PAF vs. IAF Analysis- Air Combat Over the Subcontinent

[deckingraj]

You remind me of Mrs. Indra Gandhi, as she is on record for saying
"Indian Forces have entered East Pakistan in.......... Self Defense. !!????

Don't be fooled by reading statements out of context... These are tools that propagandist use to fool masses...

Here are few experts

On the evening of 3 December Sunday, at about 5:40 PM,[19] the Pakistani air force launched a pre-emptive strike on eleven airfields in north-western India, including Agra which was 300 miles (480 km) from the border. During this attack the Taj Mahal was camouflaged with a forest of twigs and leaves and draped with burlap because its marble glowed like a white beacon in the moonlight.[20]

In an address to the nation on radio that same evening, Prime Minister Gandhi held the air strikes as a declaration of war against India[23][24] and the Indian Air Force responded with initial air strikes that very night that were expanded to massive retaliatory airstrikes the next morning

So in essence she was referring to pre-emtive strikes by Pak and this is what triggered an official invasion of east pakistan....B/w india has openly acnowledged her role viz-a-viz mukhti bahini...

 

[illuminatus]

Yeah right a doomsday nation which has a no first use policy....if nuclear war ever happens,pakistan would be the one to blame for their nefarious doctrines and claims.

Explain that to your political and military leaders that made these irresponsible threats in broad day light. I'm merely referring to Indian leaders that made those statements. Of course, it's always very easy to blame the other side and pretend it's never your fault. Very convenient way of laying the blame on the other side. Right, as if Pakistan has a first use policy. You have to be banana's to believe that. Pakistan has a minimum deterrence policy which is something very different to first use policy.

PS. Rest assured, as long as both have the nukes it'll thank God remain a stalemate.

 

[deckingraj]

Explain that to your political and military leaders that made these threats in broad day light. Of course, it's always very easy to blame the other side. Right, as if Pakistan has a first use policy. You have to be banana's to believe that. Pakistan has a minimum deterrence policy which is something very different to first use policy.

I am sorry if your is a minimum deterrance theory than what is ours??? As far as i know apart from US and Russia no one has MAD(mutually assured distruction) doctorine...Not even China who become nuclear way before both India-Pak....What is different in India-Pak-China is that both India and China have no-first use policy...i.e they won't use nuclear weapons unless hit by someone...As far as my knowledge pakistan don't have such policy....they as per theory can use nuclear weapons even if they are loosing conventional war

 

[illuminatus]

I am sorry if your is a minimum deterrance theory than what is ours??? As far as i know apart from US and Russia no one has MAD(mutually assured distruction) doctorine...Not even China who become nuclear way before both India-Pak....What is different in India-Pak-China is that both India and China have no-first use policy...i.e they won't use nuclear weapons unless hit by someone...As far as my knowledge pakistan don't have such policy....they as per theory can use nuclear weapons even if they are loosing conventional war

Let me just clarify it even more. Pakistan has a minimum deterrence last resort policy which is something very different to first use policy. I'm sure that answers your question more accurately. India being a larger country can afford to have a no first use policy as opposed to Pakistan because they have the conventional advantage. A luxury that Pakistan doesn't have.

 

[Moorkh]

I am sorry if your is a minimum deterrance theory than what is ours??? As far as i know apart from US and Russia no one has MAD(mutually assured distruction) doctorine...Not even China who become nuclear way before both India-Pak....What is different in India-Pak-China is that both India and China have no-first use policy...i.e they won't use nuclear weapons unless hit by someone...As far as my knowledge pakistan don't have such policy....they as per theory can use nuclear weapons even if they are loosing conventional war

with all due respect, pakistani nuclear doctrine can not ridiculed.

pakistan has developed those weapons at great cost to itself. what is the purpose of having the weapons and not using them when you are losing completely. (this is what i assume last resort means)

so pakistan will only use nukes if it has no other options left. say in case its army gets knocked out and indian tanks get too close to islamabad, etc.
if that is not a good time to use nukes then i dont think nukes will ever be used.

so in essence the difference between indian and pakistani doctrines is that we wont nuke some one unless someone else nukes us first while the pakistanis will nuke someone when they run out of options or are nuked first

 

[MaXimMaRz]

Even your Generals know what India can do,they have already experienced that in '71,'99 and in '84 at Siachen,it's high time to stop bhashanbaazi from the corrupt and total inept Generals that you people adore so much.Answering your question,these "Aman ki Asha "and similar kind of activities are the brainchild of some morons on both sides whose efforts have been flushed down the toilets by your Generals 'cause they believed they can muscle out Kashmir without getting bruised themselves,well the realities were far more bitter for them.That's why we wait and watch from a distance and be prepared since we don't trust your corrupt Generals.

Peace in the end.....

Hello...My humble request is that if you have any insight any anaylsis or some statistics or any other useful thing that would help us gain some info please feel free to write otherwise STOP NAGGING...or join Star plus community ...we are not here to read a general paragraph from a script of some movie

 

[deckingraj]

Let me just clarify it even more. Pakistan has a minimum deterrence last resort policy which is something very different to first use policy. I'm sure that answers your question more accurately. India being a larger country can afford to have a no first use policy as opposed to Pakistan because they have the conventional advantage. A luxury that Pakistan doesn't have.

with all due respect, pakistani nuclear doctrine can not ridiculed.

pakistan has developed those weapons at great cost to itself. what is the purpose of having the weapons and not using them when you are losing completely. (this is what i assume last resort means)

so pakistan will only use nukes if it has no other options left. say in case its army gets knocked out and indian tanks get too close to islamabad, etc.
if that is not a good time to use nukes then i dont think nukes will ever be used.

so in essence the difference between indian and pakistani doctrines is that we wont nuke some one unless someone else nukes us first while the pakistanis will nuke someone when they run out of options or are nuked first

Thanks for the detailed description. Ofcourse i know that nukes are the last option....In fact if you read my post i am giving the similar message...

Here is what i say...

As far as my knowledge pakistan don't have such policy....they as per theory can use nuclear weapons even if they are loosing conventional war

Now let me put up a hypothetical questions what if India is loosing a conventional war against China??? Does that mean we will not use nukes??? Do our nukes have not come at a great price??? What you guys think??

 

[MaXimMaRz]

Thanks for the detailed description. Ofcourse i know that nukes are the last option....In fact if you read my post i am giving the similar message...

Here is what i say...


Now let me put up a hypothetical questions what if India is loosing a conventional war against China??? Does that mean we will not use nukes??? Do our nukes have not come at a great price??? What you guys think??

Its a weapon and every one will use it if they feel the need to, unless some one has gone through all that trouble just to get sanctions

 

[deckingraj]

Its a weapon and every one will use it if they feel the need to, unless some one has gone through all that trouble just to get sanctions

Thanks for saying that... During war times no rules apply....Thats why i am not sure what extra pressure PAK put by not adopting the so-called no-first use policy?? Only a lunatic will believe that India will wait for Pakistan to nuke one of our city before retaliating...The moment we are convinced that Pak is going to use nukes we will send our baggage to say Hello and vice-versa....Though leaders from both sides should be missing nuts and bolts in their head to let situation slip away to such an extent....

 

[Moorkh]

Thanks for the detailed description. Ofcourse i know that nukes are the last option....In fact if you read my post i am giving the similar message...

Here is what i say...


Now let me put up a hypothetical questions what if India is loosing a conventional war against China??? Does that mean we will not use nukes??? Do our nukes have not come at a great price??? What you guys think??

we have a "no first use policy" so we wont use the nukes unless we are nuked. that should hold even if we are losing.

as to the question that "whats the point of having the nukes when we can still lose the war?"
india went nuclear in response to a nuclear threat it felt from china. it was then to rectify to an extent the imbalance created due to the chinese nukes.
the imbalance can probably be summed up as "what if they look at the nukes are a last resort and not as retaliation to nukes". under such a doubt india can not afford to win a war (i dont think it could have). china however could have won the war without fear of an indian nuclear strike as a last resort.

once both parties acquire nukes the equations change. they in a sense acquire MAD or something close to it, the ability to affect unacceptable damage to the adversary. so in this case a last resort strike can still make sense but the threshold of "last resort" gets pushed. while in a case of imbalance last resort could have meant when the enemy is about to affect a severe military setback.
now last resort gets pushed to "when the existence of the country/regime is under attack"

in case of an indo-china war, things will probably not reach that far. i dont see why the chinese would plan to raise their flags on red fort and gateway of india(yes i am assuming they will take over mumbai also to affect a regime change )

the war will probably end around the previous threshold of "last resort" and the question of using nukes wont arise.

 

[ice_man]

we have a "no first use policy" so we wont use the nukes unless we are nuked. that should hold even if we are losing.

as to the question that "whats the point of having the nukes when we can still lose the war?"
india went nuclear in response to a nuclear threat it felt from china. it was then to rectify to an extent the imbalance created due to the chinese nukes.
the imbalance can probably be summed up as "what if they look at the nukes are a last resort and not as retaliation to nukes". under such a doubt india can not afford to win a war (i dont think it could have). china however could have won the war without fear of an indian nuclear strike as a last resort.

once both parties acquire nukes the equations change. they in a sense acquire MAD or something close to it, the ability to affect unacceptable damage to the adversary. so in this case a last resort strike can still make sense but the threshold of "last resort" gets pushed. while in a case of imbalance last resort could have meant when the enemy is about to affect a severe military setback.
now last resort gets pushed to "when the existence of the country/regime is under attack"

in case of an indo-china war, things will probably not reach that far. i dont see why the chinese would plan to raise their flags on red fort and gateway of india(yes i am assuming they will take over mumbai also to affect a regime change )

the war will probably end around the previous threshold of "last resort" and the question of using nukes wont arise.

hmm so india went nuclear due to a threat by china? that is why most of your military assets are aimed towards Pakistan & that is why after the indian nuke test the BJP government started threatening pakistan? where is china in all this?

 

[deckingraj]

we have a "no first use policy" so we wont use the nukes unless we are nuked. that should hold even if we are losing.

Wrong....You must have heard everything is fair in love and war....if you know that now you will under the rule of China or Pakistan or any other state then you are bound to use such weapons...However that's the deterrance which will stop any such move.... Do you honestly believe that if for some reason US try to capture china(i know a stupid example yet stay with me) and is close in doing so...China will say ummm let them do that i cannot use nukes because i have not been nuked??

Anyways can't find the article in which our general has mulled that during war times no rules apply...

Here's an interesring article worth reading

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan
Indian Army Chief- May have to review Nuclear no-first use policy | NowPublic News Coverage

as to the question that "whats the point of having the nukes when we can still lose the war?"
india went nuclear in response to a nuclear threat it felt from china. it was then to rectify to an extent the imbalance created due to the chinese nukes.
the imbalance can probably be summed up as "what if they look at the nukes are a last resort and not as retaliation to nukes". under such a doubt india can not afford to win a war (i dont think it could have). china however could have won the war without fear of an indian nuclear strike as a last resort.

Here you go...So if China may back off from her No First Use policy so can india...Don't you think so?? Though our nukes were not just China specific...China has nukes for over 3 decades now....We just had our blasts(ignoring the 1974) a decade ago....It was this nexus where China was helping Pak with missile technology and what not which forced New delhi to give a clear message...Don't mess with us...

once both parties acquire nukes the equations change. they in a sense acquire MAD or something close to it, the ability to affect unacceptable damage to the adversary. so in this case a last resort strike can still make sense but the threshold of "last resort" gets pushed. while in a case of imbalance last resort could have meant when the enemy is about to affect a severe military setback. now last resort gets pushed to "when the existence of the country/regime is under attack"

Very well said...Cannot agree more on this...

case of an indo-china war, things will probably not reach that far. i dont see why the chinese would plan to raise their flags on red fort and gateway of india(yes i am assuming they will take over mumbai also to affect a regime change )

I highly doubt they(China) have that capability...So the only way i see a nuclear backlash is during India-Pak war....Though highly unlikely yet cannot close my eyes on the dangerous happening as far Indo-Pak relations goes...

the war will probably end around the previous threshold of "last resort" and the question of using nukes wont arise.

If loosing mumbai/delhi is not equal to last resort than what else is buddy????

 

[MaXimMaRz]

all modern wars are won on air power.
now if we agree to the claim that paf was and is better than iaf all these years and consider that pak still managed to loose all wars with india. what does it say?
Whatever they have india doesn't have to worry. They will loose the war themselves. PAK army generals will make sure PAF doesnt win over us.

what use is to have the best horse when nobody knows how to ride it? That is just for the showcase.

The article mentions about indian maintenance crews not upto par.up to par with who. IIT is famous not PIT.
I think PAK under estimating Indias capabilities is the biggest reason why we won our wars and it is great to see such thinking is still alive and offer a peaceful life for us. Keep under estimating us.

If Supreme Air power was a solution for every victory then US should have eliminated Taliban in Afghanistan by now. today they are sitting an negotiating. No matter what you do in air , it all comes down to the man behind the gun on the battle field. Air power can enable you to respond rapidly with far greater reach, but it is the dominance on ground that matters in the end.

You win a war if your political objectives are met. If you achieve your objectives you win. In 1965 Pakistan lost the war because the political objective was not met. How ever the killing score was much more then india. you won both the wars not because of your IAF or army but because of great Political leaders; who over a period of time had carved such an amazing foreign policy that Pakistan stood no chance on a International forum.

As far as maintenance issue goes, try looking through IAF sortie generation rate, with and with out surge operations. Pakistan never under estimated your military, it was your faithful and nationalist politicians that took Pakistan by surprise.

Air power is an instrument, with which you can punish your enemy or delay his moves. Its a tricky thing, if you dont have it your for sure will get the toughest of times, but if you have it; it still wont promise you victory

 

[saurabh]

If Supreme Air power was a solution for every victory then US should have eliminated Taliban in Afghanistan by now. today they are sitting an negotiating. No matter what you do in air , it all comes down to the man behind the gun on the battle field. Air power can enable you to respond rapidly with far greater reach, but it is the dominance on ground that matters in the end.

You win a war if your political objectives are met. If you achieve your objectives you win. In 1965 Pakistan lost the war because the political objective was not met. How ever the killing score was much more then india. you won both the wars not because of your IAF or army but because of great Political leaders; who over a period of time had carved such an amazing foreign policy that Pakistan stood no chance on a International forum.

As far as maintenance issue goes, try looking through IAF sortie generation rate, with and with out surge operations. Pakistan never under estimated your military, it was your faithful and nationalist politicians that took Pakistan by surprise.

Air power is an instrument, with which you can punish your enemy or delay his moves. Its a tricky thing, if you dont have it your for sure will get the toughest of times, but if you have it; it still wont promise you victory

I agree to you that air power is an instrument. But I disagree with your example of US/Afghanistan. US did not just had to destroy armies of Afghanistan(Taliban) but also had to set up a govt there. And Taliban cannot be considered a single united armed force like the ones India/Pakistan are having. In this context, air power is still most important, to soften up the opponents. Yes, ultimate role is that of army. But it never will be Indian objective to have its govt in Pak and vice versa, unlike US in Afganistan.

 

[LCA Tejas]

There cant be peace between us ,we are enemies for ever .
Our Generals are not stupid ,what you said is not more than a thinking of childish mind .

We Muslims ruled on you hindus for 1000 years .
we had bitten you 1000 times and we will beat you in future .You people are only under inferiority complex .
PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

Thats probably why some ran away and created a separate home called pakistan.... Cut the crap buddy... We see how pathetic you are now, and India is growing too fast... Both contrasting figures, keep dreaming..... I dont like to Indulge in a Hindu Muslim Fight because my best friends are Muslims....