What's new

PAF's Defensive Doctrine---Out of Ignorance---Out of Incompetence Or What?

MastanKhan

PDF VETERAN
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
21,269
Reaction score
166
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Hi,

For the last 30 plus years I have been hearing these words that the Pakistan's air force's doctrine is defensive in nature. And every time it raises the level of concern that I have for my motherland as if something does not sound right.

Because I know very well---that my navy----the ones with the least amount of budget and no show pomp and strut---they sent their men 2500 miles away to strike at the heat of the enemy's mighty ships in their little submarine. Even though they failed in their venture but they died in the far away backyard of the enemy heartland---nothing can glorify a death like dying in the enemy's backyard---so far away from your base---in anonymity to this day---we don't know the whole truth except that they laid down their lives on distant shores and are not with us anymore.

Because I know---that our army---the one that faces the wrath of the nation every 10 to 12 years---it also sent its soldiers across of the borders---and even though the things did not go well for them----and many of them died---but so many of them died on the other side of the border in the enemy territory----in the enemy's front yard---and that is no small achievement for a small army.

And then I hear about this doctrine----from our supposedly, the most cherished arm of our military wing---who claim to be the best of the best in the world---the military arm that struts around in arrogance and bravado---and preens around everywhere like Peacocks in heat----that they want to stay home and fight the battles on the home turf----basically what they are saying is that we will bring the enemy home---the enemy will destroy us and thus destroy the rest of the infra structure----.

This is called the defensive air combat doctrine---where out of fear or incompetence or for whatever reasons you do not have the ability to strike at the enemy deep in its own woods---this doctrine is also know as the doctrine of cowardice.

But how did it start---how did we get from an offensive air force to the one fighting with the tail between our legs.

Well---like everything else---it started with incompetence at the top during the 1971 war----. The afghan war brought an opportune moment for the Pakistan air force---sanctions were off---and PAF had the option to buy different aircraft----. Being a French aircraft dominant air force---it should have by default stayed with the French---goinf rom Mirage 3/5 to Mirage F1 and then Mirage 2000.

But during the war---it got the carrot dangled in front of it--the fabled F16----. On the other side was the Mirage 2000---on a given day each aircraft could outdo the other. The PAF BLUNDERED into buying the F16---and it left the gate open for its arch enemy to buy the supposedly number 2 aircraft.

Indian air force was woefully equipped at that time---it only had Russian aircraft as its primary fighter aircraft.

PAF thru its blunder---allowed the indian air force to purchase the Mirage 2000---and gave the enemy parity in the battlefield in the skies----.

PAF lies that it needed the F16's to fight afghan air force----now we know that was not right---. The mirage 3 were well equipped to take on the afghan air force---as was the case in the first couple of afghan planes shot down by the mirages---.

If the PAF had rejected the F 16----the indian air force would not have been able to buy the mirage 2000---because the Pakistan would have been the primary buyer.

Then came the sanctions and another opportunity to buy mirage 2000----and the supposedly honest sec def of Pakistan rejected the deal because there was too much graft in that deal.

So---what was the big deal about the graft---100 million---200 million---in the fortunes of nations---this amount is not even peanuts. This purchase would have given us back our parity over our arch enemy India.

This blunder was a nail in the coffin of a prestigious air force which got destroyed by the actions of an HONEST OFFICER.

Then came 9/11 and lifting of sanctions---PAF now has the funds to purchase an aircraft on a fastrak to fill up the gap that had widened over the years---but we forget to realize is that this was not the same fighting force of the mid 60----this was a force that had ROT set in its roots---the solid frame had been eaten by the termites---it was force in show only and the GUTS belonged to men long dead lying in their graves.

The 4 years after 9/11 were lost in jumping from one plane to the other---acting totally clueless like a kid in the candy store with pocket full of money wants to buy every thing and ends up buying nothing.

The primary target of the air force like any other force was to procure and aircraft that can match the front line enemy aircraft one on one and come out ahead. So that the enemy does not pose a threat to strike and create instability in the country----.

CONTD
 
Last edited:
.
I reckon money is biggest factor

Attack is is the best form of defence as the old saying goes, relying on nukes to obliterate india or protect ys against attack is not enough

We need to build up our attack arsenal and be in a position to seriously harm india without having to resort to killing millions of civilians
 
.
Hi,

For the last 30 plus years I have been hearing these words that the Pakistan's air force's doctrine is defensive in nature. And every time it raises the level of concern that I have for my motherland as if something does not sound right.

Because I know very well---that my navy----the ones with the least amount of budget and no show pomp and strut---they sent their men 2500 miles away to strike at the heat of the enemy's mighty ships in their little submarine. Even though they failed in their venture but they died in the far away backyard of the enemy heartland---nothing can glorify a death like dying in the enemy's backyard---so far away from your base---in anonymity to this day---we don't know the whole truth except that they laid down their lives on distant shores and are not with us anymore.

Because I know---that our army---the one that faces the wrath of the nation every 10 to 12 years---it also sent its soldiers across of the borders---and even though the things did not go well for them----and many of them died---but so many of them died on the other side of the border in the enemy territory----in the enemy's front yard---and that is no small achievement for a small army.

And then I hear about this doctrine----from our supposedly, the most cherished arm of our military wing---who claim to be the best of the best in the world---the military arm that struts around in arrogance and bravado---and preens around everywhere like Peacocks in heat----that they want to stay home and fight the battles on the home turf----basically what they are saying is that we will bring the enemy home---the enemy will destroy us and thus destroy the rest of the infra structure----.

This is called the defensive air combat doctrine---where out of fear or incompetence or for whatever reasons you do not have the ability to strike at the enemy deep in its own woods---this doctrine is also know as the doctrine of cowardice.

But how did it start---how did we get from an offensive air force to the one fighting with the tail between our legs.

Well---like everything else---it started with incompetence at the top during the 1971 war----. The afghan war brought an opportune moment for the Pakistan air force---sanctions were off---and PAF had the option to buy different aircraft----. Being a French aircraft dominant air force---it should have by default stayed with the French---goinf rom Mirage 3/5 to Mirage F1 and then Mirage 2000.

But during the war---it got the carrot dangled in front of it--the fabled F16----. On the other side was the Mirage 2000---on a given day each aircraft could outdo the other. The PAF BLUNDERED into buying the F16---and it left the gate open for its arch enemy to buy the supposedly number 2 aircraft.

Indian air force was woefully equipped at that time---it only had Russian aircraft as its primary fighter aircraft.

PAF thru its blunder---allowed the indian air force to purchase the Mirage 2000---and gave the enemy parity in the battlefield in the skies----.

PAF lies that it needed the F16's to fight afghan air force----now we know that was right---. The mirage 3 were well equipped to take on the afghan air force---as was the case in the first couple of afghan planes shot down by the mirages---.

If the PAF had rejected the F 16----the indian air force would not have been able to buy the mirage 2000---because the Pakistan would have been the primary buyer.

Then came the sanctions and another opportunity to buy mirage 2000----and the supposedly honest sec def of Pakistan rejected the deal because there was too much graft in that deal.

So---what was the big deal about the graft---100 million---200 million---in the fortunes of nations---this amount is not even peanuts. This purchase would have given us back our parity over our arch enemy India.

This blunder was a nail in the coffin of a prestigious air force which got destroyed by the actions of an HONEST OFFICER.

Then came 9/11 and lifting of sanctions---PAF now has the funds to purchase an aircraft on a fastrak to fill up the gap that had widened over the years---but we forget to realize is that this was not the same fighting force of the mid 60----this was a force that had ROT set in its roots---the solid frame had been eaten by the termites---it was force in show only and the GUTS belonged to men long dead lying in their graves.

The 4 years after 9/11 were lost in jumping from one plane to the other---acting totally clueless like a kid in the candy store with pocket full of money wants to buy every thing and ends up buying nothing.

The primary target of the air force like any other force was to procure and aircraft that can match the front line enemy aircraft one on one and come out ahead. So that the enemy does not pose a threat to strike and create instability in the country----.

CONTD
yes Everything Pakistan army , Navy , Air Force Does is Wrong and You with your wisdom are always Right if they dont buy they are wrong if they buy they are wrong , Get over it No Sane Force will like to start a war with bigger Force when they know they are out gunned outnumbered

As For the Current Doctrine , Its Defensive Offensive , Not Just Defence , Just Tell me Even If Pakistan Just Buy F 18 , And Rafale in 2 Squad Will it Totally change the Outcome and Suddenly Pakistan Will have upper hand no ,
military doctrine about Offence is You Must Out number your enemy from 7 to 1 if you are on offensive side,
Yes Many Mistakes Happened But Geopolitical alliance changes every time Best Example is Pakistan and Russia
Now Talking about Offensive No officer will like to Risk his men just for some false bravado or Mastan khan Didnt like it
Pakistan has the capability to go on offense when its needed depending on the mission in hand , Best Example When Pakistan threatened Israel For Attack ,
Playing Video Games Wont Help You Where You send all your Troops and win ,
You calibrate move of your enemy and counter
Pakistan isnt US who can Apply Pre emptive Strikes doctrine
 
Last edited:
. .
PAF has one problem which aircraft they induct they totally put resources on that like in case of F16s & JF 17s they don't compare enemy multiplatforms, technological advancements, futuristic approach etc. Now just think china offering us j31,j10,jh7b etc but PAF is in different from long time to select which one and they are puting all resources only on jf-17s and those are not equal even with f16 in terms of speed, weapons load, etc and they are again missing opportunity, in 1965 war PAF was fighting force now its defensive force, in near future (2025) when F16 Mirages, F7Pg they will go retired then do you think only JF-17s are enough for PAF? Pakistan will afford to replace all F16s, Mirags, F7Pg equal in numbers with futuristic fighters plans like stealth, 5th generations fighter jets with in next 10 years? if No then whats next plan or just wait and see india will do something then we will induct?
 
.
yes Everything Pakistan army , Navy , Air Force Does is Wrong and You with your wisdom are always Right if they dont buy they are wrong if they buy they are wrong , Get over it No Sane Force will like to start a war with bigger Force when they know they are out gunned outnumbered

As For the Current Doctrine , Its Defence Offensive , Not Just Defence , Just Tell me Even If Pakistan Just Buy F 18 , And Rafale in 2 Squad Will it Totally change the Outcome and Suddenly Pakistan Will have upper hand no ,
Normally military doctrine about Offensive is You Must Out number your enemy from 7 to 1 if you are offensive ,
Yes Many Mistakes Happened But Geopolitical alliance changes every time Best Example is Pakistan and Russia
Now Talking about Offensive No officer will like to Risk his men just for some false bravado or Mastan khan Didnt like it
Pakistan has the capability to go on offensive when on needed depending on the mission in hand , Best Example When Pakistan threatened Israel For Attack ,
Playing Video Games Wont Help You Where You send all your Troops and win ,
You calibrate move of your enemy and counter
Pakistan isnt US who can Apply Pre emptive Strikes doctrine


Are you BLIND ----there is absolute praise for army in my posts and that of the navy as well---.
 
Last edited:
.
Hi,

For the last 30 plus years I have been hearing these words that the Pakistan's air force's doctrine is defensive in nature. And every time it raises the level of concern that I have for my motherland as if something does not sound right.

Because I know very well---that my navy----the ones with the least amount of budget and no show pomp and strut---they sent their men 2500 miles away to strike at the heat of the enemy's mighty ships in their little submarine. Even though they failed in their venture but they died in the far away backyard of the enemy heartland---nothing can glorify a death like dying in the enemy's backyard---so far away from your base---in anonymity to this day---we don't know the whole truth except that they laid down their lives on distant shores and are not with us anymore.

Because I know---that our army---the one that faces the wrath of the nation every 10 to 12 years---it also sent its soldiers across of the borders---and even though the things did not go well for them----and many of them died---but so many of them died on the other side of the border in the enemy territory----in the enemy's front yard---and that is no small achievement for a small army.

And then I hear about this doctrine----from our supposedly, the most cherished arm of our military wing---who claim to be the best of the best in the world---the military arm that struts around in arrogance and bravado---and preens around everywhere like Peacocks in heat----that they want to stay home and fight the battles on the home turf----basically what they are saying is that we will bring the enemy home---the enemy will destroy us and thus destroy the rest of the infra structure----.

This is called the defensive air combat doctrine---where out of fear or incompetence or for whatever reasons you do not have the ability to strike at the enemy deep in its own woods---this doctrine is also know as the doctrine of cowardice.

But how did it start---how did we get from an offensive air force to the one fighting with the tail between our legs.

Well---like everything else---it started with incompetence at the top during the 1971 war----. The afghan war brought an opportune moment for the Pakistan air force---sanctions were off---and PAF had the option to buy different aircraft----. Being a French aircraft dominant air force---it should have by default stayed with the French---goinf rom Mirage 3/5 to Mirage F1 and then Mirage 2000.

But during the war---it got the carrot dangled in front of it--the fabled F16----. On the other side was the Mirage 2000---on a given day each aircraft could outdo the other. The PAF BLUNDERED into buying the F16---and it left the gate open for its arch enemy to buy the supposedly number 2 aircraft.

Indian air force was woefully equipped at that time---it only had Russian aircraft as its primary fighter aircraft.

PAF thru its blunder---allowed the indian air force to purchase the Mirage 2000---and gave the enemy parity in the battlefield in the skies----.

PAF lies that it needed the F16's to fight afghan air force----now we know that was right---. The mirage 3 were well equipped to take on the afghan air force---as was the case in the first couple of afghan planes shot down by the mirages---.

If the PAF had rejected the F 16----the indian air force would not have been able to buy the mirage 2000---because the Pakistan would have been the primary buyer.

Then came the sanctions and another opportunity to buy mirage 2000----and the supposedly honest sec def of Pakistan rejected the deal because there was too much graft in that deal.

So---what was the big deal about the graft---100 million---200 million---in the fortunes of nations---this amount is not even peanuts. This purchase would have given us back our parity over our arch enemy India.

This blunder was a nail in the coffin of a prestigious air force which got destroyed by the actions of an HONEST OFFICER.

Then came 9/11 and lifting of sanctions---PAF now has the funds to purchase an aircraft on a fastrak to fill up the gap that had widened over the years---but we forget to realize is that this was not the same fighting force of the mid 60----this was a force that had ROT set in its roots---the solid frame had been eaten by the termites---it was force in show only and the GUTS belonged to men long dead lying in their graves.

The 4 years after 9/11 were lost in jumping from one plane to the other---acting totally clueless like a kid in the candy store with pocket full of money wants to buy every thing and ends up buying nothing.

The primary target of the air force like any other force was to procure and aircraft that can match the front line enemy aircraft one on one and come out ahead. So that the enemy does not pose a threat to strike and create instability in the country----.

CONTD
First of neither is 1965 nor in 1971 we had any defensive policy we went in and bombed the hell out of India. We say we have defensive policy so we can get weapons from west like F-16 but I agree we need more aggressive policy but to have that we need at least two more Fighter Jets I mean two more types one should be like J-10 B or J-11 D for Air Defence role and some strikes inside India and the other type of jet which we need is bombers like JH-7 B or SU-34 to in leash hell on our beloved enemy. We need both of these types in really large numbers at least 5 squadron each to do that. @MastanKhan
 
.
So as a fix - My thoughts on non-traditional options (things not relating to a bigger air-force, nuclear missiles, etc) to improve and update Pakistan's defense capabilities and posture.

Pakistan can't match India pound for pound, but it doesn't have to. What Pakistan needs is to make India hurt enough that war would be catastrophic for both sides - ultimately this is achieved through both sides nuclear arsenals, but on conventional terms Pakistan has options too. Let's explore them:

1. Spread critical infrastructure and C4I capabilities over a wide geographic area to prevent a "decapitation strike" from severing the entire command structure instantaneously. Perhaps utilize deep or hardened command structures:

2. Invest greater numbers in mobile counter-air and counter-missile defenses. HQ-9 provides both capabilities in a single platform, but like S-300 it's reported to be less suited for counter-missile duties.

HQ-9 is also resistant to electronic injections and attacks, and with India building up its electronic warfare capabilities, this is a plus for Pakistan.

sam-missile.jpg


3. Speaking of electronic warfare, cyber defenses can be used for offensive and defense purposes too. No only do strong cyber defense protect one's own info, but they can be used to gather intel on a enemy nation - as the US, Russia and China have found out, there aren't any air-tight systems. Invest in cyber warfare to negatively effect Indian battle-planning, intercept their communications, steal sensitive info and if necessary affect civilian infrastructure too:

Few of the world's power grids are capable of withstanding a military-strength cyber attack.
Large-transformers.jpg


4. For naval defense Pakistan needs to invest greater assets in counter-submarine warfare - what better way to keep Indian ships honest then by investing in your own submarines?

Considering Pakistan is most concerned with the regional waters around its shores, nuclear submarines don't make too much sense, but SSKs do. Already Pakistan is addressing this concern via the acquisition of several S20 submarines, but a few more - 4 perhaps, would improve Pakistan's operational capabilities by allowing for more ships to be at sea at any one time.

India's counter submarine capabilities are good, but they aren't perfect.

KILO_CLASS_SUBMARINES.jpg


Negotiate with China for 2-3 Y-8Q - they would be Pakistan's P-8I.

y-8q_731.jpg


5. Forget about ICBMs:

Should we opt for the ICBM?

Invest in SLVs (Space Launch Vehicle). Not only does this open up space communications to Pakistan, but it also opens up intelligence gathering capabilities.

Does Pakistan know where India's naval assets are all the time? How about their command structures? Their mobile AA missiles? Tank formations? No it doesn't, but investing in space intel capabilities open this avenue up for Pakistan and allows Pakistan to monitor Indian military movement, communications and infrastructure .

*if anything nuclear deterrence actually increases the potential for conflict, just not directly. Instead, via the Stability-Instability Paradox, the potential for proxy conflict goes up:

The stability–instability paradox is an international relations theory regarding the effect of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. It states that when two countries each have nuclear weapons, the probability of a direct war between them greatly decreases, but the probability of minor or indirect conflicts between them increases. This occurs because rational actors want to avoid nuclear wars, and thus they neither start major conflicts nor allow minor conflicts to escalate into major conflicts—thus making it safe to engage in minor conflicts. For instance, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union never engaged each other in warfare, but fought proxy wars in Korea,Vietnam, Angola, the Middle East, Nicaragua and Afghanistan and spent substantial amounts of money and manpower on gaining relative influence over the third world.

Stability–instability paradox

6. India is stepping up its own space capabilities and Pakistan needs a counter. Even if you can't destroy them via ASAT or electronic warfare, you can still negatively affect them using some ground-based methods. One such method is "blinding lasers" to interfere with electro-optical satellites or damage critical electronics on remote sensing satellites.

This is a satellite spotting laser. Larger, more powerful lasers can damage satellites.

FSSOTJPHE07OYAV.LARGE.jpg


7. Cost is going to be a problem for any large military facing a large foe that is gaining in sophistication. One recourse is to opt for unmanned areal and naval assets. Pakistan already has its Burraq drone for counter-land duties, and perhaps a sea-surveillance/counter-shipping version can be worked out too, but Pakistan - facing an increasing submarine threat from India, can offset the cost of improving its own submarine capability (should that be too costly) by opting for UUVs to patrol and monitor Pakistani waters.

Suicide UUVs can be used as cost-effective anti-submarine weapons should they detect a target.

These are easily deploy-able from existing ships and are a cost effective solution.

00016c42b36b1519c7292f.jpg


8. I know, I know, "how's Pakistan going to pay for it?"

  • that wasn't really the point of this post. These are real world options, but a hypothetical set of impact recommendations that would make a difference.
  • But that doesn't mean Pakistan is left stranded either. It has options.
Pakistan's defense doctrine right now is predicated on maintaining a nuclear deterrence to deter Indian aggression or retaliatory action. Keep this! Maintain a minimum credible deterrence, and once the economy improves, shift military spending into high gear. It takes work, the world is ill right now, but Pakistan is making progress. Reforms such as revising the tax code and tax enforcement must be mandated. Reform helps an economy grow and be more resilient to future shocks.

CPEC and China provide Pakistan with an important life-line.

475-a.jpg


---

These are my thoughts on defense options. I understand they might not all be feasible or affordable, they aren't for most nations, but these option can provide Pakistan with an updated deterrence that brings it into the 21st century and positions Pakistan for future success.

Space, cyber warfare, sub-surface warfare, drones, these are option Pakistan can't afford not to invest in!

@Armstrong @Oscar @MastanKhan @Gufi @Indus Falcon - thoughts? Counter proposals?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
So as a fix - My thoughts on non-traditional options (things not relating to a bigger air-force, nuclear missiles, etc) to improve and update Pakistan's defense capabilities and posture.

Pakistan can't match India pound for pound, but it doesn't have to. What Pakistan needs is to make India hurt enough that war would be catastrophic for both sides - ultimately this is achieved through both sides nuclear arsenals, but on conventional terms Pakistan has options too. Let's explore them:

1. Spread critical infrastructure and C4I capabilities over a wide geographic area to prevent a "decapitation strike" from severing the entire command structure instantaneously. Perhaps utilize deep or hardened command structures:

2. Invest greater numbers in mobile counter-air and counter-missile defenses. HQ-9 provides both capabilities in a single platform, but like S-300 it's reported to be less suited for counter-missile duties.

HQ-9 is also resistant to electronic injections and attacks, and with India building up its electronic warfare capabilities, this is a plus for Pakistan.

sam-missile.jpg


3. Speaking of electronic warfare, cyber defenses can be used for offensive and defense purposes too. No only do strong cyber defense protect one's one info, but they can be used to gather intel on a enemy nation - as the US, Russia and China have found out, there aren't any air-tight systems. Invest in cyber warfare to negatively effect Indian battle-planning, intercept their communications, steal sensitive info and if necessary affect civilian infrastructure too:

Few of the world's power grids are capable of withstanding a military-strength cyber attack.
Large-transformers.jpg


4. For naval defense Pakistan needs to invest greater assets in counter-submarine warfare - what better way to keep Indian ships honest by investing in your own submarines?

Considering Pakistan is most concerned with littoral waters around its shores, nuclear submarines don't make too much sense, but SSKs do. Already Pakistan is addressing this concern, but a few more - 4 perhaps, would improve Pakistan's operational capabilities by allow for more ships to be at sea at any one time.

India's counter submarine capabilities are good, but they aren't perfect.

KILO_CLASS_SUBMARINES.jpg


Negotiate with China for 2-3 Y-8Q - they would be Pakistan's P-8I.

y-8q_731.jpg


5. Forget about ICBMs:

Should we opt for the ICBM? | Page 3

Invest in SLVs (Space Launch Vehicle). Not only does this open up space communications to Pakistan, but it also opens up intelligence gather capabilities.

Does Pakistan know where India's naval assets are all the time? How about their command structures? Their mobile AA missiles? Tank formations? No it doesn't but investing in space intel capabilities open this avenue up for Pakistan:

pentagon.jpg


6. India is stepping up its own space capabilities and Pakistan needs a counter. Even if you can't destroy them via ASAT or electronic warfare, you can still negatively affect them using some ground-based methods. One such method is "blinding lasers" to interfere with electro-optical satellites or damage critical electronics on remote sensing satellites.

This is a satellite spotting laser. Larger, more powerful lasers can damage satellites.

FSSOTJPHE07OYAV.LARGE.jpg


7. Cost is going to be a problem for any large military facing a large foe that is gaining in sophistication. One recourse is to opt for unmanned areal and naval assets. Pakistan already has its Burraq drone for counter-land duties, and perhaps a sea-surveillance/counter-shipping version can be worked out too, but Pakistan - facing an increasing submarine threat from India can offset the cost of improving its own submarine capability by opting for UUVs to patrol and monitor Pakistani waters.

These are easily deploy-able from existing ships and are a cost effective solution.

00016c42b36b1519c7292f.jpg


8. I know, I know, "how's Pakistan going to pay for it?"

  • that wasn't really the point of this post.
  • But that doesn't mean Pakistan is left stranded either. It has options
Pakistan's defense doctrine right now is predicated on maintaining a nuclear deterrence to deter Indian aggression or retaliatory action. Maintain a minimum credible deterrence, and once the economy improves, ship military spending into high gear.

CPEC and China provide Pakistan with an important life-line.

475-a.jpg


---

These are my thoughts on defense options. I understand they might not all be feasible or affordable, they aren't for most nations, but these option can provide Pakistan with an updated deterrence that brings it into the 21st century and positions Pakistan for future success.

Space, cyber warfare, sub-surface warfare, drones, these are option Pakistan can't afford not to invest in!

@Armstrong @Oscar @MastanKhan @Gufi @Indus Falcon - thoughts? Counter proposals?
are you a defence analyst? your posts are very professionally written, you mentioned before that you write algorithms for unmanned systems .does your profession extend to being an analyst and collecting information on forums thats not publicly revealed.

no disrespect just curious
 
.
army should round up all the crooks with foreign offshore accounts and get it and use that money . i think it time for collectivization policy and for low level stuff prison labor will do.
 
.
CPEC and China provide Pakistan with an important life-line.

475-a.jpg


---

These are my thoughts on defense options. I understand they might not all be feasible or affordable, they aren't for most nations, but these option can provide Pakistan with an updated deterrence that brings it into the 21st century and positions Pakistan for future success.

Let us take a harder look at just one of your proposals...
I.E. the one above; in a Conflict Situation that is extremely vulnerable. One re-look at it will tell you where and why. So that is no "magic wand". Otherwise also it has its infirmities; if you are upto date with Pakistan's internal problems now, you will be able to work that out too.

That Map there also clear depicts the limitations of any attempt to spread out assets, which is one point that you have raised. Which is simply why successive Pakistani Strategic Estts have had to grapple with the issue of "Strategic Depth". In a paraphrasing of Robert B. Kaplan, it is the Revenge of Geography.

As for the rest, there some "serious financial price-tags" which attach to them. So neither you, nor @MastanKhan nor anybody else here can overlook them.
 
Last edited:
. .
Hi,

As I stated in the other thread---we cannot keep on making nuc threats against our sovereignty all the time. This threat was well and good in 199---2002---after that it started eating up on every sympathetic ear that we had.

When the seriousness of Fukushima reactor became obvious----the business slowed down to a crawl on the west coast cities in the united states---and Fukushima reactor incident was not expected to be that bad.

The world had turned a corner after the stock market crash in 2008----people lost their life savings and many have built them up----and no one wants to lose them again----. So when Pakistan talks about the nuc option----it is creating animosity amongst the public that it did not need to.

The problem here is that it does not understand of the consequences---it does not want to understand that the problem is its own doing----the problem has been created because one wing of the military did not buy the right item when given multiple opportunities.

That is what it is all about----we are alienating the world slowly but surely because of the screw-ups of the PAF.

If Paf had bought the Rafales after 2002 and had 5 sqdrn's of them in stock----things would have been running smoothly.

Even now---if Pakistan has aircraft that can cut open the indian belly on the Mumbai coastline---we will see a difference in the attitude thatindia has----.

4 Sqdrn strength of JH7B's with aesa---totally changes the of the strike capabilities of the air force again---.

Just reaching into Maharashtra changes the picture completely---and you cannot do that on JF 17's alone----.

Pakistan needs to find around 5 billion dollars to upgrade its air force on a fastrak----in a very short time.

That would reduce the continuous standoffs and tension across the border----we will stop making these childish nuc threats that we do all the time---.

Without a powerful air force---Pakistan is doomed into failure at india's whim.

Because every time india raises the level of threat---it effects our forward progression immensely---.

JF 17 is not the answer to Pakistan's prayers.

Few Days Ago You posted that PAK navy is going crazy because they are buying subs

No I did not-----. It is in a totally different context to that of the air force.
 
.
Hi,

As I stated in the other thread---we cannot keep on making nuc threats against our sovereignty all the time. This threat was well and good in 199---2002---after that it started eating up on every sympathetic ear that we had.

When the seriousness of Fukushima reactor became obvious----the business slowed down to a crawl on the west coast cities in the united states---and Fukushima reactor incident was not expected to be that bad.

The world had turned a corner after the stock market crash in 2008----people lost their life savings and many have built them up----and no one wants to lose them again----. So when Pakistan talks about the nuc option----it is creating animosity amongst the public that it did not need to.

The problem here is that it does not understand of the consequences---it does not want to understand that the problem is its own doing----the problem has been created because one wing of the military did not buy the right item when given multiple opportunities.

That is what it is all about----we are alienating the world slowly but surely because of the screw-ups of the PAF.

If Paf had bought the Rafales after 2002 and had 5 sqdrn's of them in stock----things would have been running smoothly.

Even now---if Pakistan has aircraft that can cut open the indian belly on the Mumbai coastline---we will see a difference in the attitude thatindia has----.

4 Sqdrn strength of JH7B's with aesa---totally changes the of the strike capabilities of the air force again---.

Just reaching into Maharashtra changes the picture completely---and you cannot do that on JF 17's alone----.

Pakistan needs to find around 5 billion dollars to upgrade its air force on a fastrak----in a very short time.

That would reduce the continuous standoffs and tension across the border----we will stop making these childish nuc threats that we do all the time---.

Without a powerful air force---Pakistan is doomed into failure at india's whim.

Because every time india raises the level of threat---it effects our forward progression immensely---.

JF 17 is not the answer to Pakistan's prayers.



No I did not-----. It is in a totally different context to that of the air force.
First we need at least 5 squadrons of J-11 D or J-10 B and more F-16 than to have really good offensive punch 4 to 5 squadrons of either JH-7 B or SU-34 are needed and also we need to develop long range Air to Surface cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
 
.
First we need at least 5 squadrons of J-11 D or J-10 B and more F-16 than to have really good offensive punch 4 to 5 squadrons of either JH-7 B or SU-34 are needed and also we need to develop long range Air to Surface cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
I have begun to hate your posts with these funny numbers. Looks like 'nishaan virus' has infected you badly. Please stop acting like a kid with a long list of toys he wishes to buy on the Christmas. The professionals know what they need and how much. Please go to mosque or madrassah and listen the sermons of some semi -literate tableeghi Mullah for that is all you have born for.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom