PAF jets fly over Siachen

[The Accountant]

In that case your argument is incorrect that Pak is not resolving Kashmir issue ... it's India not accepting the will of kashmiris

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?

How judgemental you are ... you don't know me ... you have not followed me on any of the threads ... you don't know my profession and you start saying I am wasting my time on Internet ... people like you are so self centered who cannot bear people contradicting them ...

There is no point of having discussion with you ... who instead of putting argument on one issue started putting negative tags on a person completely unknown to you ...

Accept it or not arrogance of people like you has put us to such a situation where we are hiding our incompetency behind a lame concept of defensive force ... and don't tell me that it is due to focus on development otherwise even F16s should not have been procured and we should become like Bangladesh or Nepal

 

[MastanKhan]

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. [/QUOTE]

Young man,

If you did not know it by now---that is the definition of TREASON.

An air force is nothing but the extended arm of the army---.

 

[Falcon26]

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

Total none sense.

1947 Pakistan entered Kashmir and walked away with more than 1/3 of Kashmir. Azad Kashmir exists due to the bravery of Pakistani and Kashmiri fighters. Not due to Indian favors.

1965 Pakistan handed out a historic defeat. After Pakistani troops routed the Indians, your country tried to salvage pride by crossing the international border and despite initial gains were being chased away till the last days of the war. All international observers including westerns agree that it was humiliation for your country.

1971 was unreasonable position to win. Pakistan could simply not fight a conventional war against an enemy 10x bigger and at the same time battle an armed insurrection in a territory hundreds of miles away separated by a hostile nation. That this win to date remains your only pride affirms the initial comments I made.

1999 was a military victory for Pakistan. They crossed into your positions and totally caught you with your pants down. Still some of the main hills are under Pakistani control. It was a diplomatic win for India courtesy of Nawaz Sharif. Nothing else. This is from your own media

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/near-tiger-hill-point-5353-still-pakoccupied/488505/

Go blabber somewhere else. Your 1.3 billion strong country is being put in its place by a country 10x smaller. I can understand your frustrations.

 

[Raider 21]

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



He is lying through his......

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

Why there are doubts over the IAF's claims of success in the Indradhanush exercise
Now that much of the controversy surrounding the recently concluded ‘Indradhanush’ exercises between India and the UK concluded it is probably time for a clinical post mortem. To be clear, we have no additional facts since the end of those exercises except official statements. Those statements however, allow us a glimpse into what really happened, though more by omission and mendacity.

The first thing that emerges is that Indian planes simply did not perform well in the Beyond Visual Range (BVR) component of these exercises, confirming a pattern that has been obvious since the much vaunted 2004 ‘Cope-India’ exercises where the IAF reportedly “slaughtered” American planes. This is particularly disturbing because all modern air combat takes place at standoff ranges. The question is how do we know - reliably - that Indian planes lacked in BVR combat? For starters we have a plethora of official comments stating that the IAF performs “less successfully” in BVR engagements in almost every iteration of the India-UK ‘Indradhanush’ series, the France-India ‘Garuda’ series and the US-India ‘Cope India’ exercises. The exact quantification of “less successfully” is never revealed except through leaked videos of US servicemen giving some very damming debriefs to their colleagues. Even these videos do not seem to present a complete picture. The main reason has been that IAF Su-30s refuse to use their radars when abroad; ostensibly because of operational security reasons. Tellingly, in the 2004 “slaughter” of the US air force, the terms of the exercise forced the US planes to fly without turning on their radars and without support from AWACS aircraft. This was not just a highly unrealistic scenario but downright farcical.

This begs several questions. If an air force has performed “less successfully” repeatedly since 2004 in BVR combat why would in persist in going in for such exercises internationally while keeping its radar turned off? What exactly is the lesson they expect to learn here? It is also undeniable that the Sukhois can manoeuvre better than any existing western fighter though even here its performance has been variable as is the nature of WVR combat. So why exactly does the Air Force want to spend hundreds if not thousands of crores on exercises with the French, the Americans and the British to confirm a two facts that are already known; that the IAF rocks at WVR combat but sucks at BVR combat. More importantly what is the IAF doing to improve its BVR performance? Why is it not showing better results a full 11 years into these exercises? And how does the IAF hope to prove or test its BVR combat capabilities if it does not allow its pilots to turn on the single most important component of long range combat – its radar?

One could very easily be accused of having a “pro-white-man” bias here. After all why should we take the statements of UK pilots who laughed off Indian claims as “comical” not to mention several past claims to this effect by the US and UK pilots. The answer lies in the fact that US and UK statements when shorn of their rhetoric have been logically consistent while the IAF’s statements and press briefings have been anything but.

Consider the very first news report that came out on the subject on a major news channel. It contained references to the Sukhoi’s Infrared sensors and radars being a “distinct advantage” in dogfights. This was a glaring error, and no official tried to correct it. The problem is that these sensors are completely useless when you get into a dogfight where the only real tool you have are your eyes – with very little having changed in this regard since 1914. This is the main reason western air forces prefer to fight BVR where 21st century technology can be exploited to its fullest extent, and avoid getting into highly erratic World War 1 style WVR combat.

While the former could be put down to an overenthusiastic and misinformed reporter – the official statement cannot. That statement contained much verbiage and absolutely no information, save this one gem “there are no classic wins and losses as no weapons are fired as per their actual capability”. While the second part was accurate, the first part was anything but. In the absence of traditional dogfights, training exercise “kills” are highly valued by pilots. Almost every western aircraft that has scored a kill in these simulations has traditional kill markings on them. These markings – specifically on one German Eurofighter (Luftwaffe 30-29) are why we know the Eurofighter has bested the stealthy F-22 raptor on at least one occasion.

The Air Force, having been caught with its pants down – both in tactics and public relations, is in an unenviable position here. If it admits the Sukhoi did not perform well, heads will have to roll for saddling India with a white elephant. If the Air Force says the Sukhoi performed well, the question arises, why does it need the MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft), a plane it has supposedly thrashed in simulated combat, at a unit cost several times that of the Sukhoi? The very least the Air Force can focus on in the short term is having better media training, both for its pilots as well for those who draft official statements.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...the-indradhanush-exercise-115091400553_1.html

 

[DJ_Viper]

He is lying through his......

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

Hi little emotional child, how can I help you?

An article means nothing. I was referring to the BVR weapons. You beat something has nothing to do with you trying to shake away two sophisticated BVR missiles. Learn the topic before silly responding to posts!

 

[wiseone2]

The rewrite of history will make Goebbels proud
"1999 was a military victory for Pakistan. They crossed into your positions and totally caught you with your pants down. Still some of the main hills are under Pakistani control. It was a diplomatic win for India courtesy of Nawaz Sharif. Nothing else. This is from your own media"

 

[Chak Bamu]

In that case your argument is incorrect that Pak is not resolving Kashmir issue ... it's India not accepting the will of kashmiris


How judgemental you are ... you don't know me ... you have not followed me on any of the threads ... you don't know my profession and you start saying I am wasting my time on Internet ... people like you are so self centered who cannot bear people contradicting them ...

There is no point of having discussion with you ... who instead of putting argument on one issue started putting negative tags on a person completely unknown to you ...

Accept it or not arrogance of people like you has put us to such a situation where we are hiding our incompetency behind a lame concept of defensive force ... and don't tell me that it is due to focus on development otherwise even F16s should not have been procured and we should become like Bangladesh or Nepal

I do not need to follow you to get an idea of your capacity via your posts. You present no numbers. You present no analysis. You regurgitate other people's opinions. And yes, you waste your time, and that of others with your inanities.

You keep coming up with strawman arguments - like the one about Pakistan becoming like Bangladesh, or me blaming Pakistan for Kashmir impasse. You want me to take you seriously? Stop with the strawmen first, and present cogent arguments next; otherwise buzz off.

Young man,

If you did not know it by now---that is the definition of TREASON.

An air force is nothing but the extended arm of the army---.

What PAF did was smart. They decided that they would defend our airspace and would not cross the border or LOC so as to keep the escalation in check. I thank them for it. They did the right thing. It would indeed be treason if PAF allowed enemy aircraft to cross into Pakistani airspace at will. This clearly did not happen. AC (R) Kaiser Tufail presented a strong case for this stance and I agree with him. He has loads more credibility and sense.

If you call airforce an extended arm of Army, then what happened in Kargil was that one arm did not know what the body was doing - and it was not the arm's fault. The fault lies with the planners, not airforce brass.

 

[The Accountant]

I do not need to follow you to get an idea of your capacity via your posts. You present no numbers. You present no analysis. You regurgitate other people's opinions. And yes, you waste your time, and that of others with your inanities.

You keep coming up with strawman arguments - like the one about Pakistan becoming like Bangladesh, or me blaming Pakistan for Kashmir impasse. You want me to take you seriously? Stop with the strawmen first, and present cogent arguments next; otherwise buzz off.



What PAF did was smart. They decided that they would defend our airspace and would not cross the border or LOC so as to keep the escalation in check. I thank them for it. They did the right thing. It would indeed be treason if PAF allowed enemy aircraft to cross into Pakistani airspace at will. This clearly did not happen. AC (R) Kaiser Tufail presented a strong case for this stance and I agree with him. He has loads more credibility and sense.

If you call airforce an extended arm of Army, then what happened in Kargil was that one arm did not know what the body was doing - and it was not the arm's fault. The fault lies with the planners, not airforce brass.

Ohhh ya and you have presented some mountain of evidence in favour of PAF ...

You are a useless arrogant person who do not have capacity to listen to the reality ...

 

[MastanKhan]

What PAF did was smart. They decided that they would defend our airspace and would not cross the border or LOC so as to keep the escalation in check. I thank them for it. They did the right thing. It would indeed be treason if PAF allowed enemy aircraft to cross into Pakistani airspace at will. This clearly did not happen. AC (R) Kaiser Tufail presented a strong case for this stance and I agree with him. He has loads more credibility and sense.

If you call airforce an extended arm of Army, then what happened in Kargil was that one arm did not know what the body was doing - and it was not the arm's fault. The fault lies with the planners, not airforce brass.

Hi,

Raja Porus also wanted to defend his space---he got pummelled and so did many others---half of Chin and 2/3rd of the muslim empire got devatsatedcenturies ago when they just defended---as did Constantinopole.

Kaiser Tufail is a fighter jock---he is a gunfighter---and not a strategist---.

It does not matter if one arm of the military was not informed directly---the moment they became informed---even indirectly---they were informed.

Damn---in my sales business---the salesmen / sales manager are held more accountable if they learnt something and did not do anything---that was automatic termination---it is called not TAKING OWNERSHIP of the problem once you found it---.

The bottomline for the airforce's actions was---that they had totally shitty aircraft that were not worth doing battle with.

If they had a 100 tier one fully functional aircraft---does anyone over here doubt that they would have stopped to pounce on the enemy across the border---.

They would have been the first ones on the scene---because that would have given them the opportunity to STRUT AROUND doing their VICTORY DANCE at how great they are---.

They had piece of sh-it aircraft---and they hid behind their mama's skirts---that is what pakistan air force was during Kargil.

 

[I.R.A]

She asked him a couple of simple questions

Bhutto asked the same two questions from Brig G. M. Chaudhry that Benazir would ask (then) Brig Musharraf in 1990.

Pardon my ignorance but what were the questions? One may be related to diplomatic fallout and the other..... ?????

@MastanKhan sir?

 

[MastanKhan]

Pardon my ignorance but what were the questions? One may be related to diplomatic fallout and the other..... ?????

@MastanKhan sir?

I would like that guy to answer.

 

[The Accountant]

I would like that guy to answer.

We always blame wrong thing on wrong people ... Indians did not considered diplomatic fallout of Siachin becuase they no our diplomacy is shit ... Similarly , Kargil might be mistake of General Musharaf or might not be ... But we never know as we did shit on diplomatic and air front ...

Had we used some good diplomatic process then the outcome might have been different ...

We are such a shit country that we ur foreign minister (aka PM) did not even raise issue of Kulbuhsan once ... Our dear neighbor Modi openly threatened to support Balochistan and we did nothing on the diplomatic front ...

 

[Chak Bamu]

Pardon my ignorance but what were the questions? One may be related to diplomatic fallout and the other..... ?????

@MastanKhan sir?

Widening conflict.

Original Kargil plan was relevant only to Kashmir. As I said earlier, this plan could be part of a wider strategy, but it was not much by itself because it was drawn up by a sector commander, Brig G. M. Chaudhry.

 

[I.R.A]

Widening conflict.

Original Kargil plan was relevant only to Kashmir. As I said earlier, this plan could be part of a wider strategy, but it was not much by itself because it was drawn up by a sector commander, Brig G. M. Chaudhry.

I don't see there could be any wider strategy (if its in terms of conflict), as you said we are interested in defense only ......... Kashmir can only be snatched in a surprise attack (proven in past and living example is AJK), but the chances of that are minimal now, or else the cost of occupying Kashmir can be made intolerable for the occupier, which will never happen, no offense to Kashmiris but they don't have it what it takes to achieve that.

However, I don't agree that Pakistan should only focus on being defensive its a loser's strategy in our region .....we have seen in last decade what happens to a country that tries to be too much defensive ......as I believe its not Pakistanis that will make gazwa e hind a reality but our neighbors and their choices.

 

[Chak Bamu]

I don't see there could be any wider strategy (if its in terms of conflict), as you said we are interested in defense only ......... Kashmir can only be snatched in a surprise attack (proven in past and living example is AJK), but the chances of that are minimal now, or else the cost of occupying Kashmir can be made intolerable for the occupier, which will never happen, no offense to Kashmiris but they don't have it what it takes to achieve that.

However, I don't agree that Pakistan should only focus on being defensive its a loser's strategy in our region .....we have seen in last decade what happens to a country that tries to be too much defensive ......as I believe its not Pakistanis that will make gazwa e hind a reality but our neighbors and their choices.

The worst thing we can do to India is to befriend it - without lowering our defenses.

We need to lay-off eschatology for a great while. All this talk of Ghazwa-e-Hind is nebulous and one can not use it to make any sort of strategy. It is actually counter-productive.

It never fails to surprise me to see the extent to which Indians are obsessed about Pakistan. Hence I think that Pakistan acts a bit like glue to keep Indian states together. Why should we serve their purpose? Its better to eschew such a role and allow their own internal centrifugal forces to work naturally.