Yes, and I want to add here that PAF had no need/reason to exaggerate any claim either when it comes to the number of aircraft downed, since PAF didn't incur any loss. Exaggeration only comes into play when there are losses on both sides. So in this situation, whether it was 4-0 or 7-0, it had the same image value because of the "0" for PAF -
Nations say things, but their actions reveal the truth.
So....they say that PAF didn't do as much damage as claimed, however they are now hedging their bets on their navy. Why change tactics?
This is undeniable proof that they cannot rely on their air force alone. They may now pursue their naval domain.
Unfortunately, their vikrant will be their achilles heel. Aircraft carriers are utilised by true blue water navies to project power AWAY from their shores. Traditionally, they have been used against weaker nations
(USA vs Yemen, Iraq) or will need to be used in larger numbers to provide air superiority. Pakistan is not weak, is next door and India only has one.
What can a single AC do against Pakistan with a decent naval domain? It will be a liability. If the vikrant gets taken out:
- humiliation. It will be another historical incident.
- what can they do in return that will balance this? Take out 3 of our ships? Take out 5? That is assuming we don't take out more of theirs.
If the vikrant sits it out (by essentially running away so cannot be targeted)....it will still be humiliating. Logically, that is what India should do....move it somewhere safe like the Mediterranean.
I suppose their saving grace is the unknown, unlike the PAF the navy hasn't really seen much action. My 2 pence anyway.....I have no inside knowledge, happy to be corrected.
