What's new

Three Different Radars Recorded The SU-30 Kill

Why do we need a bomber to launch cruise missiles from within Pakistans airspace. Why not just use mobile land based platforms to do the exact same thing?
In the original design of the cruise missile, its launch and target coordinates were fixed, meaning programmed and difficult to change. Not impossible to change, just technically and administratively difficult to change. Later designs have the missile able to update its current location via GPS or manual reprogram. As long as the two locations are within its fuel consumption parameters, the missile is executable. Which is why the US have sub and air launched variants. Land variants are limited by speed and terrain. They are not useless, just slower to respond and relocate.
 
In the original design of the cruise missile, its launch and target coordinates were fixed, meaning programmed and difficult to change. Not impossible to change, just technically and administratively difficult to change. Later designs have the missile able to update its current location via GPS or manual reprogram. As long as the two locations are within its fuel consumption parameters, the missile is executable. Which is why the US have sub and air launched variants. Land variants are limited by speed and terrain. They are not useless, just slower to respond and relocate.
Yes. Plus the carrier aircraft can fly to less obvious locations and send the CM on an unexpected route.
 
On the other hand, the other possibility is that we did lose something on the 27th. We are agreeing not to reveal this in return for not revealing our own loss(es).

Indians didn't shoot anything, and look how much fuzz they create .. imagine if they actually manage to shoot anything and got real proof for it .. they would go ballistic
 
Possible but can't expect India to keep quiet if they shot down something, since they are desperate to save face.

I grazed through a news article that years ago Turkey had lost a F-16 to a Greek M2K but due to politics both sides agreed to a mechanical loss for the Turks, after several years confirmed it as a AA kill.

Maybe just like Greeks, Pakistan is keeping quiet for some political benefits, some years later hopefully will be revealed. Time will unravel what happened.

That's an interesting take.
 
That statement certainly caught my attention. And on the face of it, it is not impossible.

But analyzed in the background of the mindset of a media hype & publicity mongering adversary, seems unlikely as they would not let go of any chance to reveal anything that goes in their favor.

While all the time they have blatantly lied and tried to create an impression of a job well done and restraint shown in the greater interest for peace in the region. Otherwise they would have taught us a lesson we would never forget. That is exactly the narrative they built out of nothing to win an election and succeeded.

In fact they created an illusion of victory from a reality of defeat.

So expecting them to keep mum about something that goes against us would be highly unlikely.

Their Chanakya Doctrine prohibits them from letting go of any advantage that they can utilize.

What really has happened, in my humble opinion, is that
  • We wanted to let them know a bit what we can do when we decide to do something.
  • Without embarrassing them too much so that it becomes incumbent on them to escalate at all costs to something bigger and of longer duration and also force them to involve the US and Israel in the ensuing melee.
  • Due to the economic condition at the time and the starting of the rebuilding process of the economy and the governance machinery at the time, Pakistan sought to create a situation favorable to deescalate and disengage for the time being and buy some time to restructure and regroup economically and further strengthen its military prowess.

A very sensible post and a sensible decision to de-escalate. Pakistan will be in a much better place in 5 years with the IK government, in'sha'Allah. We will have rebuilt the economy and would not be isolated internationally. So, if things do get hot then, we would be in a far better situation to deal with it.
 
A very sensible post and a sensible decision to de-escalate. Pakistan will be in a much better place in 5 years with the IK government, in'sha'Allah. We will have rebuilt the economy and would not be isolated internationally. So, if things do get hot then, we would be in a far better situation to deal with it.

But who has the time?

i would like to put forward an example i hope you have seen boxing note something once a knock-out punch is delivered by a boxer and other boxer fell to the mat.. he gets the count and if he gets up what does the other boxer do ....does he wait or goes on a blitzkrieg on him..why he does not want to wait any more..why he is willing to use up all the tanked energy in 1st minute after he gets up...because he wants to end it!

Indians are getting up from the count - you will see a different strategy then traditional defensive offense - may be a preemptive one!

Food for thought
Are nuclear weapons obsolete - has (Airpower) taken the mantle of deterrence?
 
But who has the time?

i would like to put forward an example i hope you have seen boxing note something once a knock-out punch is delivered by a boxer and other boxer fell to the mat.. he gets the count and if he gets up what does the other boxer do ....does he wait or goes on a blitzkrieg on him..why he does not want to wait any more..why he is willing to use up all the tanked energy in 1st minute after he gets up...because he wants to end it!

Indians are getting up from the count - you will see a different strategy then traditional defensive offense - may be a preemptive one!

Food for thought
Are nuclear weapons obsolete - has (Airpower) taken the mantle of deterrence?

Back in 1965, after 17 days of war, we lacked the knock-out punch. We lacked the resources to continue fighting for very long. India had suffered a lot more losses in man and material but they had a lot more left to spare, both in terms of munitions, spares and fuel. Ours were dwindling fast.

The embargo imposed by the US and the French had also hurt us big time back then.

Same would have been the case now (might be even worse) as our economy is in a much worse shape than it was back then.

If we had done more damage to them than what we already had, then India could not have lied about it and would have been forced to escalate the encounter to a longer duration and broader scoped and extended conventional conflict.

Such a conflict will always suit India, which has a lot more man power, equipment, munition, fuel and money to engage in a long drawn conflict.

So we had two choices ...
  • Either continue and then later be forced to resort to nukes (due to dwindling stockpile of fuel, spares and conventional munitions) and ensure mutually assured destruction
Or
  • Create a favorable situation where the deescalation with the upper hand would provide a strategic timeout to restructure/rejuvenate the economy and prepare for an eventually imminent war in the future.
We chose the latter, quite wisely.
 
Back in 1965, after 17 days of war, we lacked the knock-out punch. We lacked the resources to continue fighting for very long. India had suffered a lot more losses in man and material but they had a lot more left to spare, both in terms of munitions, spares and fuel. Ours were dwindling fast.

The embargo imposed by the US and the French had also hurt us big time back then.

Same would have been the case now (might be even worse) as our economy is in a much worse shape than it was back then.

If we had done more damage to them than what we already had, then India could not have lied about it and would have been forced to escalate the encounter to a longer duration and broader scoped and extended conventional conflict.

Such a conflict will always suit India, which has a lot more man power, equipment, munition, fuel and money to engage in a long drawn conflict.

So we had two choices ...
  • Either continue and then later be forced to resort to nukes (due to dwindling stockpile of fuel, spares and conventional munitions) and ensure mutually assured destruction
Or
  • Create a favorable situation where the deescalation with the upper hand would provide a strategic timeout to restructure/rejuvenate the economy and prepare for an eventually imminent war in the future.
We chose the latter, quite wisely.

Excellent post.
 
But who has the time?

i would like to put forward an example i hope you have seen boxing note something once a knock-out punch is delivered by a boxer and other boxer fell to the mat.. he gets the count and if he gets up what does the other boxer do ....does he wait or goes on a blitzkrieg on him..why he does not want to wait any more..why he is willing to use up all the tanked energy in 1st minute after he gets up...because he wants to end it!

Indians are getting up from the count - you will see a different strategy then traditional defensive offense - may be a preemptive one!

Food for thought
Are nuclear weapons obsolete - has (Airpower) taken the mantle of deterrence?

We cannot actually "take out India" at this point. Or even take Kashmir. But we can keep them psychologically down.

I suggest we don't actually try to do limited strikes and limited damage. This is because such limited attacks (even if we took 8 planes down) would help them learn, and motivate them to work harder, and improve themselves. Rather, we should give away as little as possible and wait for a moment when we knock them out.

by "knock them out" I mean a full strategy at the highest level to take back Kashmir. Blitzkreig of airstrikes and ground movements that would anhiliate 30-50% of their airforce in the adjacent commands. In conjunction with a ground offensive and an uprising from our Kashmiri brothers.

That would be a knockout. I don't think we have been able to knock them out by taking out 8 of their aircraft. We have landed a punch. Knockout would be winning the game, in our case, taking back Kashmir and Junagarh and Munawidar. Which are actually not impossible operations if we really plan for it and work for it from now, in'sha'Allah.
 
Very nice and balanced post also covering history aspect as well bhai not an title holder warna +rating daita .We all know its not ends on 27th round 2 is have to happen (my estimation 2023 if not 2027 another long argument for another thread) so better we put our efforts for that time
Back in 1965, after 17 days of war, we lacked the knock-out punch. We lacked the resources to continue fighting for very long. India had suffered a lot more losses in man and material but they had a lot more left to spare, both in terms of munitions, spares and fuel. Ours were dwindling fast.

The embargo imposed by the US and the French had also hurt us big time back then.

Same would have been the case now (might be even worse) as our economy is in a much worse shape than it was back then.

If we had done more damage to them than what we already had, then India could not have lied about it and would have been forced to escalate the encounter to a longer duration and broader scoped and extended conventional conflict.

Such a conflict will always suit India, which has a lot more man power, equipment, munition, fuel and money to engage in a long drawn conflict.

So we had two choices ...
  • Either continue and then later be forced to resort to nukes (due to dwindling stockpile of fuel, spares and conventional munitions) and ensure mutually assured destruction
Or
  • Create a favorable situation where the deescalation with the upper hand would provide a strategic timeout to restructure/rejuvenate the economy and prepare for an eventually imminent war in the future.
We chose the latter, quite wisely.
 
Why do we need a bomber to launch cruise missiles from within Pakistans airspace. Why not just use mobile land based platforms to do the exact same thing?

Hi,

In the 21st century warfare---even mobil launchers will be detected easily and neutered---. Secondly---their direction of launch & range is predictable---.

Air launch missiles---can be launched from so many different directions and that brings unpredictability---which is never liked by the receiving party---.
 
The next engagement is around the corner...do you think India will sit and wait while Pakistan gradually strengthens its economy and military muscles? Even sane analysts on both sides fear that it could happen any time with in one or two yrs...because they know ...stretching it further will benefit Pakistan.

This is the pivotal point for decision makers....how to respond ....Under the shadow of dense AD coverage upgraded with S-400 (first battery supply expected in 2020) and much improved air power.

Atleast one squadron of deep strike platform is need of the time. Make it on lease or deferred payment.....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom