As far as IAF is concerned, PAF was never vulnerable and is now in a much stronger position than it was in say 2008.
2008 air alert
After the
2008 Mumbai attacks, Pakistan Air Force was put on high alert. It deployed to all its wartime locations and started combat air patrols. The speed and intensity of the deployment and PAF's readiness took the Indian Army High Command by surprise and later reports suggest was the main factor in the Indian decision of not going for cross border raids inside Pakistan.
[43][44] PAF was issued a Standing Order to launch an immediate counter-attack in case of an air attack from India, after a call from the Indian Foreign Minister
Pranab Mukherjee to the Pakistani President
Asif Ali Zardari (the call later turned out to be a hoax).
I am sorry but completely disagree with those statements. PAF was always
quantitatively much inferior to the IAF. After around 1995-2000 as the Su-30, israeli upgraded Mig 21 and later the MKI and Rafale came, along with significant amounts of top notch Israeli and american EW gear the PAF has become
qualitatively inferior as well. In addition, the IAF now regularly exercises and has a lot of interaction and training programs with all the western airforces, including the USAF, the european airforces, the israelis and others. Their newer pilots have a lot more opportunities to learn and hone their skills, and it may well be that their skill levels are already higher than the PAF's in many areas of air warfare. If not, it is only a matter of time before this happens.
what's new IAF outnumbers PAF 1:3(380 4th gen fighters vs 185 4the gen fighters) while IAF lacks is enough pilots (half the ratio as compared to Pakistan) to effectively mobilized all fighters at an optimum sortie rate..pakistan has twice number lf AWACs and support aircarfts with decent SAM systems
In my opion situation today is better than 1990s
In airdefence PAF is well equipped where it lacks is deep strike aircrafts ...s400 is going to make it more difficult ..
Once rafale and LCA and the precieved additional fighter comes the gap might increase
The deabte of SAM vs fighters is long one..ultimately most people prefer fighters for their flexibility if you have to choose between two ..Pakistan needs a long range SAM..hq16 range of 40? 80? Km is also concerning ..if its 40 whats the point of getting it
Sure. Aircraft are flexible, being capable of offensive as well as defensive counter-air operations, but using aircraft for defensive counter air operations is risky, particularly in the case of Pakistan:
Modern fighter aircraft are extremely costly. The PAF's F-16 Block 52 cost 80+ million dollars each. Suppose a flight of 16 enemly Rafales & Mirage 2000s armed with Meteor, ASRAAM and MICA-EM/IR missiles cross over into Pakistani airspace. Would the PAF risk sending up all of its 18 Block 52s to engage them in the air?
Aircraft are extremely vulnerable on the ground as well. Their airbases and shelters are well known to the enemy, under constant surveillance and are targets of the first-day-of-war air, cruise and ballistic missile strikes. If air defence is left to fighters, a successful pre-emptive enemy attack will hand over control of the Pakistani airspace to the enemy. This has already happened once, but the lessons learnt were forgotten: in 1971 the entire PAF in East Pakistan was grounded when the Tejgaon airfield was rendered inoperable by an Indian strike. From that day onwards, the PAF ceased to fly combat missions and the IAF were unopposed in the skies of East Pakistan. Modern PGMs and cruise missiles make these sorts of attacks a bigger threat today than in 1971.
Modern SAM systems, in comparision, can stay mobile and the enemy will have no idea where a SAM launcher is, even if the location of a surveillance radar is known.
Fighters can stay in the air for a few hours at most, even with air refueling. When they are on the ground and a siren goes off, the time it takes them to respond (time to get enough aircraft airborne, time to climb to the right altitude, time to get to weapons range) is significant and the intruders can launch weapons and retreat before your aircraft have a chance to shoot at him. In comparision, the response time of a SAM is in seconds.
What happens when the enemy aircraft turns out to be superior in air combat to yours? If your JF-17 Block 2 are called on to intercept a flight approaching of Rafales and they are forced to engage in WVR combat, who will lose more aircraft?
A modern integrated SAM system will cause the enemy to think 10 times before venturing into your airspace. Consider the headache for the PAF when they have to perform strike missions in airspace guarded by a S-400 + Spyder system and you will be able to see how much dangerous it would be for enemy aircraft to venture into Pakistani airspace protected by a modern, layered air defence system.
Pakistan doesn't need a new aircraft as much as it needs to completely re-build its weak air defence system from scratch first. That is what will keep away the hundreds of 4.5+ gen aircraft across the border that today present the greatest conventional threat to Pakistan.
PS: in wartime sortie rate is not limited by the airmen, it is limited by the aircraft. One pilot can fly a lot more sorties if multiple planes are available to him. One aircraft cannot fly more missions than the ground crew can handle, even if multiple pilots are available to fly it.
