PAF jets fly over Siachen

[Lord Of Gondor]

, as the globe is clearly round like near space

Probably a Fish Eye view.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Sir by that logic we should reduced all the armed forces and accept the hegemony of India like Bangladesh ...

That is a straw-man argument right there. None of what I said can be misconstrued to mean what you are implying. Logic is not like rubber or chewing gum.

Musharraf was obsessed with kargil. He pitched the plan to Benazir in 1990. She asked him a couple of simple questions which he could not answer and that was that. But being Musharraf (the person that he is), he could not put it out of his head. When peace loomed in 1998-99, he found a way to puncture peace efforts by unfurling this plan of his which at that time was a blunder. As part of a wider war effort - before the era of nuclear weapons & PGMs - it could have been a valuable sub-strategy to wrest control of Kashmir from India. However, with new ground realities and capabilities in Indian hands, this was a no-go area.

Now here is the funny bit: as far as I know, Kargil plan was drawn up by Brig. Ghulam Muhammad Chaudhry of Baluch regiment during his stint as sector commander in that area in early to mid 70s. He presented it to the then P.M. Bhutto when he toured that sector. Benazir had accompanied her father on that tour. Bhutto asked the same two questions from Brig G. M. Chaudhry that Benazir would ask (then) Brig Musharraf in 1990.

In short - it is wrong and foolish to blame PAF for losses in Kargil. It was a mistake to begin with and the operational planning was really bad. The planners never took into account the relative weakness of PAF and its predicament. A couple of PAF staff were told that they may need to be vigilant because of a 'small' area operation - and that was it:

"Pakistani writings on Kargil conflict have been few; those that did come out were largely irrelevant and in a few cases, were clearly sponsored. The role of the PAF has been discussed off and on, but mostly disparagingly, particularly in some uninformed quarters. Here is an airman’s perspective, focusing on the IAF’s air operations and the PAF’s position."
http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/2009/01/kargil-conflict-and-pakistan-air-force.html

Anyone interested in discussing PAF's role would do well to read the above blog post from AC (R) Kaiser Tufail's blog.

Blaming PAF for the subsequent losses was dishonesty on part of the generals who were responsible for the flawed plan to begin with. Since the narrative was controlled by Musharraf after his coup, the misleading view of PAF somehow being responsible for losses in Kargil was propagated. The fact remains that there was no wider-strategy that could make use of initial gains made in Kargil. It was just a walk-in-and-hold-territory operation meant to needle India and hurt the prospect of peace that was evolving in the after-math of Indian P.M. Vajpayee's visit to Lahore. The results were predictable.

Weakness of civilian over-sight has allowed military misadventures, and these have in turn always ended up hurting Pakistan's cause and interest. So, the fault lies in our weak institutional mechanisms where ambitious individuals with disproportionate influence and power can cause damage, get away with the results, and blame others for the results. Weak-minded jingoists just compound this problem further.

 

[MastanKhan]

That is a straw-man argument right there. None of what I said can be misconstrued to mean what you are implying. Logic is not like rubber or chewing gum.

Musharraf was obsessed with kargil. He pitched the plan to Benazir in 1990. She asked him a couple of simple questions which he could not answer and that was that. But being Musharraf (the person that he is), he could not put it out of his head. When peace loomed in 1998-99, he found a way to puncture peace efforts by unfurling this plan of his which at that time was a blunder. As part of a wider war effort - before the era of nuclear weapons & PGMs - it could have been a valuable sub-strategy to wrest control of Kashmir from India. However, with new ground realities and capabilities in Indian hands, this was a no-go area.

Now here is the funny bit: as far as I know, Kargil plan was drawn up by Brig. Ghulam Muhammad Chaudhry of Baluch regiment during his stint as sector commander in that area in early to mid 70s. He presented it to the then P.M. Bhutto when he toured that sector. Benazir had accompanied her father on that tour. Bhutto asked the same two questions from Brig G. M. Chaudhry that Benazir would ask (then) Brig Musharraf in 1990.

In short - it is wrong and foolish to blame PAF for losses in Kargil. It was a mistake to begin with and the operational planning was really bad. The planners never took into account the relative weakness of PAF and its predicament. A couple of PAF staff were told that they may need to be vigilant because of a 'small' area operation - and that was it:

"Pakistani writings on Kargil conflict have been few; those that did come out were largely irrelevant and in a few cases, were clearly sponsored. The role of the PAF has been discussed off and on, but mostly disparagingly, particularly in some uninformed quarters. Here is an airman’s perspective, focusing on the IAF’s air operations and the PAF’s position."
http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.com/2009/01/kargil-conflict-and-pakistan-air-force.html

Anyone interested in discussing PAF's role would do well to read the above blog post from AC (R) Kaiser Tufail's blog.

Blaming PAF for the subsequent losses was dishonesty on part of the generals who were responsible for the flawed plan to begin with. Since the narrative was controlled by Musharraf after his coup, the misleading view of PAF somehow being responsible for losses in Kargil was propagated. The fact remains that there was no wider-strategy that could make use of initial gains made in Kargil. It was just a walk-in-and-hold-territory operation meant to needle India and hurt the prospect of peace that was evolving in the after-math of Indian P.M. Vajpayee's visit to Lahore. The results were predictable.

Weakness of civilian over-sight has allowed military misadventures, and these have in turn always ended up hurting Pakistan's cause and interest. So, the fault lies in our weak institutional mechanisms where ambitious individuals with disproportionate influence and power can cause damage, get away with the results, and blame others for the results. Weak-minded jingoists just compound this problem further.

Sir,

If you set lower standards of operations---your standards will get worst.

Paf is making excuses of not being informed directly---it is their job---by default to be ready prepared and available.

Once they found out by OTHER MEANS of the attack---their excuse of not knowing does not hold any value---. They should have indulged deeper---.

The bottomline is---Paf---was weak---was not ready---for that reason not able to face the enemy.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Sir,

If you set lower standards of operations---your standards will get worst.

Paf is making excuses of not being informed directly---it is their job---by default to be ready prepared and available.

Once they found out by OTHER MEANS of the attack---their excuse of not knowing does not hold any value---. They should have indulged deeper---.

The bottomline is---Paf---was weak---was not ready---for that reason not able to face the enemy.

On the face of it, your argument is not applicable. I have read enough of your posts to know that you hold PAF culpable over the long term for not making right strategic decisions. Understandably, your argument does not apply to the few months long window during which Kargil unfolded.

My point was that the operational planning of Kargil was really bad, and that (seemingly) the idea behind the operation was to derail the India-Pakistan peace process. Obviously, there could be no strategic advantage that could have accrued out of it. PAF brass seems to have acted (or rather abstained) out of self-interest. They did not want a war at their hands. Honestly, I do not blame them for avoiding war. It was the job of the generals to take that very critical element into account. The fact that they ignored it is all that I need to know that A) they were incompetent and/or B) they were after some other objective. I remember very clearly (and my contact in FO confirm it) that there was a severe, years-long back-lash against Pakistan post-Kargil, compounded by the subsequent Martial Law. The reasons for such a back-lash are totally understandable. But I suppose some among Pakistanis (with very parochial views) considered it a price worth paying.

The great tragedy in countries like Pakistan has always been that civilian institutions are weak and are deliberately kept so. In Pakistan's case, there is no winner in this game. Sometimes I feel that India is at an unfair advantage, but then I see that by wanting to weaken Pakistan, they are ensuring instability for themselves too. Nobody wins in this game - nobody. I see rampant jingoism at PDF and just shake my head at so much waste of time, energy, and youth.

 

[Centurion2016]

Dont fly nar SaIchen

OR ELSE

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Sometimes I feel that India is at an unfair advantage, but then I see that by wanting to weaken Pakistan, they are ensuring instability for themselves too. Nobody wins in this game - nobody. I see rampant jingoism at PDF and just shake my head at so much waste of time, energy, and youth.

India has always tried for peace but has always been rebuffed

So if we are retaliating or paying back ; it is because of certain Pakistani actions
over the years

 

[surya kiran]

The fact that they ignored it is all that I need to know that A) they were incompetent and/or B) they were after some other objective.

More critically, aeronaut does not talk about not wanting to fight. He mentions not being given enough time to shore up spares for maintenance. Anyways, unmitigated disaster it was.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

History of war between the two countries is a testament to that.

Are you aware that there have been FIVE conflicts between India and Pakistan

1 ) 1947 2 ) 1965 (3) 1971 (4 ) 1984 Siachen (5 ) 1999 Kargil

Which one you have won

 

[Chak Bamu]

India has always tried for peace but has always been rebuffed

So if we are retaliating or paying back ; it is because of certain Pakistani actions
over the years

No, not really. That is not how I see it. India has always tried to brow-beat Pakistan. Peace was never an agenda item for them. Starting from 1946, the Indian intent was hostile. From the idea to the State, Pakistan was seen as a tumor. You can not have peace with a tumor, can you? Pakistan as a young and insecure country could be excused for exhibiting paranoia - but not India. Why was Pakistan's share of treasury held back for months in 1947? Why was the armament not transferred? Why did Indian leaders do nothing to stop killing of Muslims by Dogra raj in Kashmir, that culminated in armed jihad by the locals and Pashtun tribesmen?

Its easy to turn a blind eye to historical facts, but do not expect sufferers to forget them. History has turned a certain way, because it could go no other way. Its our legacy. But you do not seem to be able to let go.

Are you aware that there have been FIVE conflicts between India and Pakistan

1 ) 1947 2 ) 1965 (3) 1971 (4 ) 1984 Siachen (5 ) 1999 Kargil

Which one you have won

I do not care for your jingomania. Needle someone else.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

No, not really. That is not how I see it. India has always tried to brow-beat Pakistan. Peace was never an agenda item for them. Starting from 1946, the Indian intent was hostile. From the idea to the State, Pakistan was seen as a tumor. You can not have peace with a tumor, can you? Pakistan as a young and insecure country could be excused for exhibiting paranoia - but not India. Why was Pakistan's share of treasury held back for months in 1947? Why was the armament not transferred? Why did Indian leaders do nothing to stop killing of Muslims by Dogra raj in Kashmir, that culminated in armed jihad by the locals and Pashtun tribesmen?

Its easy to turn a blind eye to historical facts, but do not expect sufferers to forget them. History has turned a certain way, because it could go no other way. Its our legacy. But you do not seem to be able to let go.

In our view ; Pakistan's obsession with Kashmir has always been the problem
right from 1947 ; till today

And even when you have a decent share of it ; why do you want the whole thing

Big countries do not just bend before the demands of the smaller enemy

And inspite of all the problems during the separation of 1947
such as sharing of resources ; do you know that till before 1965 conflict
people could easily travel between the Two countries

There was a lot of shared goodwill between the people
of both countries till before 1965 war

When you did 1965 ; we took revenge in 1971 and ever since that
you have never been at peace with either yourselves or with India

I do not care for your jingomania. Needle someone else.

This reply was to @Falcon26

 

[The Accountant]

In our view ; Pakistan's obsession with Kashmir has always been the problem
right from 1947 ; till today

And even when you have a decent share of it ; why do you want the whole thing

Big countries do not just bend before the demands of the smaller enemy

And inspite of all the problems during the separation of 1947
such as sharing of resources ; do you know that till before 1965 conflict
people could easily travel between the Two countries

There was a lot of shared goodwill between the people
of both countries till before 1965 war

When you did 1965 ; we took revenge in 1971 and ever since that
you have never been at peace with either yourselves or with India



This reply was to @Falcon26

Why are you obsessed with kashmir ? People of Kashir do not want to live with you ...

Its not our demand but demand of the Kashmiris ...

Regarding 1965, we were again focussed on Kashmir and disputed area and it was you who planned to have wine in Lahore gymkhana ...

In 1971, what you did as stabbing in the back as Bangladesh was never disputed region .

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Why are you obsessed with kashmir ? People of Kashir do not want to live with you ...

What about the WILL of people of India

Kashmir is very strategically important territory ; we cannot let it go

 

[The Accountant]

PAF decided (and wisely too!) to not allow escalation to full-scale war. An air war would have been disastrous.

Sir can you please explain what do you mean by this statement ?

So in future of India attacks and PAF decides not to attack back and keep on flying missions within boudry due to lack of spares then what would be the answere ...

Being an airforce arent they suppose to be ready everytime?

Kargil operation may be or may not be a blunder but we have lost our edge over IAF this is a reality due to lack of planning by PAF chief ...
Dont tell me its about fund as whatever fund we had , we wasted that on blk 52 which will be prone to sanction at the time of war ...

So we have a world class plane that can only fly when there is peace and it will be baned y supplier in case of war ... I dont know how can anyone defend's PAF decision of getting blk 52 despite of knowing Pressler amendments ...

 

[Chak Bamu]

Sir can you please explain what do you mean by this statement ?

So in future of India attacks and PAF decides not to attack back and keep on flying missions within boudry due to lack of spares then what would be the answere ...

Being an airforce arent they suppose to be ready everytime?

Kargil operation may be or may not be a blunder but we have lost our edge over IAF this is a reality due to lack of planning by PAF chief ...
Dont tell me its about fund as whatever fund we had , we wasted that on blk 52 which will be prone to sanction at the time of war ...

So we have a world class plane that can only fly when there is peace and it will be baned y supplier in case of war ... I dont know how can anyone defend's PAF decision of getting blk 52 despite of knowing Pressler amendments ...

There you go again....

You can not take statements about a specific period and slap-dash apply them to the future. Why must you do that? PAF today is very different from PAF of 1999. Why would the absurd situation that prevailed during Kargil months be the lot of PAF today? Does USA not have strategic interests in this region? When they can not ignore us and just have to consider our interests (even though grudgingly), why are you so insecure?

You need to read a lot more, instead of wasting time on internet forums. Here you find partisan-ship, jingoism, nationalism, and all other sorts of -isms. From where would you find the time and peace to reflect and think deeply about issues of which you have only a cursory and superficial awareness? You seem to be inflicted by the security-centered thinking that does not allow you to fully explore the issues. When you are thinking of security all the time, you can only have a stunted understanding. Just read your post again. Are you not mixing a lot of unrelated stuff because you are not focused or thinking straight?

PAF is a defensive airforce. It is not meant to do deep strike missions or project power far outside Pakistani territory. Why should it be an offensive force, when we would be foolish to invest in such a disastrous strategy? Have we enough schools and hospitals, and do we have a sizeable export surplus? How is our economy doing? Would it not be more important to raise living standards in back-ward areas of Pakistan? How is it sane to lust after expensive offensive weapons when our Human Development Indicators are so abysmal? We can not have civilian governments finish 5 year terms, and we are thinking of teaching other nations lessons? What can we teach them? How to wreck institutions and live under martial laws? How to plan disasters and blame others for them?

You must begin with studying and setting your priorities straight, and then to view all information through a filter that contains them. My priorities are peace and growth. What are yours?

 

[ashok321]

THIS IS SAICHEN TODAY......... I doubt a single PAF fighter will fly close TODAY with these beasts on patrol

View attachment 410312

This is not Saichen today:
This is year 2015 and different mission:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/59...n-Sukhoi-jets-Indian-pilots-training-exercise

Enough of your lies!
Don't misguide members.

@waz

Ok, I didn't know and these are small, older aircrafts so it makes sense it wasn't published as much.



Oh the macho-ism! I don't even know why you'd write a post like this to be honest. But, you are actually right. No one would fly "close" as they can fire on these from 70 miles away. BVR targeting is a wonderful thing .

He is lying through his......

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/59...n-Sukhoi-jets-Indian-pilots-training-exercise