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

[Windjammer]

IDF....... Israeli Defence Force !!!!

Can some one enlighten me how much of a defensive force the Israelis are.
Doctrines and Terminologies......Please.

 

[N/A]

IDF....... Israeli Defence Force !!!!

Can some one enlighten me how much of a defensive force the Israelis are.
Doctrines and Terminologies......Please.

Just ask the Palestinian women and children about the multiple war crimes carried out by Israeli forces under the false pretext of "Defense"

 

[Windjammer]

Just ask the Palestinian women and children about the multiple war crimes carried out by Israeli forces under the false pretext of "Defense"

Even without the Palestinians testifying, it's not difficult to see how the Israelis defend themselves by using F-16s against AK-47s. ...., you can impose any doctrine but how you imply it what matters.

 

[N/A]

Even without the Palestinians testifying, it's not difficult to see how the Israelis defend themselves by using F-16s against AK-47s. ...., you can impose any doctrine but how you imply it what matters.

Exactly the Israeli have been committing war crimes for decades now without a peep from Uncle Sam. The only threat the Israelis faced were from home made Hamas rocket, however the Iron Dome reduced that threat as well. The Israeli break the third Law of the International Law of Armed Conflicts in every engagement. The third law states that a combatant must comply with the requirement of proportionality. In other words, it requires combatants to use the military force necessary to accomplish the military objective, but no overkill. Ironically, the IAF destroys a whole city block with multiple air sorties in order to assassinate one person, which can be simply achieved by an armed drone

 

[I.R.A]

I am not an expert (oh well not even a student of) military affairs and strategies, but the thing I would like to learn is whether is it really the money that is the bottle neck for our defense / offense strategies or is it our vision that is restricted?

I mean suppose if we had all the money to buy latest crafts and gadgets, will we be going for what serves us more than our defense requirements and portrays us as a power capable of invading any corner of the world? Or we will limit our purchasing to something that suffices our defensive - to be offensive if need arises approach?

Is it the money or the approach?

 

[MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n]

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

and even on top of that they did not even tried to raise up the fighter numbers only to defend the nation with the madman ratio of 1:3 or so in the indian favour ...

 

[unleashed]

To finance an airforce you need billions of dollars, it doesn't come cheap, the economy in Pakistan has been shattered since the 90s militancy has made things and continues to make things a problem.
Here are the issues
1.chinese fighters like J-10,JF-17 JH-7A are completely unproven in combat the F-16s are better then all 3. Chinese technology is completely unreliable.
2. The PAF seems F-16 orientated because its a proven platform. Its hard to think of a decent Proven 4th generation fighter plane in the market that can offer what the F-16 offers.
3. The US and India is a big problem, These Bastards literally have hundreds of F-16s Rotting in Navada desert, if they were good allies they could literally sell several squadrons to the PAF at a throw away price, but the sons of bitches dont want to hurt indian sensitivity.
I wouldnt even call the current airforce Pakistan has defensive, the PAF only has 70+ F-16s against IAF 300+ SU-30/MIRAGE/Mig-29, to be able to defend your skies you need atleast 200+ F-16s, I dont think the IAF considers the JF-17 a threat, even though its an accomplishment for Pakistan, Its role is a supporting role. The JF-17 IMO doesn't pack that great a punch

Dhamakadar Entry.
Not Bad mate

 

[SP!TF!R3]

In Chess,we use a term "Over extended"..

thats why Pakistan is trying to do,or rather I'd say,followed a way which will result into..

Pakistan doesn't and can't allocate a budget comparable to 1/4 th defense budget of India easily can,which means a lot of things India can afford which is strictly prohibited for Pakistan.If their Budget doesn't permit an offensive posture,then it is rather good to take defensive one than going offensive and getting kicked..

One Eg..

India and Russia made a deal to make some 1000 T-50s(500 for India and Russia,500 for external customers).Well,India reduced it a bit later,but even then,it stands some 100+ 5th gen aircrafts.

if Pakistan has to match it,they'll atleast have to buy 2-3 sqds of 5th gen,which will be as costly as entire defense budget of Pakistan for 1 year.Can Pakistan afford this??

Same goes for every field of Navy,Army and Airforce as well.JF-17 is good one for defending a country(Maybe Switzerland,who doesn't have any enemy,or any country whose enemy doesn't have a good airforce.I too believe that JF-17 is not good aircraft to become backbone of PAF) and is good to serve as say Point defense or such roles and not to go head to head against much more capable aircrafts.and for that,it is needed to change the policy towards enemy.If PAF announces it that they're no longer a "Credible Attacking Force" and "Totally or Mostly Defensive",then its good that they're getting JF-17.but if they are ambitious,then JF-17 is not a good option after all.Its good against Iran and Afghanistan maybe,but against "India and China"??(technically China is not Pakistan's enemy,but every country poses minimum defense against each of their neighbours)..

 

[Pindi Boy]

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

you are disgracing paf efforts

 

[r0ck]

By reading the disparities between the numbers, PAF actually garners more respect in the eyes of the reader.

I understand that there's always room for improvement, but apparently PAF is out-numbered, out-gunned and ill-equipped to counter IAF incursions in Pakistan and yet have somehow managed to do exactly that (i.e. counter IAF incursions in Pakistan).

So there must be something else, that's keeping the IAF at bay.

Maybe its India's high moral ground to not incur into Pakistani airspace or maybe its that PAF is simply more effective with their whatever limted arsenal than IAF.

Anyone can tell its not the morality aspect.

So the logical reason is that PAF's doing a great job.

 

[aliyusuf]

By reading the disparities between the numbers, PAF actually garners more respect in the eyes of the reader.

I understand that there's always room for improvement, but apparently PAF is out-numbered, out-gunned and ill-equipped to counter IAF incursions in Pakistan and yet have somehow managed to do exactly that (i.e. counter IAF incursions in Pakistan).

So there must be something else, that's keeping the IAF at bay.

Maybe its India's high moral ground to not incur into Pakistani airspace or maybe its that PAF is simply more effective with their whatever limted arsenal than IAF.

Anyone can tell its not the morality aspect.

So the logical reason is that PAF's doing a great job.

The reason PAF has been seemingly doing its job (so serenely even) is because India has not felt encouraged to fully challenge its capabilities over the past several years. Oh yes there has been some sabre rattling a few times but largely IAF completely feels safe over Its own skies and has the confidence that if the objectives justify the cost of any operation over Pakistan they will achieve it.

That cost is the core of the matter here. It is the cost of air craft, trained personnel and other tactical and strategic losses (not to mention the huge financial cost of such an operation and it's resounding after shocks to the economy in the coming times is going to be significant) that will be incurred if the IAF is to counter the PAF over Pakistani skies in the pursuit of these clearly defined objectives.

So far it does not think that the situation warrants that these objectives be fulfilled at the required cost that will be incurred.

Now it is to the credit of PAF's readiness and proficiency (or whatever?) that India's threshold for feeling that need to fulfill its objectives has not come down if not increased ... in spite of all the drama of "Mumbai Attacks" etc. Despite all the apparent numerical and technological advantage the IAF enjoys over the PAF.

But IAF does not feel in any way challenged by the PAF at the moment.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[monitor]

IDF....... Israeli Defence Force !!!!

Can some one enlighten me how much of a defensive force the Israelis are.
Doctrines and Terminologies......Please.

More appropriate is to replace devil in place of defence.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

And you know where this 5/10 bn could have come from, but we messed it up big time!

Zardari and few from nawaz family . We will surely cross this figure.

 

[Indus Falcon]

Navy is surface fleet, which means surface vessels.
Aviation and Sub Surface forces are supporting (offensive) assets supplementing the surface fleet.

Apologies, I think I wasn't clear. Let me be specific.

PN currently has +/- 10 frigates. Now instead of increasing this number substantially, an overhaul of the fleet with the Type-21's and OHP class being replaced, with more capable Chinese variants, taking the number upto............? OR overhauling the Type 21's into a completely new platform?

Secondly, increase the number of subs from 8 to ...........? ?

Thirdly, At least 3 dedicated air squadrons of twin engine jets. Having gone through the Sino defence forums thread on JH7B Mastan Sahab has definitely given me a lot to think about.

JH-7/JH-7A/JH-7B Thread | Page 150 | China Defence Forum


I have intentionally left the blanks for you. I would appreciate if you would share your opinion.

Best Regards

 

[Bouncer]

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.
..
....

.

For those who didn't read this wall of text, here are key points from @MastanKhan

1. The PAF has been a defensive force
2. Americans dangled F-16 as a carrot to Pakistan.
3. F-16 was an overkill for the Afghan war.

I am by no means an expert of defense procurement, policy or strategy.But there are a few glaring FACTUAL INACCURACIES in his post which so many readers here have failed to point out.

1. PAF has been a defensive force-- right and you didn't read anything about the air battles of 65 and 71. Preepmtive strikes on Indian airbases and all were not offensive at all?
2. Americans actually offered the F-20 (tiger something) but the PAF INSISTED on the F-16. And the money for these F-16s were partially covered by the Americans. Read more, dear Sir.
3. Maybe. PAF strategists at the time also had to think about a possible (limited or full scale) Russian invasion. And India has always been there. So F-16 might have been an overkill for the Afghan airforce threat, but certainly not for Russian and Indian threat. This is what happens when you rant about things you don't know--you embarrass yourself.