I somehow knew you will mention the missiles. they are an element of the arsenal not the the wholesome answer. all three arms of the military complement each other and support each other. India will always have numerical advantage from us whether or not we have committed part of the army in the west. when the Indians wanted to play in 2008 we recalled our units in no time from tribal areas and they are deployed well ahead of any possible Indian advance.
PAF wont survive by simply playing a defensive war within its territory, not only it will diminish itself but also the fail to safegaurd the defending forces of Pakistan army. it will have to take fight to Indian forward bases which will mean taking our the Indian eyes in the sky and any ground based systems that will hamper its operations including the airbases themselves.
we are trained with the fact that we are weaker and smaller in number but we are prepared for that. trust me, pure defence within your borders is a failed concept from word go .. you will not only loose your forces and their capacity to defend but also loose your territory dynamic and aggressive defence is the key.. key term is still defence but is aggressive in a way that it is blunting the enemy's offensive capability. rest is all window dressing and concepts
deviated from subject too much .. will continue somewhere else.. now have to clean-up Indian insecure posts.
No one said that Pakistan will just have to play "defense". What I wrote, is actually DIRECTLY inline with your GHQs strategy. If a war breaks out (I hope it never does), you won't see PAF venturing into the Indian territory much, may be a few dozen miles.
This isn't the 65 or the 71, you are in an EM, ELINT, SIGNIT, HUMINT era of warfare. Any jet airborne from Pakistan OR Indian basis will be immediately identified, by both GC and by AWACS. Technology has advanced so much that you can even identify the kind of payload the jet is carrying, in terms of missiles and even which kind of missiles, such as BVR vs. WVR, from hundreds of miles away!! India is fielding significant numbers of SAM's, and in tiers, such as Israeli systems, Russian and then Indian made systems. Getting identified the second you take off even flying low (in Punjab's and Sindh's territory), will get you identified by the AWACS as its beam is coming from upside down, vs. the azimuth scanning capability of ground based radar, that can be avoided by flying very low and mix small planes with ground clutter. You could avoid detection on the Kashmir side, but there is what one or two airbases near vicinity? Majority of the action will take place towards Punjab and Sindh's side as these the are two areas the IBG's have done significant training in, within the past few years. So the PAF, with its limited numbers, will have to remain defensive. Like I said, you take down, over 100+SU's and Mirages, etc, you'll negotiate an end very quickly. The way escalates, its anyone's game due to serious risks involve using Flash lights, if you know what I mean!!!
The missiles are actually THE wholesome answer right now and has been for the past 15 years. And it will be so for the next 5 at the least. You simply don't have the numbers to match the IAF and be able to then attack inside Indian airspace as nicely as you did back in the 65 and 71. The best way to lose aircrafts, is to send them onto missions inside India. There is a reason why so much focus has been given on acquiring and building standoff munitions.
Let's take a financial / cost related example. If it takes say $ 200,000 to make 1 Raad or whatever cruise missile, in 1 million, you made 5. In $ 20 million, you made 100 cruise missiles (cost of a JFT). 100 Cruise missiles are FOR SURE a LOT more impact-full than ONE JFT with offensive weapons of what? 2000KG or 3000 KG max??? So based on this theory, within $ 100 million, you could have a large arsenal of stealthy 500 cruise missiles.........do you see where I am going with this? If I fired 4 missiles at a target, I can cover over 120 targets with ONLY @ 20 million.
Now imagine sending PAF jets on over 120 missions, you'll FOR SURE lose about 1 aircraft per mission (just taking a very low number for this example). So that's 120 jets. Average cost of JFT / PAF jet is around $10-15 million (even old ones). So that means, $ 10 million (again taking a MUCH lower cost figure for this example), the number of money lost in jets at 1 jet per mission at 120 missions is: $ 10 million * 120 = $ 1.2 BILLION worth of plane. Now replace the $ 10 million and use a real F-16 or the JFT's price tag.......do you really think Pakistan has $ 2-3 billion to lose in jets that could easily be avoided through using cruise missiles??? Or do you think Pakistan REALLY has even 100 jets to lose, even if today, you had 400 4th Gen jets comprising of JFT block II and F-16's and J-11's????
This is a HECK of a price tag and many European nations won't be able to afford this much loss, let alone India or Pakistan!!! That's why I was saying, if you could JUST focus on using the PAF in the most advantageous way you can, against the IAF, and bring down about 50 SU-30's plus whatever other planes, the "ceasefire" would happen VERY quickly as like the above example, the price tag just from air force's standpoint is unfathomable. In India's case, replace the $ 10 or 20 million with $ 35-40 million as that's the cost of their SU's and advanced Mirages. So you are talking 100 lost jets accounting for over $ 3 billion!!! At $ 30 billion total defense budget, that's 10% gone in a few days with leaving a HUGE black hole in power projection and moral and everything else.
In 65 and 71 and all the way till 1990, the PAF was considered a better trained and posseses better technology, due to Western fighters and tactics. From the 90's, the PAF is no longer there. The IAF is now very well trained. So you have to keep all that in perspective. Their fighters just scored 6 kills against the EFT in the UK (no, the 12-0 was bullshiit and propaganda). So their pilots are much ahead then where they were, last time you met them!!!
Just my advise with my little knowledge, these defense related issues are extremely sensitive. You can't just use feel good statements like "we are trained", you need to back that up with numbers, weapons and tactics too. Similarly, just because you or I or MK wants the PAF to have a dedicated strike platform, does it make sense? If you hit the enemy where it hurts the most (with PAF's limited number), the short war would be over before any crazy head thinks of using the Flash Light on either side. And how do you do this? Take down enemy air assets as much as you can.
Don't lose your jets under the assumption that you could fly 50 feet above the air and hit their bases under such heavy EM frequencies monitoring small birds (like India picked up that Pigeon), let alone actual jets. So back to the core, Pakistan needs about 400-450 multi-role, included heavies to intercept and provide ground support. There are other means for hitting the FOB's and all.
I will like to quote the American 101 airbourne phrase.... " we are always supposed to be surrounded"
since they land inside the enemy territory. I guess they would defer the economic war to their countrymen in Wall street
You are missing the MOST important lesson taught in the US for warfare and military training "War is an extension of politics". To your post above, the Economic sanctions come first (like Iran), if they aren't useful, then the President (democratically elected Commander In-Chief) will order the US military to strike. So economic sanctions go hand in hand with the military action to produce desired results!!!
Tell Iran to boycott the 6 country negotiation pact and back out of the deal tomorrow. Watch what would happen and actually, extremely quickly. Just like the US president has already mentioned many times.
