@pakistanMYheart
It seems we both are misreading each other’s posts
While I agree that the aircraft is a technology and the pilot is the operator of that tech. By definition an Air force has its primary function in Aerial Warfare. Otherwise we should call it some other force. And so until the advent of UCAV's run primarily on AI(ala EDI in the movie "Stealth") there will always be the need for the operator of the primary tech in an Air Force which is an aircraft. Not to belittle the other branches but amount of training required for the operator of this tech is expensive and quite rigorous.
And at the end of the day as an asset this operator has taken more investment compared to say an engineer at starting level. At the same time, since the pilot is in command of the most important tech. His prestige and clout increases (and this is true for the USAF as well), especially since he is most likely to be the one most at risk in his job. Now here is the part that goes only for the PAF, You cannot, cannot remove pilots from the leadership circle. Our air force has in its core the application of Air Power through Aircraft( I ignore our ADA capability since it forms no part of the offensive force). And as an inherited training principle from the USAF ( 1970’s) it is mostly(not always) our pilots who are given the necessary training in air warfare tactics and their employment. Hence the reason that they dominate the leadership core on the combat commands. In the case of engineering there are quite a few pilots who are themselves graduates of the college of aeronautical eng in Risalpur. So to call them unqualified for running an engineering complex is unfair. Rather it is an advantage as not only do they know what the pilots want, but what the engineers can deliver. Now whether the Admin and Logistics should be under them? This is debatable not just on the basis of qualification, but rather performance. I would be the first to support putting people who are qualified for the job through merit I do believe that to perform a high level managerial job once must have experience being in that department and so logistics man must come from within that department and the admin man must come from within his department. Ill be the first one to point out that nepotism has from time to time raised its head in the Air force but it is on a much smaller scale than the one existing in the army. Hence these appointments are made on basis of experience and performance. As pilots are in charge of most airbases, they already have experience running logistics and other functions within their base. Are they qualified?? Let’s assume not, but if there are effective managerial and leadership skills in that person and they have shown performance then it is on that basis they are forwarded into these posts. Is this CORRECT?. As somebody just into the corporate loop I would say it is not, since to hold a top position you must have managerial qualifications.
However the current head of the USAF Air material command:
“General Donald J. Hoffman, USAF is the 7th and current Commander, Air Force Materiel Command. He previously served as Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition from August 2005 to November 20, 2008. As Air Force Material Command's commander, he leads the command's 74,000 Air Force and civilian personnel, manage $59 billion annually in research, development, test and evaluation. He also oversees the acquisition management services and logistics support which is required to develop, procure and sustain Air Force weapon systems.
General Hoffman is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. He was commissioned in 1974 and has served in various operational and staff assignments in Europe, the Middle East and United States. He has commanded at the flight, squadron, group and wing levels, and has served on the staffs of U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, Air Education and Training Command, Air Combat Command and Headquarters U.S. Air Force.
General Hoffman is a command pilot with more than 3,400 flying hours in fighter, trainer and transport aircraft.
education
• 1974 Distinguished graduate, Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo.
• 1975 Master of Science degree in electrical engineering, University of California, Berkeley
• 1978 Distinguished graduate, Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
• 1986 Distinguished graduate, Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
• 1992 National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.
• 1998 National Security Management Course, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y.”
While I am not promoting the generals credentials... him and his predecessors all have had flying experience. It is deemed necessary because it is an asset to know what your customer ( the pilots) want.
Under him however, are a myriad of people who sometimes are not pilots and yet hold very high ranks. Since they are heads of the departments under him and are specific to their roles. For eg the head of logistics has no flight experience but is highly qualified for his job. Hence the question, Why does the PAF not have such a setup. Quite simple, size(smaller administrative structure), resources( sending A select officer on a specific course)etc..
Unless off course they start off like the army and introduce MBA
.
However, there is much room for improvement. And I do feel, that if not a complete implementation.. a certain change ala Goldwater-Nichols of the US is required, but current trends indicate it is happening.
After all, one cannot undo the changes brought in by favoritism of dictators and their meddling in every aspect of the functioning of our armed forces. And the white elephant of strict, suffocating attitude and indoctrination through the training regimen which is the east India Company’s departing gift to our Nations armed forces
Now as far as the over whelming discipline is concerned, you seem to be echoing the army mode of administration where the low lying officers are really given a good drubbing down. However, I would request one clear example of one effective armed forces where strict discipline is not enforced and they have been successful. In any armed forces, A degree of discipline must be maintained as to ensure success in completing orders and to maintain efficiency. The same applies to our air force. However, unlike the US where the interaction between superior and subordinate is on a slightly less regimental level(no crisp salutes or boot stomping) the psyche of our nation is such that if we are given too much room we tend to occupy it all for ourselves as such this difference is cultural. Independent thinking is now very much a part of our military psyche and disagreeing with the commander if one feels it appropriate is not taboo. However, it doesn't give one the liberty to throw away a gun if you are asked to attack and you don't feel like it and tell your superior to f*** off. and your PIA example is inappropriate since PK-309 does not have to carry weapons into hostile territory with everything above 1feet trying to kill you. nor will a PIA flight arriving late set back the country's interests. And if anything, the PIA is very much infested with political unions, I have yet to see a PAF recruitment office with pictures of Bibi adorning it. A time when the discipline was lax or as you seem to indicate should be has come in the PAF during its formative years and Murad Sb might be best able to tell you what condition it was then before the American's came in and changed the system.
One more thing, our first locally manufactured ballistic missile. WERE designed by our nuclear scientists without so much as a guidance system specialist and I state this from a first hand account of it by Dr Samar. It is truly an achievement. They did have the metallurgists, but all they applied was learnt solely from books, trial and error and a little ingenuity.