Better to die on your feet than live on your knees
- Nov 22, 2020
Reading @Gessler and @no smoking arguing over missile strikes seems quite amusing after seeing russian missile campaign in ukriane .well I would say both were right in this caseOr it's just the quality of the missile in question, once its taken out of Russia where it can be hidden/exaggerated.
Even with those numbers saturating BM strikes don't work out.
The 1971 war was opened by PAF attacking 11 IAF air bases. While they weren't very effective, in order to achieve the Shayrat base-like effectiveness against that many air bases (taking care to knock out aircraft HAS & AD networks so friendly aircraft have it smooth, rounding off to about 15 targets per base though in Shayrat they struck 44 targets) would require us to stock damn near ~500 BMs for 10 airfields @ 45 per airfield (1 in 3 missiles striking each of 15 targets).
As you would note, we don't stock such numbers. To be frank neither does Pak (they know they have F16s). Only one who does is PLA as their air strike capabilities were sub-par. If in future they get better, you can expect some right-sizing of the Rocket Force.
Like I said:
"The opening strikes against a competent adversary would require maximum surprise, and once surprise is lost, maximum effectiveness on target. Against established AD network that would involve flying low & releasing standoff smart munitions which themselves fly low/hug terrain. OR, if you have them, terrain-hugging cruise missiles all the way - while using low flying aircraft to conduct SEAD & DEAD."
Standoff missiles will be launched from any platform available - there is no world where the opening action of a war started by any country against any other doesn't involve airpower.