JF-17 Also Part of PAF Aggressor Squadron

[airomerix]

There you go again, assuming, presuming taking pot shots.
When i said respected members, it doesn't necessary translates to some veteran on the forum, respected in the sense that he is very much qualified in his own field or rather than just setting foot on an operational base, he may have been living on one at some point.
I have proof sitting in my files on the subject and only opened the thread after confirmation from other sources and NO it has nothing to do with say W/C Noaman in this regards.
As for credible low key members, the argument about a certain female pilot only flies the Y-12 has also been debunked by another PAF source who confirmed that she is flying a phenom jet these days.
So yes.....Samaj Samjna....Samaj key Samjo.....Samaj Samjna bi eik Samaj hey.

The only thing debunked about the female pilot was that she didnt take part in any combat operation.

Flying Y-12 or Phenom is not even the point. And its better for you to not go there. Stop in your tracks.

 

[Windjammer]

The only thing debunked about the female pilot was that she didnt take part in any combat operation.

Flying Y-12 or Phenom is not even the point. And its better for you to not go there. Stop in your tracks.

Dude, regardless of how much one fancies themselves, at the end of the day we are all just members on this forum so let's not give ourselves too much importance or ....authority
This is what you narrated elsewhere...
''There are reasons why I'm keeping a close watch on a few members for their posts. The post regarding a female Y-12 operator taking part in Swift Retort has not been received well by some.''
However, contrary to your claim that she only flies the Y-12,the subject female pilot was photographed at the controls of a small jet while ferrying the swift retort operations director to Sargodha......which obviously confused my source (None PAF).....into thinking she must have been part of the operations.
Alas no one is perfect.....neither does she just flies the Y-12 nor was she part of the operations....
So let's keep the tracks clear and moving.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Confirmed through reputed source. It is already conveyed that no weapon deployment and tactics or even the rule will be discussed.

Certainly, those must never be discussed on public forum. I was only asking about the composition of Sq. 29. Read elsewhere that initially, it was formed with 8 F-16s with very specific mission goals and since then I wondered how a squadron can have such low number.
https://www.financialexpress.com/de...border-with-india-in-the-mushaf-area/1522635/

 

[The Eagle]

Certainly, those must never be discussed on public forum. I was only asking about the composition of Sq. 29. Read elsewhere that initially, it was formed with 8 F-16s with very specific mission goals and since then I wondered how a squadron can have such low number.
https://www.financialexpress.com/de...border-with-india-in-the-mushaf-area/1522635/

You are right on the number thing. Squadron does have the mix of ACs & since we have credible information as well. Nonetheless, why aggressors (Falcon & Thunders) were on CAP on 27th Feb, 2019 and that makes sense now.

 

[Yasser76]

Certainly, those must never be discussed on public forum. I was only asking about the composition of Sq. 29. Read elsewhere that initially, it was formed with 8 F-16s with very specific mission goals and since then I wondered how a squadron can have such low number.
https://www.financialexpress.com/de...border-with-india-in-the-mushaf-area/1522635/

CCS squadrons have always been half squadrons. Same with the Mirage, F-7, JF-17 units at CCS.

 

[Xerxes1]

airomerix , weldone my friend ,your arguments make much more sense than the ; the guy ; one needs logic to put some one in his place not bullying ,hats off to you i am your fan now [emoji3]

@Windjammer BUSTED.

Forward to 4:55 and listen to what OC 2 Sqn is saying about this particular patch he is wearing.

*We have recently developed a school.....we were there recently for an exercise there (ACES Meet) and I got this patch in EXCHANGE. [/COLOR]

This means JF-17s have no connections to 29 Sqn Aggressors as OP has repeatedly claimed with multiple random pictures.

This also means even if a pilot is wearing. a patch, it doesn't mean he belongs to that particular squadron or there is a connection.

I stand corrected that TDS School of Tactics is a different squadron which brings all fighter types together.

Dear all,

I understand the member in question has contributed alot to the forum over the past years. But remember this. Truth triumphs everything. No one is all-knowing. There were times when I was wrong too. But I always leave space for error and to be corrected when I'm unsure.





Incorrect.

Wg Cmdr Noman Akram is Flt Cmdr 11 Sqn as of now.

(Fight me over this with your repeated misinformation now)


Wind Jammer remembers this. I dont give a flying fish about your standing here on PDF. Whenever you will post anything, I will cross check it. If found unsubstantial or incorrect, I will call it out. Like I always do.


The quality of this forum stems from the fact that there are people who contribute facts in a sea of speculation to finish the puzzle. You have not only failed to bring the facts but tried to subdue it to save your reputation as 'all knowing'.

 

[Windjammer]

Why are you so rude and angry all the time whats wrong ? What r u ? Argue in a civilised manner please ,the real airmarshall wouldnt be so cocky

Lol....50 posts in almost 4 years, you seem one genuine guy in an ideal position to rant this.....BTW, make sure you are on the fanmail list......even if it's your own.

 

[MastanKhan]

You kids are either so innocent or ignorant arguing with each other for who is right or wrong.

it is so easy to glean the information—-just insult your egos—-say you are lying your info is not correct and you will fight and challenge that your secret is the true secret.

 

[Thorough Pro]

most humans are slaves of their egos

You kids are either so innocent or ignorant arguing with each other for who is right or wrong.

it is so easy to glean the information—-just insult your egos—-say you are lying your info is not correct and you will fight and challenge that your secret is the true secret.

 

[airomerix]

You are right on the number thing. Squadron does have the mix of ACs & since we have credible information as well. Nonetheless, why aggressors (Falcon & Thunders) were on CAP on 27th Feb, 2019 and that makes sense now.

None of the thunders on CAP in the northeastern sector on 27th were based at Sargodha.

And if you were not ready to disclose the proof, this thread should not have been reopened.

Also I exactly know how many thunders are stationed at Mushaf. And none of them 'belong' to any other squadron but CCS.

The inherent problem with this thread and members here on PDF is, we don't understand the structure of units/institutions at Mushaf (ie. ACE, TDS,CCS, 29/9 sqn)

The day we understand the composition. We will stop putting Thunders in 29th squadron.

 

[Imran Khan]

i am with @Windjammer no matter he is right or wrong

 

[The Eagle]

None of the thunders on CAP in the northeastern sector on 27th were based at Sargodha.

And if you were not ready to disclose the proof, this thread should not have been reopened.

Also I exactly know how many thunders are stationed at Mushaf. And none of them 'belong' to any other squadron but CCS.

The inherent problem with this thread and members here on PDF is, we don't understand the structure of units/institutions at Mushaf (ie. ACE, TDS,CCS, 29/9 sqn)

The day we understand the composition. We will stop putting Thunders in 29th squadron.

My friend,
Re: TDS. Rest about information; well the contention & intention is already being denied in advance so the members may not race to the title of "I know it all" and start spilling unwanted info. The thread was reopened in regard info being credible and not to share the information which is not available in public domain. Letting it go easily can solve many problems while keep insisting on other hand will exactly lure many to share more & more so in my view, keeping it short and precise while agreeing to disagreeing will help more than one can ask & insist to keep a tight lip. I didn't even refer CCS 29/9 Sqn or even ACE rather chose to say that TDS and that in-fact covers everything.

What Thunders were doing along the Falcons Or weren't there, isn't much of my interest to say or disclose or keep it secrete or even call it a bluff. I want my rival to think about the same and have the burden to keep looking for it that I shouldn't bother.

Regards,

 

[Zulfiqar]

My friend,
Re: TDS. Rest about information; well the contention & intention is already being denied in advance so the members may not race to the title of "I know it all" and start spilling unwanted info. The thread was reopened in regard info being credible and not to share the information which is not available in public domain. Letting it go easily can solve many problems while keep insisting on other hand will exactly lure many to share more & more so in my view, keeping it short and precise while agreeing to disagreeing will help more than one can ask & insist to keep a tight lip. I didn't even refer CCS 29/9 Sqn or even ACE rather chose to say that TDS and that in-fact covers everything.

What Thunders were doing along the Falcons Or weren't there, isn't much of my interest to say or disclose or keep it secrete or even call it a bluff. I want my rival to think about the same and have the burden to keep looking for it that I shouldn't bother.

Regards,

Then you need to delete this thread altogether.

Every so often WJ posts a thread with one or two pictures stating some information. The information may be correct half of the time but it may not be correct rest of the time and some other member may try to correct him as @Hodor , @Knuckles, @airomerix and others have tried to do every now and then.

If WJ has right to post threads based on a few pictures then others do have a equal right to counter his claim.

Logically these other members don't want pdf to turn into haqeeqat TV with exaggerated facts.

Otherwise the Opsec/infosec policy should apply on Windjammer as well considering he posts some information that may not be correct every time but the resulting discussion will result in the correct info being deduced.

 

[The Eagle]

Then you need to delete this thread altogether.

Every so often WJ posts a thread with one or two pictures stating some information. The information may be correct half of the time but it may not be correct rest of the time and some other member may try to correct him as @Hodor , @Knuckles, @airomerix and others have tried to do every now and then.

If WJ has right to post threads based on a few pictures then others do have a equal right to counter his claim.

Logically these other members don't want pdf to turn into haqeeqat TV with exaggerated facts.

Otherwise the Opsec/infosec policy should apply on Windjammer as well considering he posts some information that may not be correct every time but the resulting discussion will result in the correct info being deduced.

Calm down as the thread is being allowed for reasons and not so what you think of. Furthermore, Opsec/infosec is all about the things to be kept away but tell you what; your DP shows a GIF from one the key ops and till date; not just I regret but also wished that such video was never made public but who knows. So sometimes, releases as such have their own +- to the content and there are limits being defined for the information being shared.

Furthermore, I will let the disinfo be continued and that also works in favour as compare to correct information, if it is all about infosec/opsec to confuse the rival.

On the next; no one is barred from counter arguments until & unless, debate turns into personal attacks or possible breach of secrecy. PDF is not for the leaks and to share only official statements as for that matter; everyone can access ISPR or Media Directors of Tri Services for information. The Forum provides an environment and interesting discussions based upon the subjects that aren't shared through official channels merely because of less importance or not so relevant for commoners while on other hand, we do have Forum for discussion, share & argue for the constructive ideas as well. However, when it is all about possible breach; not just the Info but accounts are also taken down. You tagged some gentlemen and I know for the fact that one of them knows clearly why the discussion is still going.

Therefore, I already said that sometimes, we really need to agree to disagree and move on without trying to be "I know it all Maestro" while countering the baiting bluff. There are differences between phishing, incorrect information for propaganda or baiting/inducing others for leaks. Here, the matter is all about discussing something which isn't part of public news but not for the matter as this is kind of top secret at all. Furthermore, it was clearly stated to avoid discussion of weapons deployed, tactics or operational/training portfolios at all.

Regards,

 

[Zulfiqar]

Calm down as the thread is being allowed for reasons and not so what you think of. Furthermore, Opsec/infosec is all about the things to be kept away but tell you what; your DP shows a GIF from one the key ops and till date; not just I regret but also wished that such video was never made public but who knows. So sometimes, releases as such have their own +- to the content and there are limits being defined for the information being shared.

Furthermore, I will let the disinfo be continued and that also works in favour as compare to correct information, if it is all about infosec/opsec to confuse the rival.

On the next; no one is barred from counter arguments until & unless, debate turns into personal attacks or possible breach of secrecy. PDF is not for the leaks and to share only official statements as for that matter; everyone can access ISPR or Media Directors of Tri Services for information. The Forum provides an environment and interesting discussions based upon the subjects that aren't shared through official channels merely because of less importance or not so relevant for commoners while on other hand, we do have Forum for discussion, share & argue for the constructive ideas as well. However, when it is all about possible breach; not just the Info but accounts are also taken down. You tagged some gentlemen and I know for the fact that one of them knows clearly why the discussion is still going.

Therefore, I already said that sometimes, we really need to agree to disagree and move on without trying to be "I know it all Maestro" while countering the baiting bluff. There are differences between phishing, incorrect information for propaganda or baiting/inducing others for leaks. Here, the matter is all about discussing something which isn't part of public news but not for the matter as this is kind of top secret at all. Furthermore, it was clearly stated to avoid discussion of weapons deployed, tactics or operational/training portfolios at all.

Regards,

Similar to others I do receive info/content from time to time related to Army. However, I do not post most of it for likes e.t.c. That GIF though I cropped and posted only the roof collapsing part as that is something you don't see everyday out in the open (while sanitizing the rest).

As for the rest, I have some reservations but it is a long discussion and I would just agree to disagree as you stated.