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

[araz]

Are conventional warheads aboard the missiles have enough destructive firepower to replace bombers as they have limited payload?

We do not have bombers anymore. So the point is mute in any case. The point Iam trying to make is thàt short of stand off weaponry from the edge of our border we will probably not venture much into Indian air space. Their layered defence is much better than ours and our losses would be insurmountable. As such we would probably be using missiles to cause the desired damage which open another Pandora's box.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir,

This thread is to dicuss Pakistan's capabilities and shortcomings----. So---please if you keep your remarks out of it----it would be appreciated.

 

[Reverse Thinker]

Stave the problems feed the opportunities in this case

 

[MastanKhan]

There is another issue with Ballistic Missiles. On the enemies radar, it just shows up as a Ballistic Missile, it doesn't tell them what warhead it's carrying. This can have catastrophic repercussions.

Hi,

Thank you for these comments---. Missiles cannot do the job by themselves----. It is a TEAM effort---it is a combination of weapons systems that makes the 'whole', potent.

To make the 'whole' potent---you have to have strength in all the periphrees----. One weak link allows the enemy to smash thru to create a beachhead---and the weak link in our case is a deep naval strike aircraft.

And again I bring in the JH7B---because this aircraft is being pushed to take on the U S flotilla challenging the Chinese fleet in a strike role. The Chinese SU30's and the J11D's are for air superiority---.

The purpose of this thread is to enlighten the reader that Pakistan needs to get away from the nuc now doctrine to keep on with the conventional warfare fight----for that it needs too re-adjust its game plan and weapon systems.

I see a lot of guys nipping at my heals---and to them I will say again----you were te same guys who bragged about the JF 17 being integrated within a year or two from its inception----.

Actually---most you and specially the Think Tank here had no clue what the integration meant----and slowly and slowly that you learnt the bitter reality of the truth----and almost close to 8 years now and still in the integration mode----and this was one of the many disagreements that we had----where all of you failed---and ganged up on me.

Well---it is no different now----it is the same thing all over----.

Rajastahn cannot be simply cut off----that area is better suited for our cold start doctrine---we can deploy troops faster in that area and strike deep and conquer more land even before the enemy forces get close to the border-----.

We only lack in heavies-----.

Araz---you have been trying at it for the last what---close to 9 years now---don't make it personal---.

Are conventional warheads aboard the missiles have enough destructive firepower to replace bombers as they have limited payload?

No---they don't---and that is what this discussion is about----to have fighter bombers----.

 

[SQ8]

Maybe in doctrine, but ability and resources to acquire territories and hold them for long term use is speculative at best.

Napoleon said: "...to know a nation's geography is to know its foreign policy." He was not the first to observe that truth but probably the first to articulate it in terms that are quick to direct a person's intellectual attention to that truth.

Most militaries today acknowledge the realities of modern geopolitics and warfare, especially with nuclear MAD, even those who are not nuclear weapons states, and the expense of creating and maintaining a military that is capable of long term offensive capabilities. Among parity states that borders each other, foreign policies will favor equilibrium and the ground forces will reflect that tendency, if not mutual desire. Airpower is the wild card and probably no better first demonstration of that wild card to throw the playing table off kilter is Nazi Germany's Luftwaffe. And the Luftwaffe was expensive to create.

Airpower is inevitably 'high tech' and inevitably demands an educated workforce, civilian and military. A state that increases its allocation to its air force will draw the attention of neighboring states and an air arms race ensues. Foreign policies will change to suit suspicions. The state that has the weakest air arm will be the first to capitulate, meaning the first to plead for alliance or vassalage in some ways.

It may sounds like am cheerleading for airpower all the time, after all, I am an Air Force guy. But am also a minor student of post WW I warfare and an objective admirer of General Billy Mitchell, the father of US airpower. For centuries, ships literally fought each other directly, but from 1903 to 1939, that 30 yrs time span is a second in the context of history, airpower upended thousands of yrs of naval tactics where in WW II, it was the first time naval fleets destroyed each other without seeing each other. Naval air arms is just a category of airpower and the ability to project a threat, or a mere implication of that threat, altered known patterns of foreign policies.

Airpower did not erase what Napoleon said but added complications to it. Doctrinally handicap one's air arms when one is bordered by hostile states is foolish.

That being said, American air power is a wholly different concept as to that of say a nation like Pakistan. Perhaps a better example would be to look at the East German or Swedish model.

 

[MastanKhan]

2days a d 11 pages worth of posts!!?That too over a non issue!I could finish this debate by saying that what you propose is based on fallacies half truths and downright pigheadedness. The M2K issue in the 90s has been explained to you by the .an himself at least 2 other Ex PAF officers and myself at least 2 times yet you rehash the same old tale again for acolade which is undeserved.
Now to the concept of a defensive force. Your whole premise is wrong. Throughout 65 and 71 we have made offensive forays into ind8an airspace from the western Pakistan. The Eastern Pakistan aas a different story and we had t9 withdraw our AF due to the air bases being bombarded repeatedly making operations from there impossible. We have verifiable accounts of attacks on FOBs in India both from 65 and 71 so your premise falls on its face.
Secondly the dynamics of an offensive force.to be contd

Hi,

I missed this post somehow----to answer you---ARAZ----you were always a nobody in my books for over the years that I have been on this board----and you know that.

You really thought something of yourself to have explained the M2K issue to me---or you could finish this debate just like that----KIYA PIDDI AUR KIYA PIDDI KA SHORBA----.

@araz---I am no military man---and no one of my immediate family is military---but I have forgotten more about the wars---strategies and weapons than you will ever be able to learn.

The old issues are rehashed because nothing has changed-----. I have also listened to your stupid explanations about the non purchase of the M2K's and the other air force officers as well---.

You and your buddies live in this chicken sh-it world surrounded by chicken fence and you guys think that is the whole of universe---.

Did you guys think that the Jews who went to buy weapons in eastern Europe in 1948-49 stopped the purchase of the weapons because weapons sellers were asking 5 times the price of those half working weapons----. THEY PAID THAT PRICE BECAUSE THEY KNEW WITHOUT THEM THERE WAS NO TOMORROW FOR ISRAEL.

How about the villagers of Sindh in the late 80's and 90's----. Why did they pay outrageous prices for AK47's----because if they did not have anything to protect their villages----they would be robbed and killed at the discretion of the criminals.

Name one nation in the history of the world---that has not paid exorbitant prices for weapons so that they oculd survive for another day---every one of them did that one time or another.

You come over here with your sanctified holier than thou post----and you want to take a wild swing and clear everything just with a wave---wake up---open your eyes---the world does not revolve around the stories of Paf and what they say.

 

[araz]

Hi,

I missed this post somehow----to answer you---ARAZ----you were always a nobody in my books for over the years that I have been on this board----and you know that.

You really thought something of yourself to have explained the M2K issue to me---or you could finish this debate just like that----KIYA PIDDI AUR KIYA PIDDI KA SHORBA----.

@araz---I am no military man---and no one of my immediate family is military---but I have forgotten more about the wars---strategies and weapons than you will ever be able to learn.

The old issues are rehashed because nothing has changed-----. I have also listened to your stupid explanations about the non purchase of the M2K's and the other air force officers as well---.

You and your buddies live in this chicken sh-it world surrounded by chicken fence and you guys think that is the whole of universe---.

Did you guys think that the Jews who went to buy weapons in eastern Europe in 1948-49 stopped the purchase of the weapons because weapons sellers were asking 5 times the price of those half working weapons----. THEY PAID THAT PRICE BECAUSE THEY KNEW WITHOUT THEM THERE WAS NO TOMORROW FOR ISRAEL.

How about the villagers of Sindh in the late 80's and 90's----. Why did they pay outrageous prices for AK47's----because if they did not have anything to protect their villages----they would be robbed and killed at the discretion of the criminals.

Name one nation in the history of the world---that has not paid exorbitant prices for weapons so that they oculd survive for another day---every one of them did that one time or another.

You come over here with your sanctified holier than thou post----and you want to take a wild swing and clear everything just with a wave---wake up---open your eyes---the world does not revolve around the stories of Paf and what they say.

Mastan Khan.
Iam not here to gain fame or fortune. What you think of me is of no concern to me as my worth is known only to my maker. On this forum I come here to learn from other people and add my input to the knowledge base that other people impart. Whether you rate it as anything or not is totally irrelevant.
The point still stands that once your arguments get countered you resort to cheap street talk of name calling. You say you have forgotten more than I can remember-----stop the bull shit and bring it on. If you have an argument present it. BUT NO!! You dont have anything to say and therefore your response.
Iam a poster on this forum just like you. My posting rights are just like yours. When you have contributed well it has been acknowledged by all and sundry including myself. But dont expect accolades for drivel.
Each and everyone of your arguments have been countered and you have been challanged to produce a counter argument. And yet you waste your and my time with this piece of trash .I will respond to you when you have something concrete to say rather than this snot of a post.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Mastan Bhai, aap tu PAF ki sahi class laitay hooo.

 

[Indus Falcon]

Mastan Bhai, aap tu PAF ki sahi class laitay hooo.

As he rightly should. PAF is one sanctimonious cow we can't criticize, specially on this forum!! Don't know why? doesn't it run on the taxpayers hard earned money?

 

[TaimiKhan]

As he rightly should. PAF is one sanctimonious cow we can't criticize, specially on this forum!! Don't know why? doesn't it run on the taxpayers hard earned money?

Who said we can't criticize. This is what we all have been doing, but issue is that we can not keep banging our head to the wall all the time especially when we don't know the real reasons or all the reasons due to which decisions were made or not made. Since the day i joined this forum i have been hearing the M2K thing, and its always about money and then the counter claims. Why keep discussing the issue when its dead now and we should now talk about present and future. How much more discussion about the same issue again and again.

 

[Indus Falcon]

@TaimiKhan @MastanKhan @araz I feel had PAF should have gone for both the F16 and the M2K. Not just one type.

Funding - Was never an issue. Creative financing was. Heck we can't play our cards right now, playing it right, back then is asking for too much. The same people who helped us with our Nuclear program, could have bought for us 4 ~ 5 squadrons as well.

But our tunnel vision is a benchmark, can't abandon that can we?

I may not agree with a lot of things Mastan Khan Saheb has to say, but on the JH7B, he has a very valid point. +/-10% for the price of a JF-17, but nearly two times the capability, why aren't we going for it? Do keep in mind that IF the JH7B were to be bought, it would be a much better a/c than what it is today.

a) The JF-17's magical DSI

b) We don't have the funds.

c) Our egos (PA & PAF) are too big, to look at inducting a new platform?

 

[aliyusuf]

With only 8% of the population paying taxes regularly, I doubt it.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

With regards to mastankhan i think you are underestimating the cost problem for PAF.The main problem imo is the PAF requirement for a fleet of over 400 combat jets.This is simply unrealistic and out of proportion to pakistan's economic strength.Here is to put things into prespective.

French air force around 230 jets.(half rafales,half mirage 2k)
German air force around 240 jets(half eurofighter.half tornado)
British air force around 225 jets.(half eurofighter,half tornado)

Now compare the economic power of these countries to pakistan and the massive inflation in the cost of fighter aircraft over the years and you will see that maintaining a 400 combat jet fleet is a enormous problem which i honestly think pak can't without a miracle.This huge price of modern fighters why IAF cut down rafale and PAKFA orders.In about a decade 5th gen aircraft are going to appear in the skies of south asia,now these fighters start at 100 million price tags.You see where this trend is going.Now PAF has over 250 jets it needs to replace without the funds to probably acquire less than 50 modern priced fighters.
So thats why i think JF-17 became a necessity for PAF(add to the fact its immune to sanctions) even though it may not have been an ideal counter to MKI and upgraded mirage.So i think PAF is actually working within the constraints best it can,the limiting factor being the need to maintain squadron strength.Infact this is a massive problem for both air forces ,and LCA which IAF isn't overtly joyous but needs cheap fighter to make up numbers.

One of the key problems is that both nations have sanctioned squadron strengths which were laid down in the 50s when fighters were cheap and you could pump out a 100 on the assembly line in a matter of months if u were a industrial power.Now they cost 1/5 to 1/6 of a surface warship or submarine and u can barely pump out a dozen or maybe 20 per year.So the sanctioned squadron numbers have remained same from 50s but economic realities have changed.
This is something that needs to be recognized in your argument.Yes you can get better modern fighters ,but then you have to be prepared for a 150-200 jet air force.Are you ready for that?Because if you are not you understand why PAF has no options but jf-17 in current scenario.
Also i would like to say that really both air forces need to learn standardization.They are wasting far too much money on flying too many fighter types(IAF especially),each has to be upgraded seperately.Its a nightmare.You see all the above european air forces have just 2 basic types of fighters.So in this PAF move to just jf-17 and f-16 until they get something better is rational.

 

[gambit]

A question was asked on what the 3 air power principles really mean in the real world and under real time conditions.

So here are the clarifications...

1) Air Dominance -- The ability of an air force to compel other air forces to rearray themselves, usually into inferior/subordinate postures.

This does not mean there must be combat involved. An air force maybe sufficiently powerful, at least in reputation, that upon entry into a theater that its presence compels other air forces to reassess their combat postures in the theater. This includes friends and foes. If this air force deploys in sufficient numbers, friends will usually defers to its lead, in both planning and execution of battles, and foes will reassess their targets in anticipation of increased opposition.

2) Air Superiority -- The ability of an air force to repeatedly achieve control of disputed airspace and if there are any losses, said losses would not be any statistical deterrence to said achievement.

This is probably the most problematic in understanding, especially what constitute statistical deterrence to repeated air superiority over a disputed airspace. Statistical deterrence means estimated losses base upon real losses that compels an air force to either withdraw from disputed airspace or diminish its combat presence. Statistical deterrence calculations are to prevent an air force from experiencing complete loss of all combat capable fighters.

In the famous Battle of Britain where, aided by radars, RAF fighters were deployed to only where a group of fighters are able to inflict the most damage to attacking Luftwaffe bomber forces. Despite having numerical superiority, the Luftwaffe were never able to gain complete confidence of air superiority over British home airspace. The issue here is confidence. Hitler required absolute confidence that he has absolute control of British home airspace before he can execute a planned invasion of the British home isles. British radars successes and the Luftwaffe's inability to evade those radars continued to produce Luftwaffe losses in quantity in both real time and in estimates of future bomber raids that those estimates forced repeated delays of that planned invasion. The Luftwaffe never had air superiority over British home airspace.

Keep in mind that for the Battle of Britain, both air forces were at technological parity in terms of combatants.

So what happens in the event of technological disparity ?

Assume that the USAF fields 10 F-16s to gain air superiority over a disputed airspace. The opposition air force fields 100 fighters -- but of WW II vintage. Each F-16 flies with the centerline fuel tank, six AMRAAMs for BVR engagements, and two Sidewinders on wing tips for WVR engagements. Assume that each missile launch is a kill. The opposition air force fighters that are of WW II vintage have only machine guns and machine cannons.

Conventional wisdom states that a 7-1 force ratio pushes the sliding scale of victory to over 50% for the force that have the numerical superiority. A 10-1 force ratio numerical disparity have that sliding scale to over 90%, pretty much assured victory.

Technology created the 'force multiplier' concept where a single combatant can produce effects of multiple combatants. The machine gun is an example. In this speculative example, each F-16 can kill 8 opponents with the question of how many will it take to bring down an F-16 unanswered. Speculate that in the first combat engagement, it took 10 of the WW II vintage fighters to overwhelm and shoot down one F-16. In the second combat engagement, no F-16s were shot down and all opposition fighters were shot down.

At this point, the opposition air force stopped and reassesses its odds of trying to achieve air superiority over this disputed airspace. Base upon the testimonies of survivors, if there are any, the opposition air force can conclude that continuing challenging the F-16s is futile. It has already lost a significant quantity of its own fighters with only one F-16 to account, the opposition air force can assume that further challenges to the F-16s may reduce its own fighters to the point where it cannot contribute anymore to the war effort. The opposition air force withdraws from that disputed airspace. It does not matter if the opposition air force knows there are only 10 F-16s to fight and one is already lost. If it takes 10 or more fighters to overwhelm one F-16, and no guarantees of that, the combination of estimated losses and no guarantees of success from overwhelming numbers became too much for the opposition air force and it withdraws from the disputed airspace.

This extreme example is not intellectually absurd as it may seems on the surface, but it is useful in establishing an intellectual baseline model for when there are variables that changes the WW II vintage fighters to something increasingly modern. When there is finally technological parity, in this intellectual exercise, sophistication in training and tactics is prominent for all sides on whether to continue trying to achieve air superiority or not.

3) Air Supremacy -- He flies, he dies.

This is where control of disputed airspace and removal of challengers are absolute. An example of this is home Iraqi airspace in Desert Storm where the US had unconditional ownership, not merely control, of home Iraqi airspace. This level of air power preeminence is a combination of numerical superiority at the correct time and battlespace, technological disparity, training, and tactics.

 

[araz]

@TaimiKhan @MastanKhan @araz I feel had PAF should have gone for both the F16 and the M2K. Not just one type.

Funding - Was never an issue. Creative financing was. Heck we can't play our cards right now, playing it right, back then is asking for too much. The same people who helped us with our Nuclear program, could have bought for us 4 ~ 5 squadrons as well.

But our tunnel vision is a benchmark, can't abandon that can we?

I may not agree with a lot of things Mastan Khan Saheb has to say, but on the JH7B, he has a very valid point. +/-10% for the price of a JF-17, but nearly two times the capability, why aren't we going for it? Do keep in mind that IF the JH7B were to be bought, it would be a much better a/c than what it is today.

a) The JF-17's magical DSI

b) We don't have the funds.

c) Our egos (PA & PAF) are too big, to look at inducting a new platform?

See Oscars first post on the topic. I started writing on the subject and left my post half done as he had provided all the information. It will give you the chronology of the events with regards to the M2K saga. On this forum we had the very man who was the defence secretary to Benazir who explained the whole saga HIMSELF. No body denies that the M2K was a good plane. It was just a really bad set of circumstances which led us down the route of not buying the aircraft. The set of circumstances stem from Benazir@s office sitting on the file for 3 months, Zardari demanding 10 million $ per plane to be added to the price, the French retracting the offer on representing it which I have alluded to and later on pushing the Rafale up our noses when we wanted 58 ex French m2k5s(as Oscar has alluded to). You can yell all you like but you have to accept that the will was always there , we just did not get the chance. For what it was worth the IAF had already procured the M2ks so our buying in the late 90s or early 2000s would not have made a difference. My problem stems from the fact that once you answer a question logically you get nothing other than personal insults from Mastan Khan. This is not the way i am used to dealing with others when debating on the forum.
Araz