PAF Special Purpose Assets - News, Discussions & Updates

@Oscar We've had some X accounts post the purported serial numbers of the IAF planes the PAF claimed to have shot down. Would there be an actual reason why the IAF would not come back and show said planes in good working order? I'm not asking to imply the planes were lost, just trying to figure out of there's an end-user restriction or protocol that would prevent such a thing.
 
@Oscar We've had some X accounts post the purported serial numbers of the IAF planes the PAF claimed to have shot down. Would there be an actual reason why the IAF would not come back and show said planes in good working order? I'm not asking to imply the planes were lost, just trying to figure out of there's an end-user restriction or protocol that would prevent such a thing.
You generally may not want to confirm it that way - if there is a loss but the number is disputed you would be favored to keep the actual number guessed.
 
PAF in Alternate Universe lmao. Not even a single information is correct. Even though its supposed to be upto date till last month lmao

It labels the base HQ-9 as the HQ-9B, simple knowledge that anybody with basic know how about such systems would know, it also assumes every system in PAF is degraded, like? Who told you that? The Manufacturers? PAF themselves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRK
It labels the base HQ-9 as the HQ-9B, simple knowledge that anybody with basic know how about such systems would know, it also assumes every system in PAF is degraded, like? Who told you that? The Manufacturers? PAF themselves?
The radar inventory size, type, variant used are all wrong. Let's not correct them lmao.
 
Also you are writing a book on PAF why would you write a whole large ass paragraph on Tejas and how it uses Composites lmao. Haven't seen these type of comparisons before anywhere.
 
Also you are writing a book on PAF why would you write a whole large ass paragraph on Tejas and how it uses Composites lmao. Haven't seen these type of comparisons before anywhere.

It also makes assumptions based on decade or 2 old data, it mentions the HQ-12 which I don't know where that came from? It mentions rumours of the HQ-9 purchase, even though it has already been acquired and has been in service for several years now.
 
Downgraded info? What does that mean?
By deliberately given less accurate info related to specifications number and role of equipment
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Posts

Back
Top