :disagree: ground launch cruise missiles is prone to be intercepted by enemy's stand off munitions/missile, yes JH-7 can:agree: but have limited capability to launch saturation attack just 2-4 cruise missile carried by JH-7 which will insufficient single H-6 have a fire power more than 2-3 JH-7, imagine 2-6 H-6 fire power so i don't agree with you no hard feeling bro @Armchair-General :disagree::angel:
 
.
our enemy is well within our range .. we don't need expensive bombers rather we should buy Flankers , and more multi-role fighters .

Defence strategy is against all scenarios
Logical to have at least 10 Bombers in fleet for strategic usage

Rockwell-B1-B-Lancer-strategic-bomber-610539.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
Search for Pakistani Strategic Bomber

H-6K+bomber+6x+CJ-10K+Land+Attack+Cruise+Missiles.jpg




Many will argue , we do not need Strategic bomber but lets face it the Bombers have a strategic usage due to large amount of Ammo *Bombs it can carry


H_6K_Eng.png




Considering the amount of goodies it can carry , JF17 can't possibly match that quantiy and payload for a large scale damage


Xian-H-6K-Nose-1.jpg



maxresdefault.jpg




From Tactical prespective the amount of Damage 1 Bomber flight can do is 10 times what JF17 would deliver


soldiers-pose-in-front-of-xian-h6-strategic-bomber-during-a-theme-picture-id823419374
Pakistan should focus it's limited sources to procure or produce a stealthy jet like j31 and TFX which can also serve as deep penetration bombers and wouldn't need escort like the traditional bombers do
 
.
Considering how the USAF still operates 72 B-52s and russia reactivated their bombers, and China invested in making them: thinking strategic bombers (especially when used for stand off weapon delivery) are obsolete is woefully shortsighted.

Those who talk about flying over Indian airspace on bombing runs haven't been reading the arguments for these aircraft and those who are talking about 700km range of the current babur need to understand how air launched missiles fly further than ground launched ones by virtue of altitude. To the last point, just look at the SD-10A which has a 100km range. The ground launched variant has 50km range (dk 10). The sub launched babur has even less range than the TEL launched missile (450km). Where you launch a weapon from matters. An air launched Babur will have tremendous range advantages over the ground launched variant. Its range would far exceed 700km. A bomber carrying this would be well away from the S400 reach and far outside of the reach of IAF fighters by simple virtue of the weapons its is carrying can be deployed from over 1000km away from its target. And the volley would not be 3-4 missiles... It would be 6-8 missiles. They would not enter Indian airspace for deep strike bombing runs or any short thrusts. They would be kept deep in Pakistan space, firing shots on Indian forces deep in India (think of them like long range snipers). They could take out s400 sites and attack forward airbases making it difficult to rapidly turn over a fighter allowing for less sorties to be flown making it more difficult to achieve air superiority over PAF fighters.

In the first 2-3days with sustained strikes, both fobs and S400 positions of IAF would be overwhelmed by missiles, making life far more difficult for IAF and hence IA. THAT is force multiplication in action. You get and offensive punch from deep in your territory without escalating to ballistic missiles and there is little they can do early on to deal with the bombers.

The ability to launch large scale assaults from a relatively safer location is not something that can be enjoyed by strike fighters includimg. J-20. AND strike fighters dont carry enough payload to render an airbase useless, a 1-2 H-6K do. This enables fighters to defend the airspace. Using the precious fighters over Indian airspace where they will face a multilayered defense including various SAM types and fighters overwhelmingly out numbering them is foolish amd stupid. Pakistans goal at this time isnt conquest, rather bloody nose to the point where the aggressor looses its desire for war.
 
Last edited:
.
Trigger gadget or cruise Missile is fantastic tool on a Strategic bomber

maxresdefault.jpg



Quite easy to see in 1 Mission the Bomber can pave a path thru enemy lines

maxresdefault.jpg




a) Range
b) Weapon Load in abundance

Is what makes the Strategic Bombers a nice tool to have and maintain


p0015845-1506.jpg



Loaded to teeth you can see what a full load will look like
b52a.jpg


A large rain of Molten metal is a massive element of Strategic bomber
A conventional F16 might only carry 1-2 of these bombers in above image


The problem for the Bomber is really survival in battlefield



JF-17+Thunder+Pakistan+Air+Force+PAF+C-802A+Anti-ship+Missile+SD-10A+BVRAAM+PL-5E+II+WVRAAM++500+kg+LS-6+Satellite+Inertially+Guided+Bomb+LT-3+LT-2LS-500J+Laser++HAFER+H-4PGM+RAAD+MAR-1+%25286%2529.jpg



When you compare the bomber vs JF17 thunder you can clearly see difference in load capacity and really not fair to compare a bomber with a fighter Jet
 
Last edited:
.
indian has 3 million square kilometers land and it only has 600 figters.Considering their poor mainteince then only half of them can carry task of operation in war if we exclude short legged MIG-21.
so leave just 300 fighters,these fighters will be used to fight against PAF fighters, land attack, protect their AWAC and prepare for plaaf etc. they will seriously lack strength to monitor their long indian ocean line .Imagining 6 H-6K carry total 48 Babur ,fly over arabia sea and indian ocean and drop the ammunitions。
the whole south indian will be in deep trouble. IAF will not has any significative force to stop you.
Jf17 and F16 cant do this work due to shorter range and less payload
 
Last edited:
.
indian has 3 million square kilometers land and it only has 600 figters.Considering their poor mainteince then only half of them can carry task of operation in war if we exclude short legged MIG-21.
so leave just 300 fighters,these fighters will be used to fight against PAF fighters, land attack, protect their AWAC and prepare for plaaf etc. they will seriously lack strength to monitor their long indian ocean line .Imagining 6 H-6K carry total 48 Babur ,fly over arabia sea and indian ocean and drop the ammunitions。
the whole south indian will be in deep trouble. IAF will not has any significative force to stop you.
Jf17 and F16 cant do this work due to shorter range and less payload

Where is the PAF going to base those bombers ?
 
. . .
One role of a bomber is as a cruise missile platform. It stays outside enemy airspace and fires cruise missile; air launched cruise missiles have a longer range because they don't expend fuel to get off the ground.

The range of a bomber means that the weapons can be launched from areas that are not currently accessible, bringing a new threat scenario.

Even a handful of strategic bombers, being a totally new weapon type, will throw the enemies war plans into a tail spin.
 
Last edited:
.
You dont need house them on Islands in the Arabian, you can put them in airbases in KPK and Balochistan. That makes them players and force multipliers on mutiple fronts from India, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Middle East.

Of note, they would also be useful for naval strike where a single H-6K could be fitted with 12-16 CM 400AKG in theory with some modification
 
Last edited:
.
Well not a bad idea actually..With a wall of fighters defending in punjab and sindh.. 5-6 bombers flying in KP & Balochistan or A-sea ..Acting as snipers with long range CM's .. PAF should look into it..
 
. .
You dont need house them on Islands in the Arabian, you can put them in airbases in KPK and Balochistan. That makes tgem players and force multipliers on mutiple fronts from India, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Middle East.

Of note, they would also be useful for naval strike where a single H-6K could be fitted with 12-16 CM 400AKG in theory with some modification

I was being sarcastic =)
I don't see any need in PAF for a strategic bomber fleet as the primary function of PAF is denying IAF the ability to dominate the airspace over Pakistan and its army formations and safeguarding strategic locations. And even if we had some, they would be taken out on the ground most likely or shot down within the first few days, if not hours, in any conflict.
Besides, as I was reminded when I started the thread for CAS platforms for the Army or Airforce, there is almost no room in the budget for even cheap aircraft, a bomber would be a white elephant that would just take up a huge chunk of the budget just for procurement, maintenance and upkeep. Even if money was not an issue, there is no strategic need for bombers in PAF.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom