Why A Medium / Heavy Strike Aircraft For Defense of Pakistan?

[CriticalThought]

Why do you want carpet bombing? What is the purpose of it?

Send a befitting message to a weaker enemy. The psychological impact is enough to break enemy morale. Factually proven circa 2001 vs. Taliban. Not recommended within our own borders.

Finally a good post ...

Much appreciated ...

Brother ,,, what I need is guarantee of our airspace security so at this point of time where I am shortage of fighter aircraft SAMs I can't think of having bombers as they will not helpful in prime objective ....

Regarding close airsupport through bombers ,,, our military planners introduced much dangerous (in diplomatic terms) tactical nukes whereas they could have bought bombers ,,, the reason is mechanised inventory of our adversary includes moveable SAMs so if we have a cold start doctrine where enemy forces comes with heavy mechanised attack they will bring those SAMs as well furthermore, the moment these bombs will take off from the air base they will activate the redars and will force a retaliatory attack from enemy fighters ... remember enemy fighters are not only fast but can easily target those bombers from longest range of BVR ... In case of potential conflict there is a high risk of these assets cecoming liability rather than asset due to size only ...

I can agree they can be handy if we could get air superiority over atleast 200 KMs of indian air space which menas all the basis of indian territory within 500Km from Pakistani borders are wipped off ... than these bombers can hit ground forces and destroy military installations ... but can we achieve that ??? I don't think so ....

More better investment could be having heavy fighters like su30 which have multipurpose role of air superiority and can carry enormous amount of bombs as well ...

Actually all my posts are good posts but you keep missing how I am trying to evolve the discussion over a number of posts. And every time you reply, you ignore what I am painstakingly trying to explain and we come back to 'We need air superiority first'. Now understand the following clearly:

1. Forget how much money we have for a moment. We need a quantitative vision of the ideal. Once we know what the ideal is, we can discuss how best to approximate it.

2. Forget air superiority. It's all about mission planning. Given their longer range, bombers have the luxury to evade enemy radars by travelling long distances and striking from a completely unexpected direction.

3. Forget ballistic/cruise missiles. In places like nicobar and Andaman islands, the enemy can create a veritable fortress where S-400 batteries take out any missiles long before they reach there. Cruise missiles are out of the picture. In any war, the enemy will utilize ALL of its territory. Either you are telling me we shall establish air superiority over all of India, or you have to agree that we need to exploit their weaknesses and force them to defend all of their territory. Currently, all India needs to do is defend attacks coming straight from the West. Such single dimensional planning will lead you to guaranteed failure.

A big point of this thread is, if we think simply getting a 5th gen fighter will give us any edge, we are deluding ourselves. We need to make it costly for the enemy to defend it's large territory. We need to turn his strategic depth into a strategic nightmare.

Oh, BTW in this post I haven't even discussed the efficacy of our close air support. That's a different point altogether.

 

[Ayeshah]

Send a befitting message to a weaker enemy. The psychological impact is enough to break enemy morale. Factually proven circa 2001 vs. Taliban. Not recommended within our own borders.



Actually all my posts are good posts but you keep missing how I am trying to evolve the discussion over a number of posts. And every time you reply, you ignore what I am painstakingly trying to explain and we come back to 'We need air superiority first'. Now understand the following clearly:

1. Forget how much money we have for a moment. We need a quantitative vision of the ideal. Once we know what the ideal is, we can discuss how best to approximate it.

2. Forget air superiority. It's all about mission planning. Given their longer range, bombers have the luxury to evade enemy radars by travelling long distances and striking from a completely unexpected direction.

3. Forget ballistic/cruise missiles. In places like nicobar and Andaman islands, the enemy can create a veritable fortress where S-400 batteries take out any missiles long before they reach there. Cruise missiles are out of the picture. In any war, the enemy will utilize ALL of its territory. Either you are telling me we shall establish air superiority over all of India, or you have to agree that we need to exploit their weaknesses and force them to defend all of their territory. Currently, all India needs to do is defend attacks coming straight from the West. Such single dimensional planning will lead you to guaranteed failure.

A big point of this thread is, if we think simply getting a 5th gen fighter will give us any edge, we are deluding ourselves. We need to make it costly for the enemy to defend it's large territory. We need to turn his strategic depth into a strategic nightmare.

Oh, BTW in this post I haven't even discussed the efficacy of our close air support. That's a different point altogether.

Man your spot on, attack from all sides, but we need to increase the defence budget, because no doubt our enemy wil also attack from the north.

Do we need aircraft carriers?

 

[Blue Marlin]

Why do you want carpet bombing? What is the purpose of it?

err... take down a good portion of a tank battalion thrusting towards Pakistan!
you dont need to take the whole thing down the rest of them will get the message.

mind you pakistan is a defensive country, it always was and always will be. some large Chinese drones would be great as opposed to bombers, its not exactly ww2 anymore.

plus the cost of drones is way less than a bomber and less risky as the pilot is on the ground sipping on mountain dew listening to archangle and taking out targets at the same time.

something like the bae taranis or dassault neuron would be great as a penetrator and bring down air defence networks and recon. paving the way for fighters and larger drones to move in.
but a more realistic option would be the avic sharp sword or ultra long range radar homing cruise missiles.

 

[Humble Analyst]

With enemy having air superiority it is hard for bombers to take off, so Air superiority planes are a must for denial of Air space, preventing bases being taken out etc. etc.

 

[CriticalThought]

With enemy having air superiority it is hard for bombers to take off, so Air superiority planes are a must for denial of Air space, preventing bases being taken out etc. etc.

If that is where we are today then we are already doomed. You're telling me in any India/Pak conflict today our planes will be taken out before they even take off?????

 

[Ultima Thule]

If that is where we are today then we are already doomed. You're telling me in any India/Pak conflict today our planes will be taken out before they even take off?????

Bombers are no use for PAF i think cruise missile with a range of 1500 KM, SRBM, BRBM can take down all enemy with ease so no need bombers for PAF

 

[SQ8]

Send a befitting message to a weaker enemy. The psychological impact is enough to break enemy morale. Factually proven circa 2001 vs. Taliban. Not recommended within our own borders.

The same message was conveyed with precise bombing as well in 2001. The B-52s were effective in "carpet" bombing because they used 2000lb JDAMs to draw a line on enemy fronts. We achieved the same load with sorties of 4 F-16s. There is greater psychological impact of a large bomb dropping accurately on an enemy than many all over the place.

On the subject, have summaried the cost that it takes to operate an aircraft like that?

Carpet bombing is also pretty ineffective against a Modern Army; so your suggestion would mean a sitting duck with the PAF in anything else other than Taliban incursions from the west. These incursion have already reduced and have been put under check. Which means that for now, there is no need for the psychological trump card you are suggesting.

err... take down a good portion of a tank battalion thrusting towards Pakistan!
you dont need to take the whole thing down the rest of them will get the message.

mind you pakistan is a defensive country, it always was and always will be. some large Chinese drones would be great as opposed to bombers, its not exactly ww2 anymore.

plus the cost of drones is way less than a bomber and less risky as the pilot is on the ground sipping on mountain dew listening to archangle and taking out targets at the same time.

something like the bae taranis or dassault neuron would be great as a penetrator and bring down air defence networks and recon. paving the way for fighters and larger drones to move in.
but a more realistic option would be the avic sharp sword or ultra long range radar homing cruise missiles.

Carpet bombing achieves squat against a tank battalion in most cases. The same can be achieved via a flight of aircraft carrying multiple small guided bombs like the GB-39. The other option is are smart anti armour clusters like the CBU-105 that India has. Those are going to devestate Pakistani armour like no one's business.

 

[CriticalThought]

The same message was conveyed with precise bombing as well in 2001. The B-52s were effective in "carpet" bombing because they used 2000lb JDAMs to draw a line on enemy fronts. We achieved the same load with sorties of 4 F-16s. There is greater psychological impact of a large bomb dropping accurately on an enemy than many all over the place.

On the subject, have summaried the cost that it takes to operate an aircraft like that?

Carpet bombing is also pretty ineffective against a Modern Army; so your suggestion would mean a sitting duck with the PAF in anything else other than Taliban incursions from the west. These incursion have already reduced and have been put under check. Which means that for now, there is no need for the psychological trump card you are suggesting.

The funny thing is that I have no where committed to a single type of bomber and people keep making assumptions about B-52s and sitting ducks. I am first trying to get agreement that in certain mission scenarios bombers are actually a valid need. Once this is established then we can discuss specifics.

Towards this end you are talking about the Taliban and I am talking about the Afghan army. Sooner or later that war will happen no matter how Qamar Bajwa's upcoming trip goes. These dogs will try to use another 'strategic reset' to further increase their preparations for war.

Only two types of people will ignore the reality of war with Afghanistan. Fools and traitors.

 

[SQ8]

The funny thing is that I have no where committed to a single type of bomber and people keep making assumptions about B-52s and sitting ducks. I am first trying to get agreement that in certain mission scenarios bombers are actually a valid need. Once this is established then we can discuss specifics.

Towards this end you are talking about the Taliban and I am talking about the Afghan army. Sooner or later that war will happen no matter how Qamar Bajwa's upcoming trip goes. These dogs will try to use another 'strategic reset' to further increase their preparations for war.

Only two types of people will ignore the reality of war with Afghanistan. Fools and traitors.

What is a bomber then?
Something that only bombs right?

Not many aircraft left in operation that do just that.

 

[CriticalThought]

What is a bomber then?
Something that only bombs right?

Not many aircraft left in operation that do just that.

Well, when I looked at the list of bombers on Wikipedia, they had types such as light, medium, heavy, naval, recon, and even fighter/bomber. I haven't committed to any type and I am even willing to discuss meaningful alternatives.

 

[MastanKhan]

Well, when I looked at the list of bombers on Wikipedia, they had types such as light, medium, heavy, naval, recon, and even fighter/bomber. I haven't committed to any type and I am even willing to discuss meaningful alternatives.

Hi,

If you had started with fighter / bomber or heavy strike aircraft---the discussion would have been more focused than it is---.

You also have to convey how where and when to target an enemy the size of the opponent and you have not come up with anything original.

You also have to share why you would to do what you want to do in order to achieve what.

You still do not have any understanding of why the Paf needs a heavy strike aircraft with long legs---.

here are some threads for you to look into if you want to

https://defence.pk/threads/jh7b-as-buddy-refueller.406674/


https://defence.pk/threads/there-was-no-reason-to-go-for-only-8-new-f16s.404773/

https://defence.pk/threads/pafs-def...ignorance-out-of-incompetence-or-what.394925/

https://defence.pk/threads/jf-17-is-the-wrong-omnirole-aircraft-for-pakistan.391848/

 

[SQ8]

Well, when I looked at the list of bombers on Wikipedia, they had types such as light, medium, heavy, naval, recon, and even fighter/bomber. I haven't committed to any type and I am even willing to discuss meaningful alternatives.

It would be more prudent to look at the threat we face and then try to chart a solution with the resources we have(and the limitations we have in the effective utilization of those resources).

PAF had a bomber. Back in 65 and retired in 1983. For its time, it was classified as a bomber due to the payload it carried but which today is topped by the F-16 which is able to carry almost twice that.
During 2001, facing a raggedy enemy in the Taliban the Americans used whatever immediate asset they had. However, for most of the time the B-52 was used for its endurance and not its payload. Loitering overhead and dropping one or two weapons guided precisely to their targets by gps.

The PAF beat similar adversaries in SWAT not by dropping a ton of bombs, but by sending one or two EXACTLY where the enemy was. If carpet bombing was to have any actual value then the scores of fire bombing raids on Japan would have caused them to surrender; but determined as they were they did not.

A determined enemy is killed and that is the ONLY solution to it. If the Afghan is determined in their hatred then the only solution lies in killing their anti-Pakistan leadership in a quick and precise manner. A night of terror with targets picked off with accuracy and precision in a coordinated fashion that does not even give them the time to cower away or run into the mountains as has been their age old practice. At the same time, we have to protect the rest of the Afghan civilians; the simple folk who care little for alliances or whether the money flows from India , America or timbuktoo... but more for their household and flock.

That is the domain of precision weapons of which the PAF has plenty and more and more platforms to employ them. Now what is needed are smaller precision weapons that can be carried a lot more. Those we can use in the east as well. You dont need a 500lb bomb to kill a tank, a good tandem charge on a missile that weighs a total of 100lbs or a mixed blast of 250lbs on a bomb is enough.
Columns of tanks will stop under a carpet bombing but basic probability means that many of them will survive and regroup. They will however stop and be severely demoralized if a large percentage of them or at least the lead and read tanks get killed by a accurate hit; giving the impression that a large number have died.


You dont need to carry many of them on a single aircraft which presents a single tempting target especially against an enemy that outnumbers you and outguns you as such 3 to 1. You carry them on smaller more maneuverable targets that can get in closer without being detected and still be able to deliver their payload whilst taking one or two losses.

 

[MastanKhan]

A question being discussed is that why does Pakistan not have medium to heavy strike aircraft when it is facing an enemy 5 times its size---.

Why are some of the aircraft in the inventory of the Paf not proportionately similar in size and performance to those of the enemy aircraft---?

Why are there no aircraft in Paf's inventory matching the enemy's tier 1 aircraft?

Why is it that the enemy that is 5 times larger---has tier 1 aircraft that are carrying a load of 5 times more BVR missiles than our tier aicraft---is more mobile and nimble---carries a stronger and more powerful radar and yet the Paf is trying to make believe that their little birdie will devour the enemy's massive bird of prey.

50 years ago--a good strike aircraft could carry 5000 lbs---now the similar aircraft in service carries around 20000 + lbs of weapons load---.

In the past---where the aircraft had dedicated roles---today there are aircraft that perform their duties in multiple specialized roles according to the need.

In the past where you needed to drop 50000 lbs to do the damage---today---you can do it with a 1000---2000 lb weapon---.

If we look at pakistan's geography in relation to its primary enemy----it is very unique---. From the frontal position---it makes it impossible for deep strike missions, but when taking into consideration the flanks---the one bordering the water is the most deadly and do the worst damage to the enemy.

The enemy has a long long flank open on the sea / ocean front---which means that every city on that front is vulnerable to standoff weapons strike---which also means that due to open space available to Paf---the enemy will have to move a larger number of its assets to protect a vaster number of assets from its primary face to face position from the main border.

Incidently---the enemy also have limited resources to protect all its assets in a strong and prudent manner for its seaside cities down the coast line.

So---if we can do the similar damage with a 2000 lb weapon---then why is there a need for a heavy strike aircraft.

The reason being---that as the heavy aircraft can fly farther with a heavier load---it can hit EXTREMELY IMPORTANT targets that have never felt any threat of war before---. These targets are the very wealthy and affluent areas that may dictate and determine the time of war---but are in no way ready to take the casualties of war---.

A strike in these areas would create massive panic and chaos---the fear of death and destruction will create uncertainty amongst the masses---tactical strikes at crucial points will bring the metropolis city life to a stand still---and when a metropolis city life comes to a stand still---it means that its death bell has been rung---.

The first to leave are the rich with their money---when rushing to exit in emergency---it creates opportunities for accidents---accidents create traffic stoppage---traffic stoppage stops emergency operations---stoppage and lack of of emergency operations creates unrest in the area---and the creation of unrest in the area is what the primary purpose of the deep strike mission.

This unrest will turn into small street fight---that will turn into larger street fights---small fires will result and will turn into larger fires---and as the emergency units are bogged down due to stoppage of traffic---each area will become the center of chaos and anarchy---and this will spread like wild fire thru out the metropolis---.

@Khafee @Indus Falcon @war&peace

 

[SQ8]

Trying to Moving above post to first page- Hold please

 

[My-Analogous]

A question being discussed is that why does Pakistan not have medium to heavy strike aircraft when it is facing an enemy 5 times its size---.

Why are some of the aircraft in the inventory of the Paf not proportionately similar in size and performance to those of the enemy aircraft---?

Why are there no aircraft in Paf's inventory matching the enemy's tier 1 aircraft?

Why is it that the enemy that is 5 times larger---has tier 1 aircraft that are carrying a load of 5 times more BVR missiles than our tier aicraft---is more mobile and nimble---carries a stronger and more powerful radar and yet the Paf is trying to make believe that their little birdie will devour the enemy's massive bird of prey.

50 years ago--a good strike aircraft could carry 5000 lbs---now the similar aircraft in service carries around 20000 + lbs of weapons load---.

In the past---where the aircraft had dedicated roles---today there are aircraft that perform their duties in multiple specialized roles according to the need.

In the past where you needed to drop 50000 lbs to do the damage---today---you can do it with a 1000---2000 lb weapon---.

If we look at pakistan's geography in relation to its primary enemy----it is very unique---. From the frontal position---it makes it impossible for deep strike missions, but when taking into consideration the flanks---the one bordering the water is the most deadly and do the worst damage to the enemy.

The enemy has a long long flank open on the sea / ocean front---which means that every city on that front is vulnerable to standoff weapons strike---which also means that due to open space available to Paf---the enemy will have to move a larger number of its assets to protect a vaster number of assets from its primary face to face position from the main border.

Incidently---the enemy also have limited resources to protect all its assets in a strong and prudent manner for its seaside cities down the coast line.

So---if we can do the similar damage with a 2000 lb weapon---then why is there a need for a heavy strike aircraft.

The reason being---that as the heavy aircraft can fly farther with a heavier load---it can hit EXTREMELY IMPORTANT targets that have never felt any threat of war before---. These targets are the very wealthy and affluent areas that may dictate and determine the time of war---but are in no way ready to take the casualties of war---.

A strike in these areas would create massive panic and chaos---the fear of death and destruction will create uncertainty amongst the masses---tactical strikes at crucial points will bring the metropolis city life to a stand still---and when a metropolis city life comes to a stand still---it means that its death bell has been rung---.

The first to leave are the rich with their money---when rushing to exit in emergency---it creates opportunities for accidents---accidents create traffic stoppage---traffic stoppage stops emergency operations---stoppage and lack of of emergency operations creates unrest in the area---and the creation of unrest in the area is what the primary purpose of the deep strike mission.

This unrest will turn into small street fight---that will turn into larger street fights---small fires will result and will turn into larger fires---and as the emergency units are bogged down due to stoppage of traffic---each area will become the center of chaos and anarchy---and this will spread like wild fire thru out the metropolis---.

@Khafee @Indus Falcon @war&peace

Sir you are correct but i think in few years these heavy fighters will be phase out and the reason will be no compromise on stealth and more planes having refueling options and only medium fighters or light fighters will be left.