What's new

What you would want the PAF to be.

. .
No Sir, I do try to speak my mind, as my posts will show, but one must also be mindful of offending people too much. For example, certain topics and their discussions are not tolerated here, and, given the anti-Americanism that runs as an undercurrent.

Who cares, you're Canadian. Religion perhaps is someplace you should avoid, but when it comes to institutions; by all means be scathing(but constructive and not repetitive) in your critique.
 
.
Who cares, you're Canadian. Religion perhaps is someplace you should avoid, but when it comes to institutions; by all means be scathing(but constructive and not repetitive) in your critique.

Actually, not even a Canadian, just Pakistani. The Canada flag is only a location tag which I put up only after this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/announcements/262411-country-flags.html

I understand your point, but please realize that for some here, of all levels and seniorities and responsibilities, anti-Americanism is a religion. Hence, it is a topic best avoided.

Perhaps you missed my posts in this thread that shows I do not hesitate to call out where I feel it is necessary:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...o-internet-execution-video-6.html#post4550230

Anyway, back to the topic:

I feel that in addition to completing the JF-17 fleet, we should create a dedicated CAS model from the K-8 or something like that. One of the forgotten lesson about Kargil is that our service arms should be able to work better together. That integration will serve dividends in efficiency, and that should be part of the PAF doctrine going forward.
 
.
I feel that in addition to completing the JF-17 fleet, we should create a dedicated CAS model from the K-8 or something like that. One of the forgotten lesson about Kargil is that our service arms should be able to work better together. That integration will serve dividends in efficiency, and that should be part of the PAF doctrine going forward.

Having the K-8 as a CAS jet may not be the best idea. Since the load it carries may not be adequate for the job at hand.
That being said, its payload may be increased with a larger engine and extra hardpoints.. but that requires investment for which there is little cash available.
 
.
No Sir, I do try to speak my mind, as my posts will show, but one must also be mindful of offending people too much. For example, certain topics and their discussions are not tolerated here, and, given the anti-Americanism that runs as an undercurrent, one should be careful. I am merely being mindful of not creating any headaches for the management team, that is all. Being offensive unnecessarily does not achieve anything and is counter-productive too.

Having said that Sir, let me just say that we cannot realistically hope to do any better than the Iraqis against USAF.

India, on the other hand, we can very likely deal with, quite effectively, in a short war. The only problem is that the next war is going to be economic and I think we are already losing that one.

Therefore, as is the topic of this thread, we need to have a clear idea of what PAF needs to do in order to best fit in with an overall strategy of national security including nuclear weapons. Right now we do not have that integration, in my view.


How many times does one have to say it -- speak your mind - don't worry about who will and will not like it
 
.
We would like PAF to improve communication systems on Afghan borders when our soldiers were attacked, i.e unforgettable Salala attack and frequently violated airspaces. PAF will work hard to improve their response times and undetecting low-attitudes, we are require to induct hundred of J-10B to be deployed on Afghan border and yes, more attack helicopters and some Y-20s Globalmaster.

maybe next is traditional Tu-95 model should be regularly round the East borders and monitor any mischevious act by adversary.
 
.
(however that is dependent on how much the Army actually understands the limitations of our Air power.Till 2008 in my own personal experience many in the Army DO NOT to a dangerously delusional degree).
Why is that?
One would assume that Kargil would have been a great wake up call for Pakistani Generals. They would have made an attempt to thoroughly understand airpower limitations in general and PAF's limitations in particular with almost mandatory great interest, see'ing that India manage what it did with aircrafts there.

In light of the above, the PAF then has a basic statement of. Survive, Protect and Prevent vis-a-vis the eastern threat. Nowhere does it say attack.. Because unlike the IDF-AF( to whom some kurnails boast of being similar to due to the exploits of men like Saif-ul-Azam); The PAF does not face a generally incompetent enemy in air warfare and in terms of technological numbers is far outmatched. Thus, it has to be able to avoid getting caught into air combat with superior fighters and instead look to prevent the ground pounders from achieving its objectives.

Again.
This is surprising.
If there is one thing that Pakistan can be credited almost blindly is having a vast intelligence setup in India. Pakistan has very successfully used religion, cash and incentives of sorts create a well oiled intelligence gathering system.

How is it that the PA Generals would fail to notice that since 2000, India has started air exercises with half a dozen Western foreign airforces with a religious fervour.
There is one thing that India consistently lacked before then - deep exposure to the Western air forces..it was limited to Soviet demonstrations and Western theoretical strategies to create a hybrid.

And IAF has taken this exposure with open arms, constantly trying to learn and improve and forcing GoI to sanction more and more such exercises.
Infact it was the IAF which forced the GoI to give Singapore a permanent AFB in India..where the Singaporean Blk 52's are parked and IAF exercises and flies that plane with surprising regularity.

Whatever be the base before 2000, IAF has improved upon it leaps and bounds. A trained eye- the kind that Pakistan has - would be able to identify very important things.

How would PA have missed this? @Oscar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
How many times does one have to say it -- speak your mind - don't worry about who will and will not like it

Sirjee, tussi menoon marwaao gey! :D

Having the K-8 as a CAS jet may not be the best idea. Since the load it carries may not be adequate for the job at hand.
That being said, its payload may be increased with a larger engine and extra hardpoints.. but that requires investment for which there is little cash available.

We don't need a heavyweight for mopping up insurgents. Considering that some form of these operations is likely to continue well into the foreseeable future in our own territories, a suitably prepared K-8 would do splendidly. I would go further and suggest that a small fleet of Super Tucanos should be considered.
 
.
Sirjee, tussi menoon marwaao gey! :D



We don't need a heavyweight for mopping up insurgents. Considering that some form of these operations is likely to continue well into the foreseeable future in our own territories, a suitably prepared K-8 would do splendidly. I would go further and suggest that a small fleet of Super Tucanos should be considered.

You need gunships for mopping up insurgents rather than armed K8's.
The gunships would be more effective, heavy gunships at that.
 
.
You need gunships for mopping up insurgents rather than armed K8's.
The gunships would be more effective, heavy gunships at that.

Yes, I realize that, but I think that Super Tucanos or K-8 are more realistically available to PAF. The gunships are the Army's domain.
 
.
Who cares, you're Canadian. Religion perhaps is someplace you should avoid, but when it comes to institutions; by all means be scathing(but constructive and not repetitive) in your critique.

I wish someone would tell Mastan Khan the thing about being repetitive.


Yes, I realize that, but I think that Super Tucanos or K-8 are more realistically available to PAF. The gunships are the Army's domain.

Then perhaps dealing with insurgents should be left to the army, since they have gunships and are slated to receive more of them next year. I do not suppose PAF should be specifically tasked with hitting insurgents, when Army could do a better job with gunships.
 
.
Why is that?
One would assume that Kargil would have been a great wake up call for Pakistani Generals. They would have made an attempt to thoroughly understand airpower limitations in general and PAF's limitations in particular with almost mandatory great interest, see'ing that India manage what it did with aircrafts there.



Again.
This is surprising.
If there is one thing that Pakistan can be credited almost blindly is having a vast intelligence setup in India. Pakistan has very successfully used religion, cash and incentives of sorts create a well oiled intelligence gathering system.

How is it that the PA Generals would fail to notice that since 2000, India has started air exercises with half a dozen Western foreign airforces with a religious fervour.
There is one thing that India consistently lacked before then - deep exposure to the Western air forces..it was limited to Soviet demonstrations and Western theoretical strategies to create a hybrid.

And IAF has taken this exposure with open arms, constantly trying to learn and improve and forcing GoI to sanction more and more such exercises.
Infact it was the IAF which forced the GoI to give Singapore a permanent AFB in India..where the Singaporean Blk 52's are parked and IAF exercises and flies that plane with surprising regularity.

Whatever be the base before 2000, IAF has improved upon it leaps and bounds. A trained eye- the kind that Pakistan has - would be able to identify very important things.

How would PA have missed this? @Oscar

I have no words as to how many in a professional army could have missed this. The PAF may not have though, but generally it seems that very few of the ground dwellers seem to(or want to) actually understand how air power will affect their operations and what air power will they actually have available. Even in the WoT, there was little understood on what the PAF could do for the Army except by a few until the synergy was pushed in the operations(with assistance from the Americans).

The fault in some cases lay in the lack of technology and associated concepts in the PA till recently. The WoT however has been useful that it has greatly increased(and tested) the co-operation between the PAF and PA; paper procedures on FACs and support sorties have been battle-tested. There is still however a very 60's or 70's level mentality in joint-operations prevalent(let me show you what gadgets we've got rather than we have this and with these limitations we can give you this etc etc). Not that such showing off competitions don't happen even in the US military.. but in those cases the arms understand the limitations of the other in what they can provide and what not.

As for understanding the enemy; the problem lies in certain Turf defending and to a certain extent people's contentment with colorful powerpoint presentations rather than actual subject matter. Yes men still rule the roost in many places.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Yes, I realize that, but I think that Super Tucanos or K-8 are more realistically available to PAF. The gunships are the Army's domain.

What is needed is something like mi-35/24 hind.Armoured and brutal.All it needs are armour to take HMG,kalashnikov fire and chaffs for RPG which in any case is wildly inaccurate.MI-24 was called 'satan's chariot' by mujahideen,it was so effective its said if USA didn't supply stingers it would have changed the result.
PA needs something like this.
 
.
I would want PAF to be able to safe guard our borders and dont let any intruder come inside, so next time I dont have to find out from morning news that two choppers came in and took someone without anyone knowing...only a simple want
 
.
Back
Top Bottom