A NEW AIRCRAFT FOR PAF

[barbarosa]

Ignore him, his jingoism blinds him as usual. If he had an ounce of shame he would not been showing his face here, after the surgical strike fiasco and the blatant violation of human rights, not just in Kashmir but across India.

What Pakistan did (which is up for debate), did outside it's borders, unlike India who terrorizes it's own citizens.

Yes sir! we declare our religious people as a terrorist and killed them, India terrorize it's citizen and elected them as PM etc etc.

 

[Indus Falcon]

Yes sir! we declare our religious people as a terrorist and killed them, India terrorize it's citizen and elected them as PM etc etc.

Slight Correction: Not religious people, clueless fanatics.

Hi,

Joe---what is wrong with that---. It has been done hundreds of time over thousands of years of war by leaders & generals for pumping up their soldiers who are to go out to fight a much larger enemy.

What do you think the commander at Thermopyle told his 300 soldiers fighting against 7000 persians----!

You talking like this is the first time in history those words were uttered.

It's the first time he realized, sometimes "those words" can work! Chawinda is still testament to it.

Lastly when you deal with people like him, who love to eschew history, keep in mind:

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell

 

[war&peace]

Slight Correction: Not religious people, clueless fanatics.


It's the first time he realized, sometimes "those words" can work! Chawinda is still testament to it.

Lastly when you deal with people like him, who love to eschew history, keep in mind:

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell

Sir welcome back ...I have seen you after a long time

 

[MastanKhan]

@MastanKhan

Sir,
Actually some people are focussing too much on the numbers in the war but I think they have spent more time on typing comments on pdf than reading books perhaps suffering from dementia and purposelessness in life. Can any one of them tell us which famous war was fought between to exactly same in number armies?
Can they throw some light on what were the number for each army in the conflict between Muhammad Bin Qassim and Raja Dahir? Tariq Bin Ziyad and the Spanish, Babur and Ibrahim Lodhi, Ahmed Shah Abdali and Marhattas, Napolean Bonaparte and the English,.....

What I found through even by skimming the history of war the two-totally matched sides in numbers is rather exception than the rule...But a lot of wars were won by numerically much inferior armies and history salutes them.

Hi,

Most of the great warriors of history had smaller armies---but had the courage--belief---tenacity and understanding of the battle field.

The british conquered india with a handful of men---and so did every other muslim warrior king that came in.

The roman legions where ever they went to conquer---they fought with the same mindset---1 against 5---1 against 10---.

It is a part of the bravado of a fighting force---it is also a part of the self-belief that you are superior to 10 enemy soldiers---otherwise---when you came face to face with an enemy 10 times your size---without that belief---there would be diarrhea running down the legs.

The mongols stood in front of many a large armies just with one thought one thought in mind---do I have enough arrows in my quiver to kill all the enemy.

 

[war&peace]

Hi,

Most of the great warriors of history had smaller armies---but had the courage--belief---tenacity and understanding of the battle field.

The british conquered india with a handful of men---and so did every other muslim warrior king that came in.

The roman legions where ever they went to conquer---they fought with the same mindset---1 against 5---1 against 10---.

It is a part of the bravado of a fighting force---it is also a part of the self-belief that you are superior to 10 enemy soldiers---otherwise---when you came face to face with an enemy 10 times your size---without that belief---there would be diarrhea running down the legs.

The mongols stood in front of many a large armies just with one thought one thought in mind---do I have enough arrows in my quiver to kill all the enemy.

Yes we both are on the same page and history back our conclusion without any doubts but I wonder what kind of an idiot will deny the history?

 

[Indus Falcon]

Yes we both are on the same page and history back our conclusion without any doubts but I wonder what kind of an idiot will deny the history?

One with this agenda:

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell

Go through his posts, that is all he does, eschew, twist, deform facts, to suit his own twisted agenda.

 

[wiseone2]

OMG....too much exaggeration....
DO NOT compare PAF's professionalism with IAF....just give them (IAF) F-16s and you will see that they will have the same issues with it as they have with Su30s.
Furthermore if both have same machines, then the man-behind the machine decides the outcome. so if you are saying SU30 mki upgraded = SU35 (which i highly doubt since airframes are different but just for the sake of argument) PAF will have both better availability and readiness. Furthermore, 5 billions a year means 50 Su35s or similar and for 5 years means 250 (SU35s + 5th gen A/C).
I'm sure once infrastructure is in place for CPEC and trade starts, setting 10 USB for PAF won't be a big problem and including Russia into CPEC can bring more goodies that may surprise everyone.

IAF is as professional a body as the PAF

 

[war&peace]

One with this agenda:

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell

Go through his posts, that is all he does, eschew, twist, deform facts, to suit his own twisted agenda.

And these kind of people use "we are friend of your nation / country" too often and fool the gullible sheeples

 

[Manidabest]

Excellent post. Read my response here as a "Yes, but.......

First, about directly blaming the Pakistan Army or the Pakistan State. No, no direct blame, but look at this:

• Until Pakistan became a key ally in the War on Terrorism, the US Secretary of State included Pakistan on the 1993 list of countries which repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism. In fact, many consider that Pakistan has been playing both sides in the fight against terror, on the one hand, pretending to help curtail terrorist activities while on the other, stoking it. Even the noted Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid has accused Pakistan's ISI of providing help to the Taliban, a statement echoed by many, including author Ted Galen Carpenter, who states that Pakistan has "assisted rebel forces in Kashmir even though those groups have committed terrorist acts against civilians".
• According to the author Daniel Byman, "Pakistan is probably today's most active sponsor of terrorism."writing in an article published by The Australian stated, "following the terror massacres in Mumbai, Pakistan may now be the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism, beyond even Iran, yet it has never been listed by the US State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism".
• Former Pakistan Ruler Pervez Musharraf has conceded that his forces trained militant groups to fight India in Indian-administered Kashmir. He confessed that the government ″turned a blind eye″ because it wanted to force India to enter negotiations besides raising the issue internationally. He also said Pakistani spies in the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) cultivated the Taliban after 2001 because Karzai’s government was dominated by non-Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group, and officials who were thought to favour India.

US changes its policy whenever it suits it.....once Saddam Hussain was their major ally and supplied chemical weapons against Iran and then later the world saw how they initiated the Iraq war on false claims and then killed Saddam but before that he was seen as a biggest supporter of terrorism but in actual he was not..

 

[RAMPAGE]

Go through his posts, that is all he does, eschew, twist, deform facts, to suit his own twisted agenda.

Can you come up with one such example?

 

[wiseone2]

Hi,

Joe---what is wrong with that---. It has been done hundreds of time over thousands of years of war by leaders & generals for pumping up their soldiers who are to go out to fight a much larger enemy.

What do you think the commander at Thermopyle told his 300 soldiers fighting against 7000 persians----!

You talking like this is the first time in history those words were uttered.

advances in technology have nullified the impact of Thermopyle. In the modern era a well prepared force of 7000 soldiers will slaughter an army of 300 soldiers.

Hi,

Most of the great warriors of history had smaller armies---but had the courage--belief---tenacity and understanding of the battle field.

The british conquered india with a handful of men---and so did every other muslim warrior king that came in.

The roman legions where ever they went to conquer---they fought with the same mindset---1 against 5---1 against 10---.

It is a part of the bravado of a fighting force---it is also a part of the self-belief that you are superior to 10 enemy soldiers---otherwise---when you came face to face with an enemy 10 times your size---without that belief---there would be diarrhea running down the legs.

The mongols stood in front of many a large armies just with one thought one thought in mind---do I have enough arrows in my quiver to kill all the enemy.

those days are over ...
unless you have technological superiority over the Indian army it is not going to work

If the 1965 war had continued for three months the pakistani army would have collapsed because the pakistani state could not support them materially

 

[Indus Falcon]

advances in technology have nullified the impact of Thermopyle. In the modern era a well prepared force of 7000 soldiers will slaughter an army of 300 soldiers.



those days are over ...
unless you have technological superiority over the Indian army it is not going to work

If the 1965 war had continued for three months the pakistani army would have collapsed because the pakistani state could not support them materially

Captain Obvious!!! Indian logic at work as usual. Thanks!

 

[fatman17]

According to Haris Khan PDF PAF is buying 40 HighEnd Aircrafts very soon they not chines or Americans .PAF looking to used F16 via Jorden but these 40 r New and would be a third type .No J20 or J31 at this moment.

highly unlikely as funds not available. most of PAF budget allocated to JFT program.

 

[wiseone2]

Indian logic at work as usual. Thanks!

if two sides have equal level of technology and military expertise the outcome is skewed in favor of the party who can wage a longer war

Ethiopia beat Eritea - two opponents of similar strength but of questionable military capacity. Ethiopia had a 10:1 numerical edge

Iraq needed chemical weapons to hold off opponent three times larger in Iran despite having technological superiority

Israel beat the Arabs. But the Israelis had a huge edge in technology and fighting spirit

Historically Pakistan has never had overwhelming technological edge over India. Maybe slightly better sub-systems. Right now Pakistan is in danger of falling behind badly.

 

[war&peace]

If the 1965 war had continued for three months the pakistani army would have collapsed because the pakistani state could not support them materially

Really then why did India run to her Daddy USSR for Tashkent accord...why did you not continue the war for another three months?