In 2016 Pakistan Responded to the Turkish Request for Pakistani Pilots:Air Vice Marshal Ghulam Abbas Ghumman

[TigerOfMysore]

When the US threatened to attack Pakistan if it did not help it invade Afghanistan in 2001, Musharraf asked the PAF how long it could hold off the Americans - and the answer was 30 minutes to 3 hours

Not believable.
It took longer for the US Airforce to take out Iraqi Air Force.

Furthermore tactics come into play. If war is to happen, then preemption is the only path.
Pakistan would take out any air bases through long range missile batteries at the point of enemy force positioning, especially land assets. You hit before the enemy become operational or has positioned resources effectively.

This would mean days if not weeks for any meaningful air assets being aligned by the opposing force. Carrier groups would need to be careful where they traverse. If Pakistan could restrict the Air assets to CGs and long range bombing then you are likely looking at days if not a couple of weeks before PAFs degrades. Though eventually the US would grind the PAF into the ground. It would not however happen in 30 minutes to 3 hours.

The only difference is warrior intent. This is the question mark. Will Pakistani establishment want to fight or will they fold given their belief of eventual loss. If that loss and fear of loss is in their mind, I think they'll let their arms down before a single bullet is fired.

 

[Trango Towers]

Na, there is no honor in fake accomplishments.

Sure that's a valid point.

 

[CivilianSupremacy]

4th most on paper, in reality Iraq actually wasn't that powerful. It had a lot of vintage old technology. Kinda like Russia is today; 2nd most powerful in the world on paper, but in reality is trash tier.

Was Iraq's military in 1991 stronger then Pakistan ?

Definitely YES!!

Was Iraq's military a match for US & whole of NATO along with other countries ?

Definitely No!


You mentioned in one of your posts that it was not match for Pakistan's military that is not correct. Infact Iraqis were highly battle hardened as well because of their long war with Iran. If US & whole of NATO had joined against Pakistan in same scenario, do you think results would have been different ? Not at all!. Maybe Pakistan would have survived bit longer then Iraq but that would nothing to do with our weapons or our tactics. That would be purely because of our terrain. We have green fields, valleys, mountains and places where we can hide our AD assets / gureilla warfare stuff. Iraq's biggest disadvantage was its terrain. Its one big desert. No place to hide. The tanks were all open, the infantry, the AD units everything was visible and easy to pick out. The reason Vietnam triumphed was because it was thick forest. The Vietnamese would have ZERO chance on a desert against US.

 

[altafahmed]

Saddam Hussein's absolute lack of political flexibility was another problem. For reference:

In my opinion, Saddam Hussein was an Illuminati agent, and his task was to destroy Iraqi army so that it couldn't stand against Israel, in which he succeeded, for this he fought 8 years long war with Iran and then attacked Kuwait........

 

[nahtanbob]

Not believable.
It took longer for the US Airforce to take out Iraqi Air Force.

Furthermore tactics come into play. If war is to happen, then preemption is the only path.
Pakistan would take out any air bases through long range missile batteries at the point of enemy force positioning, especially land assets. You hit before the enemy become operational or has positioned resources effectively.

This would mean days if not weeks for any meaningful air assets being aligned by the opposing force. Carrier groups would need to be careful where they traverse. If Pakistan could restrict the Air assets to CGs and long range bombing then you are likely looking at days if not a couple of weeks before PAFs degrades. Though eventually the US would grind the PAF into the ground. It would not however happen in 30 minutes to 3 hours.

The only difference is warrior intent. This is the question mark. Will Pakistani establishment want to fight or will they fold given their belief of eventual loss. If that loss and fear of loss is in their mind, I think they'll let their arms down before a single bullet is fired.

why risk loss of military assets with a hostile India ?

 

[blain2]

Sending own people to fight other peoples wars is a fetish that only Pakistanis seem to have.

I agree that we should never send our folks to fight in anyone's war. That said, if we look back, we have not fought on another nation's soil (except on UNPK duties and that too only in Somalia and Congo) since prior to partition. Perhaps the secondment of PAF pilots is what is used as an example but they were too few and far between.

No Pakistani troops fired a shot in Jordan (contrary to lies by certain quarters ala Zia ul Haq claim). Our troops did not participate in one active combat mission in Saudi Arabia against Iraq. We did not enter the mess in Yemen and we have not participated in ANY other active combat anywhere else.

 

[MastanKhan]

The US instead asked Turkish pilots to be sent over to US to train on Vipers. And for PAF group, most were at the airport waiting to board flights to Turkey when last minute they were called to go back. This happened despite PAF Viper squadrons being short staffed, and they were slightly aware that US state department would intervene, yet in vain many volunteered with the thrill of going to Turkey for a few years.

Hi,

Late Wing Cmndr Jan Mahmood had some great memories while serving in Turkey at the pakistan mission during the 50's

Not believable.
It took longer for the US Airforce to take out Iraqi Air Force.

Furthermore tactics come into play. If war is to happen, then preemption is the only path.
Pakistan would take out any air bases through long range missile batteries at the point of enemy force positioning, especially land assets. You hit before the enemy become operational or has positioned resources effectively.

This would mean days if not weeks for any meaningful air assets being aligned by the opposing force. Carrier groups would need to be careful where they traverse. If Pakistan could restrict the Air assets to CGs and long range bombing then you are likely looking at days if not a couple of weeks before PAFs degrades. Though eventually the US would grind the PAF into the ground. It would not however happen in 30 minutes to 3 hours.

The only difference is warrior intent. This is the question mark. Will Pakistani establishment want to fight or will they fold given their belief of eventual loss. If that loss and fear of loss is in their mind, I think they'll let their arms down before a single bullet is fired.

Hi,

That is one of the least intelligent posts that I have ready over the decade that I have been a poster on this forum.

There was no Iraqi air force to "take out"---just a few skirmishes here and there for the lost souls.

Please have a better understanding of weapons of war and enemy power positioning when postitng on this forum.

I agree that we should never send our folks to fight in anyone's war. That said, if we look back, we have not fought on another nation's soil (except on UNPK duties and that too only in Somalia and Congo) since prior to partition. Perhaps the secondment of PAF pilots is what is used as an example they were too few and far between.

No Pakistani troops fired a shot in Jordan (contrary to lies by certain quarters ala Zia ul Haq claim). Our troops did not participate in one active combat mission in Saudi Arabia against Iraq. We did not enter the mess in Yemen and we have not participated in ANY other active combat anywhere else.

Hi,

Sonny boy---maybe you have not read islamic conquest history---.

Remember Mohammad Qasim invasion of Sindh---or Traiq's invasion of spain---just a few---.

While you are at it---please also read christian expansion history as well---.

 

[TheSolution]

I also agree on Musharraf. Most of the right of center audience here think him a sellout when he was not. He tried to do his level best for the interests of Pakistan. Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds is a compliment to him and his statesmanship in my mind. He tread a delicate balance for Pakistan's interest and before the TTP army attacks me with the benefit of hindsight, I would say he made the best call with the situation on hand.

The hate on Musharraf is mostly by people who support the inbred kind of Mullahs.

There were blasts happening constantly every day and these guys expected zero collateral damage, the peace they see today is largely because of him otherwise it would have led to much worse consequences.

 

[chinasun]

If Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Pakistan sends troops to Saudi Arabia to protect other Middle Eastern countries. Pakistan will be famous in Islamic world. It will also get a lot of investment from Middle Eastern countries, and the total GDP of Pakistan is at least twice that of Pakistan now. Pity the Sharif government did nothing in 1991!
South Korea participated in the Vietnam War and won a large number of US military procurement contracts. hope to become a developed country. China sent troops to North Korea, and with the help of the Soviet Union, China completed industrialization. At that time, the technological gap between China and the world was very small. It is a pity that the Cultural Revolution wasted 10 years, and the third industrial revolution has already begun, and the gap between China and the world has once again widened.The USSR lost the competition in the third industrial revolution without chips. The product loses its competitiveness. Had to sell oil. Finally fell apart.China is well prepared for the fourth industrial revolution, and it will never fall behind this time.Countries and nations that are good at summing up experience from history will not be deceived by the news media.
Countries and nations that are good at summing up experience from history will not be deceived by the news media.Only by studying the past can we predict the future.

History books have a hard time hiding the truth, and the news media has no truth.

 

[Foinikas]

The hate on Musharraf is mostly by people who support the inbred kind of Mullahs.

There were blasts happening constantly every day and these guys expected zero collateral damage, the peace they see today is largely because of him otherwise it would have led to much worse consequences.

Finally somebody said it...

 

[Trango Towers]

Finally somebody said it...

It's well known. These people are a nasty blot on society

 

[villageidiot]

Furthermore tactics come into play. If war is to happen, then preemption is the only path.
Pakistan would take out any air bases through long range missile batteries at the point of enemy force positioning, especially land assets. You hit before the enemy become operational or has positioned resources effectively.

What targets would we have in case we wanted a preemptive strike. Other than USN Carrier groups. Other than afg or india, all countries in the region are *friendly to us. So, would the US use their bases in the gulf, like qatar or oman for this and would it be considered an act of war if we either strike preemptively or if the host country lets it's soil be used by a warring party against us?

@PanzerKiel @SQ8

In my opinion, Saddam Hussein was an Illuminati agent, and his task was to destroy Iraqi army so that it couldn't stand against Israel, in which he succeeded, for this he fought 8 years long war with Iran and then attacked Kuwait........

So, was he illuminati agent or jewish agent, then?

 

[SQ8]

What targets would we have in case we wanted a preemptive strike. Other than USN Carrier groups. Other than afg or india, all countries in the region are *friendly to us. So, would the US use their bases in the gulf, like qatar or oman for this and would it be considered an act of war if we either strike preemptively or if the host country lets it's soil be used by a warring party against us?

@PanzerKiel @SQ8


So, was he illuminati agent or jewish agent, then?

I would not like to partake in a discussion on a post you quoted that was based on pure delusion and lacks any understanding of both the capabilities of the United States and of Pakistan including but not limited to military, economic and diplomatic capacity.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

I would not like to partake in a discussion on a post you quoted that was based on pure delusion and lacks any understanding of both the capabilities of the United States and of Pakistan including but not limited to military, economic and diplomatic capacity.

I am presuming my post was delusional. If so let me restate my thesis:
I disagree that the US will be able to shut Pakistani airforce in 30 mins.
I agree that the eventual result would be US complete air dominance (only question is the variance of time).
If there is no intent to fight by our leadership then Pakistan will loose in a quantum state before even a second is clocked.

If you think the above is delusional then I respectfully disagree.

 

[villageidiot]

I would not like to partake in a discussion on a post you quoted that was based on pure delusion and lacks any understanding of both the capabilities of the United States and of Pakistan including but not limited to military, economic and diplomatic capacity.

I saw MastanKhan also referred to the post I quoted in the same way. As a complete layman, I'd appreciate if you expanded on that.

For what it's worth, my question doesn't base anything on the post quoted. I wanted to ask what would be legitimate targets in case war with US was inevitable. (I am not disputing the end results, just interested in the initial details of how it would go down.)

Thanks