What's new

What if PAF has to defend on two fronts?

Birds of feather, flock together (Zaid Hamid and MBI Munshi)

I wonder why you guys are so much obsessed with Zaid Hamid. He speaks for himself and its upto people to believe or not whatever he says….If you find his theories absurd then there are millions of Pakistanis that find Indian media’s theories ridiculous too…:agree:

You don’t like him, don’t listen to him…Simple...stop whining about him now and get over with your sarcasm...
 
Hi Fatman,


"without being jingoistic, i believe we r doing a dis-service to the PAF. if any serving PAF pilot or airman reads the above comments...you can percieve what he will be thinking "!!!




I am a little slow this morning. Please elaborate.
 
Musharraf was perhaps the best thing that could have happened to Pakistan in the situation. I wish India had leaders like this to lead with equal zeal and patriotism.

The billion of dollars he had extricated as "aid" was a great boost to both your economy and millitary. With his diplomacy and tact Pakistan continued to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare's of the world.

Thankfully the people of Pakistan did India a favour and got rid of the man


Hawkeye - i agree with you to a certain extent but "hunting with the hounds, and running with the hares policy" has had its negative repurcusions like the FATA quagmire.

fatman17;sir
regards , FATA situation happened just because, many of our politicians from the religious parties used it in thier own profit, MULANA FAZUL-UR-REHMAN, QAZI HUSSAIN , and many others used it in thier own intersts!
at the same time MUSHARF to uneducated about pakistani politicians?
out of topic, its the truth?
plz , give some good out puts or options, on the issue, which PAF can effectivly utilize, in defending pakistan on 2 fronts, i guss its difficult but not impossible!:agree::tup:
 
GEO Pakistan
IAF did not violate Pak airspace: India
Updated at: 1752 PST, Thursday, December 18, 2008

NEW DELHI: Indian External Affairs Ministry (MEA) said on Thursday that Indian Air Force fighter jets did not intrude into Pakistan’s airspace.

Earlier, Pakistan’s foreign ministry summoned Indian Deputy High Commissioner and lodged strong protest over violation of Pakistan’s airspace by Indian jets.

Indian fighter jets had violated Pakistan’s air space in Lahore and Kashmir sectors on December 13. President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani termed the violation a ‘technical error’.

I GUSS, ITS NOT YELLOW JOURNALISM, BUT ITS CALLED "LIES"!:tsk::lol:



washingtonpost.com
Pakistan Cites Airspace Breach
Minister Says 'Our Forces Are Alert' After Indian Incursions


By Candace Rondeaux
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, December 14, 2008;

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 14 -- Pakistan said Indian fighter jets crossed into its airspace Saturday, prompting Pakistan to place its air force on high alert two weeks after India vowed to take strong action against its nuclear-armed rival in the wake of deadly attacks in Mumbai.

Pakistan's minister of information, Sherry Rehman, said the Indian jets had "inadvertently" strayed into Pakistani airspace. Rehman said that Pakistani officials had been in contact with the Indian air force and that it had confirmed the breach.

"The Pakistani air force has made a routine response, and our forces are alert," Rehman said. "There is no need for undue alarm."

Commodore Humayun Viqar, a spokesman for Pakistan's air force, said Pakistani fighter jets were scrambled in response to the breaches near the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir and the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore. Viqar said Pakistan's air force would remain on alert to "thwart any aggression" from India. :agree::tup:
Pakistani air force officials said the incidents appeared to have occurred around midday Saturday near two areas where the militant group Lashkar-i-Taiba is thought to have planned the attacks that killed more than 170 people and injured at least 230 in Mumbai last month.

A spokesman for the Indian air force, Wing Cmdr. Mahesh Upasni, said Sunday that the "Indian air force has denied that there's been any airspace violation in its path."

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since the British partitioned the subcontinent in 1947.

Enmity between the two countries deepened after India conducted its first nuclear bomb test in 1974. In May 1998, India conducted underground nuclear tests near its border with Pakistan. In response, Pakistan conducted six tests that year in the southern province of Baluchistan and tested its first long-range missile.

The escalation in the arms race drew sharp condemnation from the West, prompting the United States to cut off billions in aid under stiff sanctions against both countries.

India and Pakistan began a peace process in 2004, but tensions have remained high since July, when a suicide bomber targeted the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 58 people, including the Indian defense attache to Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence officials later said there was evidence that Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, had sponsored the attack. Pakistan's government denied involvement.

After the Mumbai attacks, India accused the ISI of aiding and training the 10 alleged Lashkar gunmen who struck two luxury hotels, a train station, a Jewish cultural center and other sites in a three-day siege of India's financial capital. Indian officials have said that interrogations of the gunman captured during the attacks have revealed links between the gunmen and Lashkar operational commanders based in Pakistan. Pakistan has repeatedly denied any ISI involvement in the attacks.

India demanded that Pakistan arrest and extradite at least three top Lashkar leaders, including Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, one of the alleged masterminds of the Mumbai attacks, and Lashkar founder Hafiz Sayeed. Lakhvi was arrested in a raid last Sunday on a camp run by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, a group long said to be a front for Lashkar.

On Thursday, Pakistani authorities placed Sayeed under house arrest after closing down dozens of Jamaat-ud-Dawa offices.

Correspondent Emily Wax in New Delhi contributed to this report.



NOW WHAT TO SAY!:lol::tsk:
 
Last edited:
SmashJ; sir
well done, :tup:;) comming to the point, good thinking, you seems t me a nice guy! but can you same points to your airchief, under whose command
"IAF intruded pakistani air space" how about that?:D

Batmannow -
Calm down. If you notice, the PAF veterans on the forum are not excited about the IAF incursion. Why? Because a single aircraft skirting IB by 4 km and being bounced is a non-event and does not mean any attack is being planned. True it was not accidental, Indian govt is just playing to it's masses by symbolic shows like this. The "incursion" was intended to be symbolic. What else was it supposed to mean?:what:

It was not even to test PAF preparedness. Of course PAF would be prepared, especially after Mumbai attacks. It's common sense, mate.
 
Or Pakistan disintegrates into small warlord dominated provinces such as Somalia or Taliban Afghanistan. In such a scenario different factions inside Pakistan would be too busy fighting among themselves to bother India and if they do IAF could easily take care of them without the fear of any serious reprisals.

Thus India is a win win situation whereas the very existence of Pakistan is in danger.
...
Based on the above, I don’t see why IAF should take action against Pakistan, when they can possibly get an international force to do their job. Therefore IMO IAF won’t attack inside Pakistan because this means total war with unforeseen consequences. If the actually do, than they are being stupid.

Dear Niaz
Recent history has shown that small unstable states like Somalia or Taliban Afghanistan have caused more problems than large stable states (like Iran or North Korea). I'm sure Indian policy makers know this. After all, the Mumbai attack was successfully executed not by PAF F16s or Ghauri missiles, but by a ragtag bunch of lads trained by an outlaw force...and no Mig-29 or Su-30 could stop them....so believe me, Indian policy makers know that an unstable Pakistan is a larger problem for India with potential uncontrolled Jihadi attacks. Not one Indian city is fool-proof, in fact they are still totally vulnerable to similar attacks like Mumbai. In this situation, India needs a stable Pakistani civilian government.

Your point about IAF not attacking is correct. It is cheaper and easier for India to get UK/US put pressure on civilian Pak government to snuff out funding and infrastructure of JM and LET....than by waging war. I just don't see war happening any time soon....
 
Dear Niaz
Recent history has shown that small unstable states like Somalia or Taliban Afghanistan have caused more problems than large stable states (like Iran or North Korea). I'm sure Indian policy makers know this. After all, the Mumbai attack was successfully executed not by PAF F16s or Ghauri missiles, but by a ragtag bunch of lads trained by an outlaw force...and no Mig-29 or Su-30 could stop them....so believe me, Indian policy makers know that an unstable Pakistan is a larger problem for India with potential uncontrolled Jihadi attacks. Not one Indian city is fool-proof, in fact they are still totally vulnerable to similar attacks like Mumbai. In this situation, India needs a stable Pakistani civilian government.

Your point about IAF not attacking is correct. It is cheaper and easier for India to get UK/US put pressure on civilian Pak government to snuff out funding and infrastructure of JM and LET....than by waging war. I just don't see war happening any time soon....

What about next time there is a Mumbai? Do you really think it is possible to place the responsibility on Pak government to finish terrorism when Indian navy can't even patrol it's own waters? Next time there is an act of terror and Pakistan is blamed again, what will India do to appease the nation?
 
What about next time there is a Mumbai? Do you really think it is possible to place the responsibility on Pak government to finish terrorism when Indian navy can't even patrol it's own waters? Next time there is an act of terror and Pakistan is blamed again, what will India do to appease the nation?

Obviously, this is real life and there are no quick fixes. Terrorism cannot be switched on and off....and the reality is that random attacks by small groups just cannot be prevented any where, whether on Mumbai coast or London Tube. Navy cannot patrol every square foot of coast, can it? Failure was systemic - coast guard, maritime police, local under-equipped police, delay in commando deployment, failure to act on intel, etc...India is rightly focusing on fixing these internal problems.
War at the scale that is being talked about on this forum is infinitely more expensive for both countries, in terms of human lives at stake as well as cost of prosecuting the war.
What if there is another attack on the same scale as Mumbai? Again, any response will have to undergo same cost/benefit analysis....that's all I can say...
 
Actually this thread is Can PAF fight on two or maybe multiple fronts ? Not any or many posts or analysis on this thread commenting on that, just bragging on PAF vs IAF.

If the above Two front theory came true I think it would follow the following sequence

Surge takes place in Aghanistan as UK now and US later withdraws troops from Iraq.

LET, JUD , AQ inspired fools trained in Pakistan attack US / Israeli interests in the same manner.

0400 hrs massive communication jamming of PAF and GOP assets followed by divisionary attack by USAF Special forces in Tribal areas.

A 1000 plane task force consisting of Israeli, US, NATO (maybe us and France only), Indian and Russian Force are launched at 0430 hrs from atleast 6 different directions on Pakistan with the primary aim of neutralising the PAF and the missile launch capacity.

Simultaneous launch from sea by US using cruise missiles to neutralise PAF logistics.

Only military targets of PAF are attacked.

Kiyani and Zardari will be told that every nuke will be meet by 10 nukes and hence have
these guys the guts to press the button of what nuke assets are left?

At 0600 hrs the second sortie of 1000 more planes of US, Russian, Israeli and Indian hit the remaining PAF targets.

Now how will PAF will behave and how long will it last is what the thread is about ?

Right. Lets have comments on the above or whatever scenario the original poster envisaged. Also whats China's reaction ?

Regards
 
Actually this thread is Can PAF fight on two or maybe multiple fronts ? Not any or many posts or analysis on this thread commenting on that, just bragging on PAF vs IAF.

If the above Two front theory came true I think it would follow the following sequence

Surge takes place in Aghanistan as UK now and US later withdraws troops from Iraq.

LET, JUD , AQ inspired fools trained in Pakistan attack US / Israeli interests in the same manner.

0400 hrs massive communication jamming of PAF and GOP assets followed by divisionary attack by USAF Special forces in Tribal areas.

A 1000 plane task force consisting of Israeli, US, NATO (maybe us and France only), Indian and Russian Force are launched at 0430 hrs from atleast 6 different directions on Pakistan with the primary aim of neutralising the PAF and the missile launch capacity.

Simultaneous launch from sea by US using cruise missiles to neutralise PAF logistics.

Only military targets of PAF are attacked.

Kiyani and Zardari will be told that every nuke will be meet by 10 nukes and hence have
these guys the guts to press the button of what nuke assets are left?

At 0600 hrs the second sortie of 1000 more planes of US, Russian, Israeli and Indian hit the remaining PAF targets.

Now how will PAF will behave and how long will it last is what the thread is about ?

Right. Lets have comments on the above or whatever scenario the original poster envisaged. Also whats China's reaction ?

Regards


If that happens, World War 3 has already started!!!!
 
No matter what pakistan is going to use its nukes in that case..even before the attack is launched....remember its not easy to attack a nuclear state..
 
Dear niaz , sir
thanks a lot sir, for your contribution to the thread but, i dont agree to the point that pakistan should keep its hands in the dirty war in afghanistan, its oky with the small kind of opreation against the people who were fighting against pakistan, but we should stop of bieng " chokidar"!
after 8 long years , pakistan was still told "do more,do more" and there is no concrete thinking of pakistan's economic, & defence needs , we were bieng payed like a "daily wages employe", the other thing which we should take care of! is our "slave like attitude", & our fear of the hardships !

yes we should , try to build good relationship with india, but its not only on us that we should follow everything , from everybody?
if india can break in to our airspace 3 times in week , USAF keep sending its drones , no matter how much our people like or not! is that what we called ourselves a independent nation!

the whole theory , of "FIGHTING THE WAR OF TERROR" was resulted in huge distruction of the pakistani society, its economy & its unity, i guss its about time that we should , try to mentain peace, but only if the others are serious about peace too, its not only pakistan,s responsibilty to be a " CHOKIDAR" OF PEACE.
well , i dont mind if you cant see , IAF flying SU30's on lahore , karachi , faisalabad, sialkot, its already 3 times this week that , IAF BREAK INTO OUR AIRSPACE, still you think that they are just , looking some tea shop to drink tea! than its oky & fine:lol:


Sorry i have not been able to keep up with news lately, all i know indian air force violated our air space on sunday 14/12/08 but when did they violate our air space other 2 times ??????!!!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom