PAF training comparison

[xyxmt]

China also helped built it.


A pakistani news website.

Bring me some partial website to "wow" me.


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.

how many foreign forces China has fought in last 40 years.

 

[Viper0011.]

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.
.

1) I was drunk, I always start party a little too early. It was the New Years eve you know..
2) Even when I was drunk, I could still write a good post. So the post's contents are just fine.
3) Every nation trains internally. The Chinese do too. But what's the difference between the US training and the Chinese? There is earth and sky like difference. The US pilots have applied their training into combat. Same goes for Israel and Pakistan.
4)How many nations take their Rafale's, Typhoons, -16's, -15's and other Western equipment to China to train with PLAAF? NONE!!! This answers right there. However, the PAF gets to go against the top of the top, every year a couple of times.
If you were a PLAAF, you wouldn't know Typhoon or Rafale's dog fighting capability, AOA and all. But if you were in PAF, not only you KNOW, you've also done a lot of simulated combat training against these platforms. So who'd do better in a school test? The kid that's barely learning or the guy who knows majority (if not all) the answers??
5) When was the last time India, Russia or China had a massive ground combat / close in support real war like the PAF is doing against the Talibans, where they are using Netcentric warfare in REAL WAR and with top line technology, Smart Munitions and all???
Do you think the Chinese or the Russians just let their pilots drop 100's smart munitions for training? NO. A war gives you that capability.
6) The last real combat the Indians saw (ground support on a limited offense) was Kargil and air to air war was in 1971
7) The Russians saw ground support war till 1984 with Afghanistan and some air to air engagements with the PAF. Where a pilot who became the assistant Vice President of the Russian federation, was shot down by a -16 of the PAF. In these air to air battles, the PAF won about 85-90% of them and claimed total superiority on its own area as well as a part of the area around Afghanistan
So yes, after the US and Israel, I consider the PAF to be number 3 on the "battle hardened" list with tremendous experience. Note: if the PAF introduces a large number of -16's or some used -15's even, the force multiplication goes WAY beyond where it is right now. PAF does lack the numbers though.

 

[WishLivePak]

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).



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.




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.

1) I have repeatedly said in the thread that funds are not the only thing that makes Chinese pilots better than PAF. I said it is one of the reason. Remember that I added that they fought the Korean war and, though we can disagree on the scale, Vietnam war as well.

2) By having more personale, it means more experience due to collaboration. In addition, a bigger air force means more chance of mistakes (from which they learn), more data due to the amount of flight hours (when all pilots are combined) and let's not forget, more diversification. As in, they will have planes for specific roles. So if they will have experienced interceptors, experienced air combatants and so forth. With a smaller air force, the personale are more multi role. Being an "alrounder" is good, but you're not the best of either. So more personale does mean the fighters are properly trained for the role, interceptors for its role and so forth. Thus, i'd rather fear a 150 hour air fighter than a 200 hours multi role guy.

3) I haven't jumped to conclusion here. I wrote what I think. And we can think wrong. Hence I'm here so I can learn more, if I'm wrong (and I have been a few times here) and it is very informative for the facts you're bringing. I have googled, but I always get "PAF vs IAF." There is no place to go, so far, to learn about PLAAF vs PAF (as both nations are friends). So i do thank you for sharing information and in a civil manner.

4) I also want to add that China does have threat from Japan (US/Japanese fighters), Pacific (Australia etc), India (Russian fighters and soon French, if they get rafael). So they do have more diversification, which means more experience. Meanwhile, Pakistan's only major threat is India (Russian and soon French fighters). Now I'd admit that the threat Pakistan faces from India is far larger than the threat China faces from other nations.

5) Yes or no, PAF fighters are better than Chinese?

1) I was drunk, I always start party a little too early. It was the New Years eve you know..
2) Even when I was drunk, I could still write a good post. So the post's contents are just fine.
3) Every nation trains internally. The Chinese do too. But what's the difference between the US training and the Chinese? There is earth and sky like difference. The US pilots have applied their training into combat. Same goes for Israel and Pakistan.
4)How many nations take their Rafale's, Typhoons, -16's, -15's and other Western equipment to China to train with PLAAF? NONE!!! This answers right there. However, the PAF gets to go against the top of the top, every year a couple of times.
If you were a PLAAF, you wouldn't know Typhoon or Rafale's dog fighting capability, AOA and all. But if you were in PAF, not only you KNOW, you've also done a lot of simulated combat training against these platforms. So who'd do better in a school test? The kid that's barely learning or the guy who knows majority (if not all) the answers??
5) When was the last time India, Russia or China had a massive ground combat / close in support real war like the PAF is doing against the Talibans, where they are using Netcentric warfare in REAL WAR and with top line technology, Smart Munitions and all???
Do you think the Chinese or the Russians just let their pilots drop 100's smart munitions for training? NO. A war gives you that capability.
6) The last real combat the Indians saw (ground support on a limited offense) was Kargil and air to air war was in 1971
7) The Russians saw ground support war till 1984 with Afghanistan and some air to air engagements with the PAF. Where a pilot who became the assistant Vice President of the Russian federation, was shot down by a -16 of the PAF. In these air to air battles, the PAF won about 85-90% of them and claimed total superiority on its own area as well as a part of the area around Afghanistan
So yes, after the US and Israel, I consider the PAF to be number 3 on the "battle hardened" list with tremendous experience. Not if you introduce a large number of -16's or some used -15's even, the force multiplication goes WAY beyond where it is right now. PAF does lack the numbers.

Good, i'll ignore your post until you can sober up and write again.

how many foreign forces China has fought in last 40 years.

How many foreign forces has Pakistan fought in the last 40 years? Far as I can tell, the Soviets.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

By having more personale, it means more experience due to collaboration. A bigger air force means more chance of disasters (from which they learn), more data due to the amount of flight hours and let's not forget, more diversification. As in, they will have planes for specific roles. So if they will have experienced interceptors, experienced air combatants and so forth. With a smaller air force, the personale are more multi role. Being an "alrounder" is good, but you're not the best of either. So more personale does mean the fighters are properly trained for the role. Thus, i'd rather fear a 150 hour air fighter than a 200 hours multi role guy.

3) I haven't jumped to conclusion here. I wrote what I think. And we can think wrong. Hence I'm here so I can learn more, if I'm wrong (and I have been a few times here) and it is very informative for the facts you're bringing.

4)

Mere collaboration does`nt provide u with experience.Its the practice and real war which provides u those.

 

[WishLivePak]

Mere collaboration does`nt provide u with experience.Its the practice and real war which provides u those.

And china has fought "real war." Which is, Korean war.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

And china has fought "real war." Which is, Korean war.

It was more than 60 years ago.Most of the pilots who fought in that war r long dead.(probably)

 

[SQ8]

1) I have repeatedly said in the thread that funds are not the only thing that makes Chinese pilots better than PAF. I said it is one of the reason. Remember that I added that they fought the Korean war and, though we can disagree on the scale, Vietnam war as well.

2) By having more personale, it means more experience due to collaboration. In addition, a bigger air force means more chance of mistakes (from which they learn), more data due to the amount of flight hours (when all pilots are combined) and let's not forget, more diversification. As in, they will have planes for specific roles. So if they will have experienced interceptors, experienced air combatants and so forth. With a smaller air force, the personale are more multi role. Being an "alrounder" is good, but you're not the best of either. So more personale does mean the fighters are properly trained for the role, interceptors for its role and so forth. Thus, i'd rather fear a 150 hour air fighter than a 200 hours multi role guy.

3) I haven't jumped to conclusion here. I wrote what I think. And we can think wrong. Hence I'm here so I can learn more, if I'm wrong (and I have been a few times here) and it is very informative for the facts you're bringing. I have googled, but I always get "PAF vs IAF." There is no place to go, so far, to learn about PLAAF vs PAF (as both nations are friends). So i do thank you for sharing information and in a civil manner.

4) I also want to add that China does have threat from Japan (US/Japanese fighters), Pacific (Australia etc), India (Russian fighters and soon French, if they get rafael). So they do have more diversification, which means more experience. Meanwhile, Pakistan's only major threat is India (Russian and soon French fighters). Now I'd admit that the threat Pakistan faces from India is far larger than the threat China faces from other nations.

5) Yes or no, PAF fighters are better than Chinese?


Good, i'll ignore your post until you can sober up and write again.


How many foreign forces has Pakistan fought in the last 40 years? Far as I can tell, the Soviets.

1) Sure, and the Israelis fought the 48 war, the 67 war.. and the 73 war.. and the 82 Lebanon war.. this goes against your claim in 2)

2). The Soviet air Force was much larger than the PLAAF yet its collective experience was much less... what matters is where and how that experience comes in. By your very logic then.. the PAF F-7PG and F-7P guys who end up sticking to air combat most of the time should be pretty good as well. Again, you have conveniently ignored the disparity of numbers...along with the misinformed idea that a pilot just sticks to one function. I know a USAF guy who started out on F-15C doing nothing but air combat, went to F-15Es doing both...and finally ended up on the A-10 doing nothing but the latter... Hence throughout his career.. his proficiency in skills sets varied depending on the platform. It has NOTHING to do with how many of what aircraft you have but what role you are posted in. PLAAF pilots flying the J-11B would be easily better and more skilled at Air to Air than say a Royal Air force pilot flying the Tornado..even though the RAF manages around 240 hours a year which is higher than most NATO nations.

3) Two reasons for that, PAF vs IAF probable. PAF vs PLAAF improbable. Second.. PAF vs PLAAF.. no comparison in terms of geopolitical or force size requirements.

4) And hence, look to point 3

5) look to point 3...and what is mentioned earlier.. 1500(bombers now included) combat aircraft..out of which some 500 are modern 4th generation types and form some 33% of the force .. vs 440(forgive my earlier number.. multiple threads being answered to,figures mixed up). . Out of which.. 124 are modern 4th gen jets comparable to anything the PAF wields in technological sophistication.. i.e 28% of the fleet. which means the PLAAF is relatively better equipped than the PAF...and is much larger.
How do these numbers reflect on training when it comes to ensuring pilot proficiency on the types is already given by the number of pilot hours and the "exposure" in various training with other air forces across the globe.

To sum it up... although these are diplomatic niceties... here is an excerpt from the press release
Pakistan, China Conclude Shaheen-III Air Exercise | The Diplomat

General Zhan commands the Chengdu Regional Air Force Command and was a coordinating officer for the exercise. According to a report by Pak Tribune, General Zhan lauded the PAF’s training and combat efficiency during the closing ceremony:

PAF has conducted joint exercises with foreign air forces for a long time, obtained great achievements, demonstrated first rate training level and combat efficiency and gained rich experiences that are worth to learn and draw lessons from. We are deeply impressed by PAF’s aggressive combat style and brave fighting spirit and greatly moved by the ‘train as you fight’ training principle and streamlined efficient training approach.

We admire your superb and all round flying skill and outstanding tactical expertise. We have learnt a lot from you which will bring a whole new inspiration to the innovation and development of PLAAF’s military training”.

And china has fought "real war." Which is, Korean war.

That is literally, the most ill informed.. or biased argument ever seen in a while here. So apparently India and Pakistan were only playing around? @sandy_3126

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Another brainless poster---

I must commend hi for his persistence. he is single minded and taking on multiple posters head on and whatever they quote and post means nothing to him.

by the way, looking at the ongoing content, can you tell the difference of the tread subject without looking at it?
oh yea, export bid of JF-17 and all. there was news about Nigeria braving up to ordering the JF-17 despite lacking its trainer. I wished NAF well hoping their pilots will switch from the simulation to the real plane pulling G's seamlessly and guess what I got stung right in the nether regions of mine by "Thunder Evangelist"
Export bids for JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter Aircraft. | Page 82

so you better watch out sir.

 

[Viper0011.]

And china has fought "real war." Which is, Korean war.

Dude, read my post above and others. We've ALL tried to tell you the SAME thing in ten different way. Jets, Avionics, Agility, Electronics, Munitions in Mig-15 and Mig-19's ERA are about over 5 DECADES older than today. The same pilot who you refer to as having combat experience (5 decades ago), aren't even alive. Or if they are, they are walking with sticks due to old age. Mig15 or 19, vs. J-10, J-11 or J-15......is there even a comparison???

 

[WishLivePak]

It was more than 60 years ago.Most of the pilots who fought in that war r long dead.(probably)

The pilots who fought during indo Pak war are still alive?

 

[Paksanity]

Yes, some are. Like Nosy Haider.

 

[WishLivePak]

Dude, read my post above and others. We've ALL tried to tell you the SAME thing in ten different way. Jets, Avionics, Agility, Electronics, Munitions in Mig-15 and Mig-19's ERA are about over 5 DECADES older than today. The same pilot who you refer to as having combat experience (5 decades ago), aren't even alive. Or if they are, they are walking with sticks due to old age. Mig15 or 19, vs. J-10, J-11 or J-15......is there even a comparison???

Dude, why don't you get sober and start doing a bit of homework before coming here to quote me?

More than half of PAF fleet, those planes were introduced some 5-6 decades ago. Are they being flown by old men? No. Planes do not die as pilots are retired. They're passed on. The experience is passed on. And as these planes are still flown today, the combat experience (from those jets, Avionics, agility, electronics and munitions) isn't dead. Now of course there has been upgrades and whatnot, but let's not kid ourselves and say that upgrades bring them near the performance on F-16sA/Bs or similar gen aircrafts.

And this may be the news to you but, as planes retire, the pilots are passed on to newer jets. So when J6 (soviet mig 19) retired in 2002 for Pakistan, the pilots were used on different aircrafts. They still carried the experience from J6 that they had flown. And the pilots that stop flying do offer their mission stories and so forth to newer generations. This is why there is kill cam, from which pilots learn. They don't say "but sir, these kill cam are from 50 years old aircraft, let's watch a video from the past decade"

 

[Viper0011.]

More than half of PAF fleet, those planes were introduced some 5-6 decades ago. Are they being flown by old men?

And this may be the news to you but, as planes retire, the pilots are passed on to newer jets. So when J6 (soviet mig 19) retired in 2002 for Pakistan, the pilots were used on different aircrafts. They still carried the experience from J6 that they had flown.

You are not listening to more than 3 people who've tried to help you in understanding what you are saying. We ALL know the old planes retire and pilots go on to the next one. However, the topic in hand was "combat tactics used in the VIETNAM WAR". Which happened WAY before even my existence. So you are saying that the Vietnam era pilots, after retirement of Mig-19, went on to other platform.....which means if someone was flying combat in the late 60's, they had to be around 28-30 years old (just taking a average). So now, today, its been 5 decades since the Vietnam war....so these guys are flying newer generation planes in the PLAAF at the age of like 78?? LOL

 

[MilSpec]

That is literally, the most ill informed.. or biased argument ever seen in a while here. So apparently India and Pakistan were only playing around? @sandy_3126

Training training training, the intensity is no lesser than real combat, not a single group captain, will ever lit his squad be outperformed whether in real combat or in TACDE/training Missions. In real combat losses at least there is some sympathy from the colleagues, in training there is just gnarly jibes at evening scotch.

As far as India-pak is concerned, most of the big wigs, day in and day out are only simulating different operational scenarios against each other. If there is ever a big one between the two it will be a vast set piece move between the two.

 

[WishLivePak]

You are not listening to more than 3 people who've tried to help you in understanding what you are saying. We ALL know the old planes retire and pilots go on to the next one. However, the topic in hand was "combat tactics used in the VIETNAM WAR". Which happened WAY before even my existence. So you are saying that the Vietnam era pilots, after retirement of Mig-19, went on to other platform.....which means if someone was flying combat in the late 60's, they had to be around 28-30 years old (just taking a average). So now, today, its been 5 decades since the Vietnam war....so these guys are flying newer generation planes in the PLAAF at the age of like 78?? LOL

No i'm listening to them. But not listening to a drunk man who doesn't know history much.

And the combat tactics are revelent because planes made around Vietnam war are being used today still. Just because you were recently born doesn't mean all planes today being flown were been made recently.

And rest of your comment is another example of a drunk man on internet. You are taking my point elsewhere to fit your views, which isn't working. I am not talking about pilots still flying after 60 years, I'm talking about the experience being still revelent. The experience is well worth from 1960s till now for the planes we still are flying. And I told you how PAF is still using old planes, old technology (along with newer one), which is a fact. And as said before, experience doesn't die with pilot. The newer pilots of current jets still read about the experience of old pilots during the 60s and forward.

Now here is a history lesson for you, so let's not forget (which I know you'll forget again) that the J6, which are quite similar to Mig19, were retired in 2002. Which means, there is a likely chance of the pilots who flown them still being around. So the pilots and experience is likely still flying. Which also means that the pilots who flew mig19 era fighters did not just fly in the 60s. They'd have flown in the 70s, 80s, and 90s onwards. If they joined air force in the 90s at 25 age, they'd be 50 years of age now, and thus they'd likely teachers at the academy, teaching from their experience of mig19s era jets and onwards. And oh, I want to add that the current chief of air force flew j5 (mig17), so he's still alive and kicking, and passing on his experience. Finally, A-5, which is based on mig19, was just retired in 2011 by PAF. And I bet that the pilots of A5 did not all retire, they're still flying and not dead nor walking with sticks. The pilots now fly JF-17.

So you're wrong entirely to say that the experience of mig19 is dead. I will repeat, because you seem to be drunk and not understanding:

1) The current air chief flew with a squadron that had J-5 (copy of MiG 17).
2) Pakistan retired J-6 in 2002 (copy of MiG 19). If a pilot flew that in the 90s around 25 years of age, he'd be 50 by now and be teacher at an academy.
3) Pakistan retired A-5 in 2011 (copy of MiG-19). The pilots were then transferred to JF-17.

Training training training, the intensity is no lesser than real combat, not a single group captain, will ever lit his squad be outperformed whether in real combat or in TACDE/training Missions. In real combat at least there is some sympathy from the colleagues, in training there is just gnarly jibes at evening scotch.

As far as India-pak is concerned, most of the big wigs, day in and day out are only simulating different operational scenarios against each other. If there is ever a big one between the two it will be a vast set piece move between the two.

Since you're already here, that guy is misquoting me. I was talking to someone else, he quoted me instead and then added you to conversation.

For the record, I did not call pak-indo war as paper airplane war. I was merely replying to a person who said Korean war wasn't real war and I used the said example as a ironic statement. Which is, if a lengthy Korean war isn't real (where millions die), then how can indo-pak wars be real.

Furthermore, @orangzaib is the one who initially came up with the statement, and i quote his exact words "The PAF may not have seen combat in terms of REALLY destroying an enemy jet." Yes, PAF has no experience in destroying Indian jets and vice versa.

Nonetheless, I want to thank you for offering your insight.