CAT1PAF or CATIC, don’t know which couldn’t afford the insurance cover it seems. So no flying display.
‘it seems’ based on what – you have a source saying they were not able to afford — or is it just more sour grapes??
CAT1so its confirmed- the SD-10 is UNDERGOING integration and will be finished by the year end..all the fanboy talk about it already being integrated with the JF-17 and that the JF-17 was already BVR capable was just that- fanboy talk.
Quite right! On the flip side – all the fanboy talk about SD-10 not being integrated – was just that – fanboy talk.`
CAT1Great looking low vis squadron insignia………
CAT1I suggest you contact the Farnborough Aircraft Display department;
http://www.farnborough.com/Site/Content/Farnborough2010/Contacts.aspx?Z=199
I’ve already received email confirmation from Sara Fulton (Flight Operations Manager), that the request to keep the JF-17 as a static display was a request from the PAF itself, and not a restriction imposed by the Farnborough airshow. I’d be more than happy to forward you the email if you like.
Please forward it to this guy who seems to have a 1 point agenda — so that I can continue to enjoy this great looking fighter.
CAT1Why ferret out forgotten events from 1975 ? You should’ve known that just recently, the Gripen-NG was not allowed to fly to India (for flight tests) by Swedish certification authorities, the SMV, because it had yet to undergo some tests. They sent the older Gripen-D. The Gripen-NG did come to India later, but after clearance from SMV.
And this was from the country of origin, and not the host country.
Now if the UK and other Nato “jet starved” nations allowed a YF-16 to fly over unsuspecting spectators in 1975, then that is likely to be an exception, and definitely not the norm.
You still haven’t answered what your source is for ‘officials’ ‘apparantly’ deciding not to let a ‘uncertified’ fighter fly at the show as you stated in a previous post — assuming you have a source and don’t just throw in words like that to give substance to something you made up.
CAT1^^ No. They will only be statically displayed. Apparently, authorities did not want to take risks with an uncertified fighter jet.
So you will have a source for ‘authorities’ ‘apparantly’ deciding this? Or have you just made it up?
CAT1Just out of interest –was there alot of Isreali retoric, ‘we have the technology to strike’etc etc before they struck Osirac or was there no retoric and first statements on the issue made only when the establishment was alraedy scrap metal?
I genuinely don’t know the answer to this — but do think that situation may give big clues as to what may or may not happen in this situation.
Generaly – I take the view – that where there is open retoric – chances of actual action are much reduced. No matter how weak your opponant compared to you – it doesn’t make alot of sense to warn him before you go over the border.
CAT1Feb issue of Combat Aircraft has a news report in it which talks about ongoing testing of a number of J10B’s in China. Says that these aircraft are ‘reportedly’ being tested with X band AESA developed by 607 Institute and that J10B also features Flanker style IRST, rear facing MAWS and new fin mounted ECM. Report also says that Pakistan has ‘reportedly’ signed a memorandum to procure 36 J10B’s.
CAT1it doesn’t necessarily work that..China is the big giant in India’s neighbourhood and has no such no-first-use policy either. Yet, India uses a no-first-use policy even against China, which has far larger conventional forces.
The Pak / India relationship is marred by 3 wars + ongoing standoff over Siachin + ongoing standoff over Kashmir + constant accusations by both sides of the other facilitating terrorism in their country + periodicaly repeated beating of war drums sometines to the degree of mobilising forces — comparing this with the India China relationship where you have one brief war and a lingering territorial dispute is in no way a fair comparison.
Do you have any recollection of China mobilising its forces and bringing them to the border with the declared intention of invading India. Do you have any recollection of China threatening India with surgical strikes? Do you have any senior Chinese leaders declaring that their latest doctrine will mean the swift occupation of Dehli followed quickly by India’s surrender? Has India got any major concerns about China promoting terrorism within its borders and does China have similar complaints of its own? All of this in the very recent past? Hope you can see why Pakistan might be a lot more nervous of Indian intensions than India is of Chinese intentions.
I’m all for moving this topic away from the PAF thread.
CAT1In a nutshell, my contention is that _IF_ there is an all out war (for whatever reason) then india has already taken the decision to challenge pak’s stated nuke red lines. In this situation the aim of IAF will be to establish air supremacy at the earliest and bring the war to a quick successful conclusion. IAF purchases and planning have to be seen in this context – of course China being the primary cause of concern these days.
I agree chances of an all out war is minimal because, unlike many posters here believe, india has no interest and indian politicians won’t get any support from people in waging a war with pakistan when things are going well in india, and we have no interest in occupying pak cities. Even if pak did not have nukes, other than strikes on terror camps, IAF or IA won’t try to invade or hold pak territory as it is more trouble than worth it.
The only reason for war is if pak falls to jihadis, which many here believe to be a remote possibility.
All in all very positive news for peace in the sub continent :rolleyes:
I’m a long time reader of this forum, but a recent poster. I try to understand the reasons behind military planning (such as acquisitions), hence the political content of my posts rather than technical discussion of equipment. I will keep it polite and avoid personal attacks. Hope this is not entirely against the mandate of this forum.
If there is indeed ‘all out war’ at any stage (which I doubt very much) I do not believe anyone will be able to call its conclusion ‘successfull’ — as I said before talk of ‘air supremacy at the earliest and bring the war to a quick successful conclusion’ is no more than wishfull thinking – nobody will come over that border for fear of what they may start. History proves it.
Personaly I appreciate you keeping the discussion polite — but would request that we get back to the thread topic which is PAF.
CAT1Though this is not a strategic dicussion forum, this one incident was a big game changer in the South Asia politics as far as the World was considered.
Till Kargil, India and Pakistan was a zero sum game for the entire world. Even in the case of the nuclear explosions.
The fact is India played the best [sorry, but it is a reality] politics by proving to the world that it is not attacking any country and all its actions are to flush out any insurgents/foriegn (ofcourse it immediately means Pakistan troops) forces who have occupied her territories (Kargil). In effect it created a picture that Pakistan was the aggresor and the reason for the current instability in Pakistan. Unfortunately the Pakistan Army/ Mushraff played into the hands of the Indians.
And after this incident it was no longer a zero sum game for the world in south asia and thats what the trophy India won while at great pains to stress that it would under no circumstances go over the border into Pak territory. Let me add to it also that the economic rise also added to eliminating the zero sum game but well everything coincided as if like a well orchestrated music.
You are correct – this is not a strategic discussion thread – lots to say but wrong place to say it. I suggest we go back to topic of this thread ie PAF.
CAT1CAT1, would Minimum Credible Deterrence (MCD) against a nuclear attack or a conventional attack. There were a few articles which stated that the nuclear posture of Pakistan is an active one, meaning Pakistan would go ahead and use a Nuke first ie a first use policy which I doubt can be called as an MCD in its usual term.
We are veering off topic — But — up against a far bigger foe – nuclear weapons are the ultimate detterent against aggression. Guaranteeing that you will not use them ‘first’ – amounts to inviting aggression. If you had a foe 6 times your size – and the main thing stopping this giant giving you a good hiding was the gun you carried – would you agree to no ‘first’ use of the gun? So in that situation is your gun for MCD or not?
CAT1Why ? All we have to do is for india and pak to state a nuclear red line as the other party crossing the border. Simple. No need for army, navy or air force. Just a nuclear missile force is enough. hundreds of them dispersed in silos and rail/road mobile. Finish!
Both india and pak seem to believe a conventional war is still possible given their acquisitions. As long as that possibility is present, one has to calculate what is the nuclear threshold. Indian threshold is straightforward. Attempt by PAK to strike indian soil with nukes is indian red line for a mass retaliation.
Pak threshold is not so clear. Sometimes it is ‘any border crossing of indian forces’ or ‘ blocking of river waters’ and so on. So india has to make a guess.
IMO, indian guess is the nuke threshold is either – total loss of power and property by the current ruling elite OR take over by islamicists.
The above is in case of an unavoidable war.
OTOH, india is worried that an unpredictable element in pak may let loose a nuke to stir things up at the slightest provocation. There is also the necessity to not give US an opportunity/excuse to meddle in kashmir and other india-pak issues.
Thus the options for india are either extreme patience and pure defence within indian territory, OR a fast resolution by quickly overwhelming pakistan in an all out military strike. Anything in the middle will be a sure fire disaster.
Whether india is capable of overwhelming pak quickly or not is another discussion. My contention is only that this is the indian plan and any nuclear red line specific to destruction of PAF is not going to bother india _IF_ a full blown war breaks out. IAF’s effort will be to wipe out PAF at the earliest so that IA gets full support from IAF in moving quickly.
The red line is simple as I have already stated – and is backed up by what has happened (or not happened) in previous crisis between the 2 nations— The end of any conflict big or small cannot be predicted by anyone — this particular red line does bother India.
Put simply – Pakistan’s stated doctrine is ‘minimum credible detterence’ so it should have no offensive designs (and with good reason) — India on the other hand would love to flex its muscles and prove its Superpower credentials by giving its little neighbour a good hiding — but it can’t because of the above red line. End result – regardless of fancy cold start, warm start doctrines — the chances of any conflict between the 2 are extremely remote.
Now going back to conventional weapons – the reason Pakistan has to retain a detterence in this area — is that while Nuclear capability guarantees peace — you cannot realisticly hurl a nuclear bomb every time a IAF jet strays over the border. You need a PAF jet capable of dettering the IAF jet as an example. There is a very long history of Nuclear weapons in the world – but no examples of a nuclear nation being attacked – quickly or not — and being forced to surrender – thats why such thinking is no more than wishfull thinking. Incidentaly all these nuclear nations retain conventional capability.
Concept of a rogue element firing a nuke at India is far fetched and not worth serious comment.
This topic is linked to the PAF in a limited way and therefore this thread is probably the wrong place for it. Personaly I would rather see this thread used to discuss PAF news / issues — rather than general debates about Pakistan India war etc.
CAT1Actually PAK has declared so many red lines, no one is really sure what the real threshold is. However, indians do know pak military well (but not the taliban or the poor masses anymore, so many years after partition). The thought in india (without claiming inside knowledge) is that the current Pak establishment will accept defeat as long as their assets are untouched. However, with increased islamic hold on the military, there is some uncertainty over this.
So in a nutshell, on one hand india is worried that Pak can be suicidal and india will be ultra careful to push the current pak establishment into a corner where they may lose power, or in case there is a loose cannon amidst them who is a closet islamicist.
On the other hand, if there is a decision that war is inevitable and we have to launch offensive action into pakistan, then the aim is to make it a brutual assault to get Pak to surrender and then hand power back to the same old establishment under surrender terms (typically loss of some border territory from where india can more effectively monitor terror camps and stop cross overs) who (india believes) will be happy to see their own assets protected and won’t press the nuke trigger.
The danger is a long drawn out war where the islamicists win the internal power struggle as pak slowly loses terroritory and the current establishment is discredited, before india can take control of the situation. That is really the nuke threshold.
Hence the cold start and related military purchases. Establishing air supremacy at the earliest is a necessary part of this plan for IAF, if India is to have any chance to pull it off.
IMVHO, of course.
Allot of wishfull thinking here ….. India would dearly like to ‘teach Pakistan a lesson’ but bottom line is it is helpless. Any conflict of any size — and nobody can predict where it will end — hence its a none starter. Proof of this is the parliamant attack – when India spent billions on mobilising forces – but they went home without stepping over the border. Further proof was Kargil – where despite Pakistan’s clear provocation (although no different to Indias incursion into Siachin earlier) – India was at great pains to stress that it would under no circumstances go over the border into Pak territory. Further proof was after the Mumbai attacks – despite the much hiped ‘cold start doctrine’ being firmly in place – and many threats being hurled – again nothing came over the border. No nuclear power has ever been attacked in the history of nuclear weapons – people will do well to remember that when they are dreaming up – wiping out PAF in 24 hours, forcing quick surrenders etc etc etc.
Now I’m sure some smart Alec will ask why PAF is purchasing F-16’s AND AWACS if there is no threat — because you have to retain a conventional detterence as well as a nuclear one.
As for Islamists taking over Pakistan – very alarmist and detached from reality in my view.
CAT1EDITED for lack of respect
Ground fighting in Kargil war was within Indian borders – PAF did not cross into India – just as IAF did not cross into Pakistan (apart from a couple of aircraft which never went back) I would understand your comments if IAF had bombed within Pak territory and PAF had held back – I leave people to make there own mind up about who fed who a fantasy story.
Sign In
