eastern front eastern front, we don't have real threat for our western front except for few terrorists and see @Sarge post of that is enough for few terrorists
Well said. It's worth adding that the bomber unit wouldn't come alive in the thick of the war, but likely in the very first moments when hostilities truly begin. As both capitals bark at one another, the PAF would begin loading LACMs onto the bombers and having aircrew, engineers and technicians at the ready. Dispersal bases in other parts of the country, especially out in the west, will also be activated, so as to prevent the bombers from being destroyed in one assault. With the bombers, the PAF would basically begin bludgeoning from the onset with the aim of destroying as much of the IAF's forward forces on the ground as possible. This is a valid approach.I am honestly at a loss when people here are talking about using C-130 as a bomb truck and poo pooing the idea of an actual bomber! I want people to sit and actually think about what they are saying. Here we have people advocating the use of a heavy strike fighter against India...that has its roles in a defensive posture (ie over pakistan) but, actually attacking India (which is what you will need to do in order to preserve your airforce in a full tilt conflict) is ludicrous. What would your strike aircraft be? If you are advocating Chinese Flankers, good luck, they havent come as of yet and they arent coming in the future...because China itself still relies on Russia for a significant part of its tech, they pissed them off by copying them which is why it took 10+ years for them to agree to sell another flanker to China, they arent going to aggravate them again by selling said flankers to Pakistan. Second option is the Su-35, IF it comes it will be a boon, but as of now, there is very little chance. Even if it comes, it will be in moderate numbers only (40 or so), and will be better utilized in an air superiority role to deal with Rafale (36) or MKI (220+) and other components of IAF strike packages. If not flankers that leaves JH-7B, but again, the number of strikes you will achieve over India will be insignificant compared to the loss of resources. These strike aircraft are better used defending Naval front where they will actually have a chance to survive and do significant damage to IN.
Over India to hit forward operating bases (FOBs) or SAM batteries, you will need a significant strike package. That would involve 2-3 Heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 Fighters to provide cover. People here operate under the assumption that a flanker (or leopard (JH-7)) can carry MRAAMs/LRAAMs so it can defend itself, thats only partially true. When in strike configuration, to participate in an actual fight, it would need to jettison its heavy strike weapons (bombs/stand off missiles) in order to maneuver adequately to 1) avoid being hit by enemy missiles and 2) actually fight in a dog fight. This is all if it makes it past Indian S400 which, with its 400km range will be unchallenged in hitting half your strike package and escorts out of the sky before they even reach the border (in time of war). Add to this the number of sorties that will need to be run to keep IAF from establishing air superiority over Pakistan will be 2X what IAF needs to run per aircraft given their numerical superiority, means PAF fighters will be on the ground 2X more than IAF fighters, increasing the risk that they will be destroyed on ground. Hence why people keep saying it would take a week to 10 days for IAF to establish air superiority, which would then lead to nuclear retaliation from Pakistan (once air superiority is there, there is little else that Pakistan would be able to do before it is gradually (over the next month or 2 months over run on the ground).
Now those strike aircraft would be better served on flying Air superiority missions over Pakistan, which would enable a full defense of the country. The way to push IAF back is to push back their bases of operations to that they need to carry more fuel and less weapons on route to Pakistan, so that they need to refuel before getting back to their base of operations, so that you expose their refuelers and other assets. Hopefully pushing them further and further back. This mean they will need to fly more sorties per aircraft and that many of their shorter legged aircraft may even be removed from the fight. You also want to push S400 back so that it isnt able to target your fighters over Pakistan. To do this while preserving your fighting force you need a long range strike, far longer than what you currently have. The only way to do this is long range LACM or ALCM or Ballistic Missiles. A ballistic missile strike will likely be taken as a nuclear launch and would be met with nuclear retaliation even in the more likely even that it is carrying a conventional warhead, so I dont thin you want to go that route unless you mean to escalate it to that level. That leaves LACM and ALCM. Ra'ad doesnt have the range to push S400 back sufficiently leaving Babur. Even the 700km range is not sufficient to hit FOBs of IAF enough to push them back to protect PAF assets. This is why you need strategic bombers. what was a 700km surface launched CM will become a 1000-1500km ALCM. One strategic bomber will be enough to overwhelm an S400 battery with SATURATION CM STRIKES. It can overwhelm IAF bases within 1000km of the border, pushing the range of most IAF fighters, hence decreasing their loadouts and the number of sorties they can fly, thus helping to coverup PAF's numbers shortage. That is why the Chinese created the H-6K. To hit Taiwan and overwhelm its airdefense without ever launching a fighter aircraft. That is why the US has started arming B-52 with JASSM-ER and AMG-86 (which is soon to be retired), to that in heavily saturated areas like Syria, it can sit well outside of SAM ranges and obliterate a countries defenses without risk to the bomber or stealth aircraft, although our B-52s are able to carry 20 JASSM-ER or AMG-86 vs H-6K's 6). To those who say PAF isnt flying 8000km so doesnt need a strategic bomber, you miss the point, all while arguing that PAF should use C-130 as a f-ing bomb truck over India. You arent flying 8000km, you may only fly 1km, but your missiles will fly 1000-1500km and push back the IAF, and they wont be able to retaliate (you can station the bomber 500km inside Pakistan and still obliterate S400 batteries and keep slowly pushing the IAF back with CM strikes). So with one bomber, you did what 2-3 heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 fighter escorts likley couldnt do. destroy an S400 battery or FOB without significant risk to your asset.
Add to this the abiltiy of these bomber to also attack naval targets with Stand off CM (firing C602 or CM-400 in saturation style would overwhelm and IN CBG) (which is another of H-6K goals...deter US carrier groups).
This is the reason the US is still developing new bombers (LRS-B) as is Russia and China.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm
sir good post but care to explain how we will defend just one strategic bomber in presence of S-400?I am honestly at a loss when people here are talking about using C-130 as a bomb truck and poo pooing the idea of an actual bomber! I want people to sit and actually think about what they are saying. Here we have people advocating the use of a heavy strike fighter against India...that has its roles in a defensive posture (ie over pakistan) but, actually attacking India (which is what you will need to do in order to preserve your airforce in a full tilt conflict) is ludicrous. What would your strike aircraft be? If you are advocating Chinese Flankers, good luck, they havent come as of yet and they arent coming in the future...because China itself still relies on Russia for a significant part of its tech, they pissed them off by copying them which is why it took 10+ years for them to agree to sell another flanker to China, they arent going to aggravate them again by selling said flankers to Pakistan. Second option is the Su-35, IF it comes it will be a boon, but as of now, there is very little chance. Even if it comes, it will be in moderate numbers only (40 or so), and will be better utilized in an air superiority role to deal with Rafale (36) or MKI (220+) and other components of IAF strike packages. If not flankers that leaves JH-7B, but again, the number of strikes you will achieve over India will be insignificant compared to the loss of resources. These strike aircraft are better used defending Naval front where they will actually have a chance to survive and do significant damage to IN.
Over India to hit forward operating bases (FOBs) or SAM batteries, you will need a significant strike package. That would involve 2-3 Heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 Fighters to provide cover. People here operate under the assumption that a flanker (or leopard (JH-7)) can carry MRAAMs/LRAAMs so it can defend itself, thats only partially true. When in strike configuration, to participate in an actual fight, it would need to jettison its heavy strike weapons (bombs/stand off missiles) in order to maneuver adequately to 1) avoid being hit by enemy missiles and 2) actually fight in a dog fight. This is all if it makes it past Indian S400 which, with its 400km range will be unchallenged in hitting half your strike package and escorts out of the sky before they even reach the border (in time of war). Add to this the number of sorties that will need to be run to keep IAF from establishing air superiority over Pakistan will be 2X what IAF needs to run per aircraft given their numerical superiority, means PAF fighters will be on the ground 2X more than IAF fighters, increasing the risk that they will be destroyed on ground. Hence why people keep saying it would take a week to 10 days for IAF to establish air superiority, which would then lead to nuclear retaliation from Pakistan (once air superiority is there, there is little else that Pakistan would be able to do before it is gradually (over the next month or 2 months over run on the ground).
Now those strike aircraft would be better served on flying Air superiority missions over Pakistan, which would enable a full defense of the country. The way to push IAF back is to push back their bases of operations to that they need to carry more fuel and less weapons on route to Pakistan, so that they need to refuel before getting back to their base of operations, so that you expose their refuelers and other assets. Hopefully pushing them further and further back. This mean they will need to fly more sorties per aircraft and that many of their shorter legged aircraft may even be removed from the fight. You also want to push S400 back so that it isnt able to target your fighters over Pakistan. To do this while preserving your fighting force you need a long range strike, far longer than what you currently have. The only way to do this is long range LACM or ALCM or Ballistic Missiles. A ballistic missile strike will likely be taken as a nuclear launch and would be met with nuclear retaliation even in the more likely event that it is carrying a conventional warhead, so I dont think you want to go that route unless you mean to escalate it to that level. That leaves LACM and ALCM. Ra'ad doesnt have the range to push S400 back sufficiently leaving Babur. Even the 700km range of a surface launched babur is not sufficient to push FOBs of IAF far enough back to protect PAF assets. They would only hit FOBs within ~500-600km of border. This is why you need strategic bombers. what was a 700km surface launched CM will become a 1000-1500km ALCM. One strategic bomber will be enough to overwhelm an S400 battery with SATURATION CM STRIKES. It can overwhelm IAF bases within 1000km of the border, pushing the range of most IAF fighters, hence decreasing their loadouts and the number of sorties they can fly, thus helping to coverup PAF's numbers shortage. That is why the Chinese created the H-6K. To hit Taiwan and overwhelm its airdefense without ever launching a fighter aircraft. That is why the US has started arming B-52 with JASSM-ER and AMG-86 (which is soon to be retired), to that in heavily saturated areas like Syria, it can sit well outside of SAM ranges and obliterate a countries defenses without risk to the bomber or stealth aircraft, although our B-52s are able to carry 20 JASSM-ER or AMG-86 vs H-6K's 6). To those who say PAF isnt flying 8000km so doesnt need a strategic bomber, you miss the point, all while arguing that PAF should use C-130 as a f-ing bomb truck over India. You arent flying 8000km, you may only fly 1km, but your missiles will fly 1000-1500km and push back the IAF, and they wont be able to retaliate (you can station the bomber 500km inside Pakistan and still obliterate S400 batteries and keep slowly pushing the IAF back with CM strikes). So with one bomber, you did what 2-3 heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 fighter escorts likley couldnt do. destroy an S400 battery or FOB without significant risk to your asset.
Add to this the abiltiy of these bomber to also attack naval targets with Stand off CM (firing C602 or CM-400 in saturation style would overwhelm and IN CBG) (which is another of H-6K goals...deter US carrier groups).
This is the reason the US is still developing new bombers (LRS-B) as is Russia and China.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm
The PAF won't defend ... that's the point. The H-6K can operate from Pakistan's western edges over FATA and Baluchistan whilst sending over many land-attack cruise missiles, specifically 1,000-1,500 km missiles, across the border. It will keep firing as many, especially towards identified S-400 sites, until there is enough damage on India's air bases, air defence sites, naval dockyards, etc.
Ok sir but currently we have no cruise missiles of that range, especially not ALCM sir
India also has to work to ensure that Pakistan doesn't determine the location of the S-400 systems. The existence of sufficiently ranged strike assets makes that matter even more urgent. With adequate SIGINT and ELINT assets, coupled with SEAD and DEAD-relevant systems (e.g. ARM-tipped LACMs from H-6Ks), the S-400s can't be kept on all day and all night. India will need to keep them on the move so as to prevent the PAF from having a shot at destroying them. But moving them around also gives Pakistan some room, so the bombers need not operate from the western edges all the time. Really, the realizable goal is to make matters messy and complex enough such that India is discouraged from a fight, and the H-6K appear to (at least from a preliminary look) seem to help achieve that.
Aerial route in the presence of triumf S400 is fraught with danger. AIP equipped SSK armed with Babur LACM will be a safer and stealthier option. PN has been working on SLM for some time, mainly for 2nd strike nuke but a conventional SLCM wont go amiss.
I am honestly at a loss when people here are talking about using C-130 as a bomb truck and poo pooing the idea of an actual bomber! I want people to sit and actually think about what they are saying. Here we have people advocating the use of a heavy strike fighter against India...that has its roles in a defensive posture (ie over pakistan) but, actually attacking India (which is what you will need to do in order to preserve your airforce in a full tilt conflict) is ludicrous. What would your strike aircraft be? If you are advocating Chinese Flankers, good luck, they havent come as of yet and they arent coming in the future...because China itself still relies on Russia for a significant part of its tech, they pissed them off by copying them which is why it took 10+ years for them to agree to sell another flanker to China, they arent going to aggravate them again by selling said flankers to Pakistan. Second option is the Su-35, IF it comes it will be a boon, but as of now, there is very little chance. Even if it comes, it will be in moderate numbers only (40 or so), and will be better utilized in an air superiority role to deal with Rafale (36) or MKI (220+) and other components of IAF strike packages. If not flankers that leaves JH-7B, but again, the number of strikes you will achieve over India will be insignificant compared to the loss of resources. These strike aircraft are better used defending Naval front where they will actually have a chance to survive and do significant damage to IN.
Over India to hit forward operating bases (FOBs) or SAM batteries, you will need a significant strike package. That would involve 2-3 Heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 Fighters to provide cover. People here operate under the assumption that a flanker (or leopard (JH-7)) can carry MRAAMs/LRAAMs so it can defend itself, thats only partially true. When in strike configuration, to participate in an actual fight, it would need to jettison its heavy strike weapons (bombs/stand off missiles) in order to maneuver adequately to 1) avoid being hit by enemy missiles and 2) actually fight in a dog fight. This is all if it makes it past Indian S400 which, with its 400km range will be unchallenged in hitting half your strike package and escorts out of the sky before they even reach the border (in time of war). Add to this the number of sorties that will need to be run to keep IAF from establishing air superiority over Pakistan will be 2X what IAF needs to run per aircraft given their numerical superiority, means PAF fighters will be on the ground 2X more than IAF fighters, increasing the risk that they will be destroyed on ground. Hence why people keep saying it would take a week to 10 days for IAF to establish air superiority, which would then lead to nuclear retaliation from Pakistan (once air superiority is there, there is little else that Pakistan would be able to do before it is gradually (over the next month or 2 months over run on the ground).
Now those strike aircraft would be better served on flying Air superiority missions over Pakistan, which would enable a full defense of the country. The way to push IAF back is to push back their bases of operations so that they need to carry more fuel and less weapons on route to Pakistan, so that they need to refuel before getting back to their base of operations, so that you expose their refuelers and other assets. Hopefully pushing them further and further back. This mean they will need to fly more sorties per aircraft and that many of their shorter legged aircraft may even be removed from the fight. Those who have the range will likey need to refuel before entering Pakistan otherwise risk running out of fuel due to facing a fight vs PAF and still needing to fly back. If they dont refuel prior to entering Pakistan they will need to refuel as soon as re-entering India (either way, you have brought their tankers in range of your fighters and SAMs (if PAF every acquires long range SAMs). You also want to push S400 back so that it isnt able to target your fighters over Pakistan.
To do this while preserving your fighting force you need a long range strike, far longer than what you currently have. The only way to do this is long range LACM or ALCM or Ballistic Missiles. A ballistic missile strike will likely be taken as a nuclear launch and would be met with nuclear retaliation even in the more likely event that it is carrying a conventional warhead, so I dont think you want to go that route unless you mean to escalate it to that level. That leaves LACM and ALCM. Ra'ad doesnt have the range to push S400 back sufficiently leaving Babur. Even the 700km range of a surface launched babur is not sufficient to push FOBs of IAF far enough back to protect PAF assets. They would only hit FOBs within ~500-600km of border. This is why you need strategic bombers. what was a 700km surface launched CM will become a 1000-1500km ALCM. One strategic bomber will be enough to overwhelm an S400 battery with SATURATION CM STRIKES. It can overwhelm IAF bases within 1000km of the border, pushing the range of most IAF fighters, hence decreasing their loadouts and the number of sorties they can fly, thus helping to coverup PAF's numbers shortage. That is why the Chinese created the H-6K. To hit Taiwan and overwhelm its airdefense without ever launching a fighter aircraft. That is why the US has started arming B-52 with JASSM-ER and AMG-86 (which is soon to be retired), to that in heavily saturated areas like Syria, it can sit well outside of SAM ranges and obliterate a countries defenses without risk to the bomber or stealth aircraft, although our B-52s are able to carry 20 JASSM-ER or AMG-86 vs H-6K's 6). THAT IS THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF FORCE MULTIPLIER. It takes the force you have and multiplies the efficiency and effectiveness by taking out many of the targets you would need and eliminating/reducing an advantage your opponent had to help level your playing field.
To those who say PAF isnt flying 8000km so doesnt need a strategic bomber, you miss the point, all while arguing that PAF should use C-130 as a f-ing bomb truck over India. You arent flying 8000km, you may only fly 1km, but your missiles will fly 1000-1500km and push back the IAF, and they wont be able to retaliate (you can station the bomber 500km inside Pakistan and still obliterate S400 batteries and keep slowly pushing the IAF back with CM strikes). So with one bomber, you did what 2-3 heavy strike aircraft and 5-6 fighter escorts likley couldnt do. destroy an S400 battery or FOB without significant risk to your asset.
Add to this the abiltiy of these bomber to also attack naval targets with Stand off CM (firing C602 or CM-400 in saturation style would overwhelm and IN CBG) (which is another of H-6K goals...deter US carrier groups).
This is the reason the US is still developing new bombers (LRS-B) as is Russia and China.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm
