What you would want the PAF to be.

[Bratva]

Can you explain this?

Babur and Ra'ad providing deep strike capabilities with pin point accuracy without the loss of any valuable asset

 

[Argus Panoptes]

But what did you mean by the deep strike capability of the SPD forces?

SPD as such has no 'deep strike capability' of it's own. It only has the nuclear warhead. The deep strike transporter is with the ASFC and other such commands. Alot of people interchange the roles of ASFC and SPD. Although SPD is technically under ASFC< but it has nothing to do with the deployment and launch of the missiles as such.

A few moments before launch, an SPD officer comes and attaches the warhead. Before and after that moment, the missile and preparation is all done by ASFC units.

Just thought that this needed clearing up.

Now since we have ascertained the roles of ASFC and SPD, let's look at the commands of the three forces under the ASFC. PAF and PA have the well established nuclear commands, the naval command is very nascent. So the PAF can't really be secluded from the nuclear strike option.

I stand corrected Sir. I will amend my post to read ASFC instead of SPD.

 

[Anonymous_CryptoSpy]

You have the most important muscle power of all(nukes).
All the rest is just for show,who is ever going to attack a nuclear power.
I wouldnt worry about the military force,economy and stability is more important.
With all the minerals you have,you could be a G20 country within no time.

Taliban did. to America n Pakistan

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar Sir, before we talk about what the PAF should be, let us start by constructing the mission statement for PAF, as that will determine how to best provide for it.

I think that PAF should be geared towards a short term defensive posture with the ability to defend our domestic skies, as an adjunct to the deep strike capability provided by the SPD forces.

We are looking at policy debate then.. Im not sure if that will stay objective on this particular thread.
The current PAF mission seems to be focused more along those lines with the secondary objective to provide effective CAS to the Army in its operations.
The PAF has managed to stay slightly less dependent on what the Army says and does but at the end... it comes down the Army.

The mission statement of the PAF depends on the sort of war it is going to undertake. i.e in the phases of war operations... is it to play defensive/defensive, offensive/defensive or offensive/offensive. For eg, in the initial days of 71...the PAF played completely defensive/offensive. I.e the majority of its units were held back for a large counterattack on India(that never transpired) while it worked to ensure its survival. The airfield strikes were infact not an offensive tactic but rather a defensive one to ensure that the IAF would not attack it at the frequency that was expected.
Today the PAF faces one known adversary and one unsure ally/adversary. Therefore, it has to make policies in line with that.
The former is a very evolved concept with focuses on local air superiority only... i.e not air superiority over Pakistan(so yes, IAF planes will fly at will over Lahore or chichawatni or an army formation in the thar desert if that is not considered a priority threat). This local air superiority means ensuring that first..PAF assets are preserved and used in the most effective manner; which mean no "charge of the light brigade" type attacks regardless of who asks for it(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). One thing also has to be understood. Regardless of the claims, both India and Pakistan still are in the process of truly becoming a precision guided munitions force. Even with that, most of their PGMs are not penetrators and most if not all Aircraft shelters in both the countries are very very well re-enforced against most attacks. Hence the objective will always remain Runway usage denial which means that those aircraft that need a long run to take into the air will be left on the ground. That spares the JF-17's and F-7PG's for the PAF.. and the Mig-29's and MKI's for the IAF. Tactians on both sides realize the use of taxiways as alternate runways and so these will be hit as well. The only luck is with dispersed fields which will stress OCA operations. In any case, the PAF in that sort of conflict will have to look for more into making sure that those assets that survive Air Combat engagements or those lost on arming pen attacks are able to fight another day.

Once that is done, the PAF has to look to defending its key assets such as the AWACS, Radar systems etc. It is a given that these will be priority one for an attack from the eastern threat and considering that Samungli is the only place where these assets will truly be safe is something the PAF will have to consider. Even though the threat does possess assets that can get there, the western location of this operating base will ensure that these assets can provide warning of such an attack against them. Yet, by retreating to the west, the PAF will probably have taken enough losses to deter it from being effective in such a conflict.
Assuming that the threat from the west involves a very developed war strategy(to expect less is foolishness) , then annihilating the PAF is clearly not going to be the objective. Rather their focus would be deny the PAF operations over the airspace they wish to enter and/or divert its attention into a defensive state while it accomplishes key objectives of disrupting key C4I assets for the Pakistani military. One thing must be clear, the nuclear CnC of BOTH nations is very very very(and I cannot emphasize it more) well entrenched and with multiple redundancies that both nations should be very proud of. So, these assets might not even be targeted for the fear that such an attack might cross that threshold(which would basically mean that the question of imbalance no longer matters and everyone loses).
Finally, the PAF has to ensure that throughout its survival it continues to honor requests by the Army to hit and stall key enemy advances by effective CAS(for which the mirages are brilliant) in which it takes minimum losses. It also has to provide some form of support to the Navy to ensure that it can hold certain patches of Sea for enough time to allow supplies and material to come through Pakistan AND stall as much as possible a carrier strike group from advancing into Pakistan waters and effectively squeezing Pakistan out.

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. Basically, it has to look to put a at least a 2:1 force in key areas where it can and aim to avoid getting into brawls with escorts and instead look to force strike aircraft like the Mirage ,Jaguar or later Rafale to engage them in Air combat.. in which they will be forced to jettison their weapons. So while it would mean losing one or two fighters in this goal.. it would also mean that the enemy achieved nothing at all either(nothing frustrates pilots and commanders more than having to abort a mission or not completing objectives). This also means that both sides will focus on playing to their key strengths(sounds very motivational but that is the reality) .

Now, lets look to the other threat/friend/ally/enemy/F-1,H-1B Visa/AID/CSF etc ..

Here, the PAF is facing a threat that literally wrote the book on air combat. This force is a hundred years ahead of the PAF in the words of the PAF. Their tactics in air combat even in small tactical groups is VERY well refined and designed specifically to handle countries like Pakistan. In such a scenario where there is the chance of direct attack by this force against the PAF the best option is to disperse and look to harass air operations while being whittled away. At best this means creating kill boxes in co-ordination with surface to air defences and hoping that they fall for it.
In WVR combat there may be a chance but that involves setting up ambushes using terrain(which it self is risky for pilots as terrain has a tendency to make pilots meet it).. or other imaginative techniques. In such a case, the PAF must focus on survival and survival alone. Hit as much as possible while trying best(even if it means hiding aircraft out in certain places in Balochistan for the rest of the conflict) to fight another day.

In a short term attack, such as that of OBL raid(even though it was apparently in cohesion).. the best option is to swarm the area and be ready for an exchange ratio of 1:5. However, that does have a chance of deterring any such operation from continuing.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

We are looking at policy debate then.. Im not sure if that will stay objective on this particular thread.
The current PAF mission seems to be focused more along those lines with the secondary objective to provide effective CAS to the Army in its operations.....................

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. Basically, it has to look to put a at least a 2:1 force in key areas where it can and aim to avoid getting into brawls with escorts and instead look to force strike aircraft like the Mirage ,Jaguar or later Rafale to engage them in Air combat.. in which they will be forced to jettison their weapons. So while it would mean losing one or two fighters in this goal.. it would also mean that the enemy achieved nothing at all either(nothing frustrates pilots and commanders more than having to abort a mission or not completing objectives). This also means that both sides will focus on playing to their key strengths(sounds very motivational but that is the reality) .

Now, lets look to the other threat/friend/ally/enemy/F-1,H-1B Visa/AID/CSF etc ..

Here, the PAF is facing a threat that literally wrote the book on air combat. This force is a hundred years ahead of the PAF in the words of the PAF. Their tactics in air combat even in small tactical groups is VERY well refined and designed specifically to handle countries like Pakistan. In such a scenario where there is the chance of direct attack by this force against the PAF the best option is to disperse and look to harass air operations while being whittled away. At best this means creating kill boxes in co-ordination with surface to air defences and hoping that they fall for it.
In WVR combat there may be a chance but that involves setting up ambushes using terrain(which it self is risky for pilots as terrain has a tendency to make pilots meet it).. or other imaginative techniques. In such a case, the PAF must focus on survival and survival alone. Hit as much as possible while trying best(even if it means hiding aircraft out in certain places in Balochistan for the rest of the conflict) to fight another day.

In a short term attack, such as that of OBL raid(even though it was apparently in cohesion).. the best option is to swarm the area and be ready for an exchange ratio of 1:5. However, that does have a chance of deterring any such operation from continuing.

Sir, I can agree with your description of the role with regards to India, but not the scenarios that you describe about any potential entanglement with US air power, as that is simply too lop-sided to even contemplate intelligently.

Having said that, even with India, we need to bolster our defensive posture to be able to provide CAS as needed and rely more on our nuclear deterrence to release up precious resources for use elsewhere. For example, what the PAF should add is something like Warthog/Frogfoot equivalents, and helicopters instead of more air superiority jets.

 

[SQ8]

Sir, I can agree with your description of the role with regards to India, but not the scenarios that you describe about any potential entanglement with US air power, as that is simply too lop-sided to even contemplate intelligently.

Having said that, even with India, we need to bolster our defensive posture to be able to provide CAS as needed and rely more on our nuclear deterrence to release up precious resources for use elsewhere. For example, what the PAF should add is something like Warthog/Frogfoot equivalents, and helicopters instead of more air superiority jets.

Well, here is the problem.. There is no clear policy on that.
When do nukes fly? what is the level of loss we are looking at to let nukes fly and literally end South Asian lives on a massive scale?
The Americans and the Russians have their nukes all ready to go. Which means that both sides know that at any point it could/would lead to nuclear Armageddon. In our case, our nukes roam separately from our missile for security and diplomatic reasons. So where does one order our nukes to be mated with the missiles.. what if our missiles are taken out. What if us mating the warheads sends signals which instead of being interpreted as a move to ceasefire land us being hit by a surprise massive strike?

A better solution would be to simply not make a statement that this criteria being met means that our nukes fly. Which also means that we get our nukes mated to the warheads at all times. Hence the enemy knows that if it presses the button we do the same within minutes of them doing so. Only then is a credible MAD threat maintained. In our case that is not so.

As for the CAS requirement.. in our current faceoff it is simply inefficient to have a dedicated CAS aircraft(even though we did have so in the A-5 and to most degrees the Mirage-5 fleet) as it leaves you constrained to missions only for those they can carry out. A true multi-role fleet gives it flexibility to be tasked according to mission. That does not mean that squadrons do not have specialties for which they are trained, but that they are able to carry out whatever is asked of them. Even the USAF with it major multi-role F-16 force does the same. Certain F-16 squadrons train more for Air combat as compared to CAS.. but depending on the demand..they can switch over to CAS or whichever is required of them.

The USAF vs PAF scenario.. lopsided and doomed as it is. It is still debatable to the degree on what the PAF must do to minimize how much of it is destroyed. The Iraqis tried burying their planes.. I think we can do better.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Well, here is the problem.. There is no clear policy on that.
When do nukes fly? what is the level of loss we are looking at to let nukes fly and literally end South Asian lives on a massive scale?
The Americans and the Russians have their nukes all ready to go. Which means that both sides know that at any point it could/would lead to nuclear Armageddon. In our case, our nukes roam separately from our missile for security and diplomatic reasons. So where does one order our nukes to be mated with the missiles.. what if our missiles are taken out. What if us mating the warheads sends signals which instead of being interpreted as a move to ceasefire land us being hit by a surprise massive strike?

A better solution would be to simply not make a statement that this criteria being met means that our nukes fly. Which also means that we get our nukes mated to the warheads at all times. Hence the enemy knows that if it presses the button we do the same within minutes of them doing so. Only then is a credible MAD threat maintained. In our case that is not so.

As for the USAF vs PAF scenario.. lopsided and doomed as it is. It is still debatable to the degree on what the PAF must do to minimize how much of it is destroyed. The Iraqis tried burying their planes.. I think we can do better.

That is precisely the issue. We have nuclear weapons, but we have not been able to integrate that possession into our overall strategy. That would normally be okay, but given our failing economy, we need to create this integration so that we can deploy our meager and decreasing resources better. Your point of simply maintaining a strategic ambiguity will simply not work, since most of the details of our internal policies and mechanisms are well known to outside powers already. They know Sir, they know, and we cannot go on pretending that they do not.

It seems to me that we have entered the nuclear club without any clear idea of what to do once we entered. If we carry on as we are at the moment, we run a serious risk of not being able to convert that possession into security, thereby failing in the very basic premise for which we acquired nuclear weapons in the first place.

It is only after properly integrating our nuclear cover into our overall strategy that we can formulate clear roles for PAF, and indeed the other services. Acquiring a hodge-podge of types and then trying to create a cohesive force that can work well with other services to maintain our national security is going to be a losing proposition over time Sir.

As for any hypothetical USAF/PAF scenario, I will simply choose to not go there for fear of saying something that will not be liked at all by the membership here.

 

[SQ8]

As for any hypothetical USAF/PAF scenario, I will simply choose to not go there for fear of saying something that will not be liked at all by the membership here.

Are you here for being popular? Pardon me but that is very self serving. I don't look to make popular posts(if they are, then that is not my intention)just say what needs to be said so should you. Plus you are anonymous, you could be anybody, from anywhere.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Are you here for being popular? Pardon me but that is very self serving. I don't look to make popular posts(if they are, then that is not my intention)just say what needs to be said so should you. Plus you are anonymous, you could be anybody, from anywhere.

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.

 

[T-123456]

Taliban did. to America n Pakistan

Taliban?
How did they attack America and Pakistan?
Taliban is a country?
Taliban got attacked in Afghanistan,get your facts right.
Serious answers,no hollywood stories pls.

 

[Anonymous_CryptoSpy]

Taliban?
How did they attack America and Pakistan?
Taliban is a country?
Taliban got attacked in Afghanistan,get your facts right.
Serious answers,no hollywood stories pls.

serious answers:
kargil indo-pak war 1999

Taliban was controlling afgan,like a govt back then, wen it attacked WTC.so u. can day afgan attacked America. I had at right fact. u failed to understand

 

[fatman17]

battle ready!

 

[T-123456]

serious answers:
kargil indo-pak war 1999

Taliban was controlling afgan,like a govt back then, wen it attacked WTC.so u. can day afgan attacked America. I had at right fact. u failed to understand

The ''Kargil war'' was ended by diplomacy(an armed conflict hard to call it a war)
No,the Taliban got attacked by NATO after the WTC(which was an terrorist action by Al-Caida)

 

[Anonymous_CryptoSpy]

The ''Kargil'' war was ended by diplomacy(an armed conflict hard to call it a war)
No,the Taliban got attacked by NATO after the WTC(which was an terrorist action by Al-Caida)

seriously are u joking? kargil not a war??
you must be living in a cave then.PS its al-kaida

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

seriously are u joking? kargil not a war??
you must be living in a cave then.PS its al-kaida

99 was a skirmish 1000+ men vs 35000-40000 infantry,arty divisions n airforce...

And P.S its Al-Qaeda... not kaida.. so lol @ you.