Leadership of PAF needs a healthy change !
- Thread starter pakistanMYheart
- Start date
- Status
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
You don't need to be patronized over here by anyone---now you are being 'ganged' up by our senior member ARAZ---that is in poor taste.
Nobody challenged the dedication of the fighter pilot over here---. What kind of statement is " explain to me what is wrong with current setup "---now we are in a threatening mode to a new member who has brought up some new issues.
Pakistanmy heart---you don't need to be cowed down by threats. It is a normal practise---don't agree with someone---threanten or harrass them. Thankyou for bringing up this conversation.
If it comes down to what we see, the top man has been a failure in the last 20 years. Nobody is saying that an outsider wll run the paf---it just that a non flyer may take charge as well---like someone from the engr branch.
@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.
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.
Last edited:
pakistanMYheart
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
@rehan
Yes, to an extent of removing corruption, and implementing discipline, Ex-Defence personnel should be deployed at places like PIA. It is a real mess. Ex-Defence personnel can handle their professional jobs extremely well. For example PIA can hire retired pilots, engineers, technicians,logistics managers from Air Force.
It is mainly the commercial aspect of PIA, that Ex-Defence people may not handle very well. This is obvious, because Defence personnel have never seen a situations where they think about profits/losses, customer services, competitiveness etc. The financial and business affairs can be handled by some one else.
@araz
I never said that a non-PAF person should lead the PAF. With reference to my first post. I am just mentioning that PAF is composed of many departments (or branches, as PAF calls them). Officers and men are trained for their respective branches. I will explain this by an example.
Administration in PAF is responsible for housing, finance, security, welfare and related stuff. An administration officer is inducted in PAF, and trained for these jobs. He then works on these jobs, and gains years of experience. And when this administration officer completes about 30+ years of service, he cannot become the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (Adminstration), because this post is taken by a pilot.
We all know what pilots are inducted and trained for. They learn flying, war tactics, strategic planning and other related things. But, why appoint a pilot as DCAS (Administration)? This is my area of concern.
And among other posts, you will find pilots occupying posts like Chairman of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Chief Project Director of JF-17 Project, Deputy Chief of Air Staff(Support Services), Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Information Technology) and many others. For each of these departments, there are specialist existing in the PAF. But, they are not allowed to reach to top posts (even in their own branch). Why ?
What I want to say is, give the right job to the right man. A pilot thinking he can do any thing, is no different from a politician thinking that he can become the Minister for Railways, Education, Women Affairs, Interior or anything else. Specialized jobs should be handled by specialists. This is the age of technology and specialization. Old ways of thinking no more apply here.
So, a similar situation is there in PAF. The masses donot know it, because PAF is not a public affair like our governments. But it is not hard to understand, that this creates inefficiency and slow progress. News of mismanagement in procurement of Defence equipment, often make it to the mainstream media.
We are bound to respect our forces, and stand for them. But, as lovers of Pakistan, we can also discuss if something is wrong, and try to change for good.
Yes, to an extent of removing corruption, and implementing discipline, Ex-Defence personnel should be deployed at places like PIA. It is a real mess. Ex-Defence personnel can handle their professional jobs extremely well. For example PIA can hire retired pilots, engineers, technicians,logistics managers from Air Force.
It is mainly the commercial aspect of PIA, that Ex-Defence people may not handle very well. This is obvious, because Defence personnel have never seen a situations where they think about profits/losses, customer services, competitiveness etc. The financial and business affairs can be handled by some one else.
@araz
I never said that a non-PAF person should lead the PAF. With reference to my first post. I am just mentioning that PAF is composed of many departments (or branches, as PAF calls them). Officers and men are trained for their respective branches. I will explain this by an example.
Administration in PAF is responsible for housing, finance, security, welfare and related stuff. An administration officer is inducted in PAF, and trained for these jobs. He then works on these jobs, and gains years of experience. And when this administration officer completes about 30+ years of service, he cannot become the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (Adminstration), because this post is taken by a pilot.
We all know what pilots are inducted and trained for. They learn flying, war tactics, strategic planning and other related things. But, why appoint a pilot as DCAS (Administration)? This is my area of concern.
And among other posts, you will find pilots occupying posts like Chairman of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Chief Project Director of JF-17 Project, Deputy Chief of Air Staff(Support Services), Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Information Technology) and many others. For each of these departments, there are specialist existing in the PAF. But, they are not allowed to reach to top posts (even in their own branch). Why ?
What I want to say is, give the right job to the right man. A pilot thinking he can do any thing, is no different from a politician thinking that he can become the Minister for Railways, Education, Women Affairs, Interior or anything else. Specialized jobs should be handled by specialists. This is the age of technology and specialization. Old ways of thinking no more apply here.
So, a similar situation is there in PAF. The masses donot know it, because PAF is not a public affair like our governments. But it is not hard to understand, that this creates inefficiency and slow progress. News of mismanagement in procurement of Defence equipment, often make it to the mainstream media.
We are bound to respect our forces, and stand for them. But, as lovers of Pakistan, we can also discuss if something is wrong, and try to change for good.
pakistanMYheart
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
@santro
Please pardon me if I have misinterpreted your past comments. Your recent comments are very useful and enlightening.
An air force has the primary function of Aerial Warfare. Is aerial warfare only done with aircraft? what about the radars, the SAMs, the communication equipment, the fuel supply, the spare parts, the maintenance services, the welfare of troops, the food supply, the intelligence, the medical services, and the list is very long ...
A pilot costs a lot of investment, and takes a lot of risk in life. This makes him a great pilot, and an asset for the nation. But does this experience and risk make him a good engineer (for example) or a great information technology expert?
The pilots being incharge of Air Bases, are not experienced to run logistics. The logistics squadron deals directly with Air Headquarters. The Base Commander just signs the requisitions, when required. Same is true to engineering setups. They deal directly with Air Headquarters, and the Base Commander comes in only when some important letter has to be signed. Because he is a pilot, and knows only flying, he acts as a Base Commander of Pilots only, not the Base Commander of the Base. (This is not his official role, but practically he acts like this, because he only knows what Pilots do or want)
The USAF example is true. But can we not think ahead of what the US thinks. Every thing they do may not be right.
Let me tell you, that the pilots being in command of almost all PAF departments has nothing to do with efficiency. It is just a kind of feudalism, that has been going on, and will resist change, because it goes against the interests of feudals.
And thank you for your information regarding how the first ballistic missile was developed. Hats off to all those scientists and engineers.
Please pardon me if I have misinterpreted your past comments. Your recent comments are very useful and enlightening.
An air force has the primary function of Aerial Warfare. Is aerial warfare only done with aircraft? what about the radars, the SAMs, the communication equipment, the fuel supply, the spare parts, the maintenance services, the welfare of troops, the food supply, the intelligence, the medical services, and the list is very long ...
A pilot costs a lot of investment, and takes a lot of risk in life. This makes him a great pilot, and an asset for the nation. But does this experience and risk make him a good engineer (for example) or a great information technology expert?
The pilots being incharge of Air Bases, are not experienced to run logistics. The logistics squadron deals directly with Air Headquarters. The Base Commander just signs the requisitions, when required. Same is true to engineering setups. They deal directly with Air Headquarters, and the Base Commander comes in only when some important letter has to be signed. Because he is a pilot, and knows only flying, he acts as a Base Commander of Pilots only, not the Base Commander of the Base. (This is not his official role, but practically he acts like this, because he only knows what Pilots do or want)
The USAF example is true. But can we not think ahead of what the US thinks. Every thing they do may not be right.
Let me tell you, that the pilots being in command of almost all PAF departments has nothing to do with efficiency. It is just a kind of feudalism, that has been going on, and will resist change, because it goes against the interests of feudals.
And thank you for your information regarding how the first ballistic missile was developed. Hats off to all those scientists and engineers.
Last edited:
Well, lets start by taking the aircraft out of an airforce. What is left?. You will still have logistics for the Sams, radars and what not. still need administration. However your primary goal which is to project air power is gone. The army has sams and radars as well..does that give them the same ability?
An Airforce without Sams and radars and AAA is still an airforce, there will still troops, food etc etc, but one without aircraft and their operators is not. If I take away the infantry or combat troops out of our army.. is it still an army??? Ill leave that for you.( My opinion is that it'll be the best private corporation the world has ever seen.. but that's just me
)
Now, a pilot alone will not make an engineer, but what I refer to are those pilots who have spent time in the engineering dept. You forget that quite a few of the pilots flying today and those in high command have come from CAE Risalpur, so has the current head of the PAC if I am not mistaken. They became engineers before they went on to flying.(Infact this is supposed to be a good step into increasing your chances of becoming a fighter pilot).
Before you come to a conclusion about the fact that the base commander should not be a pilot. The majority of base commanders of especially combat aircraft all over the world are from the combat community. The reason is best gleaned from these professionals. Now.. should the base commander of PAF Lower topa all the way up in the hill with just an air defence outpost and a cadet college be a fighter pilot. That is something debabtable and for me, no, it can be from anywhere else. However, I would suggest you not to apply a corporate model in the military, it is rarely a good idea.
There is however, something related to my last post you should go through, regarding changes for our air force by Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail:
"Encouragement of lateral viewpoints (rather than trodden, linear thought processes) in which experimentation and initiative forms the backbone of any exertion, comes out on top of the list. Dignity of labour comes a close second, where officers as well as men have extreme pride in doing any kind of work with their own hands. Disregard of protocol and archaic practices, while still being able to sustain the hierarchical framework on which the armed forces are structured, needs to be looked into, lest an increasingly divisive elitism sunders the top from the bottom."
On a last note, Id suggest but not force, not to ridicule the older hands of our armed forces, Whatever the outcome, whatever the role, most of them did their job with honesty,pride and sheer love for the land. You may differ with their view, I do with some as well. But differ respectfully, and when you cannot make them change their views, do not resort to ridicule. It is NEVER a good IDEA. You will not only antagonize them, hurt them, and earn the scorn of their admirers, you will also lose any respect you gain within those who appreciated you. (military dictators and their immediate sycophantic suckups are exempted from the target of this suggestion)
An Airforce without Sams and radars and AAA is still an airforce, there will still troops, food etc etc, but one without aircraft and their operators is not. If I take away the infantry or combat troops out of our army.. is it still an army??? Ill leave that for you.( My opinion is that it'll be the best private corporation the world has ever seen.. but that's just me
)Now, a pilot alone will not make an engineer, but what I refer to are those pilots who have spent time in the engineering dept. You forget that quite a few of the pilots flying today and those in high command have come from CAE Risalpur, so has the current head of the PAC if I am not mistaken. They became engineers before they went on to flying.(Infact this is supposed to be a good step into increasing your chances of becoming a fighter pilot).
Before you come to a conclusion about the fact that the base commander should not be a pilot. The majority of base commanders of especially combat aircraft all over the world are from the combat community. The reason is best gleaned from these professionals. Now.. should the base commander of PAF Lower topa all the way up in the hill with just an air defence outpost and a cadet college be a fighter pilot. That is something debabtable and for me, no, it can be from anywhere else. However, I would suggest you not to apply a corporate model in the military, it is rarely a good idea.
There is however, something related to my last post you should go through, regarding changes for our air force by Air Cdre Kaiser Tufail:
"Encouragement of lateral viewpoints (rather than trodden, linear thought processes) in which experimentation and initiative forms the backbone of any exertion, comes out on top of the list. Dignity of labour comes a close second, where officers as well as men have extreme pride in doing any kind of work with their own hands. Disregard of protocol and archaic practices, while still being able to sustain the hierarchical framework on which the armed forces are structured, needs to be looked into, lest an increasingly divisive elitism sunders the top from the bottom."
On a last note, Id suggest but not force, not to ridicule the older hands of our armed forces, Whatever the outcome, whatever the role, most of them did their job with honesty,pride and sheer love for the land. You may differ with their view, I do with some as well. But differ respectfully, and when you cannot make them change their views, do not resort to ridicule. It is NEVER a good IDEA. You will not only antagonize them, hurt them, and earn the scorn of their admirers, you will also lose any respect you gain within those who appreciated you. (military dictators and their immediate sycophantic suckups are exempted from the target of this suggestion)
Last edited:
pakistanMYheart
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
@santro
Yes, aircraft are the most important part of an air force, and so are their operators. There is no air force possible without aircraft and pilots. Does this mean that everything and everyone else it useless? and is not doing an important job ? and should not be given chances to excel in his own field of expertise ? and should not reach the top rank of his own branch?
An army that only consists of infantry will be an army, and an airforce only consisting of aircraft and pilots will be an airforce, but such forces can exist in theory. They are not practically realizable.
No pilot in PAF is a graduate of CAE. This includes the Chairman of PAC. And furthermore, being a graduate of CAE does not matter much. You area of expertise is basically what you have been practically doing throughout your professional life.
You are right in saying that Base Commander of Lower Topa should not necessarily be a pilot. But he is. Even the Base Commander of Korangi Creek Base and Kohat Base is a pilot (Korangi Creek Base consists of Training facilities for technicians and JCOs, and Kohat Base consists of training facilities for Airmen of all trades).
I am not trying to apply a corporate view to Military. I am just applying a Military view to Military. A pilot should do what a pilot should do, an engineer should do what an engineer should do, and so on ...
The narrative by Air Cdre Kaiser is very useful.
In your last para, if you mean my confrontation with @Muradk, then I have already apologized him openly in this forum. I did not know his background when I started this post.
Yes, aircraft are the most important part of an air force, and so are their operators. There is no air force possible without aircraft and pilots. Does this mean that everything and everyone else it useless? and is not doing an important job ? and should not be given chances to excel in his own field of expertise ? and should not reach the top rank of his own branch?
An army that only consists of infantry will be an army, and an airforce only consisting of aircraft and pilots will be an airforce, but such forces can exist in theory. They are not practically realizable.
No pilot in PAF is a graduate of CAE. This includes the Chairman of PAC. And furthermore, being a graduate of CAE does not matter much. You area of expertise is basically what you have been practically doing throughout your professional life.
You are right in saying that Base Commander of Lower Topa should not necessarily be a pilot. But he is. Even the Base Commander of Korangi Creek Base and Kohat Base is a pilot (Korangi Creek Base consists of Training facilities for technicians and JCOs, and Kohat Base consists of training facilities for Airmen of all trades).
I am not trying to apply a corporate view to Military. I am just applying a Military view to Military. A pilot should do what a pilot should do, an engineer should do what an engineer should do, and so on ...
The narrative by Air Cdre Kaiser is very useful.
In your last para, if you mean my confrontation with @Muradk, then I have already apologized him openly in this forum. I did not know his background when I started this post.
On the contrary, such forces may exist in theory but they are the core elements.
If you are assuming i am denying the role of the other branches then you are sorely mistaken. I am stating the paramount nature of the core branch. All others are SUPPORTIVE of it. they play a complementary role(ADA) or supporting role(engineers,logistics etc) but NEVER supplement it. And take Lower topa as a general example.. I did not SPECIFICALLY state Lower Topa.
Now.. IF the current head of the PAC is not an engineer, and yet if he is doing a good job and ensuring projects move in a steady and progressive manner so should we fire him? Should we insist that we appoint an engineer who is junior from him, promote him to VCAS, surpassing his peers. I would vehemently disagree. However if the current head of PAC is not doing what he is supposed to yet the chief is sticking with him, then it is true nepotism and favoritism by the pilot mafia which you speak of or the artillery mafia I know of.
Eventually, there will have to be an engineer heading PAC, but the fault doesn't lie with the PAF,The Army or the Navy alone. The fault lies with dictators and the corrupt politicians that supplant them since we never had let democracy grow and systems stay in place. To target the pilots in the PAF as a witch hunt.. you are barking up the wrong tree. Anywhere else, nepotism and favoritism is checked by government institutions. Here, it flourishes. Targeting pilots as a whole or any branch will do more to upset those who are just doing their job. Its like telling lawyers that all you are excellent debaters,experts at law and etc. But are all blood sucking parasites as well who never let true justice be done.
The Armed Forces are PART of the government of Pakistan. They ARE not a separate entity. So while the rest of the body is sick you cant expect your legs & arms to still perform perfectly in volleyball. Start fixing the critical areas, Justice, Law and Governance. The rest will follow suit.
mods please excuse the off topic foray
If you are assuming i am denying the role of the other branches then you are sorely mistaken. I am stating the paramount nature of the core branch. All others are SUPPORTIVE of it. they play a complementary role(ADA) or supporting role(engineers,logistics etc) but NEVER supplement it. And take Lower topa as a general example.. I did not SPECIFICALLY state Lower Topa.
Now.. IF the current head of the PAC is not an engineer, and yet if he is doing a good job and ensuring projects move in a steady and progressive manner so should we fire him? Should we insist that we appoint an engineer who is junior from him, promote him to VCAS, surpassing his peers. I would vehemently disagree. However if the current head of PAC is not doing what he is supposed to yet the chief is sticking with him, then it is true nepotism and favoritism by the pilot mafia which you speak of or the artillery mafia I know of.
Eventually, there will have to be an engineer heading PAC, but the fault doesn't lie with the PAF,The Army or the Navy alone. The fault lies with dictators and the corrupt politicians that supplant them since we never had let democracy grow and systems stay in place. To target the pilots in the PAF as a witch hunt.. you are barking up the wrong tree. Anywhere else, nepotism and favoritism is checked by government institutions. Here, it flourishes. Targeting pilots as a whole or any branch will do more to upset those who are just doing their job. Its like telling lawyers that all you are excellent debaters,experts at law and etc. But are all blood sucking parasites as well who never let true justice be done.
The Armed Forces are PART of the government of Pakistan. They ARE not a separate entity. So while the rest of the body is sick you cant expect your legs & arms to still perform perfectly in volleyball. Start fixing the critical areas, Justice, Law and Governance. The rest will follow suit.
mods please excuse the off topic foray
pakistanMYheart
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
@santro
It is true that flying is the main branch of PAF, all all other are supportive. So, at least we should let the support branch people, make it to the top rank in their own support branch, should we not?
If the head of PAC is doing a great job, whatever background he is from, there is no point in firing him. But making it a rule that only a pilot can head PAC, is wrong. Sadly, this is a rule at the moment.
You are right in mentioning that this is basically a problem of our whole country, starting from the Central Government. If they get fixed, rest will follow.
It is true that flying is the main branch of PAF, all all other are supportive. So, at least we should let the support branch people, make it to the top rank in their own support branch, should we not?
If the head of PAC is doing a great job, whatever background he is from, there is no point in firing him. But making it a rule that only a pilot can head PAC, is wrong. Sadly, this is a rule at the moment.
You are right in mentioning that this is basically a problem of our whole country, starting from the Central Government. If they get fixed, rest will follow.
sergente rehan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 0
Sir can you please give us some info on Air M Farhat? and who are the other future possible contenders?
Another question: did Army COAS ever interfare in PAF decisions? i mean during some critical circumstances maybe during war? bcz i read about some related stuff that sometimes Army and PAF have diffrent priorities so they don't agree with each other...i was a bit confused on this statement.
regards.
PAFAce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction score
- 0
I have an inside source that claims OC 11 SQD Aamir Mansoor will be CAS some day. Right sir?
On a serious note, I really like the topic in discussion. Pilots in top positions has been a tradition in many services around the world, including the USAF. Especially, pilots who have flown combat missions and destroyed enemy fighters are usually at the very top of the food chain, mainly because they have stared the enemy in the eye and defeated him.
However, there are many problems with allowing a non-engineer or a non-scientist to lead engineers and scientists. A fighter pilot would not want me to tell him how to fly and fight, and similarly, I would not want to be told by some "rocket jockey" how to design the aircraft. Pilot input is of utmost importance, but they can't be allowed to design the aircraft. This is why most of the very best research in the world does not take place in the military services, but defence-related private corporations and government organizations with close ties with the services. For example, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, Boeing's Phantom Works, NASA, DARPA etc. are far more efficient as research and engineering institutions than the USAF Research Laboratory, and one of the reasons for that is because the military-men stay out of the way of the technical men. In Pakistan, our private and government sector R&D and Engineering lags behind the military-R&D and Engineering sector, and therefore, we are faced with these issues.
One way to mitigate the problem in the short term would be to allow Engineering staff to lead Engineering institutions such as the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Pakistan Ordnance Factories, etc. while the pilots maintain command over the overall Air Force and its fighting capabilities. In the long term, however, the best way to allow the engineers and scientists to shine is to allow them freedom to do what they do best in non-military private and government research organizations.
Last edited:
sonicboom
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 2
Mr. PakistanMYheart
Welcome to the forum. Sorry, I am kind of late in joining the excellent thread ever started by you in this forum.
I must agree with MastKhan and just remember not to be intimidated and be apologetic. This forum does not promote creativity and healthy dialogue but relies heavily on news clips, cut and paste from the internet, or childish threads. They prefer followers and not leaders. Once or a while, if a creative person like you show up, then they all get threaten and try to gang up and preach with dire consequences such as being getting banned (a big joke).
I have been following this forum for the last few months and here is my assessment of the forum. This forum consists of few ex PAF pilots and bunch of their followers. They feel it their right to say whatever they want but when a rebuttal is presented, and then they flip head over heels. They expect everyone to bow and give respect but at the same time failed to understand that respect is earned and not given.
Granted they served the nation and do deserve respect and we must respect them for their service but then failed to recognize that the career they chose was by their own choice and no one begged them to do so. In return they were handsomely paid as compared to others in Pakistan and that it was the best job they could find just after doing FA or FSC. Pakistani nation spent millions of dollars to give them the best training and education to make them what they claim to be today. They should be thankful to the Pakistani nation and not the Pakistani nation to them.
Now coming back to your thread, this notion of that the pilots being the best and jack of all trades is totally absurd. I can provide a long list of stupid blunders over the previous year’s made by higher command of PAF who happened to be all pilots. I totally agree with you that a person with the right qualifications and experience should be appointed for a specific job and not based on if he is a pilot or not.
And lastly let’s talk about these medals. The medals should be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond their day to day duty and not just for sneezing. In 1965 war, medals were showered on pilots just for doing a normal day to day job with some exceptions because the recommender and approver were all pilots. At the same time, the ground staff who worked relentlessly and long hours under heavy enemy air attack was totally ignored.
And lastly hang in….
Just for info:
1. Most decorated and best pilots were Bengalis: M M Alam, Sarfraz Rafiqui, Saif-ul-Azam.
2. Most Air chiefs came from No. 9 Squadron and few from No. 11 Squadron.
3. Six (6) out of nice (9) Air Chiefs starting with Asghar khan had their last name as Khan.
4. PAF is the only air force known to have shot down it’s own F-16 by one it’s pilots during Afghan war.
Last edited:
pakistanMYheart
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
@sonicboom,@PAFAce
I am glad to find support from members like you here. I appreciate the guidance that you have provided me regarding the traditions of this forum.
I am glad to find support from members like you here. I appreciate the guidance that you have provided me regarding the traditions of this forum.
pakistanMYheart
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
@PAFAce
Your suggestions are very thoughtful and practical. Engineers and Scientists are best left alone, and allowed to work independently. For this, all Research and Development can take place in Non-Government, private corporations, who maintain a close coordination with the Armed Forces.
I would like to give an example of Singapore Air Force here. In Singapore Air Force, even the regular maintenance of Aircraft is handled by a Private company known as Singapore Technologies. But, then Singapore Air Force operates in a small geographical area, and does not have any war time or field deployments. So, regular maintenance being handled by private hands, may not suit Pakistan. But R&D must go to private hands.
Your suggestions are very thoughtful and practical. Engineers and Scientists are best left alone, and allowed to work independently. For this, all Research and Development can take place in Non-Government, private corporations, who maintain a close coordination with the Armed Forces.
I would like to give an example of Singapore Air Force here. In Singapore Air Force, even the regular maintenance of Aircraft is handled by a Private company known as Singapore Technologies. But, then Singapore Air Force operates in a small geographical area, and does not have any war time or field deployments. So, regular maintenance being handled by private hands, may not suit Pakistan. But R&D must go to private hands.
- Status
Similar threads
