PAF Future Acquisition Plans

[user]

More than strategic bombers, I think what PAF really needs is an ALBM. PAF's strategic bombers will be constrained within its own airspace due to dense enemy AD environment and other aerial threats and therefore it will just be another missile carrying platform like other air crafts in the fleet. So, it will be pointless to develop or procure such costly platform.

Sir, strategic bombers are still relevant. That's why the US, Russia and China are keeping them operational. In fact, the US has been using it extensively to take out AD and hard targets such as the recent use in Iran War. Stealth and cover by jet fighters will enhance its survivability coupled with earlier operations by platforms for EA and SEAD to suppress AD.

 

[Michael]

Sir, strategic bombers are still relevant. That's why the US, Russia and China are keeping them operational. In fact, the US has been using it extensively to take out AD and hard targets such as the recent use in Iran War. Stealth and cover by jet fighters will enhance its survivability coupled with earlier operations by platforms for EA and SEAD to suppress AD.

Talking about strategic bombers without air superiority is an act of self-destruction.

 

[Zarvan]

For sure, just weir how suddenly people can claim PAF has prioritised this over J-35 without any evidence

They are two totally different machines for different roles. No one in their right mind should suggest that. What they should suggest is that, to train pilots for 5th generation fighter jets, you need a modern trainer jet also. For that, you need a new LIFT plane, and I believe the two strongest candidates are the Hurjet and this new J XX Chinese trainer.

 

[user]

Talking about strategic bombers without air superiority is an act of self-destruction.

Yes Sir, I just talked about a completely integrated strike package, not solo bombers.

 

[Par 5]

Strategic Bomber fleet is expensive and vulnerable. We have that box covered through ground and air launched CM's or our missiles and rocket inventory.

 

[Michael]

Yes Sir, I just talked about a completely integrated strike package, not solo bombers.

Don't have that kind of thinking. That is a surefire way to get yourself killed.

Regarding strategic bombers: setting aside early definitions, the US and the Soviet Union established a clear definition in the 1990 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which remains the internationally recognized standard today:
1. Capable of carrying a payload of at least 7.5 tons of ordnance with a maximum unrefueled range exceeding 8,000 km.
2. Capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

This represents a very high technological threshold. Above all, it implies the necessity of ensuring the bomber's own survivability throughout that operational range.

In the international arena, strategic bombers are actually more politically sensitive than nuclear weapons; they are also weapon platforms strictly regulated by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). India has made multiple attempts to acquire strategic bombers from Russia.
Around 2000, India sought to lease Tu-22M3 strategic bombers from Russia. However, due to prohibitive operating and maintenance costs—and the fact that the aircraft's operational capabilities would have to be downgraded to comply with MTCR restrictions—India ultimately opted for the Su-30MKI fighter paired with the BrahMos missile system.
Starting in 2020, there were renewed domestic calls in India to lease six to eight Russian Tu-160M strategic bombers. However, due to a variety of factors, this plan never materialized.

To date, only three nations—the United States, Russia, and China—possess strategic bombers. China's H-6 bomber barely clears the threshold to be classified as a strategic bomber. However, this classification is highly controversial within Chinese military enthusiast circles; many Chinese observers do not consider it a true strategic bomber. Consequently, many enthusiasts pin their hopes on the upcoming "H-20" project.

As for Pakistan, it is best to avoid this topic altogether. Even if India were to acquire strategic bombers, the party that would feel genuinely threatened—and possess the leverage to influence the situation—is China, not Pakistan.