Sneaker
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,867
- Reaction score
- -30
- Country
- Location
Political establishment was not sure of that definition. It is the whole point. It is way better not go into war without knowing the goals. So, while you can get many "actual" answers for the question why India did not go to war in 2002, none of them would PA conventional military.In other words, Indian politicians weren't confident enough that the "gains" defined by the political establishment were achievable by the mighty Indian armed forces ---
Again, like mentioned before, there was little role of PAF in te kargil conflict so you simply cannot assume, "oh the IAF of 1999 would have wiped the floor with the PAF" as they never went head to head in a full blown out air war like in 1965 or 1971 in both cases IAF having significant numerical advantage and we all know how that turned out for the IAF don't we ---
Little role of PAF in Kargil? Seriously? IAF crossed LoC and bombed Muntho Dhalo base camp. A navy Atlantique was shot down just after kargil. Where was PAF? Even Kaiser Tufail admits IAF regularly violated LoC and PAF did not react adequately.
However, as a senior member has already pointed out, we were getting spares for our falcons, the F-7PG was delivered to PAF and like I said previously, PAF had been allegedly operating a BVR well before the Aim 120 deal was ever signed, so bottom line and the answer to your question as well, the PAF of 2002 was significantly superior to that of the one in 1999 ....
Allegedly, again, is this the best you could come up with??