PAF training comparison

[MastanKhan]

There is some misunderstanding and some agreement.

I did say that superior tech is useful, but didn't say it beats experience. Also, it is true that China has experience from early era. But I don't recall much action from PAF after the soviet war. In recent history, we did fail to detect the abbotabad operation by US. If there is, please link. Experience being jets vs jets, not the current war on terror.

Another brainless poster---

 

[That Guy]

There is some misunderstanding and some agreement.

I did say that superior tech is useful, but didn't say it beats experience. Also, it is true that China has experience from early era. But I don't recall much action from PAF after the soviet war. In recent history, we did fail to detect the abbotabad operation by US. If there is, please link. Experience being jets vs jets, not the current war on terror.

The Soviet-Afghan war isn't even that old, in fact, it's still very relevant today for lessons to be learned with modern air crafts. Even then, PAF has continued to train with foreign forces, and is actively involved in anti-militant operations.

Abottabad was a unique situation, no one saw that coming. The US was an ally, and other than India, there was no other air power to deal with such a threat. Air radars on the western border were down, because it's technically peace time right now; after all, the militants don't have an air force of their own.

Look, all this info is publicly available. It's not that hard to google this stuff.

 

[WishLivePak]

The Soviet-Afghan war isn't even that old, in fact, it's still very relevant today for lessons to be learned with modern air crafts. Even then, PAF has continued to train with foreign forces, and is actively involved in anti-militant operations.

Abottabad was a unique situation, no one saw that coming. The US was an ally, and other than India, there was no other air power to deal with such a threat. Air radars on the western border were down, because it's technically peace time right now; after all, the militants don't have an air force of their own.

Look, all this info is publicly available. It's not that hard to google this stuff.

Soviet war is 25 years old. It ended in 1989. Vietnam ended in 1975. China Air Force also trains with foreign forces.

Oh and please, that's just an excuse. What if Israel came in from other side? Or India maneuvered around? Just because it is peace time, it does not mean that first we cannot detect them and then they even go back to Afghanistan.

Anyway, this is just derailment of thread. My initial question about sales is turning into debate about combat related.

Another brainless poster---

Who, you? Thanks for letting me know!

 

[Viper0011.]

There is some misunderstanding and some agreement.

I did say that superior tech is useful, but didn't say it beats experience. Also, it is true that China has experience from early era. But I don't recall much action from PAF after the soviet war. In recent history, we did fail to detect the abbotabad operation by US. If there is, please link. Experience being jets vs jets, not the current war on terror.

Dude, are you drunk from a New Year party? I am not sure if anyone of your posts are making sense today. The PAF may not have seen combat in terms of REALLY destroying an enemy jet. But the PAF has participated in many, many exercises, which are battle scenarios and do require firing missiles and gun in simulation mode, but no one dies.

The Red Flag is the mother of all exercises. It provides about 90% real combat scenarios and war like situations. There was the Red Flag, the Green Flag, a few with Turkey (also multinational), then the UK, China, KSA, other Middle Easter countries, the UN, etc. So their tactics and expertise get polished in each exercise. Then, there has been the campaign against the Talibans. Actual combat and with the current precision bombing. So these strike missions are super important also. After the US, Israel, the UK.....IMO Pakistan's air force has the most combat experience.

 

[Pangu]

Guys, as said, our pilots hold your pilots in high regard, so really no need to argue about PAF pilots being better than PLAAF pilots in close range combat. I'm actually happy that your guys can 'teach them a lesson' to our pilots, better to have our *** kick in training with a solid AF like PAF, than to be defeated in real combat.

 

[MastanKhan]

Guys, as said, our pilots hold your pilots in high regard, so really no need to argue about PAF pilots being better than PLAAF pilots in close range combat. I'm actually happy that your guys can 'teach them a lesson' to our pilots, better to have our *** kick in training with a solid AF like PAF, than to be defeated in real combat.

Hi,

Thank you for your comments---.

 

[That Guy]

Soviet war is 25 years old. It ended in 1989. Vietnam ended in 1975. China Air Force also trains with foreign forces.

Oh and please, that's just an excuse. What if Israel came in from other side? Or India maneuvered around? Just because it is peace time, it does not mean that first we cannot detect them and then they even go back to Afghanistan.

Anyway, this is just derailment of thread. My initial question about sales is turning into debate about combat related.

If facts offend you, that's really not my problem. I'm not making excuses, I'm telling you the facts, nothing more.

Another fact, everyone (and I mean everyone) on this thread is telling you that you're wrong, with many providing to you evidence of why you're wrong, yet you don't seem to be budging from your position. I know it's hard to admit that you're wrong, but you can just end this conversation right now. It's not that hard, just stop typing.

Dude, are you drunk from a New Year party? I am not sure if anyone of your posts are making sense today. The PAF may not have seen combat in terms of REALLY destroying an enemy jet. But the PAF has participated in many, many exercises, which are battle scenarios and do require firing missiles and gun in simulation mode, but no one dies.

The Red Flag is the mother of all exercises. It provides about 90% real combat scenarios and war like situations. There was the Red Flag, the Green Flag, a few with Turkey (also multinational), then the UK, China, KSA, other Middle Easter countries, the UN, etc. So their tactics and expertise get polished in each exercise. Then, there has been the campaign against the Talibans. Actual combat and with the current precision bombing. So these strike missions are super important also. After the US, Israel, the UK.....IMO Pakistan's air force has the most combat experience.

Huh, we actually agree on something. Maybe it's the new year spirit?

 

[ziaulislam]

i dont see exports coming so easily, it seems Nigeria deal was also a play to get a good deal from the Russians

 

[SQ8]

China has more funds to better train their pilots. They also have better technology (ignoring jets). Also they have a lot of experience fighting foreign forces, while Pakistan has only experience with India (which they excelled at). They (Pakistan) do train with other nations and whatnot, but Chinese airforce is far better trained due to more funding, more and more jets being made from ground up, which means they know more inside out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to know more about PAF. I did fancy the idea of joining PAF at one time when I was in military school, so it is isn't' personal hate I've for PAF but based on actualities.

On a LOT of accounts. More funds does not translate into "better" training in this regard. Experience does, force flight time does. How much of the world you absorb does. And what foreign air-forces do you refer to when you say that the PLAAF has fought them? Other than the Korean war in the 50s and on/off skirmishes over the Taiwanese Strait.. there really was not much combat undertaken by the PLAAF.. especially none against a well trained airforce like the IAF.
By contrast, the PAF has remained in almost constant "cold/hot" war status with India, has placed a massive emphasis on training to compensate for equipment..
Your logic is incoherent with how air forces develop their ethos. Yes, funds are the main livelihood.. but so far the situation has not reached that point where pilots cant fly and train to the required amount anymore. Training is developed over years of "cohesive" experience from the personnel within the institution. So how easily you are able to dismiss the years of "experience" that PAF pilots who go on exchange, train with other airforces and so on shows that you aren't very well versed in air warfare or its development. Take the IDF-AF. They came from the ground up with technically inferior equipment to come out on top.. and regardless of it all. .. the one thing that set them apart was training. And that training did not come from the IDF-AF having more funds than say the USAF or RAF.. but with how the collective "experience" that its personnel gained formed up to give it character and develop its training regimen.
What funds do is then support these training practices and continue the ideals.

The PLAAF "ethos" underwent a massive change(along with the entire PLA) after 85, their entire idea of how to fly and fight changed since then. In that they took help from us, from the Russians and anywhere else they could get. Yes, Today's PLAAF is a much different force that it was twenty years ago but that has yet to proliferate across the entire PLAAF(due to its size). So while the pilots of their 4th Generation assets are probably no less than that of any comparable airforce flying the types(or similar).. their 3rd generation pilots are still coming up from the ground.
However, one cannot compare the PLAAF and the PAF on the same plane as both have very different objectives and fighting styles/requirements. For instance, the PAF still focuses a lot on having its pilots train for the turning fight(even i the most unsuited of platforms)...by contrast, pilots from say the RCAF may not be looking into that as much and may be focused on the long range intercept ideals that are a requirement for the over-the-pole threats the RCAF has generally faced throughout its existence.

If you really want to gauge the PAF and are less attuned to "pakistani" hosted links.. then Ill reproduce a post from another neutral(and more frequented by professionals) forum by a veteran USAF pilot who was among those that trained the initial F-16 foriegn cadre..and these are the days of Zia when the PAF was really not that well equipped.


Salute!

If you are not politically-incorrect, do not read the rest of this post.
*****************

In the very early years of the Viper, we trained all the EPG folks, plus the IAF(Israeli), Pakistani and Egyptian folks. Also handled USAF National Guard and Reserve units.

I flew with Pakistani folks during my pilot training back in 1965-65. 16-17 years or so later, I flew with accomplished Pakistani fighter pilots that formed the core of their Viper force.

The original cast at Hill will all tell you (ALL) that the Pakistani folks were more aggressive than the IAF folks we had. Same-oh versus the Egyptian folks.

Jan Bei's question is a great one!

It may not be true today, but except for one of the original Pakistani Viper cadre, all had been instructors all over the mideast. They kept reminding us that they were Muslims, but not Arabs. My own student had taught various Arab folks and had great war stories. For example, when the Emir's grandson screwed up and claimed it was Allah's will, he threw the bullshit flag and told the yute, "OK, then we'll let the plane crash!".

I can't believe that the Pakistani spirit and elan and professionalism has deterioated all that much. But having no current intell from anyone, I can't make an unequivocal statement.

All I know is that I would lead or follow any of the ones we had at Hill in that cadre.

If anyone else here has ever flown with a Pakistani Viper pilot in an actual Viper, please chime in or continue to speculate.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[WishLivePak]

Dude, are you drunk from a New Year party? I am not sure if anyone of your posts are making sense today. The PAF may not have seen combat in terms of REALLY destroying an enemy jet. But the PAF has participated in many, many exercises, which are battle scenarios and do require firing missiles and gun in simulation mode, but no one dies.

The Red Flag is the mother of all exercises. It provides about 90% real combat scenarios and war like situations. There was the Red Flag, the Green Flag, a few with Turkey (also multinational), then the UK, China, KSA, other Middle Easter countries, the UN, etc. So their tactics and expertise get polished in each exercise. Then, there has been the campaign against the Talibans. Actual combat and with the current precision bombing. So these strike missions are super important also. After the US, Israel, the UK.....IMO Pakistan's air force has the most combat experience.

No, but I think you're drunk. Celebrating new year a bit too early?


"The PAF may not have seen combat in terms of REALLY destroying an enemy jet. But the PAF has participated in many, many exercises, which are battle scenarios and do require firing missiles and gun in simulation mode, but no one dies."

Let me use your own words, with a word or two edits, to ensure that it is easy for you to understand.

Are you saying the Chinese do not participate in many, many exercises, which are battle scenarios and do require firing missiles and gun in simulation mode, but no one dies? Actually yes, Chinese do do that. As a matter of fact, they're a rich nation and can afford to do that far more than PAF.

And you really need to study a bit of history before coming here and start commenting nonsense. Because, "The PAF may not have seen combat in terms of REALLY destroying an enemy jet." What the hell do you mean by "REALLY" destroying enemy jet? Was Pakistan shooting down paper planes during the war with India in 65/71?


"The Red Flag is the mother of all exercises. It provides about 90% real combat scenarios and war like situations. There was the Red Flag, the Green Flag, a few with Turkey (also multinational), then the UK, China, KSA, other Middle Easter countries, the UN, etc. So their tactics and expertise get polished in each exercise."

Indeed and the Chinese Air Force practices very little. In fact, it just goes on youtube to watch PAF videos. How many pilots are there for PAF? Now how many are there for China? Far more. This means, as more people working for an air force, the greater experience it has (collaboration).

Oh and a further proof for your lack of knowledge: Information Dissemination: Evolution of PLAAF doctrine/training "During the past year, PLAAF has held exercises with Turkey and Pakistan. " and PLAAF stages 'Red Flag' exercise in northwest China｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com


"Then, there has been the campaign against the Talibans."

Are you shitting me? Do talibans fly jets? I specifically said in many posts here that the last time we had active real air combat was during soviet war in Afghanistan, which occurred 26 years ago. After that, we've been hit by sanctions. We didn't fight during Kargil war. We have done only ground offensive vs taliban and finally, we failed to react during Abbotabad operation.

So indeed you're drunk. I said there was no air to air combat after the soviet and ask for proof if I was wrong. You come here to reference taliban. Again, do taliban have jets? Let me quote myself " In recent history, we did fail to detect the abbotabad operation by US. If there is, please link. Experience being jets vs jets, not the current war on terror."

"After the US, Israel, the UK.....IMO Pakistan's air force has the most combat experience"

Yeah, in your own opinion. Because hey, Russian air force doesn't have more combat experience. Neither does China or India and so forth. Cuz come on, China/Russia or India hasn't fought more battles and thus lack the experience. Oh and let's not forget France. Their airforce also lacks combat experience.

If facts offend you, that's really not my problem. I'm not making excuses, I'm telling you the facts, nothing more.

Another fact, everyone (and I mean everyone) on this thread is telling you that you're wrong, with many providing to you evidence of why you're wrong, yet you don't seem to be budging from your position. I know it's hard to admit that you're wrong, but you can just end this conversation right now. It's not that hard, just stop typing.


Huh, we actually agree on something. Maybe it's the new year spirit?

Facts offend me? Oh come on. A war that was fought 26 years ago carries modern aircrafts but a war that was fought 15 years prior to that one is an old one? Sorry, but in today's world, there are these missles (fire and forget) as well as jets seeing jets from hundreds of KMs away. These are modern aircrafts. A jet cannot do a dog fight or practice 26 year ago experience if it gets blown up before it gets even close. (here's your words "The Soviet-Afghan war isn't even that old, in fact, it's still very relevant today for lessons to be learned with modern air crafts. ")

Another fact for you, I have been agreeing with points. I agreed with Horus. So I'm not some "screw you all, i'm right here" person. What did you come up with anyway. Instead of posting facts, like Horus did, you said "PAF would win 10/10 times. That's not to say that PLAAF pilots are bad, they just lack experience." Yeah, PLAAF lacks experience and PAF wins 10/10 (even 8/10 is exaggeration). Any facts to prove they lack it? Because the fact is, they fought in Vietnam, a 20 year long battle, and they fought in Korea, against a massive coalition.

 

[SQ8]

How you come to that conclusion? Even if I accept IAF lacks combat experience, and its pilots are rookie, but seriously comparing PAF pilots with US, Israel, UK will be naive.

Did the Pak was part of Desert Storm, when the last time PAF did the air superiority ops and SEAD ops?

Neither did you understand his post, nor did you reply with anything comprehensible either.
The Indian Air Force has not done the same either, yet in my view it is one of the finest air forces in the world. That comes from training constantly for scenarios that involve Air Superiority, SEAD and so on on its own and through training programs and exercises with other airforces. It then takes these ideals and evolves its OWN doctrine and training regimen on air superiority and SEAD. The same goes for the PAF.

 

[WishLivePak]

On a LOT of accounts. More funds does not translate into "better" training in this regard. Experience does, force flight time does. How much of the world you absorb does. And what foreign air-forces do you refer to when you say that the PLAAF has fought them? Other than the Korean war in the 50s and on/off skirmishes over the Taiwanese Strait.. there really was not much combat undertaken by the PLAAF.. especially none against a well trained airforce like the IAF.
By contrast, the PAF has remained in almost constant "cold/hot" war status with India, has placed a massive emphasis on training to compensate for equipment..
Your logic is incoherent with how air forces develop their ethos. Yes, funds are the main livelihood.. but so far the situation has not reached that point where pilots cant fly and train to the required amount anymore. Training is developed over years of "cohesive" experience from the personnel within the institution. So how easily you are able to dismiss the years of "experience" that PAF pilots who go on exchange, train with other airforces and so on shows that you aren't very well versed in air warfare or its development. Take the IDF-AF. They came from the ground up with technically inferior equipment to come out on top.. and regardless of it all. .. the one thing that set them apart was training. And that training did not come from the IDF-AF having more funds than say the USAF or RAF.. but with how the collective "experience" that its personnel gained formed up to give it character and develop its training regimen.
What funds do is then support these training practices and continue the ideals.

The PLAAF "ethos" underwent a massive change(along with the entire PLA) after 85, their entire idea of how to fly and fight changed since then. In that they took help from us, from the Russians and anywhere else they could get. Yes, Today's PLAAF is a much different force that it was twenty years ago but that has yet to proliferate across the entire PLAAF(due to its size). So while the pilots of their 4th Generation assets are probably no less than that of any comparable airforce flying the types(or similar).. their 3rd generation pilots are still coming up from the ground.
However, one cannot compare the PLAAF and the PAF on the same plane as both have very different objectives and fighting styles/requirements. For instance, the PAF still focuses a lot on having its pilots train for the turning fight(even i the most unsuited of platforms)...by contrast, pilots from say the RCAF may not be looking into that as much and may be focused on the long range intercept ideals that are a requirement for the over-the-pole threats the RCAF has generally faced throughout its existence.

If you really want to gauge the PAF and are less attuned to "pakistani" hosted links.. then Ill reproduce a post from another neutral(and more frequented by professionals) forum by a veteran USAF pilot who was among those that trained the initial F-16 foriegn cadre..and these are the days of Zia when the PAF was really not that well equipped.


Salute!

If you are not politically-incorrect, do not read the rest of this post.
*****************

In the very early years of the Viper, we trained all the EPG folks, plus the IAF(Israeli), Pakistani and Egyptian folks. Also handled USAF National Guard and Reserve units.

I flew with Pakistani folks during my pilot training back in 1965-65. 16-17 years or so later, I flew with accomplished Pakistani fighter pilots that formed the core of their Viper force.

The original cast at Hill will all tell you (ALL) that the Pakistani folks were more aggressive than the IAF folks we had. Same-oh versus the Egyptian folks.

Jan Bei's question is a great one!

It may not be true today, but except for one of the original Pakistani Viper cadre, all had been instructors all over the mideast. They kept reminding us that they were Muslims, but not Arabs. My own student had taught various Arab folks and had great war stories. For example, when the Emir's grandson screwed up and claimed it was Allah's will, he threw the bullshit flag and told the yute, "OK, then we'll let the plane crash!".

I can't believe that the Pakistani spirit and elan and professionalism has deterioated all that much. But having no current intell from anyone, I can't make an unequivocal statement.

All I know is that I would lead or follow any of the ones we had at Hill in that cadre.

If anyone else here has ever flown with a Pakistani Viper pilot in an actual Viper, please chime in or continue to speculate.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

"Other than the Korean war in the 50s and on/off skirmishes over the Taiwanese Strait.. there really was not much combat undertaken by the PLAAF.. especially none against a well trained airforce like the IAF."

During the Vietnam war, they did engage vs USAF. They claim to have shot down 7 aircrafts. 7 aircrafts is a big deal considering they belong to the US.

But I'd like to say thanks for sharing rest of the post. It was very informative.

 

[kaku1]

Neither did you understand his post, nor did you reply with anything comprehensible either.
The Indian Air Force has not done the same either, yet in my view it is one of the finest air forces in the world. That comes from training constantly for scenarios that involve Air Superiority, SEAD and so on on its own and through training programs and exercises with other airforces. It then takes these ideals and evolves its OWN doctrine and training regimen on air superiority and SEAD. The same goes for the PAF.

Yeah, thats why I deleted my post. It was confusing.

On the other note, if all training program is same, then why you calling PAF pilots as much superior.

 

[Donatello]

Dude, are you drunk from a New Year party? I am not sure if anyone of your posts are making sense today. The PAF may not have seen combat in terms of REALLY destroying an enemy jet. But the PAF has participated in many, many exercises, which are battle scenarios and do require firing missiles and gun in simulation mode, but no one dies.

The Red Flag is the mother of all exercises. It provides about 90% real combat scenarios and war like situations. There was the Red Flag, the Green Flag, a few with Turkey (also multinational), then the UK, China, KSA, other Middle Easter countries, the UN, etc. So their tactics and expertise get polished in each exercise. Then, there has been the campaign against the Talibans. Actual combat and with the current precision bombing. So these strike missions are super important also. After the US, Israel, the UK.....IMO Pakistan's air force has the most combat experience.

Not to mention the recent exercises with a major upcoming force like PLAAF, along with getting a taste of facing the 'heavies'

 

[SQ8]

Facts offend me? Oh come on. A war that was fought 26 years ago carries modern experience but a war that was fought 15 years prior to that one is an old one?

Another fact for you, I have been agreeing with points. I agreed with Horus. So I'm not some "screw you all, i'm right here" person. What did you come up with anyway. Instead of posting facts, like Horus did, you said "PAF would win 10/10 times. That's not to say that PLAAF pilots are bad, they just lack experience." Yeah, PLAAF lacks experience and PAF wins 10/10 (even 8/10 is exaggeration). Any facts to prove they lack it? Because the fact is, they fought in Vietnam, a 20 year long battle, and they fought in Korea, against a massive coalition.

Well, you arent exactly getting a lot of things right yourself..

Your bemoaning the idea of more funds seems to be left unscathed by the fact that the PLAAF operates some 1400 combat aircraft! and some 330000 personnel of which around 4500-5000 are active duty pilots.... compared to the PAF's measly 300 combat aircraft, 65000 personnel of which some 3000 are active duty pilots. . So perhaps the basic financial idea of larger costs more might be lost upon you in all your misplaced critique.
In addition, training is measured by the number of flight hours flown by a pilot in an airforce on average per year..
for the USAF for e.g (as the ultimate benchmark) is around 250 hours on average(depending on aircraft although it can go upto 300 and beyond or reduce below that depending on type). By contrast, the PLAAF is averaging 200 hours for its pilots(which goes upto 300+ on the newer types and down to 120 on the older airframes). The PAF on an average is around 220 hours on average( lowering on the older mirages and F-7s and higher on the F-16s,F-7PGs and JF-17s) with a strict minimum on 180 hours for all types(that floor for hours is also why we are losing a lot of the older mirages as the wear and tear is showing on them).

So I am not exactly certain how you can do the blanket conclusions that you have done.
The PLAAF experience in the Korean war(49-55)..then onto with the nationalists(58).. these two conflicts gave the Chinese enough confidence that they would hold their own in a limited conflict. The Vietnam conflict was more complicated as the PLAAF directive was to not get involved beyond what was needed to protect Chinese airspace.. as the fear of a US invasion that would drive all the way to china faded around 65. In this time the Chinese shot down several US drones ... the few recorded air kills are that from a J-6 shooting down a F-104C early in 65..and later in 67 when a USN F-4 was brought down.
So apart from the Korean war.. none of these were full blown conflicts with a superior enemy. Regardless, the PLAAF performed reasonably in these conflicts. It took lessons from them regarding the Taiwan straight and the Vietnamese front.. and saw how it would apply these lessons elsewhere. Their doctrine is dispersed over the threats they would face over their area of operations.

Taking the same application to the PAF however, and you cant equate the idea that the PAF is focused on fighting the IAF and it is something that it only has gotten better at(and vice versa).

Yeah, thats why I deleted my post. It was confusing.

On the other note, if all training program is same, then why you calling PAF pilots as much superior.

I would not call the superior to IAF pilots on the whole. Pilots depend on training and type experience. Read my post above and then think of the IAF pilot who flies the Bison and hence has to fly less.. as compared to someone flying 300 hours on the Su-30MKI.
Within this training program is the input the IAF gets from training with the Singaporean airforce.. and others.. just as the PAF gets from its training with Turkey, China, Arab states.. and so on.

"Other than the Korean war in the 50s and on/off skirmishes over the Taiwanese Strait.. there really was not much combat undertaken by the PLAAF.. especially none against a well trained airforce like the IAF."

During the Vietnam war, they did engage vs USAF. They claim to have shot down 7 aircrafts. 7 aircrafts is a big deal considering they belong to the US.

But I'd like to say thanks for sharing rest of the post. It was very informative.

actual losses..
1 F-104,
1 F-4B
2 A-6 intruders
1 A-1 skyraider

Ive mentioned how that conflict is different from the korean air war and nationalist threat.