DovinRWhich war ? in 1972 IAF & PAF were evenly matched – some say PAF was superior on paper.
2009 is 37 years from then. There is a reason PAF did not come anywhere near Kargil. They have to work with the real situation, and not just fight on a forum. Its not PAF’s fault. In the same situation, IAF would also take a similar decision. For over 20 years IAF has been far better funded than PAF, with obvious results. Ultimately military strength is dependent on economic strength.
PAF’s key role against India is to delay the establishment of air superiority by IAF as much as possible to provide some negotiation space to pakistani leadership. Once air superiority is established by one side, its pretty much game over.
This is not about national pride, just the state of affairs, just as india is weaker than china and china is weaker than US etc etc. Every military force has to work with what its got, and set objectives accordingly. There is no shame in this, just common sense.
DovinRLast 4 odd posts have NOTHING TO DO WITH PAF.
Can we now stop this? :confused:
Understandably so, isn’t this the IAF thread ? Are you confused ?
Btw, IAF has a supporting role in anti-terrorist operations. Thankfully not called upon often, but Kargil was one excellent case of invaluable IAF contribution to what was initially thought to be a terrorist problem. Later of course it turned out to be more of a conventional military engagement with Pakistan’s Northern Light Infantry out of uniform.
I understand the HAL Light Combat Helicopter has anti-terrorist ops as one of its requirements.
DovinRI think carriers don’t just have a force projection capability but also a good chance to take a naval fleet from long distances. They (fighters ac from the carrier) can encircle a fleet followed by launch of multiple AShM. :dev2:
Don’t think indian carriers will be able to support enough numbers and kind of aircraft to defeat the land based PAF. I would think any anti-naval ariel assets in PAF/PN will have to be taken out by IAF first, before IN carrier aircraft can target PN ??
Not sure, just some thoughts. The two countries being neighbours creates a very complex picture.
DovinRYou really do want to screw up this thread dont you?
Absolutely not. I’m asking indian posters to not start a fight here just because you try to mess up the IAF thread. They have no right complaining about you after they behave just the way you do. That is hypocrisy.
I also do wish to have a discussion about PAF objectives other than India. That would be a less controversial discussion (hopefully), and in any case, I’m genuinely curious.
Will you have any information on this ?
Is there a comparison between PAF and Iranian Air Force ? Would China help PAF in this case ?
DovinROK, I am bugging out of this one.As we know,one mans terrorist is another freedom fighter. I can list why people take up arms against India, but dont feel that would contribute to this thread. You candebate this with yourself.
Many people have taken up arms against the indian state. Some are indian citizens – like the maoists. In a democracy, force can only be used to contain such insurgencies and ultimate solution is political and not military. The balochistan solution is not possible in india.
However the deliberate insertion of citizens of another country, trained to kill indians and cause destruction in india, to achieve geopolitical objectives unattainable through the use of conventional means is purely a military matter.
Trying to deliberately confuse one with the other indicates an awareness of the barbaric and dishonourable nature of such military tactics. I’m pleasantly surprised.
DovinRThis might explain that Pakistan and China have treaty that kind of protects eachother.
>>>Pakistan-China sign agreement strengthening military-to-military cooperation
This is exactly what I was saying. Pakistan has given up any pretext of a conventional arms race with india and is now entirely dependent on Chinese protection.
Thus indian military planning (other than against ‘freedom fighters’) is almost entirely about neutralizing Chinese superiority. What equipment Pakistan buys or does not (Gripen etc) is hardly a relevant matter.
Thanks Insig.
ps: Protecting ‘each other’ is funny. Imagine China calling Pakistan for help!!!!
DovinRIs there a feature where a mod can ban posters from specific threads based on history ?
George Bernard Shaw said – I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. A mod will understandably be hard pressed to defend someone who chose to jump in.
Back to PAF, other than India, Does PAF have any other intended use ? Is there any planning in PAF that focusses on threats from say – Afghanistan ? Iran ? US ? internal revolts ? I have only seen PAF comparisons with IAF, here and other forums.
Does any Pakistani poster here have any information about what other goals PAF has ?
DovinRwhat I don’t understand is why its all fears on US side and all smartness and initiative on China side. US could equally put out leaks that it has modified nuclear doctrine to launch all out attack in case it even detects any preparation for ballistic missile launch – and then officially decline to comment. Will China now decide its entire BM force is useless because they cannot predict US actions ? Two can play at this mystery game.
The problem (for china) is that US can afford a maximalist posture that ensures they have a solution for every chinese whisper, thus making its military ever stronger against real threats too, while China cannot. Thus every hostile move China makes will only increase the US military power that it has to counter. In this game the country with more money wins. That is not China for a long time to come – not until they own a reserve currency or at least US ceases to.
DovinRYou know what.I am gonna let the dig about sponsorship of terrorism go. Its not a political forum here, and I can guess what you are playing at.
Its no dig. I’m not questioning the morality of sponsoring terrorism, as that would be a political discussion. But pakistani leaders in the past have repeatedly stressed that use of ‘non-state’ actors is a legitimate tactic to force india to negotiate on kashmir as well as to tie up indian military resources. Indian military accepts the real problems created by this tactic and continues to make plans and purchases to counter this threat.
The covering fire provided by pakistanis at the borders for helping terrorists cross over is real, documented and occurring very often even a few days back. You can question the use of word terrorist and call them non-uniformed commandoes instead, but insertion of such individuals into india by pakistan is a real military issue we have to deal with.
There has been some debate in india about returning the favor, but there is little point in killing civilians in pakistan when its rulers do not heed public opinion. Also the cost of setting up a system to create and support non state actors is too costly to the host nation. We believe its cheaper to defend against terrorism than fight it with the same tactics.
What is there for me to play at ? other than hope indian military makes the right choices to manage this ?
The gap is increasing? Thats reall strange. From all the news going on recently evidence points to the contrary. Several areas where India had advantges in conventional warfare over Pakistan have now disappeared. I can list them for you if you want?
I have no problem accepting India’s conventional and strategic shortcomings w.r.t china just as I know pakistan is a receeding threat to india militarily. I do not think this will be a meaningful discussion as you may find it difficult to acknowledge it openly given your other posts.
DovinRlook how far the thread has veered off topic. How many Indian posters are posting. And now arguing with Arthur who is beyond reproach. I really wouldn’t be surprised if he did do what he threatened.
Back on track – wonder what engine PAF will get with its FC-20s. and if some of them can be bought for the PN to counter the IN aircraft careers. If they buy the British career it will change the balance beyond repair for the PN. As it is the Navy remains the weakest link and will face incredible odds to survive, beyond the subs.
Nice try to pull the admin on the side of your pakistani friends. Care to count the number of continuous posts by Rimmer in the IAF thread ? May be you are the same person as Rimmer.
Before IN carriers go near pakistan, IAF would have sanitized any ariel threat and established air superiority. Frankly, when all three arms of your military is at a disadvantage, there is very little you can do to avoid the inevitable.
Pakistan’s military choices today are all about buying time until international efforts bring a cease fire – with nukes as a backup against a brutal all out assault that can overrun it in about 2 weeks.
DovinRFunny.Some posters claimIndian strategy is the other way round and they will never have a conventional war with China. Infact had a PM exchange with a Indian poster convincing me this was definately the case.
In terms of Pakistani weapons I would not be so sure.
Which is what I said. India as of today cannot fight a full blown conventional war against China because a) We have only defensive capability against China and b) We have a major weakness in strategic capability in terms of nukes and missiles wrt china.
Thus india can only defend. A purely defensive posture is a disadvantage because the aggressor always has the first mover advantage and gets to choose time and place of engagements.
Hence india will not have a conventional war with China – except holding actions, until we have nuke parity. After that it will be a stalemate and resolution of issues by talks only.
This is similar to Pakistan’s problem with India. Pakistan cannot afford a conventional war with india.
Difference being terrorism is not an acceptable tactic for india against china or anyone else. The internal price to pay is too heavy (even assuming we are not the good guys) as pakistan is discovering.
I’m sorry for Pakistanis that their leaders chose to go that way, but these choices have made pakistan’s economy so weak it is not a threat to india any more in terms of conventional military capabilities. While Pakistan may have one or two type of equipment of good quality in limited numbers, in terms of the entire war fighting system and infrastructure, it is far behind india and the gap is increasing fast each day. Having a couple of submarines or a few f-16s does not make a big difference by itself. It may mean a little extra caution but hardly a major planning effort by indians.
DovinRAs of today only USA and Russia are capable of any thing that can be called a Mass Nuclear Attack. Others, even china, can take out a few high value targets, hopefully enough to force the enemy to do the math and come to the negotiating table – or as protection against attacks on their own high value targets.
India will be able to destroy may be top 5 pakistani cities. But the entire pakistani countryside, its agriculture etc will be untouched. The less industrialized a country is, the less damage nukes can cause. Pakistan’s ability to destroy india is even more limited. It can take out parts of say mumbai, delhi and may be bangalore. It will be a bad hit, but india will be back on track in 10 – 15 years.
Nuclear war is horrible, but hardly the end of anything. There is no alternative to continually building conventional capabilities, even as you make more friends and less enemies.
DovinRIMO, indian military planning has evolved beyond conventional wars with Pakistan. India knows that Pakistan knows a full blown conventional war with india will very quickly end with large parts of pakistan in indian hands and perhaps pakistan broken into 3-4 pieces. However use of terrorists continues to be a ‘viable’ option for pakistan. Indian civil society will not allow use of similar tactics to respond and indian conventional superiority is deterred by pakistani nukes. Thus in case of pakistan indian military planning is focussed on anti-terrorist equipment to locate and eliminate crossings, suppress pakistani supporting fire at the border, commando protection for cities and vital installations etc.
Major conventional military planning by india is now almost entirely focussed on China. Here the situation is reversed, where while china is deterred by indian nukes from a major invasion, they can (if they wish) carry out minor operations at the borders with the indian ability to respond limited to defence and damage control. Basically any quick attack by China will end with Chinese being able to declare peace and hold on to territory that india won’t be able to dislodge them from.
This is what india is trying to solve with military upgrades.
Matching China has an added advantage of also taking care of pakistan as most pakistani equipment these days are chinese and less capable than what chinese themselves use.
It is IMHO, meaningless to talk about Pakistani military equipment as a factor that influences indian choices. 20 years ago, may be. Not any more.
However, Pakistan’s self proclaimed enmity does offer a convenient excuse for India to avoid naming others as enemies while making major military expenses.
DovinRIt has got a lot to do with how vikas chooses to ignore utter tosh and flame baits dished out by you and others that he is able to have some “fruitful” discussion. I think he is special,
Takes 2 hands to clap, Vikas can’t very well be having a discussion all on his own.. but then why would it be surprising that you can only see just good on one side and all bad on the other.. given history…
DovinRReality of nukes is that two countries capable of hitting each other badly won’t _plan_ to enter into a nuke war under any circumstances, IMO even if faced with an honorable surrender leading to only financial losses and not loss of total sovereignty. This means at that level, any limited skirmish (taiwan straits for eg) is dependent on conventional power as neither side will escalate to nukes.
China is far behind US when it comes to conventional power. All their nukes is worthless as any threat of its use will escalate the limited war to a level where even the cost of winning is more than losing a conventional war.
This ASBM is useful only if it can hit a US carrier group without nukes and launched in a manner clearly different from a nuclear ballistic missile.
IMO, this means using a smaller range missile which will have increased accuracy with a conventional payload and also a trajectory clearly predictable as a tactical launch.
In this role how much more effective (cheaper may be) is this over a cruise missile ?
In my laymans logic, this is a useless weapon whose only effect will be to get US congress provide even greater budgets to US navy for strategic anti missile capability.
Not a very smart move by china.
Sign In
