Hi,
PAF loves to play games---and when it falls down on its face---it has a thousand and one excuses---it is always somebody else to take the blame----it is always someone else who is at fault---it is always someone else who is not playing by the rules.
MastanKhan. How are you brother. Not that it will matter i will try and allay your anxiety to the best of my capability. Tell me one organization that has not made one bad decision and then blamed it on others/circumstances, EVER!!!
JF 17 is a wonderful plane----but who needs it today----when the primary need of the hour is BVR and BVR equipped planes alone.
Paf has apeared at a loss when it comes to thinking and reacting on its feet in time. It is always a day late and pound short---.
It is entirely relevant to PAF, a small efficient platform, that contrary to your assertions is BVR capable(See nabils post on the forum) in a theatre where response times and distances are small, and cheap to maintain and develop in house, by our local technicians. What more do you want.Have you not seen what PAF is currently operating? Now tell me how is thunder not an improvement and therefore relevant
When you go take and exam----and you have studied for it---it is always reccomended that the first answer that comes to the mind is the right answer. Everything after that is the mind playing tricks.
You would know this better as i have not taken any exams at all!!
You will however remember that not every question has a simple and straight forward answer. The calibre of your answer depends on the logic that you present to support it, and not on what is written in the books alone.
Same thing----when we initially agreed that JF 17 was not what was needed---we were absolutely correct---what PAF did after that was trying to cover its mistake---and the deception that it had created amonsgt the pakistanis to justify the purchase begins to get into the realm of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
All the explanations that they have come out are no more than coverups for their blunders and poor analysis in trying to coax the civilians into believing that PAF is on the right track.
By your logic name me one high official who has deplored the thunder as a bad move. Again even if there is an opinion, what matters is the logic behind it. To give you and example, the A10 was considered an ugly and unuseable plane with USAF thinking of retiring it. heck they even offered it to us and even we refused it. Along came Gulf war and USA found a use for it and Lo and behold, they cant have enough of them even though the supply line has shut down long ago!! So it transpires that every piece of equipment has a use provided you can justify it. We were useing F7Ps/PGs, and M3/5s of sixties/seventies era, because we had no choice.So we kept upgrading them to suit our needs;. Keeping these planes in mind alone, the Thunder makes a lot of sense to me.
And we the civilians---we cannot be condemning our flyers all the time and have to follow suite---we have been screwed one more time by our very own---it is not a surprise anymore---we are used to it by now---so---take it easy and enjoy---.
It really surprises me of the mindset of my countrymen----the enemy is adding up on the BVR capable planes by 100's and what do we have----we only have 4 of them only and only 4----and those 4's can only be used in a defencive strike mode----read all the statements of the ACM---nowhere it mentions about offencive BVR strike of blk 52'2 across border.
I would differ with you on the first part of your statement in the light of what I have already said. As to BVR capability, your knowledge regarding PAF is now outdated. From my sources and also seeing nabil,s post, issues of KLJ7 mating with SD10 have been resolved. Do you honestly think we are so stupid as to send 2 planes all the way to Farnborough which are not BVR capable!! There were other issues behind the scene as well, which I amnot going to discuss here, but the point is if someone is dreaming about JF17 not being BVR capable, they ought to wake up and smell the coffee!! There are going to be other BVR missiles that will be mated to it as well.
All the spin---all the statements are going round and round in defending our resources by every means possible---that is what the U S is also agreeing to---they have allowed us to use these birds in a defencive mode against any incoming strikes----but we cannot use the bvr's against any offencive strikes that we make across the border on our own. That is what my interpretation is.
Aray marey Bhai, The logic of aggressive use of platforms is simple. HEAVEN forbid!!!! if there is a war in the Indo Pak Theatre,it will be short and bloody. There will be no chance of having any faith in the other party not useing Nukes, for the first party to hold back. In those scenarios, having or not having Bl52s is irrelevant .if sanity prevails and we have a skirmish, how long will it last___days, a week at the most!!USA will sanction you , but in those circumstances, any equpment that your adversary buys from the US will also be sanctioned. If you have enough spares, you will be able to sustain those sanctions during the war period.
The other thing to remember is the PAF logic of having deterrence! This my friend means you will only be useing you r planes for defensive purposes in your own terrain.I think all offensive strikes will be carried out by long distance stand off weapons and missiles!!In all such wars you need to have a balance of 1:3 to hold your own. This has been proven again and again. Even if you take the fight to the enemy you will encroach on to their land and make a stand from there. Short of believing in the hoccus poccus of kill switches, how do you reckon US is going to stop us?
Now---coming back to the JF 17 again---it would of a tremendous asset to the airforce---but when I am asking for a .50 calibre rifle---you are justifying me by handing me over a .308---that is not acceptable and must not be justified.
...
