PAF's Defensive Doctrine---Out of Ignorance---Out of Incompetence Or What?

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

80's was a very interesting time in the world----the cold war had build up to its maximum and with the defeat in Afghanistan---the Russian empire came plunging down---and along with it---its associate states----like east Germany----te Berlin wall came down----and there ended the aggressive stance of the Nato armies in Europe.

Over all these years since the end of second world war----in amongst the U S armed forces----armored corps became the king----the tankers----those who drove and managed tanks---became the cock of the walk. Because it was the armor that would dull the attack of the Russian armies---strike back and thus smash thru the Russian forces----. Everything had revolved around the tank divisions and divisional commanders were in a world of their own---till the day the cold war ended and the Berlin war came down----.

There was panic in the armored corps of the U S military---for so long that they had been in power---steam rolling over every other service of the U S military----and suddenly from nowhere---the proposals started coming in to disarm the armor corps and now the Infantry would be the king----. If you or a family member is in military---you could well imagine the power struggle between the corps to maintain their perch that was going on. You are there one day and next day---you are going to be dismantled!

Anyway---oblivious to that fact---our dear Mr. Saddam Hussein is getting excited and wants to conquer Kuwait----the foreign office looks back at the military---the higher ups look down at the armor corps---they get a nod---the foreign office is told " let him roll "---Saddam comes in hippety dippety dop and plonks in Kuwait----. The armor corps thanks the foreign office for their help in restoring their old glory---and we all know what happened---because the story has been repeated many a times.

I had a feeling of some manipulation---of how Saddam got tricked into Kuwait---but I could not put my finger---and then over the years I forgot about completely----till last year or so---I picked up this book from Lee Child and I forgot its name----and there in it is described the power struggle between infantry and armor corps after the end of cold war---and how the U S armor corps was breathing its last when Saddam decided to conquer Kuwait---.

 

[Indus Falcon]

Conclusion:
1) PAF needs more 4.5+ gen aircraft
2) PN needs a minimum of 3 squadrons of twin engine fighter jets.
3) Between the two i.e. PAF & PN, a couple more AWACS, sub hunters, and one or two more A2A tankers, are needed as well.

Now lets move on to the next step. Which aircrafts, and how much will they cost?

 

[SQ8]

Hi,

I was wondering at something nagging in my brains----and now I know what it is----.

See---you write what you did---because you might have to go back ad work for them again----. I don't---I am almost retired----.

Other than that---only and active service personal would post something like you did----do you work for them---.

Actually no, I dont have to go back anywhere. The only place I am going is South Beach in Miami after I am done milking the Arabs enough of their oil money for overpriced goods.
And far from any active service, I did work of them and generally think of them as utter nincompoops when it comes to their mentality in R&D.

However, there are things I know are stupidly done and there are things which are smartly done. What is done stupidly I have also highlighted without any hesitation, and what is done smartly I have done so too. We have already had this argument times before on why your logic is flawed; it is based on stuff that did not happen in the order or means you are trying to portray; Not because I feel it that way, but because countless accounts and studies exist to show that it is not correct.
None of it has ANY grounding vis-a-vis the threat perspective, the budgetary constraints and the simple play of history over the years. This isnt "I got up and read the internet" one morning, this is "I read , I worked with, and I spoke" that goes into the posts.

Take a look at your own posts. Its just simply what you feel and not what is grounded in history. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but one thread on those thoughts will suffice. I appreciate how it gets the debate going but there is a fine line between thoughtful engagement and John McCain's "Bomb Bomb BOmb IRan".

And and ironic bit is, YOU taught me to think this way.. why do you think I keep lamenting "what the hell is wrong with you"

Hi,

80's was a very interesting time in the world----the cold war had build up to its maximum and with the defeat in Afghanistan---the Russian empire came plunging down---and along with it---its associate states----like east Germany----te Berlin wall came down----and there ended the aggressive stance of the Nato armies in Europe.

Over all these years since the end of second world war----in amongst the U S armed forces----armored corps became the king----the tankers----those who drove and managed tanks---became the cock of the walk. Because it was the armor that would dull the attack of the Russian armies---strike back and thus smash thru the Russian forces----. Everything had revolved around the tank divisions and divisional commanders were in a world of their own---till the day the cold war ended and the Berlin war came down----.

There was panic in the armored corps of the U S military---for so long that they had been in power---steam rolling over every other service of the U S military----and suddenly from nowhere---the proposals started coming in to disarm the armor corps and now the Infantry would be the king----. If you or a family member is in military---you could well imagine the power struggle between the corps to maintain their perch that was going on. You are there one day and next day---you are going to be dismantled!

Anyway---oblivious to that fact---our dear Mr. Saddam Hussein is getting excited and wants to conquer Kuwait----the foreign office looks back at the military---the higher ups look down at the armor corps---they get a nod---the foreign office is told " let him roll "---Saddam comes in hippety dippety dop and plonks in Kuwait----. The armor corps thanks the foreign office for their help in restoring their old glory---and we all know what happened---because the story has been repeated many a times.

I had a feeling of some manipulation---of how Saddam got tricked into Kuwait---but I could not put my finger---and then over the years I forgot about completely----till last year or so---I picked up this book from Lee Child and I forgot its name----and there in it is described the power struggle between infantry and armor corps after the end of cold war---and how the U S armor corps was breathing its last when Saddam decided to conquer Kuwait---.

That would make sense since Gen Chuck Horner who led the US Forces in GW-1 described the breakup of the Soviet Union the next worst thing the US military could suffer after a defeat. The Saudi engagement was essentially the salvation for what could have been a much faster drawdown of the US military(and the associated blowback to the military-industrial complex). That being said, the Armoured corps arrived pretty late to be much use in GW-1 and as such it was airpower that won the day.

 

[MastanKhan]

And far from any active service, I did work of them and generally think of them as utter nincompoops when it comes to their mentality in R&D.

However, there are things I know are stupidly done and there are things which are smartly done. What is done stupidly I have also highlighted without any hesitation, and what is done smartly I have done so too. We have already had this argument times before on why your logic is flawed; it is based on stuff that did not happen in the order or means you are trying to portray; Not because I feel it that way, but because countless accounts and studies exist to show that it is not correct.
None of it has ANY grounding vis-a-vis the threat perspective, the budgetary constraints and the simple play of history over the years. This isnt "I got up and read the internet" one morning, this is "I read , I worked with, and I spoke" that goes into the posts.

Take a look at your own posts. Its just simply what you feel and not what is grounded in history. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but one thread on those thoughts will suffice. I appreciate how it gets the debate going but there is a fine line between thoughtful engagement and John McCain's "Bomb Bomb BOmb IRan".

And and ironic bit is, YOU taught me to think this way.. why do you think I keep lamenting "what the hell is wrong with you"



That would make sense since Gen Chuck Horner who led the US Forces in GW-1 described the breakup of the Soviet Union the next worst thing the US military could suffer after a defeat. The Saudi engagement was essentially the salvation for what could have been a much faster drawdown of the US military(and the associated blowback to the military-industrial complex). That being said, the Armoured corps arrived pretty late to be much use in GW-1 and as such it was airpower that won the day.

Hi,

Thank you for your post----. Now that you have worked in the U S long enough---I am pretty sure that you must have heard the term " Perception is reality ".

The issue was not the armored corps arriving late---the issue was armored corps getting a new lease on life.

Conclusion:
1) PAF needs more 4.5+ gen aircraft
2) PN needs a minimum of 3 squadrons of twin engine fighter jets.
3) Between the two i.e. PAF & PN, a couple more AWACS, sub hunters, and one or two more A2A tankers, are needed as well.

Now lets move on to the next step. Which aircrafts, and how much will they cost?

Hi,

So here is the interesting part now----. We want to judge JF 17 in a certain manner----ie---add a more powerful engine---add aesa----add some composite material parts---and wallah----you got a little monster---every body agrees on that.
That is right---isn't it---everybody agrees on that.

Now---here is the JH7B----it has a more powerful engine than before---it has some parts made of composite material---it will be getting an aesa---it will have radar absorbent paint---so what was the problem---did I miss anything----.

Of all the heavies available in the Chinese market---this one would have the longest legs and carries the most weight.

Pakistanis don't understand that in the current scenario---the war is contained in indian Punjab and Gujrat---and india is very happy with that----because whatever the Pakistanis are deciding---they are keeping the conventional war away from the real indian centers of wealth----.

Until and unless the state of Maharashtra is not targeted---Pakistan does not have a strong hand---.

India is going to target Karachi at all costs----Mumbai needs to be hit hard this time at all costs thru air strikes----.

If J11D has the legs to do the job it is great---but if china thinks that its primary strike asset against the U S navy is JH7B Then that should be the Pakistani aircraft of choice against the indian navy and installations.

 

[Indus Falcon]

Hi,

So here is the interesting part now----. We want to judge JF 17 in a certain manner----ie---add a more powerful engine---add aesa----add some composite material parts---and wallah----you got a little monster---every body agrees on that.
That is right---isn't it---everybody agrees on that.

Now---here is the JH7B----it has a more powerful engine than before---it has some parts made of composite material---it will be getting an aesa---it will have radar absorbent paint---so what was the problem---did I miss anything----.

Of all the heavies available in the Chinese market---this one would have the longest legs and carries the most weight.

Pakistanis don't understand that in the current scenario---the war in contained in indian Punjab and Gujrat---and india is very happy with that----because whatever the Pakistanis are deciding---they are keeping the conventional war away from the real indian centers of wealth----.

Until and unless the state of Maharashtra is not targeted---Pakistan does not have a strong hand---.

India is going to target Karachi at all costs----Mumbai needs to be hit hard this time at all costs thru air strikes----.

If J11D has the legs to do the job it is great---but if china thinks that its primary strike asset against the U S navy is JH7B Then that should be the Pakistani aircraft of choice against the indian navy and installations.

Very well said

 

[gambit]

Let us get something straight...

A 'defensive' military is one where the doctrine of territorial acquisition is not part of its core values.

In any war, of course territories must be acquired and held, but what distinguished a 'defensive' army from an 'offensive' one is that any acquisition of territory is solely to secure, or at least reduce the odds of, that parcel of land or expanse of sea and now airspace, from contributing to the enemy's war waging capabilities. Said territory is not meant to increase the sovereignty of the country that sent that army. Then once the enemy has either capitulated to terms or its war waging capabilities are no longer functional, that 'defensive' army withdraws to behind territorial borders.

That is the high level of what is a 'defensive' military. Very few militaries today can rightly call themselves 'offensive' in concept and actual wielding capabilities. Of course, the time spans requires to secure and deny a piece of land to the enemy before returning home is arbitrary. The US does not want Iraq as a member of the US federation, but the US did controlled large areas of Iraq for yrs. That high level concept of what is a 'defensive' vs an 'offensive' army is debatable, but it is still fixed enough for most intellectual analyses.

...that they want to stay home and fight the battles on the home turf----basically what they are saying is that we will bring the enemy home---the enemy will destroy us and thus destroy the rest of the infra structure----.

This is called the defensive air combat doctrine---where out of fear or incompetence or for whatever reasons you do not have the ability to strike at the enemy deep in its own woods---this doctrine is also know as the doctrine of cowardice.

China did something like that called "The People's War". It was a militarily flawed concept and leave the country at the mercy of foreigners. Calling it cowardice is extreme, in my opinion, so call it for what it is: flawed.

Airpower is unique in that it forces the opposition army to divert its attention elsewhere faster than moving troops or ships under full steam. Airpower can attack in matter of hrs, if not minutes, whereas troops and ships requires days to present themselves. This is why even the stereotyped 'tinpot dictators' are smart enough to divert resources to the air forces if they want to present readied threats.

Air Dominance -- The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves, usually into inferior/subordinate postures.

Air Superiority -- The ability of an air force to repeatedly achieve control of disputed airspace and if there are any losses, said losses would not be any statistical deterrence to said achievement.

Air Supremacy -- He flies, he dies.

Airspace is problematic in that, unless there are fleets of armored dirigibles stationary in the skies, disputed airspaces cannot be held but only deterred from entering. What this mean is that the air force cannot have any kind of 'defensive' philosophy, let alone tactics, if it is possible to formulate an air 'defensive' posture in the first place. To deter territorial airspace violations, one must be willing to prosecute and execute airborne violators PRIOR TO ENTRY, and that willingness must be made public. That is why established air doctrines have dedicated 'interceptors' platforms and/or squadrons. An 'interceptor' platform is a piece of hardware that is designed specifically to meet suspect airborne violators from as far away from territorial airspace border as possible. An 'interceptor' squadron is a group of pilots dedicated to developing and maintaining tactics of meeting suspect airborne violators. It would be great if there is matching platform and pilot.

Armies and navies are 2 dimensions restricted. Yes, they can lob artillery shells, but those are essentially 'dumb' attackers in the 3rd dimension. As long as an army can face its opposition army, or a naval fleet is facing off another fleet, land and sea territories can be assumed to be safe. But again, unless there are armored and armed dirigibles stationary in the sky over home territory, home airspace are always vulnerable and the moment an enemy perceives weakness, home airspace will be violated. Whether the enemy can be defeated and repulsed is a different debate, see the three principles of air power above, but doctrinally speaking, air power cannot be 'defensive' in nature.

US airpower leaders rejected any kind of 'defensive' posture decades ago. The idea is that no matter the location of the battle, on home soil or overseas, it is a great burden of US airpower to prevent any enemy air force over own or allied troops. The order is: 'Own the air to win the ground.'

 

[MastanKhan]

Let us get something straight...

A 'defensive' military is one where the doctrine of territorial acquisition is not part of its core values.

In any war, of course territories must be acquired and held, but what distinguished a 'defensive' army from an 'offensive' one is that any acquisition of territory is solely to secure, or at least reduce the odds of, that parcel of land or expanse of sea and now airspace, from contributing to the enemy's war waging capabilities. Said territory is not meant to increase the sovereignty of the country that sent that army. Then once the enemy has either capitulated to terms or its war waging capabilities are no longer functional, that 'defensive' army withdraws to behind territorial borders.

That is the high level of what is a 'defensive' military. Very few militaries today can rightly call themselves 'offensive' in concept and actual wielding capabilities. Of course, the time spans requires to secure and deny a piece of land to the enemy before returning home is arbitrary. The US does not want Iraq as a member of the US federation, but the US did controlled large areas of Iraq for yrs. That high level concept of what is a 'defensive' vs an 'offensive' army is debatable, but it is still fixed enough for most intellectual analyses.


China did something like that called "The People's War". It was a militarily flawed concept and leave the country at the mercy of foreigners. Calling it cowardice is extreme, in my opinion, so call it for what it is: flawed.

Airpower is unique in that it forces the opposition army to divert its attention elsewhere faster than moving troops or ships under full steam. Airpower can attack in matter of hrs, if not minutes, whereas troops and ships requires days to present themselves. This is why even the stereotyped 'tinpot dictators' are smart enough to divert resources to the air forces if they want to present readied threats.

Air Dominance -- The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves, usually into inferior/subordinate postures.

Air Superiority -- The ability of an air force to repeatedly achieve control of disputed airspace and if there are any losses, said losses would not be any statistical deterrence to said achievement.

Air Supremacy -- He flies, he dies.

Airspace is problematic in that, unless there are fleets of armored dirigibles stationary in the skies, disputed airspaces cannot be held but only deterred from entering. What this mean is that the air force cannot have any kind of 'defensive' philosophy, let alone tactics, if it is possible to formulate an air 'defensive' posture in the first place. To deter territorial airspace violations, one must be willing to prosecute and execute airborne violators PRIOR TO ENTRY, and that willingness must be made public. That is why established air doctrines have dedicated 'interceptors' platforms and/or squadrons. An 'interceptor' platform is a piece of hardware that is designed specifically to meet suspect airborne violators from as far away from territorial airspace border as possible. An 'interceptor' squadron is a group of pilots dedicated to developing and maintaining tactics of meeting suspect airborne violators. It would be great if there is matching platform and pilot.

Armies and navies are 2 dimensions restricted. Yes, they can lob artillery shells, but those are essentially 'dumb' attackers in the 3rd dimension. As long as an army can face its opposition army, or a naval fleet is facing off another fleet, land and sea territories can be assumed to be safe. But again, unless there are armored and armed dirigibles stationary in the sky over home territory, home airspace are always vulnerable and the moment an enemy perceives weakness, home airspace will be violated. Whether the enemy can be defeated and repulsed is a different debate, see the three principles of air power above, but doctrinally speaking, air power cannot be 'defensive' in nature.

US airpower leaders rejected any kind of 'defensive' posture decades ago. The idea is that no matter the location of the battle, on home soil or overseas, it is a great burden of US airpower to prevent any enemy air force over own or allied troops. The order is: 'Own the air to win the ground.'

Hi,

You have been very gentle in your post---now you need to turn the screws a little bit tighter.

 

[gau8av]

Let us get something straight...

A 'defensive' military is one where the doctrine of territorial acquisition is not part of its core values.

In any war, of course territories must be acquired and held, but what distinguished a 'defensive' army from an 'offensive' one is that any acquisition of territory is solely to secure, or at least reduce the odds of, that parcel of land or expanse of sea and now airspace, from contributing to the enemy's war waging capabilities. Said territory is not meant to increase the sovereignty of the country that sent that army. Then once the enemy has either capitulated to terms or its war waging capabilities are no longer functional, that 'defensive' army withdraws to behind territorial borders.

going by that definition, the Pakistani military doctrine is anything but defensive.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Looking at the map of pakistan and india----india has all its resources covered heavily across the land border. It is willing and ready to sacrifice is bordering states to war and air strikes---because it can absorb the financial damage to these states without blinking an eye.

These bordering states are not the industrial centers of science---technology and mega corporations----. This is all an agriculture belt. The fight on the land border is going to be chest to chest---and as our main cities are close to the border----we will suffer major damage of our infra structure.

We need to fight this war with CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS. We are looking at progress and welbeing in our country and we don't need to end it just like that.

The reason that you only have F16's and the JF 17's is that you strategy has been based on going nuclear in an instant---because basing on the experience of sanctions when you did not have much---that was the only thing that you could fall back on----.

But now things have changed---sanctions are long gone----you are in a much stronger position--financially and military wise-----so---with the changing environment---you need to change the game plan of the war as well---.

The primary target of the Pakistan air force in this war should be states below Gujrat-----. These state have not seen any aggression in their lifetime----. They have not heard the sirens of the incoming raids in the last 60 years----.

Destroy Mumbai as Karachi was destroyed and you will see a change in the stance of your enemy----. Mumbai is the key in this war.

Pakistanis talk about not having funds---have you asked Zardari about that or Dr Asim---or Sharjeel memon or Zardari's sister---how many billions they have hiding in the emirates--how about the MQM stalwarts that are in dallas right now---how many billions did you let them steal.

Lok at the map of india and Pakistani border again---india can cover all its frontline---the only that leaves it belly open is the naval strike route.

That is the only place that it cannot cover all the way. To cover the Maharashtra coast line---it will have to move half of its airforce from the land border to this region---and that by default will open up the land route for Pakistani strike force.

The coastline below Gujrat is its weakest link---it is its open belly---that will make or break the war.

 

[gambit]

going by that definition, the Pakistani military doctrine is anything but defensive.

Maybe in doctrine, but ability and resources to acquire territories and hold them for long term use is speculative at best.

Napoleon said: "...to know a nation's geography is to know its foreign policy." He was not the first to observe that truth but probably the first to articulate it in terms that are quick to direct a person's intellectual attention to that truth.

Most militaries today acknowledge the realities of modern geopolitics and warfare, especially with nuclear MAD, even those who are not nuclear weapons states, and the expense of creating and maintaining a military that is capable of long term offensive capabilities. Among parity states that borders each other, foreign policies will favor equilibrium and the ground forces will reflect that tendency, if not mutual desire. Airpower is the wild card and probably no better first demonstration of that wild card to throw the playing table off kilter is Nazi Germany's Luftwaffe. And the Luftwaffe was expensive to create.

Airpower is inevitably 'high tech' and inevitably demands an educated workforce, civilian and military. A state that increases its allocation to its air force will draw the attention of neighboring states and an air arms race ensues. Foreign policies will change to suit suspicions. The state that has the weakest air arm will be the first to capitulate, meaning the first to plead for alliance or vassalage in some ways.

It may sounds like am cheerleading for airpower all the time, after all, I am an Air Force guy. But am also a minor student of post WW I warfare and an objective admirer of General Billy Mitchell, the father of US airpower. For centuries, ships literally fought each other directly, but from 1903 to 1939, that 30 yrs time span is a second in the context of history, airpower upended thousands of yrs of naval tactics where in WW II, it was the first time naval fleets destroyed each other without seeing each other. Naval air arms is just a category of airpower and the ability to project a threat, or a mere implication of that threat, altered known patterns of foreign policies.

Airpower did not erase what Napoleon said but added complications to it. Doctrinally handicap one's air arms when one is bordered by hostile states is foolish.

 

[Thunder.Storm]

Sir, if you can then please do. It was after this speech it was rumored at that time that some of the Corps Commanders were totally disappointed with their COAS. Aslam Beg retired not too long after that.



Curious that the 84.6KN max thrust at normal load-out of 10500KG is yielding a TWR of 1.09 for the JF-17?
Its 84.6KN max thrust is actually 8626.8 KGF i.e. it yields a TWR of roughly 0.82. I think power plant figures and TWRs are off.

T/w is from block 1 and load out is from block 2. As you know block 1's payload 3600 kg but block 2's 4500 kg.

 

[gau8av]

The state that has the weakest air arm will be the first to capitulate, meaning the first to plead for alliance or vassalage in some ways.

ZIng !

 

[araz]

Hi,

For the last 30 plus years I have been hearing these words that the Pakistan's air force's doctrine is defensive in nature. And every time it raises the level of concern that I have for my motherland as if something does not sound right.

Because I know very well---that my navy----the ones with the least amount of budget and no show pomp and strut---they sent their men 2500 miles away to strike at the heat of the enemy's mighty ships in their little submarine. Even though they failed in their venture but they died in the far away backyard of the enemy heartland---nothing can glorify a death like dying in the enemy's backyard---so far away from your base---in anonymity to this day---we don't know the whole truth except that they laid down their lives on distant shores and are not with us anymore.

Because I know---that our army---the one that faces the wrath of the nation every 10 to 12 years---it also sent its soldiers across of the borders---and even though the things did not go well for them----and many of them died---but so many of them died on the other side of the border in the enemy territory----in the enemy's front yard---and that is no small achievement for a small army.

And then I hear about this doctrine----from our supposedly, the most cherished arm of our military wing---who claim to be the best of the best in the world---the military arm that struts around in arrogance and bravado---and preens around everywhere like Peacocks in heat----that they want to stay home and fight the battles on the home turf----basically what they are saying is that we will bring the enemy home---the enemy will destroy us and thus destroy the rest of the infra structure----.

This is called the defensive air combat doctrine---where out of fear or incompetence or for whatever reasons you do not have the ability to strike at the enemy deep in its own woods---this doctrine is also know as the doctrine of cowardice.

But how did it start---how did we get from an offensive air force to the one fighting with the tail between our legs.

Well---like everything else---it started with incompetence at the top during the 1971 war----. The afghan war brought an opportune moment for the Pakistan air force---sanctions were off---and PAF had the option to buy different aircraft----. Being a French aircraft dominant air force---it should have by default stayed with the French---goinf rom Mirage 3/5 to Mirage F1 and then Mirage 2000.

But during the war---it got the carrot dangled in front of it--the fabled F16----. On the other side was the Mirage 2000---on a given day each aircraft could outdo the other. The PAF BLUNDERED into buying the F16---and it left the gate open for its arch enemy to buy the supposedly number 2 aircraft.

Indian air force was woefully equipped at that time---it only had Russian aircraft as its primary fighter aircraft.

PAF thru its blunder---allowed the indian air force to purchase the Mirage 2000---and gave the enemy parity in the battlefield in the skies----.

PAF lies that it needed the F16's to fight afghan air force----now we know that was not right---. The mirage 3 were well equipped to take on the afghan air force---as was the case in the first couple of afghan planes shot down by the mirages---.

If the PAF had rejected the F 16----the indian air force would not have been able to buy the mirage 2000---because the Pakistan would have been the primary buyer.

Then came the sanctions and another opportunity to buy mirage 2000----and the supposedly honest sec def of Pakistan rejected the deal because there was too much graft in that deal.

So---what was the big deal about the graft---100 million---200 million---in the fortunes of nations---this amount is not even peanuts. This purchase would have given us back our parity over our arch enemy India.

This blunder was a nail in the coffin of a prestigious air force which got destroyed by the actions of an HONEST OFFICER.

Then came 9/11 and lifting of sanctions---PAF now has the funds to purchase an aircraft on a fastrak to fill up the gap that had widened over the years---but we forget to realize is that this was not the same fighting force of the mid 60----this was a force that had ROT set in its roots---the solid frame had been eaten by the termites---it was force in show only and the GUTS belonged to men long dead lying in their graves.

The 4 years after 9/11 were lost in jumping from one plane to the other---acting totally clueless like a kid in the candy store with pocket full of money wants to buy every thing and ends up buying nothing.

The primary target of the air force like any other force was to procure and aircraft that can match the front line enemy aircraft one on one and come out ahead. So that the enemy does not pose a threat to strike and create instability in the country----.

CONTD

2days a d 11 pages worth of posts!!?That too over a non issue!I could finish this debate by saying that what you propose is based on fallacies half truths and downright pigheadedness. The M2K issue in the 90s has been explained to you by the .an himself at least 2 other Ex PAF officers and myself at least 2 times yet you rehash the same old tale again for acolade which is undeserved.
Now to the concept of a defensive force. Your whole premise is wrong. Throughout 65 and 71 we have made offensive forays into ind8an airspace from the western Pakistan. The Eastern Pakistan aas a different story and we had t9 withdraw our AF due to the air bases being bombarded repeatedly making operations from there impossible. We have verifiable accounts of attacks on FOBs in India both from 65 and 71 so your premise falls on its face.
Secondly the dynamics of an offensive force.to be contd

 

[aliyusuf]

T/w is from block 1 and load out is from block 2. As you know block 1's payload 3600 kg but block 2's 4500 kg.

You should adjust the TWR for the thrust and load-out presented accordingly. The 84.6KN figure for is not up to date. This figure is somewhere near 86.3KN i.e. ~8800 KGF i.e. 19400 lbf.

Also EuroFighter has 2 EJ200 engines at 90KN each i.e. total of 180KN.

 

[rockstarIN]

Destroy Mumbai as Karachi was destroyed and you will see a change in the stance of your enemy----. Mumbai is the key in this war.

The air raids will focus on military installations, radar sites, air bases not on city civilians IMO.