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

[I S I]

Dedicated bombers are Past.

 

[araz]

Sir the Afghans are going to be used by one party or the other. We need to make sure the influence of Indian backed Afghans is as far away from our borders as possible.

The drug trade in Afghanistan has been curtailed previously. It took just one order from Mullah Umar to do so.

We are in a situation where the best defence is a preemptive offensive. If we believe India will not involve us in another war in Afghanistan, we are only deluding ourselves. As a matter of fact, India can make a fine example out of us of using the Hammer and Anvil approach. It will be sweet irony in the eyes of the Americans with whom Musharraf used to discuss 'Hammer and Anvil' over afternoon tea.

Our strategic asset is our Pashtun population here. We do not attack in order to conquer. We attack to hand over rule to the Pashtuns, and help in uniting the Pashtuns across the border. We then help them build an Islamic government, and an army and proper infrastructure.

The traitor Musharraf has given away our strategic advantage. We need to claim it back one way or the other.

I think Musharrafs intentions were good and it was either a case of holding on to the Afghans or making an enemy of the US. I think where he failed was not to have negotiated harder to get a better deal out of the US. I think he buckled under very quickly. That is a debate in itself and conjecture at best as we dont know the hard facts.
However to call him a traitor is wrong.
A

Why at all are we talking bombers when we can talk missiles and drones? What have we developed them for? The days of the bomber are gone and unless you can have air superiority it is an expensive venture for very little gain.
A

 

[Ultima Thule]

Simple question: Do they even exist? Do we have any plans to acquire any? Once air-superiority is achieved, bombers would be an effective way to counter advancing strike corps. I wonder if any attention has been given to this aspect?

in short we don't need dedicated bomber aircraft it is expensive to buy and maintain, multi-role fighter jets are enough for Pakistan

 

[fitpOsitive]

A wrong perception and doctrine of PAF, back in 60s we do have bombers and as a preemptive measures PAF raided Indian airfields and destroy many aircraft on ground using US supplied bombers.

And please also visit PAF museum Karachi for what we had in past. I also dont agree with this doctrine thing. Bomber dyga kon yeh bara sawal hai.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Multi-role Fighters is the Answer

 

[TMA]

I think we need to expand this doctrine to take into account Afghanistan. Except if friendly Taliban hold ground next to our border, I see a high probability of war with Afghanistan. And since we do not want another 70 years/4 wars scenario, it would be prudent to take the next war as excuse and go in to hold territory which we conveniently convert into an administered area like Kashmir with its own government, open movement across borders etc. Would solve most of our terrorism problems as well.

No-one can control Afghanistan , not even the Afghans.

 

[TMA]

Sir the Afghans are going to be used by one party or the other. We need to make sure the influence of Indian backed Afghans is as far away from our borders as possible.

The drug trade in Afghanistan has been curtailed previously. It took just one order from Mullah Umar to do so.

We are in a situation where the best defence is a preemptive offensive. If we believe India will not involve us in another war in Afghanistan, we are only deluding ourselves. As a matter of fact, India can make a fine example out of us of using the Hammer and Anvil approach. It will be sweet irony in the eyes of the Americans with whom Musharraf used to discuss 'Hammer and Anvil' over afternoon tea.

Our strategic asset is our Pashtun population here. We do not attack in order to conquer. We attack to hand over rule to the Pashtuns, and help in uniting the Pashtuns across the border. We then help them build an Islamic government, and an army and proper infrastructure.

The traitor Musharraf has given away our strategic advantage. We need to claim it back one way or the other.

Afghan Pukhtoons are also divided. Many of them despise Pakistan.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Long range dual engine air superiority fighters would be the best answer.

No bro single mission jet doesn't suit PAF, multi-role jets suits PAF well

 

[MastanKhan]

Simple question: Do they even exist? Do we have any plans to acquire any? Once air-superiority is achieved, bombers would be an effective way to counter advancing strike corps. I wonder if any attention has been given to this aspect?

Hi,

Since the F16 Mafia has taken over the Paf---bombers have disappeared and and anyone talking about them is banished from Paf.

Why are you assuming that only expensive goodies has the edge ... USA has all the expnsive goodies, bombers, armed drones, fighter aircraft but failed miserably in Afghanistan ...

If time came we have more than enough resources to cater Afghanistan but bombers are not required in any case as of now ....

Hi,

Just to pi-ss off the americans---I have used the 'fail' term many a times---

But with 1 1/2 million afghans dead in afghanistan and nation totally destroyed---the americans have succeeded what they wanted---' the begining of the destruction of strong muslim nations in the middle east '.

 

[khanasifm]

PAF is a tactical air force and a third world af please do not expect it to be eq of usaf except Russia and usaf no other af barring China to some extent has that capability in the world not even brits-

 

[CriticalThought]

Thanks for the inputs guys. So from the following page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bomber_aircraft

I can see that only 19 types of aircraft with the word 'bomber' in their description are operational today exclusively with US, Russia, and China. Amongst these, 8 are classified as 'fighter/bomber'. That leaves us with just 12 types of aircraft listed as bombers of some sort.

Amongst these, the most famous of all is the B-52 Stratofortress. Let's review the specs.

----------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

B-52 Stratofortress
The bomber is capable of carrying up to 70,000 pounds (32,000 kg) of weapons,[5] and has a typical combat range of more than 8,800 miles (14,080 km) without aerial refueling.

The B-52 completed sixty years of continuous service with its original operator in 2015. After being upgraded between 2013 and 2015, it is expected to serve into the 2040s.
----------------

In terms of efficacy, we do not need to go far. One of the most successful recent examples of aerial bombardment causing the enemy to retreat is the American 'Carpet Bombing' of the Taliban front line positions against the Northern Alliance circa 2001. This bombabrdment was so effective, for many years afterwards militant circles cited 'Barbaric Carpet Bombing' as one of the war crimes committed by the US.

So let us be clear. Neither the F-16, nor JF-17 or any other aircraft in PAF inventory comes any where close to the massive 32000 kg of weapons that can be carried by a single Stratofortress. And as discussed previously, the efficacy in demoralizing the enemy is unquestionable.

Let us now analyze the two mostly likely theaters of war where massive aerial bombing may be required.

On the eastern front, we can safely operate on the assumption that all out war and India's numerical superiority shall necessitate the use of tactical nukes. The more likely scenario is limited war in Kashmir. Here, our experience in the WoT will be a massive advantage for us.

On the Western front though, we have a numerically inferior enemy against whom air superiority is a given. This is an enemy that is a puppet in the hands of foreign masters, willing to do their bidding, and given the war torn nature of the country, doesn't have much to lose. This enemy understands the language of power. And in this general theatre, we have seen practical evidence of the efficacy of carpet bombing.

Pakistan being the superior force, MUST assert its superiority in a decisive manner. Burgeoning war that extends over multiple days projects an image of a lame response. Using ballistic missiles evokes memories of the Iran/Iraq war, and the methods of Saddam Hussein. Remember, waging a war evokes emotional responses from people. Managing one's moral ground and good image is as important as landing death blows upon the enemy. I view carpet bombing in Afghanistan as the decisive blow which sends across the right message to the Afghan psyche.

So the next question is, how effective are our F-16s and JF-17s in carpet bombing? This is a question that is best answered by the seniors on the forum and so it is over to you guys.

 

[Djinn]

There are different kinds of bombers. First you must clarify to which type are you referring to? For instance B-52 is a strategic bomber it's relevance in Indo-Pak context seems misplaced but on the other hand a fighter bomber like the Chinese JH-7 can come in handy considering it's range, weapons payload and advanced electronic capabilities. So INMHO having a few dedicated fighter bombers may not be a bad idea.

 

[MaMo]

I don't understand whether to pity or laugh at the ignorance shown by some. Pakistan pretty much controlled Afghanistan through Taliban back in mid to late '90's, what happened? We supported regime which is backward, illiterate, racist, isolated and has damaged the minds of its people, culture, history and future in a irreparable way. That is 50% of the reason, it not more or less, why both on political as well as public grounds our relations are what they are.

Pakistanis should stop thinking like the Americans. You can't conquer by attacking and killing, win over the general public if you wish to succeed. And don't hope to impose your views on another nation if that's to damage them, especially if they're neighbours, in the long run. What goes around always comes back.

 

[CriticalThought]

I don't understand whether to pity or laugh at the ignorance shown by some. Pakistan pretty much controlled Afghanistan through Taliban back in mid to late '90's, what happened? We supported regime which is backward, illiterate, racist, isolated and has damaged the minds of its people, culture, history and future in a irreparable way. That is 50% of the reason, it not more or less, why both on political as well as public grounds our relations are what they are.

Pakistanis should stop thinking like the Americans. You can't conquer by attacking and killing, win over the general public if you wish to succeed. And don't hope to impose your views on another nation if that's to damage them, especially if they're neighbours, in the long run. What goes around always comes back.

The devil is in the details. In this case, what you call 'general public'. My views are simple. The 'general public' in the belt along Pakistan's borders is Pashtun, and highly Islamic. They also have close relations with people across the border. Our safety lies in winning them over, and making sure that any future decisions in Afghanistan keep their best interests at the front.

The reality of Afghan government today is that it is a minority government, installed, financed, and supported by a foreign power that is hostile to Pakistan's prosperity. Simply put, the Masters of Afghanistan do not see eye to eye with us on a whole range of matters. We find no benefit in cosying up with venomous snakes. The Afghanis have clearly shown their hand and their allegiance. Its time we put aside formalities and support our own vested interests.

 

[MaMo]

The devil is in the details. In this case, what you call 'general public'. My views are simple. The 'general public' in the belt along Pakistan's borders is Pashtun, and highly Islamic. They also have close relations with people across the border. Our safety lies in winning them over, and making sure that any future decisions in Afghanistan keep their best interests at the front.

The reality of Afghan government today is that it is a minority government, installed, financed, and supported by a foreign power that is hostile to Pakistan's prosperity. Simply put, the Masters of Afghanistan do not see eye to eye with us on a whole range of matters. We find no benefit in cosying up with venomous snakes. The Afghanis have clearly shown their hand and their allegiance. Its time we put aside formalities and support our own vested interests.

You are ignoring the point I raised. Taliban had control of the entire country for a good six years, what did that do to our relations? Politically Afghanistan was always hostile, and the attitude turned national and even personal thanks to our own lack of understanding and well-doing during Taliban reign. The fact you think a bunch of illiterates with no knowledge of Islam, their own history, their culture and diversity can run an entire nation itself should be a worry for you thinking.

Tribal Pashtuns are a minority in Afghanistan, who have been the biggest obstacle in everything positive Afghanistan could experience. They're not Islamic, they're enemies of progress and Taliban are a perfect example of that. Urban Pashtuns and every other ethnic of Afghanistan despises anything to do with the Taliban, and anyone who wishes to force upon them any different view is the reason of the hostility they'll show.

Tribals there are not winning because of their so called strength, power, general support or any of these nonsense. They're winning because NATO's mission was never concerning the best interest of the country. The whole scenario what's happening there, and elsewhere in Middle East, is a big fat joke. A joke made by the West, and put into practise by the East.