Leadership of PAF needs a healthy change !

[x_man]

@ Pakistan my heart

Uptill now ou have put baseless allegations on the whole pilot community….You disrespected them by calling them illiterates, crying lot etc etc….you just opened a thread to degrade all their efforts and concentrated on one aspect which is not even true by miles…..In the end all you care is about your respect…….I think you need to develop a thick skin if you are going to disrepute one of the most respected communities in Pakistan.

Anyways, on the subject:-

1. I have explained you the role of DCAS (Admin) in very detail…….
2. I have clarified the points you had against PAC organization.
3. I have also deliberated on the subject that why PAF is fighter pilot heavy…

Now if you still think that I just put my eight around and didn’t give you any logic, then I am not sure that what you are looking for here……I have edited the offensive parts from my last post and if you have anything to say on the above three points, let the ball roll…

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok Sir now to PAC Kamra….Can you please tell us that which branch is heading AMF or F-6 Rebuild or Mirage Rebuild or KARF??? They are all Engineers..arent they ? Does it really matter which branch Chairman is from? Hasn’t Engineers been made Chairman PAC in the past???

X-Man,

So what of the argument that perhaps the PAC Chairman should always be from the engineering branch? Would there be merit to that?

 

[araz]

X-Man,

So what of the argument that perhaps the PAC Chairman should always be from the engineering branch? Would there be merit to that?

Dear Agno,Xman, and Pakistan my heart
I think we are all in agreement that pilots involvement in projects like JF17 has been a unique experience and has borne good results. There was an article about the difference between the ethos of the Chinese and the British(JF17 v/s typhoon)with regards to the development of the plane, and changes made mid course. i am fairly certain this was on account of advise from PAF pilots. So so far it has worked well.
however, Like pakistan my heart i agree that the advertisement and followup on sales which we need to have and which a good trained Business administrator will provide is lacking with kamra and perhaps all of the defence Production units. i think this is one aspect that really needs to change to accomodate establishment of these units on sound business footings. Another thing which is of interest and which might move the focus of the discussion away from the current topic is that the ordinary Joe blog never knows how efficient these units are in any case. Not knowing the efficiency we are all perhaps in the dark about whether these units are actually profitable or are they just another case of fixing the books to make things look good.
WaSalam
Araz

 

[araz]

pakistan my heart.
Please refrain from losing your cool. Please ammend your post and continue this discourse civilly. As mentioned this is an interesting debate and I would be sorry to see it going down the drain.
waSalam
Araz

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

pakistanMYheart,

No moderator has threatened you with a ban yet. We have not even censured you at any point.

The entire conversation till now was between you and the other members. I though my response to your exchange with X-Man was quite balanced in asking both of you to move on, and commended your attempts to remain civil and polite.

There was no excessive criticism of you - if anything, there was a subtle reminder to X-Man to 'cool down'.

MuradK in fact thanked some of your posts once you changed your tone.

As I said, let bygones be bygones, X-Man edited his post, and we can move onto discussing the topic, instead of engaging in ad hominems.

 

[SQ8]

Whew... this had really become a mud slinging context with PakistanMyHeart ahead in points. However, The Idea of changing any organization without KNOWING the opinion of the people in it and especially those who have been in it for a long time is folly. Without knowing the actual performance, not the one in history books, not the one thrown around by anti-military antagonists, but rather by including the people involved in all parts of that organization and taking their input, if there is a change demanded from any branch then to take it up with EVERY one in the organization and letting them know that change MUST happen but it wont happen in such a way that any other departments interests are cannibalized and its people victimized. PakistanMyHEarts intentions may be for the best. But I must state that his conveying of that message to those who have been in the air force has been inappropriate. If one's argument is rejected with ridicule it is best to concede and know that you were better because you chose not to drop down to that persons level of intellect. But to act like a sour grape(which I too am guilty of sometimes) and attack somebody at a personal level and his profession(e.g to call all lawyers children of the devil) is wholly inappropriate and shows your caliber in a bad light, not matter how correct or how sound your logic may be.
But I agree with agnositic.. let bygones by bygones.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Fascinating thread.

I know next to nothing about aviation, and even less about the PAF, but since I am South Asian, this will not prevent me from voicing my 'expert' opinion.

There is always a good argument for opening out more higher levels of leadership to all branches and cadres. I certainly think that all organizations should encourage cross functional leadership, not just the PAF. This leads to new thinking, new ideas which is always good.

However, PakistanMyHeart, you may also need to consider the following:

1. Most organizations are 'usually' led by people with experience in 'core' functions. In the corporate world these would be sales, general management etc.

This is 'natural' and 'logical'; the majority of leadership positions in an organization must have experience in the core business of the organization. Otherwise how will the organization even survive, far less meet any emergencies?

From what I understand of the PAF, its 'core business', as defined by its strategy, are its fighter squadrons.

2. Of course there are exceptions; but I find that even 'outsiders' who are brought in to head a company (e.g. someone from HR) either have some background in the 'core', or are there for a specific time frame/ reason - e.g. a finance person made CEO to head a near bankrupt company.

Does the PAF face a comparable emergency?

Please note -- of the 18 Chiefs of Staffs of the US Air Force, 17 came from a fighter/ bomber background!

3. On your point about the importance of logistics, I agree. Logistics are critical. Someone once said, 'amateurs talk of strategy, professionals discuss logistics'.

However, this also is true:

Logistics exist for the fighter pilots/ bombers/ copter pilots; the fighter pilots/ bombers/ copter pilots do not exist for the sake of logistics.

4. Perhaps the PAF is at too early a stage of its evolution; the current USAF Chief of staff seems to have a pretty strong background in transportation! But then again, this could be a one off.

5. Which does not mean to say that your ideas are wrong, IMO. From my indirect experience of the Indian Army and whatever little I have read, I think that military organizations tend to be hidebound, bureaucratic and resistant to change. They also tend to be elitist to the point of becoming ridiculous.

A better mix of cadres near the top is always a good thing.

My solution would be - keep the COAS from a fighter background; but open out more positions around him from different branches. If that hasn't been done already.

 

[PAFAce]

I think we are all in agreement that pilots involvement in projects like JF17 has been a unique experience and has borne good results. There was an article about the difference between the ethos of the Chinese and the British(JF17 v/s typhoon)with regards to the development of the plane, and changes made mid course. i am fairly certain this was on account of advise from PAF pilots. So so far it has worked well.

No one can dispute the fact that pilots are essential to the design of aircraft, and to the running of any Air Force. As far as the JF-17 is concerned, yes, pilot input was critical, but in the end, pilots did not lead the design, it was the Chinese engineers who did. Pilots can not design an aircraft on their own. Like I said before, just like a pilot would not want his Officer Commanding or Base Commander etc. to be a non-pilot, it is unreasonable to expect engineers to work to their fullest under pilot leadership.

MuradK has given many examples of non-fighter pilots meddling in the business of fighter pilots without sufficient knowledge of how they work. The exact same can be said for pilots leading engineers. Therefore, I think that as far as the CAS position goes, a pilot shall always occupy it. However, lower down, non-pilots should be allowed to lead in areas where they have expertise. In that regard, I believe one of the most important questions to be asked was the one below by AM:

perhaps the PAC Chairman should always be from the engineering branch? Would there be merit to that?

If the answer to this is "yes", then I think we can end this debate, but if it's "no", then I certainly understand PakistanMyHeart's concerns.

Edit
I've just posted a documentary "Battle of the X-planes" in the multimedia section of this forum. One thing I've just realised is that it can serve as a great addition to this debate. It features LMa nd Boeing going head-to-head, and both teams have included test-pilots from the USAF, USN and Royal Navy in their design program. However, both teams are lead by experienced Engineers.

Joint trike Fighter Competition - Battle of the X-Planes - HD Documentary

 

[blain2]

dear @x-man

First of all welcome to the discussion. You really seem to have entered the discussion, loaded with bombs and missiles as if you are flying a fighter aircraft right now.

Let me tell you I am not, or never was in the PAF. I am a lawyer by profession. Unlike you, my weapons are patience and commitment to purpose. My job is to intellectually prove or disprove. I openly accept if I am wrong, but never, if I am not. I am not here for a war, that I must win. If you convince me that you are right, I will be happy to accept it. That is what I am in this forum for.

I think that my knowledge about the internal workings of Armed Forces, is making you think that I am a part of PAF. I know it all because of my interest in our Armed Forces. And unlike most people, my interests are not limited to collecting pictures of military weapons. You can see it from my posts.

It seems that telling you things that go against the feudal thinking of pilots like your self, is hurting you real bad. Why not accept what is true, than to get angry and abuse someone?. This anger and abusive language is indicative of your being on the wrong footing, and trying to hush up the matters, by acting fierce. I faced almost the same response from @Muradk a few posts ago.

I will answer you soon enough, but for now your tone of talking is really bad. Politeness and decency has never touched you in your life, as it seems. I would have loved to answer you in this tone, but keeping in view the criticism I faced from the house, when I tried to be a bit aggressive before (read the starting part of this thread), I would keep quite for now. Your style of talking speaks volumes of what you are. You will really have problems in convincing me or other people, that pilots are sensible and cultured human beings. I hope the forum members are noting this.

I would refrain from answering this post for the moment, till the tone of @x-man is taken care of. I would request the MODS to please look at the language of @x-man.

PMH,

A couple of observations. You not having served in the PAF means that all of the observations you have shared are not personal opinions, rather an opinion that has been gleaned from someone you know (potentially your father) who has served. There is nothing wrong with this, however you run the risk of being clouded by your relative's or friend's own perceptions.

There are quite a lot of folks like you who have been very close to the armed forced (in professional as well as in personal capacities) yet have never served in them. That closeness definitely gives one a right to base an opinion, however as an outsider, your view is still distorted because it is shaped by the opinions of one or a few that you may have talked to. This is not so for someone who himself is on the inside and day in and day out sees what is going on and directly interfaces with peers, seniors and juniors in the arm.

I agree with many of your observations but still believe that the issue of the Fighter Pilot cadres of the PAF leading all the commands is primarily due to the culture and requirements of the PAF and if it makes sense, then will change but with time. I can also attest that most officers (at least in the Army as field officers), tend do develop a fairly decent administrative skill set by the time they make Col/Brig. (you obviously have exceptions, but I am speaking in general terms).
The same applies to the PAF. Anyone who has commanded a sqn or above has some pretty good administrative skills that can be applied to not only administer but also provide leadership in other areas.

There are certain exceptions to the case and these will become more pronounced in the future given that even Western militaries are becoming aware of them and these have to do with the level of technology in place. Currently, the engineering side (as X-man has stated) is already run by folks who are educated and trained as Engineers first. This is because specialization is becoming all the more important and you no longer can have a generalist (Fighter Pilot) running an engineering workshop.

Yet, the Admin. side is still open game because the skills set required for such jobs usually requires good administrative and leadership skills which most of the mid-level leadership in the PAF develops along the path of their careers.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Eyeless in gaza,

As the core business of paf is fighter wing----then they have miserably failed in procuring the proper equipment for the last 20 years. They have one excuse after another for not having the right equipment---ie fighter interceptor---regardless of what happened---sanctions---no sanctions---does anyone care---does my enemy care if I don't have a machine to fight them---heck no.

Now---you know---every pakistani loves their paf pilots---we have made them like " gods " and put them on a pedestal for the longest period of time, where we vow them and bow to their every whim. Just their presence amongst us and we are awe struck by their stature---.

But dig a little deeper, they are just ordinary people with ordinary decision making capabilities but absolutely extraordinary when you put strap them to an ejection seat---.

If PAF would have been flying the skies over india at their discretion---just like IAF does over pakistan, whenever they please to---there would have been public slaughter of IAF air marshall's on the streets of any town hindustan---no IAF officer could have walked the streets of the respective towns in their uniforms.

It is only us pakistanis that we love our flyers beyond any reason of sanity.

Have anyone worked for a large corporation which asks the new hires what is wrong with the system as they see it---.

Normally the people from the same background would lie if they see any faults and deficiencies in their leaders and senior officers so as to protect their group and not to bring shame to their superiors. In simple english it is called a ---COVER UP---a very normal practise in any corporation where people from the same background are promoted for the top job. Maintain the STATUS QUO---make no waves---let things roll as they may.

Same old---same old---makes things stagnant---moldy---and less efficient. It is the csorporate law of failing preposition.

 

[Manticore]

Hi Eyeless in gaza,

As the core business of paf is fighter wing----then they have miserably failed in procuring the proper equipment for the last 20 years. They have one excuse after another for not having the right equipment---ie fighter interceptor---regardless of what happened---sanctions---no sanctions---does anyone care---does my enemy care if I don't have a machine to fight them---heck no.

Now---you know---every pakistani loves their paf pilots---we have made them like " gods " and put them on a pedestal for the longest period of time, where we vow them and bow to their every whim. Just their presence amongst us and we are awe struck by their stature---.

But dig a little deeper, they are just ordinary people with ordinary decision making capabilities but absolutely extraordinary when you put strap them to an ejection seat---.

If PAF would have been flying the skies over india at their discretion---just like IAF does over pakistan, whenever they please to--- there would have been public slaughter of IAF air marshall's on the streets of any town hindustan ---no IAF officer could have walked the streets of the respective towns in their uniforms.

It is only us pakistanis that we love our flyers beyond any reason of sanity.

Have anyone worked for a large corporation which asks the new hires what is wrong with the system as they see it---.

Normally the people from the same background would lie if they see any faults and deficiencies in their leaders and senior officers so as to protect their group and not to bring shame to their superiors. In simple english it is called a ---COVER UP---a very normal practise in any corporation where people from the same background are promoted for the top job. Maintain the STATUS QUO---make no waves---let things roll as they may.

Same old---same old---makes things stagnant---moldy---and less efficient. It is the csorporate law of failing preposition.

sir i always agree with you 100 percent as always.

but how can an average young pakistani citizen wether he's a young gdp or a civilian for that matter, change the system or take the blame of the seniors? it will take 10 years for us to reach the top and till that time we would also landup in the same shoes

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Well look at it this way---so far the fighter jock has failed paf miserably---what more could go wrong if an engineer is made the commander---I would bet anything on it that the things may turn around for the air force.

I would go on a limb and say that anybody from any different dept in the air force other than from thefighter wing---if given the chance would turn things around for the air force in due time---but a chance has to be given so that we can decide which direction we need to take.

The news that has come out that F 16 have not even begin their upgrade---it is a very bad news for the pak millitary and pak civilians.

 

[blain2]

Hi Eyeless in gaza,

As the core business of paf is fighter wing----then they have miserably failed in procuring the proper equipment for the last 20 years. They have one excuse after another for not having the right equipment---ie fighter interceptor---regardless of what happened---sanctions---no sanctions---does anyone care---does my enemy care if I don't have a machine to fight them---heck no.

Now---you know---every pakistani loves their paf pilots---we have made them like " gods " and put them on a pedestal for the longest period of time, where we vow them and bow to their every whim. Just their presence amongst us and we are awe struck by their stature---.

But dig a little deeper, they are just ordinary people with ordinary decision making capabilities but absolutely extraordinary when you put strap them to an ejection seat---.

If PAF would have been flying the skies over india at their discretion---just like IAF does over pakistan, whenever they please to---there would have been public slaughter of IAF air marshall's on the streets of any town hindustan---no IAF officer could have walked the streets of the respective towns in their uniforms.

It is only us pakistanis that we love our flyers beyond any reason of sanity.

Have anyone worked for a large corporation which asks the new hires what is wrong with the system as they see it---.

Normally the people from the same background would lie if they see any faults and deficiencies in their leaders and senior officers so as to protect their group and not to bring shame to their superiors. In simple english it is called a ---COVER UP---a very normal practise in any corporation where people from the same background are promoted for the top job. Maintain the STATUS QUO---make no waves---let things roll as they may.

Same old---same old---makes things stagnant---moldy---and less efficient. It is the csorporate law of failing preposition.

MK, your observations may hold true for a dynamic enterprise that is always open to new styles of management etc., however by the very nature, most armed forces are very conventional and archaic in terms of evolution.

I think all of the above is being stated on the basis of an assumption that the Fighter pilot cadres are covering their arses by denying any flaws in the existing system. I think it is to the contrary. The key point being made is that where specialization matters and is required, PAF puts the right folks in place. This specifically goes for the technical (avionics/engineering/data automation) verticals. Secondly, at the higher level of command and management, there are certain traits that are needed instead of specific to trade knowledge. This entails the ability to see the big picture, be able to translate the strategy of the senior leadership (CAS and team) into executable projects. This can be done by senior pilot who have commanded sqns and wings as well.

Administration is one area which all senior commanders get exposed to quite a lot (even more than they like to).

 

[blain2]

Hi,

Well look at it this way---so far the fighter jock has failed paf miserably---what more could go wrong if an engineer is made the commander---I would bet anything on it that the things may turn around for the air force.

A fallacy being propagated by you. Ever since the failure of the M2k deal, you have blamed the PAF whereas the facts are different.

I would go on a limb and say that anybody from any different dept in the air force other than from thefighter wing---if given the chance would turn things around for the air force in due time---but a chance has to be given so that we can decide which direction we need to take.

All in good time. However that has yet to be seen. Not every fighter pilot jock is a brash type to overlook the issues and sensitivities of the other branches. I am willing to put my money on the fact that the current chief will actually have a greater impact on the evolution of the PAF than all of the past chiefs (this despite the fact that he is a Mirage jockey).

The news that has come out that F 16 have not even begin their upgrade---it is a very bad news for the pak millitary and pak civilians.

This is certainly not new news. There were issues with funding. You can blame a lot of things for that and not specifically the PAF.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Hey Mastan Khan,

The solution apparently is then to give procurement to the engineers, or the PAF personnel with technical backgrounds, and give them greater powers over sourcing. Involve technicians/ engineers in devising strategy. And so on.

But appointing an engineer as COAS just to improve procurement would be penny wise and pound foolish, IMO, based on what I wrote in my earlier post.

I also say this is an 'apparent' solution because, while appointing a technician to the procurement process may improve strategic sourcing in concept, I do not know whether it will help in the process of actually procuring the equipment. Unless I have misread the process in Pakistan, which is likely, wouldn't the actual procurement would still have to take place via the powers that be - politicians? How will an engineer COAS improve implementation any more than anyone else?

I do agree that armed forces tend to indulge in groupthink; heck every corporation tends to do so, but the armed forces more than others.

I find it interesting that the British army resisted the development/ deployment of tanks and machine guns in WWI, had to be dragged into using these by political/ civilian leadership, when both of these turned out to be absolutely cutting edge innovations in warfare.

I do not expect a lot of innovation from armed forces in the matter of strategy at the highest level; but then that's the armed forces for you.