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

[Blue Marlin]

@Oscar looking at the 6 pages in reverse, is this the Jh7B amnesiac reboot that happens every 6 months?

thats called the mastan effect

 

[Tank131]

For heavy or medium strike the only major platforms available to Pakistan would JH-7B or flankers. China will NOT sell flankers without russian permission and russia will only sell if there is sufficient $$. If there is, then Su35 would be your best option. If not, The JH-7B modified woth electronic systems of J-16 (radar, irst, ew suit) would be a good stand in. While it doesnt have the flankers maneuverability, it has a similar payload albeit 800km less range.

Ideally though if PAF acquired J-20 (which is unlikely) it would operate as both the 5th gen and heavy strike fighter.

 

[Signalian]

so pakistan is screwed then to the might of the cbu 105?

LY-80.

CBU-105 delivery alt is 12000m.
LY-80 max alt is 18000m.

I doubt it will be sent across border with armour.

 

[Blue Marlin]

LY-80.

CBU-105 delivery alt is 12000m.
LY-80 max alt is 18000m.

I doubt it will be sent across border with armour.

what about its horizontal distance?

 

[Signalian]

what about its horizontal distance?

LY-80
http://www.armyrecognition.com/chin...data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html


CBU-105
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...nepage&q=cbu-105 altitude google book&f=false

 

[ghazi768]

Actually I think our nation is getting devoid of strategic thinking

I am afraid you are mistaking delusional thinking being done on this thread as strategic thinking..

 

[CriticalThought]

Yes, the C-130 could be used as an effective bomber but they are better suited to act as round the clock attackers rather than carpet bombers. What you are forgetting is that the soviets tried the same tactics of carpet bombing against the Muj back in the 80s.

Its effect is better against civilian populations as a demoralizing effect, but on the front lines against a determined enemy it does not work.

So, please confirm my understanding.

1. Against well entrenched enemy, aerial bombing in general needs to be supported by ground troops. Lessons learnt from Kosovo and Afghanistan.

2. Against enemy on the move under an open sky, or in general gathering up for an attack, aerial bombardment is more effective. Depending on resources available, this can range from smart bombs to cluster bombs.

3. Although we have discussed how a group of F-16s can be a formidable force, let's remember that many of them in PAF inventory are nearing the 8000 hours limit. India could push us into a vicious cycle of luring the F-16s to attack with expensive air to surface munitions, and basically push the aircraft towards their expiry date. Hence, I would prefer to use the C-130 as a bomb truck.

4. Against advancing Indian strike corps, I see room for the C-130 in to form of 'attack of opportunity'. I expect these to be far and few.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

So, please confirm my understanding.

1. Against well entrenched enemy, aerial bombing in general needs to be supported by ground troops. Lessons learnt from Kosovo and Afghanistan.

2. Against enemy on the move under an open sky, or in general gathering up for an attack, aerial bombardment is more effective. Depending on resources available, this can range from smart bombs to cluster bombs.

3. Although we have discussed how a group of F-16s can be a formidable force, let's remember that many of them in PAF inventory are nearing the 8000 hours limit. India could push us into a vicious cycle of luring the F-16s to attack with expensive air to surface munitions, and basically push the aircraft towards their expiry date. Hence, I would prefer to use the C-130 as a bomb truck.

4. Against advancing Indian strike corps, I see room for the C-130 in to form of 'attack of opportunity'. I expect these to be far and few.

A C-130 seems to be a sitting duck vs any moderately advanced fighting force.
It is really only useful as a bomb truck when You have air dominance,
and opponents lack AA capability.

 

[DJ_Viper]

hq-16?
or just simply having a aerial support. pakistan k8's have been armed with the pl5e series missile

I've been saying it for the longest time on here, an easy force multiplier would be the K-8. Strengthen the air-frame a little in key places over certain hard-points (to the right and left of the spine, under wings, and the two outwards towards the wing tips). These hard points would be able to carry heavier weapons. The two slightly heavier hard-points towards the wingtips, would be able to carry two BVR's like the SD-10 when needed and the wingtip would carry the AIM/PL5, etc. Add the JFT's radar, you get upgraded K-8's with multi-role capability for mere a couple of million dollars.

Now you have a great sub-sonic (which means nothing in India-Pakistan's case) ground support aircraft that can also aid in interception or can self-defend itself. These upgrades would provide Pakistan with immediate availability of like 80-100 additional BVR-able low-mid level aircraft, which, otherwise, would take a long time to buy from elsewhere in the shape of used Mirages, etc, then fix/upgrade and induct.

Let's say, on a ground support mission, there are 6 K-8's, armed with PL-5, etc, for self defense, add 2 more K-8's with BVR missiles and PL-xx. So you can threaten 4-6 enemy jets through the use of dedicated escort K-8's packed with only AAM's. The ground war would be taking place right at the border of Pakistan, so you wouldn't need to do much more to the K-8 as it can already do a flight to your border and come back within the current configuration. This cheap solution provides lots of capability. Here's something similar the Elbit systems has provided to the Philippines.

http://www.aero.cz/en/products-services/programs/l-39ng-aircraft/#scroll

 

[The SC]

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?

Nowadays, you'll need stealth bombers with the proliferation of mobile air-defense systems that will accompany any strike forces or at least cover them under its radar range..
Pakistan's solution for big advancing strike corps..is NASR tactical nuclear missile.. first of all it is a deterrent, second it is more practical than any non-stealth bomber with a big RCS like SU-32/34 dedicated fighter-bomber (which is one of the best)..

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar looking at the 6 pages in reverse, is this the Jh7B amnesiac reboot that happens every 6 months?

Sadly so, read my post for an insight into why.

So, please confirm my understanding.

1. Against well entrenched enemy, aerial bombing in general needs to be supported by ground troops. Lessons learnt from Kosovo and Afghanistan.

2. Against enemy on the move under an open sky, or in general gathering up for an attack, aerial bombardment is more effective. Depending on resources available, this can range from smart bombs to cluster bombs.

3. Although we have discussed how a group of F-16s can be a formidable force, let's remember that many of them in PAF inventory are nearing the 8000 hours limit. India could push us into a vicious cycle of luring the F-16s to attack with expensive air to surface munitions, and basically push the aircraft towards their expiry date. Hence, I would prefer to use the C-130 as a bomb truck.

4. Against advancing Indian strike corps, I see room for the C-130 in to form of 'attack of opportunity'. I expect these to be far and few.

1. To remove an enemy you need an offensive force; be it Afghanistan, Germany or the Falklands.
2. To an extent that depends on staying power. Air power is costly and maintaining a round the clock presence is not for everyone.
3. Not sure which possible front you are referring to

 

[Naif al Hilali]

The UAEAF preferred the M2Ks as their strike fighters. The Black Shaheen was designed specifically to give the UAE a standoff capability and so far the Block-60s have nothing comparable to show for it.

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

I believe Khafee was referring to the electronics warfare side of things.

Clearly one large aircraft cannot cover the required ground on its own even with effective UAV coverage as it will have to make multiple passes to cover each avenue of attack even with smart munitions.

"The Vietnamese would barely hear it coming as it was pushing the mach and was really low, hence the nickname. That tactic, low and fast, became THE doctrine until the third night of Desert Storm. The phrases “speed is life,” “one pass, haul ***,” and “you do more than one pass in a target area you die” all came from Vietnam."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-f-111-aardvark-at-the-height-of-the-cold-war
Richard Crandall, F-111 and F-15E pilot

 

[SQ8]

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

I believe Khafee was referring to the electronics warfare side of things.

The M2K-9 still had a pretty fearsome package of weapons with it
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp...iles/2012/08/Mirage_2000-9_special_issue1.pdf

 

[Naif al Hilali]

The M2K-9 still had a pretty fearsome package of weapons with it
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp...iles/2012/08/Mirage_2000-9_special_issue1.pdf

Agree entirely. The UAEAF reportedly felt that the F-16 Blk 60's main failing was lack of Black Shaheen (Storm Shadow) type missiles and that is one reason why they have been keeping the M2Ks around until they can get Rafales or something they can freely integrate Storm Shadow type weapons to.

The Americans did not want to give the UAE enough punch to be able to attack Israel primarily. I hear JSOWs have been integrated now but their range (@70 nm.) is less than the SLAM-ERs (@150 nm.) which itself is nowhere near the Storm Shadow (@500 nm.)

Sorry I am on the net for a little while and could not answer you previously. Hope no hard feelings.

Thank you for answering all the questions I posted earlier and did not have the time or inclination to delve into further:

https://defence.pk/threads/why-a-me...efense-of-pakistan.470260/page-5#post-9066222
"OK, questions to all the War College graduates on this thread:

question: what are the airfield runway requirements for the B-52?

question: why do PAF F-16s in peacetime use afterburner to take off in 1,000-2,000 feet when they have 8,000 feet runway available? why are motorways and taxiways practiced for takeoffs and landings?

question: what further assets are required to make B-52 type aircraft survivable in modern day combat specially against a peer or superior adversary?

answer these and make them fit into the realities of Day 0 India-Pakistan conflict, let alone Day 3 and Day 7 scenarios.

question: what is the Pakistan Defense Budget (let alone PAF's measly portion of it) and how many airframes need to be urgently replaced?

question: what are the actual combat payloads for heavy fighters (hint: f-15e.info)? what are the actual delivered payloads for B-1s and B-52s these days and in what role are they principally employed now?

question: can Pakistan produce an F-16 equivalent aircraft, or a MiG-29 equivalent, or a F-15E/Su-34/ Tornado equivalent? can it pay for the airframes (even used ones) and their integration? are bombers even more taxing on manufacturing and/or force integration issues?

question: does Israel accept US limitations on source code denial and non-US munitions integration? is Turkey progressing towards the same doctrine?

question: is it more important for Pakistan to develop own avionics or at least develop or have access to source code for them, than other pipe dreams? is it important for Pakistan to be able to manufacture munitions or integrate ones from different countries/suppliers?

question: is it important to be able to develop next-generation aircraft manufacturing or at the least integration of their manufacture and development in their own industry?

question: does strategic bomber acquisition negate all these factors or supersede them?

question: given all these questions are satisfactorily answered, what would a strategic bomber bring to the table that submarine- and land- launched ballistic and cruise missiles won't?

question: is it better to have 20 stealth fighters or two non-stealthy strategic bombers for the same development/training/basing/acquistion/support costs?"

For everybody, I am posting a new thread. First article is on the F-111 from a (heavy) strike fighter pilot (quoted in my previous post). Kindly read at:

https://defence.pk/threads/flying-and-fighting-series-from-around-the-world.470435/

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan, you are right I am being silly, should have remembered the famous Mark Twain quote which I will modify a bit so as to no offend you "Never argue with a ___, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference". Please accept my apologies Sir and continue regaling us with this novel concept of "flanking".

Hi,

Thank you very much for your comments---. Sir---maybe you lack in understanding english---and maybe Mark Twain is a tad bot beyond you---.

Neither had I addressed you prior before my post regarding this discussion---nor my comments were directed at you regarding the strike options---.

You chose to get into the discussion by coming up with ' stupid ' comments---. The Sheikh maybe a big thing in pakistan---but here in the U S---it don't mean didley sh-it---.

You want to tackle me---post something tactical--- .