What's new

PN Flexes Muscles in the North Arabian Sea

. . . .
Nothing is stopping the PN to procure JF-17 for the naval role ...

The Maritime strike capability of PAF is for PN.

@Bilal Khan 777 is it significant that the exercise took place around the time of first operational patrol of Indian SSBN?

No relation, but have had our eye and ears on their boomer for a while. Eventually, we will have something similar to show them "deterrence" which they are awfully familiar with Pakistani S/M war patrols that are in place since the last war.
 
. .
We need more muscle , more commitment and more money for a more powerfl navy:-

images
well let's start by friggin' REMOVING PPP PMLN ANP MQM JUIF ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!
 
. .
Slight correction there. The maritime strike capability is for Pakistan in general, whether its in the hands or PAF or PN.
Thats a really absurd comment. The names of the services includes the name Pakistan in them, so essentially everything is for Pakistan in general! When Bilal mentioned that PAF maritime assets are for PN, it implies that PN will have the decision making authority and PAF will be a service provider to PN.
 
.
Thats a really absurd comment. The names of the services includes the name Pakistan in them, so essentially everything is for Pakistan in general! When Bilal mentioned that PAF maritime assets are for PN, it implies that PN will have the decision making authority and PAF will be a service provider to PN.

The argument basically was PAF is basically deficient in providing cover to the PN using JF-17 (or any other aircraft), and hence they need to purchase something for themselves.

I am against buying a new platform when JF-17 more than meets the requirements for PN and thus opined that there are any "supposed" deficiencies in the setup as it currently exists, PN is more than welcome to operate its own squadron of the Thunder in the maritime role (again not a new platform).

Hence my statement is in the context that it doesnt matter who operates the aircraft since the end goal is the same, as long as it is JF-17. Does that clear it up?
 
.
Harpoon blk-II on Alamgir, about time.

pn.png
 
.
The argument basically was PAF is basically deficient in providing cover to the PN using JF-17 (or any other aircraft), and hence they need to purchase something for themselves.

I am against buying a new platform when JF-17 more than meets the requirements for PN and thus opined that there are any "supposed" deficiencies in the setup as it currently exists, PN is more than welcome to operate its own squadron of the Thunder in the maritime role (again not a new platform).

Hence my statement is in the context that it doesnt matter who operates the aircraft since the end goal is the same, as long as it is JF-17. Does that clear it up?

Actually, we should get Su-35s if money allows, for the naval role. Now, air power forms a crucial component of any naval battle. The very strategy of the battle may rely on judicious use of air power. So, we cannot separate PN and PAF. The two need to work in very close coordination. So much so, that it makes sense to allocate the SU-35s to naval command, so they can use them per their needs. But this means the naval command needs to be trained in proper use of air power.
 
.
Good good. Today northern arabian sea tomorrow western arabian sea and later the south arabian sea. East is indian let em have it.

Baby steps one by one we will get there
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom