What's new

Narrowing PAF Gap V IAF by 2015

Referring to your very first point, in your reply, read this about what i meant...


South Korea vs. North Korea: What Another Korean War Would Look Like


With thousands of artillery across the border, the overall military strength doesn't matter. South needs to be ready 24/7. This is unlike India observing Pakistan troop movements hours before or days before.


rest i am sure you can help yourself by doing a more thorough research.

Learning is a constant process and i am always looking forward to it....However in this context you need a reality check...Because what you are making some assumptions which are plane wrong....

Let me share the link again http://www.globalfirepower.com/....This list has been prepared by some real knowlegeable people in defence field, so we should not just ignore it, no????

India has enough artillery to level many cities of Pak in matter of minutes....However doing that i will risk my cities getting levelled as retaliation, right???? Both of us have enough nukes to level each other, does that mean both sides are 24/7 looking out for nukes being fired from other side??? The article that you have shared is predicting outcomes(god knows based on what), however these are his predictions....they should not be taken as hard core facts....Yes if North Korea gets a free run with their artillery they can level seol, question is will they get a free run???? If they have the advantage of so called Artillery being close to the border and thus can level Seop in matter of minutes, did you ponder on thoughts that it also give advantage to South to knock out that artillery?? Here we are talking about US attacking North Korea and are you telling me that US do not have might to take out Artillery of North Korea??? May i know on what basis you said that North Korea can take out Seol and there is nothing that can be done about it????

Lets not belittle a country here.... As said India has enough Artillery to level Lahore in matter of seconds...that does not mean Pak is a cake walk for us right???

Here is an expert from your own article....

Were full-scale war to break out, the endgame likely would be the end of North Korea's dictatorship; the U.S. would not settle for a peace that left Kim Jong-il in power



With thousands of artillery across the border, the overall military strength doesn't matter. South needs to be ready 24/7. This is unlike India observing Pakistan troop movements hours before or days before.

You must be kidding here....Are you saying North Korea is ready to wage a war 24/7??? I am sure you know that you just don't wage a war by just thousands of Artillery close to the border??? Also why are you assuming that there is no Artillery present on other side to counter this move???? As far as military doctorine is concerned then every military takes appropriate actions against the percieved threat....last time i checked South Korea economy is doing great whereas North Korea is a fail...So even if both have to be ready 24/7 for war South Korea comes out to be a clear winner, no????


P.S : let me say it once again...South Korea will not like to go for a war againt North not because it cannot give North a good beating but because there is a collateral that she will not like.....Again not going to war should not be taken as weakness...
 
Last edited:
super-blimp.jpg


Pakistan's best hope may be to go for radical technologies for a strong air defence,such as high flying airships and solar planes..
Satellites are too expensive and unless we launch a chain of satellites,Pakistan's airspace will remain unattended during successive satellite passes..
With these apparently old balloons and planes,they can fly on the edge of space..High enough to be out of range for most fighter jets and Missiles...and will remain within a certain area all the time..unlike satellites which keep reveolving round the planet.
These systems can be used to create a sustainable network of airborne radars..which may well be able to detect stealth planes..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the reason that we have to build our own defense industry. If Sweden with 8 million people can develop modern fighter like Gripen and AWAC then Pakistan with 185 million can also develop in next decade.

very true but with the swedish 8 million people are true to their country, comparing to us all we do is naray bazi jump up an down pakistan zindabad then for few rupees sell the country... take bribes do cheap job sell our eman what do u expect buddy. pakistan can be way ahead then indiaan even countries like australia if we have a good dedicated govt, laws that r followed by everyone, zero corruption talerence, less influence of politics an religion. Pakistan can be way ahead an also modern but its just a dream, i should wake up.....:pakistan::pakistan::pakistan:
 
I would partly agree with you MenOfHonor... The problem lies in lack of sincere and enlightened leadership... We have unfortunately had to bear puppets like Busharaf and Zardaris throughout our history... From the looks of it, this vacuum has to be eliminated one day... otherwise we will stay as you have described...

Pakistan is already a force to reckon with despite its useless bag of muppet rulers and thick Generals and massive corruption... but that seems to be an issue of the bygone days for tomorrow seems to be bringing a better day fast inshaAllah...
 
Safriz... i was actually thinking... back in the 80s when the red menace was stuck in Afghanistan, our city airbase had these zeppelins in place over the airport... but they were not as high as space... I was just thinking about that today... do you know what that is?

Sorry a bit off topic but perhaps its a defence system to protect airports?
 
I think a simplest way for PAF to narrow gap with IAF is to have friendship with all middle east countries and get there squadron into action when there is a war... Apart from that i think it will be very difficult for them to defend or narrow the gap with IAF.. i will say absolutely impossible
 
Quite the contrary - Pakistan's strategy is to deny the Indian the possibility of victory -- and it has been able to do this generally successfully, in other words, PAF is able to deny IAF the assurance of victory, such that whereas IAF may have a greater budget and a larger force and a greater number of aircraft, but it cannot give Indian policy makers the assurance of victory should the Indian initiate hostilities.


So PAF does not need to match aircraft for aircraft, it must just continue to deny the IAF assurance of victory, even as the PAF builds capacity within the PAF for both defense production and developing unique capabilities.
 
Quite the contrary - Pakistan's strategy is to deny the Indian the possibility of victory -- and it has been able to do this generally successfully, in other words, PAF is able to deny IAF the assurance of victory, such that whereas IAF may have a greater budget and a larger force and a greater number of aircraft, but it cannot give Indian policy makers the assurance of victory should the Indian initiate hostilities.


So PAF does not need to match aircraft for aircraft, it must just continue to deny the IAF assurance of victory, even as the PAF builds capacity within the PAF for both defense production and developing unique capabilities.

ofcourse PAF is successful no one has denied that... In case of war if we dont escalate to nuclear for an instant then??.... you need Fighter to hold on right?? but logically you should not say PAF wont loose any plane... it will loose planes same will happen with IAF... so what option you have got to hold on??
 
In case of war if we dont escalate to nuclear for an instant then??.... you need Fighter to hold on right?? but logically you should not say PAF wont loose any plane... it will loose planes same will happen with IAF... so what option you have got to hold on??


I think you may have misunderstood - the PAF strategy is to deny Indian planners the assurance of victory - attrition actually serves the PAF strategy - it deprives Indian planners of the assurance of victory.
 
I think you may have misunderstood - the PAF strategy is to deny Indian planners the assurance of victory - attrition actually serves the PAF strategy - it deprives Indian planners of the assurance of victory.

I didnt debate on PAF strategy... I was debating on the lines of narrowing the gap in war.. any way my idea will be already thought by your PAF think tanks... and IAF think tanks will also will be aware of this... :tup:
 
I didnt debate on PAF strategy... I was debating on the lines of narrowing the gap in war.. any way my idea will be already thought by your PAF think tanks... and IAF think tanks will also will be aware of this... :tup:

its not that we are talkingabout narrowing the gap by shooting down IAF planes in war time.
perhaps you missed the theam!!

the debate is that unlike the 1990z where PAF was deprived of both quality and quantity the 2010z will be a different story for PAF with all the goodies comming up...

regards!
 
its not that we are talkingabout narrowing the gap by shooting down IAF planes in war time.
perhaps you missed the theam!!

the debate is that unlike the 1990z where PAF was deprived of both quality and quantity the 2010z will be a different story for PAF with all the goodies comming up...

regards!

u forget, the RATE of growth is what matters here. Who has the advantage when in comes to this, PAF or IAF?
 
its not that we are talkingabout narrowing the gap by shooting down IAF planes in war time.
perhaps you missed the theam!!

the debate is that unlike the 1990z where PAF was deprived of both quality and quantity the 2010z will be a different story for PAF with all the goodies comming up...

regards!


:blink: The thread starter has started with numbers and i hardly went over a page.. dont know in 23 pages what happened :undecided:
 

Back
Top Bottom