Indian Air Force vs. Pakistani Air Force

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I think they would roughly have the same losses with India having slightly more....after all, they were attacking, and attackers always have more losses even if they do have better technology, and the Pakistanis then had better tech. I think Indian losses might be twice the Pakistani losses....Just an estimate though.




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
ahh but who was attacking who??
Both sides claim tht the other started the war..
Although later on it was very evidnet who was attacking and who was retreating..

A note that may point you in the right direction.. during both the wars Pakistan was under military dictatorship while India was under democratic rule..
It is impossible to get a mandate for an offensive war in a democratic state unless you cook up lies like Bush and co!


Anyways.. I shal post the timeline of events for both wars as the Indians saw it and then you can judge..
This I will do over the next few days..



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I have some good avidence to prove the losses on both side but that are all pakistani web. But i am sure that is ture because some year ago i saw this figure in BBC web. and my grandfather is also eye witness. I know it is hard for indian for belive but this is fact.here is some reason accroding to my thinking why indian losses is too high.
1) Lack is advance war mchines
2) Lack of confidence and courage in indian soldier. because more then 10,000 indian soldiers were advance in lahore at first night of war but due to no comunication with their HQ and they have also fear that pakistani army may encircular them and also Pakistani public wants to fight with indians by hand to hand.
3) No Air cover by IAF to indian army in Kashmir, Lahore, Shawinda,Kasoor and siwalkot borders.
4) Poor Trainging
5) Unplan Attack by Indian Goverment and also indian Generals and Indian Army was not perpared to attack on Pakistan at that time.
6) Statigic Favor to Pakistani Army
I give you again that Losses list
Pakistan : India
1965 955 +9965
1971 4000 20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
OK suppose if indian Army able to annex lahore what do you think lahore public would accpt indian accupation. if you think like this you should be wronge because lahore will be Stallingrad For Indians.

sorry for my poor english
==================
Bye
you can contact with me at sniper_rana@hotmail.com



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
losses are debateable..
The end results of the two wars are not...



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Excerpts from F-16s and Pakistani military strategy
By Pakistani defense analyst Ahmad Faruqui

Excerpts:
"is unclear who will pay for the purchase of 100, let alone 200 F-16s. At $60 million a copy, a 100-aircraft shopping basket would run up a price tag of $6 billion. This rises to $12 billion for 200 aircraft. The mid-point of this range represents about 10 percent of Pakistan’s gross domestic product and is clearly beyond Pakistan’s financial reach"

...

"The controversy not withstanding, what is the best military use of the F-16s? The answer depends on what is Pakistan’s military objective vis à vis India.

In IAF, the PAF faces one of the best-equipped air forces in Asia. It outnumbers the PAF by 6:1 in frontline aircraft and is likely to keep at least a 5:1 edge in the years to come. Aircraft in the IAF inventory include the first-rate SU-30 and MiG-29 multi-role fighters that can easily take on the F-16, especially if they are equipped with beyond-visual-range missiles. In addition, India has one of the best air defences in Asia. The Indian army is much better equipped than the Pakistani army and double the size. The disparity in forces is even more pronounced when we compare the two navies.

The PAF would be foolhardy to assume that its F-16s can penetrate Indian airspace at will. The F-16s would be detected at take-off and face a very high risk of being shot down within seconds of entering India.

Also, very sophisticated avionics are needed to deliver nuclear warheads by F-16 aircraft. It is unlikely that the US will provide such capability to Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan may be able to “bootstrap” such capability through other means. But this carries the risk of equipment malfunction. Finally, there is the worst scenario – the possibility that the F-16s would be destroyed on the ground in a pre-emptive air strike by India."

...


"War games at numerous institutions suggest that Pakistan’s armed forces are not in a position to hold off a full-scale Indian invasion. The IAF enjoys air superiority over the PAF and Indian air defences are much better than Pakistan’s. This military imbalance cannot be overcome with bravado alone.

Should the IAF be prepared to sacrifice its own aircraft, it can destroy the PAF within a couple of days. Without air cover, the army is expected to fold in seven days. Gwadar may save the Pakistani Navy from being bottled up in the Karachi harbour, as happened in Karachi in 1971. However, it cannot save Pakistan from losing the ground battle.

Thus, the most valuable use of the F-16s is a purely defensive one, to ward off an Indian invasion by making it prohibitively costly to India. A nuclear war is a journey from which few come home. It is so much better to embark on a journey of peace and friendship. Perhaps the bus journey from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad will transform the relationship between India and Pakistan to the point that war ceases to be an option for settling disputes."



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
. The IAF enjoys air superiority over the PAF and Indian air defences are much better than Pakistan’s.




Are you sure about that air defences bit??
They were inferior to pakistan's in 71..
the PAF has a separate Air Defence command and I suspect (not sure) that their weaponry (air defence) is more advanced than ours..
though things may ahve changed with the inclusion of PAC-II and/or S-300



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Very much so. The Indian air defense system is one of the largest and densest in the world, especially along the border with Pakistan and Tibet. There is much more extensive and redundant Indian radar coverage over its territory and Pakistan's, than the Pakistanis. (An example, only recently, an Indian civil airliner intruded into Pakistani airspace, but wasn't detected (or realized) until Indian civilian air traffic controllers informed their Pak counterparts.)

In addition to to India's numerical superiority, India's anti-air, sam and radar systems are far more modern and advanced than their Pakistani counterparts. A cursory glance at their orbats show this.

Though this article is rather outdated (with new equipment and technologies inducted by India), it gives a general overview of the state of India and Pak's air defense.
Strategic Air Defences in South Asia


It's wrong to point to India over 30 years ago and say its the same today.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
lets look for a neutral view on that shall we??...
And besides S-3bs and S-8bs i didnt see much else on the surface air defences..



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   
What neutral view? I just showed you a reputable Pakistani source and a reputable Indian source both saying the exact thing. I'ts not rocket science either: just look at the orbats of the two forces and see who has more and who is more advanced.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yo Neuteral on the india-pakistan crisses.

i believe with reliable sources that Pakistan since it came in existance as of rival India. in the past wars it has kicked your silly a$$

look it riped your co*k out in 1965 as its shortes war in the history of the world and kicked one of the world most advanced and biggest army to pieces


Read the source
www.topfighters.com...
HAHAHA

why do you fight the Paks while you make peace and increace your relience

and another thing you forget that the kargil war which also riped your co*k out done by the same Paks embarasing,
pakdef.info...

and also MM ALam 1965 Shot down 5 Hunter in less then a minute
www.aircraftresourcecenter.com...


All sources are not from sources from are independent and will not have view both counteries i.e they dont care about india-pakistan crissis


[edit on 3-6-2005 by Interseptor]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
In 1971 93000(ninety-three thousand)Bonded paki arymen made National highway from New Delhi to Meerut.They were really good workers as the road works really well till today.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Stealth Spy
 


Its not just your opinion budyy. The Su-30 MKI incorporates pinnacles of Indian, Israeli and French technologies, combined with an excellent maneuverability. I say this because, I am myself a pilot from the Indian Air Force and have recently got my rating for this lovely Russian beauty.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


the Indian and the Isreali Airforce are the best forces in the world..!! End of story..!!



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AtheiX
 

you know why indian pilots have been invited to red flag day, its because they had it in them.. its not what kind of jets they use but what matters is that their pilots are too good to handle even for USAF... and dont you forget about the Su-30 MKI the first plane to have 2D vector thrust.. one of the top most fighter jet in the world after f22



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Subject: Pakistani Air Force has won every encounter against the Indian Air Force
Indian resources have naturally refuted and denied PAF air superiority over the FIVE times larger IAF in the 65 and 71 wars. Indian and Pakistani claims and counter claims are pointless on this subject as they tend to be biased and blurred with nationalism. The only way to assess this is through the neutral and qualified international opinion, which has now become aviation history. Check out autobiography of Gen. Chuck Yeagers (yes, the one who broke the sound barrier), who 'refereed' the 1971 war and flew up and down the region collecting wreckage of IAF aircraft shot down by the PAF. Here is what he says, "the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio knocking out 102 Indian jets and losing 34 of their own. I am certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below. I counted wrecks, documented them by serial numbers, identified the components such as engines and rocket pods" Now he is not exactly a Pakistani, is he?

Check out the following world reputed aviation journals.

USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.
"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

UK - Air International - November - 1991
" the average PAF pilot is almost certainly possessed of superior skills when compared with, say, an average American pilot. As to those who are rated above average, they compare favourably to the very best "

Encyclopaedia of Aircraft printed in several countries by Orbis publications - Volume 5

"Pakistan's air force gained a remarkable victory over India in this brief 22 day war exploiting its opponents weaknesses in exemplary style - Deeply shaken by reverse, India began an extensive modernisation and training program, meanwhile covering its defeat with effective propaganda smoke screen.

If you feel more at ease with German and French, then also checkout the followings
Air Action (France) December 1988 and January 1989
Flugzeug (Germany) February (2) 1989

In addition to this, PAF put on show for inspection, its entire fleets after BOTH of the wars in presence of world dignitaries and aviation community. The five times bigger IAF should have annihilated the tiny PAF to prevent such displays!!!!!!
Now these are FACTS - what rides on a wave of nationalism is just fiction.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
IAF obviously. But that's not what I'm here for. Why the hell are we offering the F-16C & AESA F-18E/F to India, WHILE selling Pakistan Block 52 + F-16 aircraft? Yeah. Both these aircraft are for the most part superior to the USAF itself. And I bet you both are selling the information to China. Maybe we should finance the Israelis AND the Arabs, while letting them sell technologies to future rivals? Oh wait... we do.


Imagine in 10 years time. F-18E/F vs F-16 Block 52....


[edit on 14/12/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 21 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
hehe....you need to do some research to see whos selling tech to china and vice versa



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 



I wrote about this seemingly alarming trend about a year ago in a discussion regarding the Indian AF. The conclusion I reached, and the answer most obvious, is that of influence. The U.S.-India nuclear deal, U.S.-India Foreign Military Sales, Red Flag 08-4 invite, the Cope India & Malabar series, etc… Essentially, and unabashed about it, we're whoring ourselves to gain leverage and influence within India on a variety of fronts, from the financial sector, to politics and then of course the military aspect.

No doubt in the coming decades India will start to solidify its position as a regional power and move on to global aspirations. When that time comes the United States prefers to be the favored "superpower" and to have an established and close relationship with India in all spheres. It would be ideal to shut down Russian military exports into India, keep India wary of China and not interested in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Instead we would prefer they join our discreet "NATO of the Pacific" group along with Japan, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines. The end goal of course is to contain China within the first Island Chain and out of the Indian Ocean and deep Pacific. India has taken several steps in this direction, however as of date these steps largely remain symbolic and superficial.

In the end we could be shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak, by offering them advanced technology and such close cooperation, we have in the past, so it remains a possibility. Still, the general attitude of the Indian leadership strikes me as being a cautious one. I don’t see India truly aligning themselves with a major world power, cause or philosophy until they are in a much more favorable position (industrial, economical, technological, militarily etc… However by then it might be too late dictate terms should they be unfavorable, and therein lies the inherent risk.

Personally I think in the long run our (U.S.) way of life and general attitudes are compatible with the general Indian population. As such, of all the possible future scenarios I place little chance in one where the U.S. and India are diametrically opposed, in all regimes. They might not be as open to us as say the U.K., and they don’t have too but certainly there is a possibility for cooperation and mutual support. Much more than there is with China or Russia.

You can find much better Op/Ed pieces on this issue by various U.S./Indian political and military leaders. It is a complicated topic and one post of mine is not going to clear it up, but that is the gist of it.

Lastly, it is in our interest to keep both sides at least within arm's length of each other, when it comes to military capacity. No one wants a war between the two sides, nuclear weapons aside, it would be a huge geopolitical, humanitarian and economical crises. If both sides do not respect each other when it comes to military capability, the trigger finger could get a little happy. Pakistan, for all its shortcoming has still come through big. Allowing us access to its supply lines, access to its airspace, access to its intelligence capabilities, access to its military etc… It has proven to be a "stable" and "friendly" partner, relatively speaking. This despite the internal composition of Pakistan, its warring factions and its ideologically extreme minority. If we were to completely abandon Pakistan it would be disastrous, the possible consequences of which are not only severe but too long to list.


[edit on 25-12-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
some things hiting its own bildings after getting mad





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join