what does the Pak armed forces realiticially need to counter india conventially

[Ifteqar Aisan]

I did notice that you had Pakistani flags a few days ago.But I am positively surprised at the efficiency of the site admins that they nipped the evil in the bud by changing your flags to your original country.And by seeing that you are trying really hard to pretend as a Pakistani,I am sure that you wont be posting here for long.

I fully expected you to say that. Endorsement of morally bankrupt behaviour seems to be a hallmark of many members on PDF, you are no exception.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hi,

You think that you are the only one protecting your sacred idols----. It happens with every one---.

I have had my moments of enlightenment and I can tell you from personal experience that it is difficult to let go and believe in what really happened.

Permit me a wan smile of commiseration.

Having no comment worth the reproduction on this forum hardly equates to protecting my sacred idols (what an apt and strikingly well-chosen metaphor, by the way; you must have worked hard to achieve the effect).

I am no longer active in the extended community - have not been for nearly ten years now - but moments of enlightenment were not necessary even then.

It was to avoid the fractured syntax of non-statements like that previous one that I sought the merciful refuge of a no comment.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is standard boiler plate legal clause inserted to ensure that information is not frivolous in nature. This is also not exclusive to Hafiz Saeed as have been portrayed.

Why would US declare HS as a terrorist on behalf of a third country in absence of some prima-facie evidence?

The 'standard boiler plate legal clause' is further clarified by the US State Department's official press releases, such as the following:

The U.S. Department of State has authorized a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and a reward of up to $2 million for information leading to the location of LeT’s second in command, Hafiz Abdul Rahman Makki.
Rewards for Justice - Lashkar-e-Tayyiba Leaders Reward Offers
​

The question of 'why the US would declare HS a terrorist and yet acknowledge it doesn't have evidence to convict him' is an excellent one, and one that the JuD as an organization has also raised regarding the sanctions against them and their blacklisting. The JuD has asked for a 'fair trial' that validates the allegations against it. It is clear from the State Department's statement that the US (and by extension India) does not have sufficient evidence for the arrest and/or conviction of HS, since the bounty is conditional to such evidence being provided.

Plus the detail suggests arrests or conviction. US cannot normally violate Pakistan sovereignty without exceptional due cause such as in case of Osama hence arrest would have to made over-seas as Pakistan is not co-operating in this matter with US and for that to happen Hafiz saeed has to travel overseas and the information about his co-ordinates have to be provided to US to effect that arrest.

Technically speaking, arrests are temporary (duration varies based on applicable laws), it's the conviction part that is important and actually validates the allegations against the arrested individual. An arrest is however based on preliminary evidence that creates reasonable suspicion that the individual being arrested has committed a crime. The fact that the US government stated 'arrest OR conviction' as conditions for the bounty could mean one of two things:

One, that the US does not possess even preliminary evidence strong enough to justify an arrest. The fact that the US is also simultaneously asking for evidence that would result in a conviction supports the overall argument of a paucity of evidence linking him to the Mumbai attacks.

The second possibility is the one you raised, that the US is looking for information that could lead to the arrest of HS while traveling outside Pakistan, but even here the fact that the US asked for evidence that would lead to conviction means that any HS arrest by the US outside Pakistan would be a Guantanamo Bay arrest i.e the US doesn't have the evidence to convict him and would essentially detain him indefinitely outside of the legal process.

Neither of the two interpretations support the argument that India and/or the US have any credible evidence implicating HS in the Mumbai attacks.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The 'standard boiler plate legal clause' is further clarified by the US State Department's official press releases, such as the following:

The U.S. Department of State has authorized a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and a reward of up to $2 million for information leading to the location of LeT’s second in command, Hafiz Abdul Rahman Makki.
Rewards for Justice - Lashkar-e-Tayyiba Leaders Reward Offers
​

The question of 'why the US would declare HS a terrorist and yet acknowledge it doesn't have evidence to convict him' is an excellent one, and one that the JuD as an organization has also raised regarding the sanctions against them and their blacklisting. The JuD has asked for a 'fair trial' that validates the allegations against it. It is clear from the State Department's statement that the US (and by extension India) does not have sufficient evidence for the arrest and/or conviction of HS, since the bounty is conditional to such evidence being provided.

Technically speaking, arrests are temporary (duration varies based on applicable laws), it's the conviction part that is important and actually validates the allegations against the arrested individual. An arrest is however based on preliminary evidence that creates reasonable suspicion that the individual being arrested has committed a crime. The fact that the US government stated 'arrest OR conviction' as conditions for the bounty could mean one of two things:

One, that the US does not possess even preliminary evidence strong enough to justify an arrest. The fact that the US is also simultaneously asking for evidence that would result in a conviction supports the overall argument of a paucity of evidence linking him to the Mumbai attacks.

The second possibility is the one you raised, that the US is looking for information that could lead to the arrest of HS while traveling outside Pakistan, but even here the fact that the US asked for evidence that would lead to conviction means that any HS arrest by the US outside Pakistan would be a Guantanamo Bay arrest i.e the US doesn't have the evidence to convict him and would essentially detain him indefinitely outside of the legal process.

Neither of the two interpretations support the argument that India and/or the US have any credible evidence implicating HS in the Mumbai attacks.

To think of such an abundance of talent outside a classroom at NALSAR is depressing.

 

[vizier]

For airbases to protect air assets like JF17 you need to come up with something better than HQ 2 sam for sure. Otherwise high altitude high reaction point defense is missing which is the case currently.

For assault role you can think about modernizing cruise missiles. supersonic cruise missiles are less vulnurable but they are very short range and considering Indias size it does not worth it but neverthless can be used against S400 if India goes with noflyzone plan and brings the radars near borders.

Otherwise the stealth cruise missile approach and longer range is the way to go. Also it won't provoke nuclear trigger and stay conventional unlike a ballistic missile attack.

Here is news about Chinese stealth material that can be used for new version of babur and raad.
Awesome Science: Did China Just Turn All Fighter Jets Invisible?

Here is some reference to design the body of the missiles. The trend is square or some similar angled simple polygon shape. Raad already has some characteristics but still short range and current babur has a cylinder more reflective body increasing its rcs.
Stealth squared: PAK-FA’s new angular missiles’ images pop up online — RT News

 

[rocket booster]

Time frame is contingent on the type of warfare that India wants to impose. Whether she will throw in full force or hold some back as Reserves and cover its Chinese flank. 72 hours is not enough for IAF to implement Air Supremacy, you might be confusing IAF with the USAF. in this scenario. IAF lacks the effective punch and hammer to knock out PAF in a 72 hours timeframe, PAF has enough Assets in its disposal to go head to head against the IAF for at least 2 weeks. A realistic timeframe would be 2-3 weeks to seriously degrade PAF's fighting capabilities, but than again that is a red line for Pakistan.

Well, don't know about what you are blabbering about Pakistan assets.
But allow me to answer your question.
Paf certainly doesn't have any assets which won't allow IAF to capture air supremacy.
Pakistan has 70 f16 and some jf 17.
Well I don't know but everyone here thinks that all the jfs will go to air force and will be stationed to service paf, but they are not, one or two squadrans will ho to PN in case of war but that is not the case with IN.
Pakistan has 70 f16.but all will not be operational ready so take at least 4p to 50 be ready for war which will be against Indias 120 to 140 sukhis
So unless you have superman I don't think that they can stop su with such a small fleat.
Now I have totally taken out MIG29UPG which are no1 in might series with BVR and made by keeping f15 in minds by soviets let alone hunting f16.
Now then I will turn to mirage 2000 upgraded which also carry BVR capabilities after upgradation and new avionics and EW suites, now coming to one more upgradation we forget one aircraft in India and Pakistan scenario which is jaguar, after upgradation with new engines, EW, new radar and extra payload carrying capability it will be world class aircraft, but all of these are out of scenario, so even though these are out of scenario I am yet to find out how PAF will deny them the air superiority.

A very valid argument in my opinion from @MastanKhan . For a blockade to be be effective, IN needs to effectively implement a blockade for at least a month to cause serious consequences for Pakistan. Pakistan has more than enough reserves to withstand 2 to 3 days of blockade. But overall, i doubt it if IN can effectively implement a blockade against Pakistan because it will need lots of ships and spread them out thinly to implement a blockade, and will be under constant threat of harassment from PN's ASM which are very effective. Second, does India has the will to board and seize a Chinese or American Flagged Merchant Vessel. I highly doubt it.

Second, i fail to see how IN will effectively neutralize PN in 2 to 3 days. You would have a point if both the Navies slug it out in the Open Seas in which case the IN will clobber PN within a matter of hours. But within its own waters, PN has very impressive Area Deniability Capabilities. A tactic largely mimicking PLAN's strategy of dealing with USN in the South China Sea. IN will loose far more ships in this quest than it will sink.

First of aPakistan lacks area deniability capabilities. The term area deniability Is a big word and it needs a good surface fleet. Which you lack by a large margin.
Let me tell you IN doesn't need to send its well recognized ships it just has to send its OPVs equipped with Bramhos to PN f22p along with 4 scorpenes, 2 corvettes and a shivalik class or Kolkata class destroyer, also to ho with them 2 P8I. The first line will consist of OPV with Ashm that too whose antitode can't be seen in any surface ship of world so let alone Pakistan fleet(well first you should have fleet). That can take care of f22ps if your submarines engage the OPVs then it is good for our two corvettes and a destroyer if not then it is good for our OPV to engage the f22ps in numbers.
Actually we are missing a game changer here which India has acquired.
Nope, not nuclear SSBN but ACTAS, well it is a sonar but so much powerful which decide the fate of underwater vessels, before India had humsa ng which can only detect the submarines in waters which are not salty but after addition of ACTAS, IN has gathered good defensive and tracking system. ACTAS are force multipliers. Actually when the plans of PN buying submarine was going on I always wanted the PN to go for submarines and thats what they did. Because Indian Navy strenght lied in its Underwater capabilities and ASW. Because India was preparing its ASW warfare in Jeeping China in mind and their submarines so IN has a good ASW capabilities.
If you compare Kolkata class destroyers with type 52 you will find that Kolkata passes good in marks in ASW and type 52 in AAW. Indians corvettes were primarily made for ASW roles. Now with addition of ACTAS IN has good antidote for your submarines prepared.
At last we are missing upgraded KILOs of India which have cruise missiles capability which pakistan doesn't have.
A blockade can only be set up when the opposition navy is neutralised so after neutralizing your navy IN will blockade your country for n number of months if it wants. At last I don't want to count the deceased and wounds of op trident and op python.

Pakistani's on average are more worried about putting food on their tables and making sure their kids get a good education. India is the last thing on their minds.

But isn't he saying that "every Pakistan wakes by reciting jihad and want to conquer India" like stuff.

Conventional Superiority is there, but not to the degree that India will dominate the battlefield. This is not WW2 that Massed Forces will be fighting against each other, more like Armoured Formations in smaller numbers will be duelling each other. For now and in a short conflict, PA's Armoured Formations can go head to head against IA's Armoured Formations, there is nothing that India has in its Combined Armed Formations that can dominate the day for India. India lacks the hammer to defeat either PA outright in the battlefield. India certainly had that hammer and a very impressive one. Smerch was a complete game changer in my opinion, it allowed the IA to smash any PA's Armoured Formations from stand off ranges without the risk of counter batteries. This threat has been nullified as PA now fields A-100, which exposes the Smerch to counter fire. It is only attrition that will defeat Pakistan, not a battle.

Actually if we go in armoury than India and Pakistan have equal technology. But where Pakistan fails is the numbers game. Its all about numbers game. India has tanks in numbers above 2500+ and are going for more upgraded one.
The T72 are going upgradation.
Well if we talk about BMP2 then they are in 1250+ are going upgradation with night vision and, ATGM, and other features, improved automation too.
Also the bigger question is the disparity in number of armed forces.
1.3+ million personnels against 0.6 million personnel's.

 

[Stag112]

Pakistan lost four wars! Where do you get this from? The only war Pakistan lost was 71, and the rest were stalemates. That's unanimously agreed by historian and military experts the world over.

If winning = other party surrendering then yes

If winning = meeting your military objectives then no

 

[waz]

If winning = other party surrendering then yes

If winning = meeting your military objectives then no

It's not a straight case of winning or losing, it's the in between I'm talking about. In that case several conflicts ended in a stalemate. But then i understand your point about objectives.

 

[Khafee]

It's not a straight case of winning or losing, it's the in between I'm talking about. In that case several conflicts ended in a stalemate. But then i understand your point about objectives.

From a military perspective, A force more than 2 times your size (at least) is forced into a stalemate, is a victory, any which way you look at it.

Ouch! that hurts!

 

[wiseone2]

From a military perspective, A force more than 2 times your size (at least) is forced into a stalemate, is a victory, any which way you look at it.

Ouch! that hurts!

You do not beat an army even with a 2:1 numerical edge under 2 weeks. You are assuming the Indian army deployed all their forces on the Pakistani border.

 

[Khafee]

You do not beat an army even with a 2:1 numerical edge under 2 weeks. You are assuming the Indian army deployed all their forces on the Pakistani border.

No assumptions here. Results speak for themselves.

 

[Khafee]

More pigeons will get the job done.

They'll be shitting bricks when we send the Falcons.

Cherry on the cake

 

[Raftaar]

Hi,

what you Indians don't realize that we are not concerned with your 7 or 10 times----what our concern is to hold you for 72 hours---if we can---then we will smash thru----.

Your navy does not bother us a tad bit-----it is actually the least of our worries----.

See---we also have our version of cold star doctrine----. And our assessment is that we can strike hard and cut off major land area-----but our concern is that is india going to go nuclear----?

In our geographical situation---the cold start doctrine suits our purpose and vision and operation better than yours---.

The thing is that our sole purpose in life is to fight you and conquer you----your sole purpose in life is tomake money----so you cannot keep on with us----.

And again---you money expenditure does not bother us a tad bit----because most of it is wasted----and then there are other issues as well.

Truth be told---how many Indians get up everyday and say we want to destroy and conquer Pakistan---not many---but how about Pakistan----!!!! Think about it---. That is all we think---from dawn till dusk----.

You guys ought to be grateful to your leaders that you got the nucs----otherwise---you would have seen our cold start doctrine as well by now---.

Ur Funny HA HA

Hi,

I guess most of you Indians are missing something---and it dawned on me just now---I think that you guys think that we are ill equipped to fight you and we will get beat up and that is why we worry----.

Actually the core of our discussion is that we are ill equipped to smash you guys to a pulp----that is the crux of our agreements and disagreements over here is----that we have not enough weapons to really break you down----.

Our problem is that we have enough to hold you down for the war----but not put you down for all.

If it was not for your nuclear weapons there would have been some interesting things happening by now----.

Buddy ur FUNNY....I LIKE U esp UR HI !!! ha ha wtf

 

[Jat Boy]

Mastan

No offence BUT you talk about holding out AND THEN SMASHING THROUGH ..

Where you going when you smash thru ????

You going smash thru with vintage T59 tanks called Al Zarraer & F7 chineSE mig21

I picked these because both are the backbone of you armour and air force in terms of nos.

WHERE YOU GOING TO GO india is bigger than the entire MIDDLE EAST in geography.