Thorough Pro
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2008
- Messages
- 13,232
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
From a different perspective looking at the bigger picture, no country buys weapons just for the love of them, the primary and main reason is to deter the enemy from aggression, and that my friend Pakistan has achieved quite successfully. We can spend more on defence but at the cost of social uplift. If less spend on weapons can prevent war, then the balance should be spent on the people, that is why despite being a much smaller economy compared with India, our standard of living is much higher than that, our poor are better than their lower mid class, our lower class better than their mid class and so on
Budget is never unlimited but scarcity of money is usually managed by good planning, something that simply does not exist in PAF's dictionary. In Musharraf's time, there was money, and option too to buy Blk-52; what we did? Instead of 36, we bought only 18. Nation was fooled that money spent on Azad Kashmir Earth quake and PAF made great sacrifice; what a baloney, same reason was given for cancellation of other acquisitions. No, it does not work like this. Funds allocated to certain departments are not used up like this and I know it for my father served as a top bureaucrat with GoP. The fact is, other than handful of F-16s, we have nothing but practice drones for our enemy, no matter how PAF spins it. We have to induct at-least one squadron strength of Blk-52 or go for J-11 for these fighter are needed to maintain reasonable air-superiority, which will allow 2nd tier jets to fly and conduct missions. JF-17 even in its blk-III configuration is not going to be a game changer. With same old engine, only so much could be done to a fighter no matter you take the blk number to XX.