Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 282

Thread: Pakistan Air Force Thread 4.

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,897
    Quote Originally Posted by vikasrehman View Post
    Teer



    A few years ago, my humble opinion was that if growing pak/Ind disparity keeps widening, Pakistan would increasingly see nuclear weapons as its best line of defence. My fear is that this is exactly what is happening, and that such thinking might even overtake their conventional defence doctorine.
    Which India will again counter with the use of both more nukes and platforms which have no equivalents in the Pak arsenal, eg BGVs like Shourya and SSBNs like Arihant, and tomorrow, even more advanced platforms capable of n-delivery like 5G aircraft. And in the BM arena, India will field more and more systems to whittle down the deterrent capability of Pak n-systems.

    Basically, irrespective of what Pak does, it will not be able to catch up with India. India currently has one of the most peacenik govts ever, headed by a bureaucrat who has gone over and above his mandate to meet Pak. demands, yet India's recapitalization of its defence systems has started off. The AF & Navy both have been substantially successful & both have kicked off their programs in earnest, with substantial orders, local and international placed & other programs well on track. The Army has been partly successful - in terms of armor and NBC, and a flop in terms of new arty guns but even that will be ultimately addressed.

    The bigger point is one way or the other, Pak has to look at its own strategy of seeing India as a rival; ultimately the gap between the two countries, economically and technologically is too wide and is only going to grow. The more Pak spends on defence to somehow close the gap, thats that much money away from its civilian economy, and hence that much more against Paks own attempts to redress the gap, since military spending flows from civilian inflow. Now with US aid also in doldrums, where will Pak get assistance from. I dont think China will be as generous in the tune of billions of dollars.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,897
    Quote Originally Posted by vikasrehman View Post
    I think by 2020, every single fighter in IAF/PAF scenario would carry BVRAAMs.
    Is the PAF going to phase out the F-7 fleet, until that is done, I dont think the entire PAF will be BVR armed. IIR PAF has around 200 F-7s and 180 Mirages, and even if the PAF does acquire JF-17s in bulk, if it can afford to so, the Mirages would be replaced first, given their vintage.

    By 2020, for the IAF pretty much all new aircraft (Su-30 MKI, LCA, MMRCA) are coming with BVR and Mirage and Mig-29 upgrades likewise, around 80%+ of the fleet basically. Jaguars like Boom said, we'll have to see. Thats around 100-120 planes which may be BVR armed but which will surely either get ASRAAM or P-5 with HMDS (current competition) and are also in line for new engines.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,897
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Why do you think India will adopt this new policy? What evidence do you have?
    That Mirage 2000 upgrade deal for $4Bn with a huge weapons package (450 Micas), despite a cheaper Israeli option, and a relatively slow delivery (~9 years versus 5 for the MiG-29)...well, to my mind, its a clear quid pro quo for not selling similar kit to Pak for the JF-17. Its recompense to French industry, 'swhat it is, given the Pakistanis were asking for similar stuff - Micas etc and the French Govt was reportedly being lobbied by India. Otherwise, with even the AF divided on the deal and the huge cost and cheaper options available, MOF would have cancelled it, like they did with the initial tanker bid from Europe.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,852
    So the PAF will operate what air-to-air missiles in the 2015-2020 timeframe?
    Go Huskers!

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    uk, newcastle
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    India always adopted this policy its nothing new. It tried its best with the Americans, May be its one of the reasons why India did not choose the F 16. It has tried to derail the RD-93 deal without success as well.

    But the scenarios are different.

    a. American defense companies are not in dire need of the Indian market like Europeans are because their domestic market is big enough.

    b. India has little leverage over Russia and cannot play hardball with them because of the sheer number of products which we need spares from them and the number of Jvs we are involved with them.

    c. Not the same in the case of cash starved French/Europeans they could really do with our money and its not really an option for them to take Pakistan millions instead of our billions.

    There is already evidence as French have openly stated they won't be selling weapons to Pakistan
    So in summary, India tried to apply this policy to the Russians. Russians said 'computer says "no"', and India signs a how many billion deal for PAKFA?

    India tries with the Americans, new F16s for PAF and existing fleet being upgraded to Blk52 standard. India buys C17s.

    No exactly a stella track record.

    In fact, has there actually been a case where India has tried this and it has worked?

    Even if the French don't sell any weapons/engines to Pakistan in the meantime to not harm their chances on other deals, what exactly is going to stop them selling stuff to Pakistan after those deals are over?

    If the French wins the IAF deal and/or Mistral/sub deals. What is India going to do if the French then sells stuff to Pakistan after the contracts have been signed and/or payments made? Stop buying spares and weapons?
    the true power of religion does not lie with the deity, it lies with the priests.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    My Guess would be.

    AIM 9L-M

    AMRAAM C-5

    A-Darter

    SD-10
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    Quote Originally Posted by plawolf View Post
    So in summary, India tried to apply this policy to the Russians. Russians said 'computer says "no"', and India signs a how many billion deal for PAKFA?

    India tries with the Americans, new F16s for PAF and existing fleet being upgraded to Blk52 standard. India buys C17s.

    No exactly a stella track record.

    In fact, has there actually been a case where India has tried this and it has worked?

    Even if the French don't sell any weapons/engines to Pakistan in the meantime to not harm their chances on other deals, what exactly is going to stop them selling stuff to Pakistan after those deals are over?

    If the French wins the IAF deal and/or Mistral/sub deals. What is India going to do if the French then sells stuff to Pakistan after the contracts have been signed and/or payments made? Stop buying spares and weapons?
    Do you think these few deals would be the last ? and think they will be finalised anytime soon ?

    India will have more to offer to France anyday to keep it from offering weapons to Pakistan.

    Even the Russians and Americans while offering weapons to Pakistan do not offer the same level of technology or equipment they offer to India.

    As for the Russians saying no, Russia has other markets like China to sell their weapons to, and India stands more to lose (for now) in a breakdown of defense ties with Russia. Same cannot be said about French they could really do with our billions.

    But hey why does Pakistan need French weapons if the Chinese ones are good enough ?
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,897
    Quote Originally Posted by CAT1 View Post
    You did not talk about avionics alone in your previous posts – but rather gave chapter and verse why the JF-17 was not as good as the block52 – something which I had never claimed in the first place – and that was the point.
    So we are agreed then on the facts that the JF-17 is not the equal of the F-16s Block 52s whether it be in terms of payload and range or avionics...I already quoted your statement which equated the two, and its pretty clear they are not the same class of aircraft. As long as you are open about this, I don;t think there is any argument.

    No its nothing like saying SU-30 is a joint project – the little difference being that the JF-17 is actually and officially a 50/50 joint project and SU-30 is not.
    India funded the Su-30 MKI, and contributes systems to it of its own design & manufacture and is increasing the same. Even so IP of the basic platform rests with Russia, since it did most of the work for the Flanker series and has access to it. Same as with JF-17 and CATIC. Can PAC tomorrow make a Super JF-17 without CATIC assistance or only 50% workshare from CATIC?

    If not, all you are saying is semantics.

    As matter of fact, the Super-30 upgrade will increase the Indian contribution to the aircraft in some areas. I am yet to see any details even in the AFM article of Pak contributing heavily in terms of systems to the JF-17, it mostly talks of licensed assembly and TOT from CATIC to PAC. Chinese engineers going to Pakistan setting up the assembly lines and so forth..

    A better comparison would be PAKFA --- using your logic will India be at a disadvantage when compared to China’s J-20 when it comes to upgrades? PAKFA being a joint project and J-20 being self reliance?
    The PAKFA is Russian. What you are talking of, is the eventual FGFA.

    Of course India will be at a disadvantage when compared to the J-20 if the metric was only one - self reliance, which is why the FGFA alone cannot compensate, and which is why India has the AURA and AMCA programs as well to round it off.

    Problem is you are comparing a licensed assembly & customization program like the JF-17 to being equivalent to full blown capability development, this when you don't even have deep TOT for systems like the engine (which too can only go so far in making your own systems).

    Latest AFM states that various major upgrades for the JF-17 are already planned including IRST and in flight refuelling probe. I don’t see how it just being a joint project somehow puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to upgrades.
    Its fairly obvious that unless you produce your own systems, having limited funding puts you at a disadvantage & reliant upon your partner to step up and share the burden.

    Regards planning - surely, there is a difference between planning & actually going ahead. How many F-16s had the PAF planned for in the 80's?

    As one other poster mentioned, both JF-17 tranches depended on Chinese financial assistance, how long do you think that will last if the program keeps adding complexity and cost. These are things you have to pay for yourself.

    India is not running to Russia for integrating third party kit onto the Su-30 MKI. They are adding it themselves via own avionics rigs in India & paying for what they want. In contrast PAC is yet to achieve these capabilities and nor is it as liberally funded.

    I would be happy to list what the ‘fairly successful’ LCA and IAF continue to rely on from foreign sources but this is not the thread for it. Lets just say it’s a long list. Just remind who they are dependant on for upgrades to Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 despite their ‘inhouse expertise’.
    So you are unable to admit the point again. India sources select systems from abroad when it requires them, but can produce other systems on its own.

    The MiG-29 Upgrade - has HAL furnished nav systems, has an Indian EW suite, will have other gizmos including the IAF specific ODL.

    For the Mirage 2000 upgrade, it will have the DRDO/HAL OSAMC to tie into the system. As mentioned in the IAF thread, Dassault pointed out that if Indian systems were to be included, cost of upgrade would rise due to integration complexity, for just fifty airframes India decided it would just choose the OEM fit & put in its own OSAMC to add more systems and weapons as it wanted.

    Where are the PAFs examples of Indias DARIN3 or MiG-27 Upgrade?
    This is actually an example of what India can do thanks to its own flexibility. Tell me where PAFs own RWRS, SPJs, Open Architecture Computers etc for its aircraft?

    The MIG-21++ comment is a direct quote from the ACM and not journalists interpretations. IAF is lumbered with LCA – the thing has taken up so much time and resource that outright rejection is just not an option – hence as one Indian article put it the ACM’s ‘left handed compliment’ in calling it a MIG 21++.
    The MiG-21++ comment being in context of the LCA, like the JF-17 being a 200 -300 odd NM mission radius aircraft and payload wise, being a 7 odd pylons as versus a 12 pylon aircraft and when looking at ranges, compared to a maximal mission radius of almost double the amount (depending upon the payload) like the Su-30 MKI.

    The ACM clearly complimented the LCA as well, which flies in the face of journalistic interpretation of "left handed compliment" and the like. Irrespective of what reasons you ascribe, its fairly evident that the LCA is here to stay & that the IAF is aiming for many squadrons of the type.

    Good to see that such sobering comments from the IAF’s own ACM have forced even internet fans to be more realistic in what the expect from the type.
    Serious commentators have always known what the LCA is & note the programs progress. In fact, the real internet fans apparently selectively deny the IAF ACMs positive comments about it, cannot admit that comparing a licensed program like the JF-17 to another like the Su-30 (which in fact has deeper TOT and more local content) is germane, cannot admit that economic troubles may not make off the cuff estimates of high production values of the JF-17 with all sorts of yet to be ordered gizmos mentioned only in mags materialize..I do hope they become more realistic over time & sober up.

    Ofcoarse PAC remains reliant on CATIC for many aspects – but they have a roadmap to increase indigenous input towards 100%. Lets hope they do a better job of absorbing the technology than India has done with the billions it has paid for licenced production and technology transfer. Was MKI deal not meant to be complete tech transfer? If they had absorbed its entire tech – I wonder why they don’t make their own MMRCA instead of buying from others.
    Roadmap towards 100%?? Care to point out where exactly the PAC will set up factories for the raw materials, items like the ejection seat (down to its firing cartridges - since its 100%), or even other stuff like cockpit transparencies. Or is it "towards 100%" wherein it could be 30%, 50% etc?

    As compared to India & the MKI, a pretty unrealistic and amusing wish to be sure, that they'll do "a better job than India in absorbing the MKI TOT", as India is already on Phase 4 of the aircraft manufacture and this year even achieved a landmark in engine tech, with the first HAL made AL-31FP (from local systems) successfully completing its long test.

    India has several licensed production programs and is already onto JVs and D&D. This is Pakistan's first fighter assembly program from tech tranfer and it has nowhere near the same industrial capability.

    As regards the MMRCA and the MKI - you missed the point again, perhaps, this is why you don't get what TOT means as versus rhetorical flourishes of 100% and the like. TOT is mostly process knowledge for manufacturing & enables local support, it does not transfer detailed design capabilities which can be put together like a lego kit for a different class of aircraft (besides which there are IP restrictions). Bottomline, if you are expecting 100% indigenization for the JF-17 and making a MMRCA out of it, expect CATIC to have some words about the matter..

    Equating the ‘imminent’ in Jf-17’s BVR role (being integrated now) to the imminent in MMRCA’s BVR (first aircraft not due for delivery until 2016) and the ‘imminent’ in FGFA’s BVR (first aircraft not due for delivery until 2018) --- betrays skewed thinking. I would suggest that 6-12 months is a reasonable ‘imminent’. Bizarrely you seem to think 5-7 years is equally ‘imminent’.
    LOL, and where is the evidence that the entire capability is to be "imminently" operational on the PAF's JF-17? A couple of pics & its imminent in 6-12 months (where did that come from?) and how many JF-17s will there be at that time. Play with words as you like, but when you suggest that the "imminent" induction of BVR in the JF-17 can somehow counter the not so imminent but already operational BVR capability on far more IAF fighters, its positively "bizarre" and reflective of skewed thinking... somehow your own words seem to apply best to your own statements..

    ‘Capability’ does not mean quantity and it does not mean how many years you have had something compared with someone else and it does not mean how many more you are going to get compared to someone else – look it up in a dictionary if you don’t believe me.
    Again, more word play. Well, since you are so much into this stuff - have you heard the phrase, quantity has a quality of its own?
    Even if you operate F-22s, they can only operate in one place at one time. And the PAF does not operate F-22s and is actually behind its regional adversary in numbers and technology, ergo capability.

    What ‘capability’ means is – the ability to do something – in this context - that you could not do before. For example IAF had BVR, Air refuelling, AEW – the PAF did not have these – now the PAF has these and hence they have closed / are closing the ‘Capability’ gap as acknowledged by the IAF’s own ACM.
    The capability to do so, when in an inferior manner to an adversary, and which can be countered, translates to a limited capability at best.

    Considering alternatives has started to cost money? ‘logistically’ and ‘logically’ it makes no sense to you that the PAF would consider all available options for key systems before deciding on the best cost / benefit option? Them looking at any alternative product automatically makes the Chinese option sub standard? Amazing ‘logistics’ and ‘logic’.
    Or the PAF could go for only what was available to it, despite previously choosing kit and then being denied it as per the public statements of a senior defence official from the supplier nation. Despite their internet fans trying to dismiss this point via statement about "amazing logistics and logic".

    So you comparing JF-17 / its abilities with the likes of the Rafael – to prove that it is ‘just not good enough’ is ok. But the same question for the LCA is a –tut,tut- ‘classification blunder’. Always good to know it’s a level playing field.
    Its Rafale - not Rafael. And a conflict is not going to be a level playing field, unless you think the PAF ACM will complain to the IAF ACM that the latters not playing fair for committing all three types - Su-30 MKIs, Rafale/Typhoons, LCAs to the conflict. In which case, I wish him luck.

    As far as the PAF goes, its going to face all these, apart from Mirage 2000's and MiG-29s.

    In case you are still not getting the point, the IAF is fielding a heavy-medium-light force structure to counter the PAF & PLAAF.The medium types being of the latest gen in production (e.g Rafale/Typhoon) can actually bring capabilities to the fight equal to the heavies. In counter, the PAF has ....the JF-17, a handful of F-16s and a limited number of force multipliers. Do ponder on whether that strategy constitutes deterrence.


    The PAF has always been at a disadvantage in terms of numbers due relative size of the two countries so no shockers here. Consecutive PAF ACM’s are on record as expecting 36 FC-20’s by 2016.
    And how many FC-20s are on firm order? When will they be delivered by?

    As for equipment fits capability – read up on expected abilities. If you have any lingering doubts about how capable it will be – remind yourself that the same manufacturer is currently flight testing a 5th generation type.
    Of which 5G type we know pretty little about capability, what specific attributes it has, and when it will be in production by. This is not evidence.

    With the quantities expected there can be no doubt that the JF-17 will be the PAF’s BVR workhorse, backed up by upgraded F-16’s / Block 52’s and topped up with FC-20’s.
    Here we go again....terms like "BVR workhorse" ..."no doubt", this when the JF-17 is yet to be made operational w/BVR (oh wait, thats "6-12 months"), the first FC-20 is yet to fly in PAF colors. Heck, even the F-16s are likely to be in trouble given the US pressure in recent days..

    And vice versa – so the point is disputed – as I already said.
    Wherein the evidence is to the contrary..

    s already stated the PAF has always been at a disadvantage in terms of numbers due relative size of the two countries so no shockers here.
    Regardless it is amusing how you skew the figures to suite your argument.
    No skewing the numbers from my end...only the facts as they are, as versus "no doubt" etc.

    ‘40+ F-16’s’?? – The PAF had 31 + 14A/B’s from the U.S. + 18 block 52’s – do the maths.
    And how many of these have been delivered and have BVR capability? Do the math..

    50-60 JF-17’s’? – they’ve already signed up for 100!!
    And here you were saying the recent reports about the JF-17 were not clarified? In which case, you concur that the recent JF-17 buy was with PRC financial assistance?

    So while IAF ends up with virtually all its fleet BVR capable --- what do you think will happen to the PAF fleet – with Mirages, F-7’s being replaced by JF-17’s, F-16’s and FC-20’s???
    Again, no firm orders placed yet for FC-20 ? JF-17 orders nowhere in sufficient quantities to replace ~400 Mirage and F-7s and F-16s (taking your own count) coming to 63. This when Pak economy is yet to sustain a production run without Chinese assistance.

    Thanks for pointing that out but the ‘closing the gap’ remark remains valid as a stand alone statement since he did not say anything afterwoods to retract this.
    ..."but they will not catch up"...oops.


    Errr …… where did you get that from? So where did I say the JF-17 is equal in capability to SU30MKI or the MMRCA??
    But it will face both types...irrespective of whether it is their peer or not. IMO, the PAF would have been better of investing in the J-10.

    Posting part of his statement also showed what he said. No big deal? Really? So wonder why I’ve had to defend myself for posting his words for the last half a dozen posts.
    Only posting part of what he said without pointing out what he said thereafter did not show what he said in entirety...

    You make it sound like you’ve convinced me with your well-structured arguments – the reality is I never said otherwise.
    Whatever floats your boat..

    Well on the way with JF-17’s --- with 100 already signed up -- upto about 30 delivered - PAC is building 2 a month – do the maths from now until 2016 – I think 150 is bang on target sometime in 2016..
    100 signed up with Pak requesting China for financing & kits.. do you think this will continue? And if PAC is building them, why go to PRC? Your projections depend a lot on an optimistic estimate of a best case scenario given current issues..

    F-16’s - 18 block 52 on line --- I’m sure that if there was a single report anywhere in the world to confirm a delay to the upgrade programme you would have posted it by now.
    Eh, I asked you to post any report to the contrary, all you have had to say is wikileaks is not credible (this when Bill Sweetman references it for DTI) and you seem to think making jibes about anyone pointing out the reality suffices for an argument..

    Basically, what you are saying is that jibes apart, you don't have any evidence to counter what wikileaks noted about Pak having economic issues and hence delays occuring to the F-16 program already..

    45 being upgraded as per PAF ACM’s statement earlier this year.
    Thats the 31 original plus the new A/Bs..
    But the original plans in DSCA called for sixty airframes:
    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/200...6/18468870.php

    So I was right in that the program is not as ambitious as originally envisaged, wikileaks notes lack of airframes and financing troubles, they were evidently right.

    PAF chiefs continued confirmation that FC-20 is on track with induction around 2016.
    So overall – no not ‘incredibly optimistic’ at all --- more like realistic.
    In light of having to seek financing from PRC for the less expensive JF-17, no evidence so far from your end of firm FC-20 orders and capabilities therein, repeated statements around US being upset w/Pak, I'll have to go with optimistic..

    I asked for a source confirming actual delay in the upgrade programme which you were alluding to – especially given that the PAF ACM has confirmed ongoing upgrade of 45 F-16’s in Turkey only a few months ago. A few years old statement in wikileaks saying that Paf had issues financing the upgrade – with no source to confirm that an actual delay occurred as a result – in all the time that has lapsed in between ------ is nowhere near cutting it.
    So a delay is only a delay when you agree it is a delay and till then it is not a delay. Great.

    Comments / conjecture about how many upgrades have been contracted / Fas not updated to show payment received are speculative at best. If the programme had been delayed you would have seen appropriate reports accordingly --- of which there are a grand total of zero.
    So the reports of earlier delays are "speculative" because you dont agree they were delays and that PAF had issues finding financing. Ok..

    In terms of details of the upgrade contract – I’m sure you can find reports covering signing of the contract between Pakistan and Turkey and associated schedule – Until someone posts a source for the revised schedule or delay – I think the sensible position would be to believe everything is on track. In the meantime – please see the picture attached showing PAF F-16’s being upgraded in Turkey – this picture was taken a long time after the wikileaks cable you refer to.
    Sigh..I never said the upgrade was not going through. Reread what I said. I said the problems in financing the PAF F-16 upgrade are symptomatic of the problems in attempting to modernize a force without having a significant economic capability to support it. Thats just borne out by recent events.

    Here, try to rationalize or deny this report as well.
    http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2011/05/pa...t-risk-of.html

    Wikileaks..

    The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has approached the U.S. with a request to use Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to help pay for Mid-Life Updates (MLU) on its existing fleet of F-16 fighter aircraft. This request would require the modification of the original Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) that sanctioned the deal and notification to Congress of the change.

    .....

    The F-16 sale was primarily built around three separate Foreign Military Sales cases that had a potential value of $5.1 billion. The 2005 Kashmir earthquake and subsequent financial constraints caused Pakistan to reduce the number of new planes purchased from 36 to 18 lowering the overall value of the deal to $3.1 billion.

    IOW, Pakistan had financing issues regarding the F-16s, approached the US to pay for the MLUs out of US aid, and had to scale back on the program itself

    And in recent days US aid is tied up:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...istan-aid.html

    Well China has offered easy terms / free goods to Pakistan since the 60’s – so don’t hold your breath for any major change there. Despite a policy against outright aid – cheap financing of mega economic projects and defence purchases are of equal benefit freeing up resources for other purposes. Reports suggest that the second batch of JF-17’s are FOC, and details of how Pakistan is paying billions for its AWACS, submarines, frigates, naval helicopters etc from China remain vague --- although you’ll be glad to hear that there is no report of any delay in any of these projects.
    Point is that PAF or PArmed services rarely if ever publish any audit reports of delays or problems or otherwise, so its not as if we'd get any statements admitting to delays. But you are seriously off track IMO, if you think China is just going to act as Pakistans sponsor for the latters military needs and open up its wallet.

    Of coarse and regardless of China’s support - Pakistan has to make economic progress – but detailed debate on that / IMF etc is not for this thread.
    Sure, economics is not for this thread, when even a cursory reading shows that your statements about the PAF being on track with some expensive programs are likely to be affected thanks to a weak economy.

    Bottom line – despite its current economic constraints the PAF continues to be a viable component of ‘minimal credible deterrence’ moving forward.
    If you say so...but evidence suggests otherwise. Namely the PAF is lagging in terms of modernization and capability & its the PA which has more of an equivalent capability at least in some areas versus its peer.

    I believe I’ll do a quick focus of my points also. Despite current Pak economic issues, I find it likely that PAF will continue to get the kind of capabilities it needs to adequately deter the IAF as a vital part of an overall military position of ‘minimum credible deterrence’ --- due mainly to Chinas support, developing PAC industrial capability and good foresight by PAF of which JF-17 is a good example
    Yes, you believe it likely, but so far the evidence does not bear it out. In fact the overall military position by the Pakistan establishment, that of focusing on its military spending to the detriment of building up a sustainable economy, has hurt it.

    Over the years PAF’s main obstacles to maintaining deterrence have been – 1. Financial constraints – 2. Lack of reliable supplier of modern tech. Chinas rapid emergence in military aviation is a real game changer for Pakistan. The lack of reliable supplier issue is becoming history and the financial constraints issue is made much easier.
    So basically, exchange US for China, and alls well. China will make up for Pakistans financial constraints and reliably supply its best kit, which happens to be expensive, and all this at Pakistans terms as and when the latter wants. Very realistic, to be sure.

    As for over reliance on the ‘largesse of a benevolent supplier’ – seems to work well for Israel.
    Israel is a technology powerhouse, and has products the world wants, and if push comes to shove, can still survive without an external supplier. Is Pak in the same position?

    Your continued and repeated focus on how many more the IAF flies compared to PAF and comparing the two forces missile to missile despite the completely unequal size of the 2 countries -- assumes an old fashioned all out war scenario– which is out of the question in a nuclear backdrop.
    Thats a pretty big assumption on your part, that there won't be an all out war scenario and even otherwise, in a limited conflict, the IA will not use its number and technology pluses to its advantage.
    Last edited by Teer; 14th July 2011 at 13:50.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    India always adopted this policy its nothing new. It tried its best with the Americans, May be its one of the reasons why India did not choose the F 16. It has tried to derail the RD-93 deal without success as well.

    But the scenarios are different.

    a. American defense companies are not in dire need of the Indian market like Europeans are because their domestic market is big enough.

    b. India has little leverage over Russia and cannot play hardball with them because of the sheer number of products which we need spares from them and the number of Jvs we are involved with them.

    c. Not the same in the case of cash starved French/Europeans they could really do with our money and its not really an option for them to take Pakistan millions instead of our billions.

    There is already evidence as French have openly stated they won't be selling weapons to Pakistan

    Why have policy which doesn't work? Didn't work with the Russians, didn't work with the Americans. No gurantee it will work with the French especially, for example, if Pakistani show interest in big ticket items such as submarines. That will not happens because despite political push due to oppurtunity for kickbacks, French subs were very low on Pakistani list after Chinese and German boats. I recall reading are story where some big exec from DCN said that Pakistani order was critical to the shipyard's survival and this after the Scropene order
    Last edited by Omniplane; 14th July 2011 at 16:42.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Type59 View Post
    I hope Pakistan does not buy weapons from France. I hope the French dont sell too. To much of national security risk for Pakistan.
    my T-54 variant friend, why do you feel so?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Omniplane View Post
    Why have policy which doesn't work? Didn't work with the Russians, didn't work with the Americans. No gurantee it will work with the French especially, for example, if Pakistani show interest in big ticket items such as submarines. That will not happens because despite political push due to oppurtunity for kickbacks, French subs were very low on Pakistani list after Chinese and German boats. I recall reading are story where some big exec from DCN said that Pakistani order was critical to the shipyard's survival and this after the Scropene order
    yep.

    and similarly france didn;t stop supplying both side of TW strait.

    so what makes one think the french would be hesitant to supply both powers in the subcontinent?

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    Israel is a technology powerhouse, and has products the world wants, and if push comes to shove, can still survive without an external supplier. Is Pak in the same position?

    .

    when push comes shove can Israel's F-16 make do with out spares from americans?

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,481
    Quite possibly yes, although it would probably be a repeat of the Mirage III situation (i. e. continued clandestine support in contempt of the officially imposed embargo). The engines would be the critical issue, a big part of the reason why Israel was able to "independently" develop a Mirage III derivative was the availability of a suitable alternate power plant (the J79).

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    uk, newcastle
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    Do you think these few deals would be the last ? and think they will be finalised anytime soon ?

    India will have more to offer to France anyday to keep it from offering weapons to Pakistan.
    The point is India has never been able to muster up the leverage to impose this 'sell to us to sell to them' condition on anyone before, so what is stopping the likes of France from selling to India and Pakistan like everyone else is doing?

    If you tried to suggest to the French they are somehow minor league compared to the Americans and Russians, chances are you will only manage to **** them off enough to make them determined to sell to Pakistan to make a point.

    Even the Russians and Americans while offering weapons to Pakistan do not offer the same level of technology or equipment they offer to India.
    So now its India gets offered better kit instead of 'you sell to India or Pakistan'? You sure changed your tune quick.

    As for the Russians saying no, Russia has other markets like China to sell their weapons to, and India stands more to lose (for now) in a breakdown of defense ties with Russia. Same cannot be said about French they could really do with our billions.
    When was the last time China bought anything of note from Russia? Besides from China and India, who else has been a regular billion dollar buyer of Russian arms? And since when were the Russian arms industry so well off they could afford to loose India's billions now that China's billions have dried up?

    Why would they risk loosing India's billions by making a few measly millions selling engines to Pakistan?

    Either India does not have anywhere close to the leverage and pull you lot seem to think, or the Russians have to be absolute idiots to make such a move if the Indians indeed have so much influence.

    I think we all know which is true here.

    As for the French, well you are missing a critical logical step.

    India will only have influence to persuade the French to not sell anything to Pakistan if they stand to earn far more from Indian contracts, but that applies equally to all parties.

    There is only one winner in a competition, but many competitors, so how to you keep them all happy? If the French don't win a contract, they have nothing to loose selling anything they like to Pakistan do they?

    But if you rig a competition to keep up your part of a some undertable bargain, first of all, you have compromised your own interest as you are not getting the best equipment/deal, secondly you likely just pissed off all the other competitors, as they will know if India chose a package not based solely on merit.

    That applies no matter who wins any one of your competitions. So no matter who wins, everyone else is pissed off, unless the decision is based purely on merit, but in that case, your threats are totally meaningless, as are any quid pro quo offers you make behind close doors.

    That is the problem with making threats you cannot back up, since the other side can easily call your bluff and turn the whole thing around against you.

    So instead of you saying, 'you either sell to India or Pakistan', the Franch could easily turn about and say 'either you buy our kit or the Pakistanis will' to you. What are you going to do then?

    But hey why does Pakistan need French weapons if the Chinese ones are good enough ?
    There are some things China makes that are better than what they French have to offer, and there are certain things the French have that are better than what China has to offer.

    If Pakistan wants to mix and match, that's their choice. Stop trying to change the subject.
    the true power of religion does not lie with the deity, it lies with the priests.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    The point is India has never been able to muster up the leverage to impose this 'sell to us to sell to them' condition on anyone before, so what is stopping the likes of France from selling to India and Pakistan like everyone else is doing?

    If you tried to suggest to the French they are somehow minor league compared to the Americans and Russians, chances are you will only manage to **** them off enough to make them determined to sell to Pakistan to make a point.
    By all means if they want their pennies to our billions let them !

    So now its India gets offered better kit instead of 'you sell to India or Pakistan'? You sure changed your tune quick.
    Thats in the case of the U.S. Pakistan without U.S Aid will be too broke to buy even U.S stuff.


    When was the last time China bought anything of note from Russia? Besides from China and India, who else has been a regular billion dollar buyer of Russian arms? And since when were the Russian arms industry so well off they could afford to loose India's billions now that China's billions have dried up?

    Why would they risk loosing India's billions by making a few measly millions selling engines to Pakistan?

    Either India does not have anywhere close to the leverage and pull you lot seem to think, or the Russians have to be absolute idiots to make such a move if the Indians indeed have so much influence.

    I think we all know which is true here.

    As for the French, well you are missing a critical logical step.

    India will only have influence to persuade the French to not sell anything to Pakistan if they stand to earn far more from Indian contracts, but that applies equally to all parties.

    There is only one winner in a competition, but many competitors, so how to you keep them all happy? If the French don't win a contract, they have nothing to loose selling anything they like to Pakistan do they?

    But if you rig a competition to keep up your part of a some undertable bargain, first of all, you have compromised your own interest as you are not getting the best equipment/deal, secondly you likely just pissed off all the other competitors, as they will know if India chose a package not based solely on merit.

    That applies no matter who wins any one of your competitions. So no matter who wins, everyone else is pissed off, unless the decision is based purely on merit, but in that case, your threats are totally meaningless, as are any quid pro quo offers you make behind close doors.

    That is the problem with making threats you cannot back up, since the other side can easily call your bluff and turn the whole thing around against you.

    So instead of you saying, 'you either sell to India or Pakistan', the Franch could easily turn about and say 'either you buy our kit or the Pakistanis will' to you. What are you going to do then?
    Again with respect to Russia they have more leverage because majority of Indian AF operate Russian jets the same with Army and Navy. India needs Russian support.

    With French they dont have as much market as the Russians or Americans. They cannot and will not risk losing a big Indian deal by suppling to Pakistan.

    There are some things China makes that are better than what they French have to offer, and there are certain things the French have that are better than what China has to offer.

    If Pakistan wants to mix and match, that's their choice. Stop trying to change the subject.
    Pakistan always seem to prefer Western equipment if possible.

    I touched a nerve, the subject is very relevent.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    Pakistan always seem to prefer Western equipment if possible.
    That may be true historically, but going forward, this is likely to change. In part due to improving and maturing Chinese technology, and due to the PAFs wish of less exposure to potential sanctions from the West.

    IMHO, the recent acquisition of Block-52 F-16s may well be the last big ticket items to be acquired by the PAF from the West. The recent AFM article on the JF-17 had, according to PAF sources, suggested that the Chinese solution for radar/avionics/weapons, was comparable, if not superior in some aspects, to the French offer.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,561
    In that case why talk about French kit for the JF-17. Pakistan is not in great financial shape and they are surely going to cost more than Chinese alternatives.

    The amount saved can be invested on something more important, may be more SRBMs and Cruise Missiles to make up for the dispairty among airforces.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    486
    The Americans have sold to both sides..though they typically offer India the better systems.

    It is unfair to put Russia in the same category..other than the J-17 engines which were rerouted through China what other big ticket item have they sold Pakistan?

    As for defense deals..if you take the MMRCA there is very less difference between the capabilities of the offered aircrafts so other factors do play a role. Now if India is about to choose between the French and the Euro Fighter and if France does a high publicity deal with Pakistan then pretty much the French have shot themselves in the foot.

    Now as you say there is nothing stopping them from selling to Pakistan after the deal is over but eventually they will be another big ticket competition in India and again they will be forced to not offer Pakistan something during the lifetime of that competition. So while India may not be able to stop them from selling to Pakistan atleast she can spoil the timelines in when any defense item is offered to Pakistan.
    Last edited by Samsara; 15th July 2011 at 21:22.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    uk, newcastle
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Samsara View Post
    The Americans have sold to both sides..though they typically offer India the better systems.

    It is unfair to put Russia in the same category..other than the J-17 engines which were rerouted through China what other big ticket item have they sold Pakistan?

    As for defense deals..if you take the MMRCA there is very less difference between the capabilities of the offered aircrafts so other factors do play a role. Now if India is about to choose between the French and the Euro Fighter and if France does a high publicity deal with Pakistan then pretty much the French have shot themselves in the foot.

    Now as you say there is nothing stopping them from selling to Pakistan after the deal is over but eventually they will be another big ticket competition in India and again they will be forced to not offer Pakistan something during the lifetime of that competition. So while India may not be able to stop them from selling to Pakistan atleast she can spoil the timelines in when any defense item is offered to Pakistan.
    So what happens if the French bid is not the favorite?

    If they have little chance of winning an Indian contract, they risk little by selling to Pakistan do they? Given a remote chance at billions compared to a certainty to get tens, or even hundreds of millions, the billions suddenly doesn't look quite so attractive does it?

    If anything, rumors that they might be offering things to Pakistan might actually improve their odds of winning, since the Indians will probably want to have a quiet word when they hear such rumors, and well, if they want favors from the French, its only natural the French would expect a little quid pro quo non?

    There is even a chance all the rumors of French selling stuff to Pakistan could just be a convenient smoke screen for both parties. The French get the Indians all wound up and maybe get certain assurances or concessions from them. OTOH, the Pakistanis can use these rumors to leverage the Chinese to release better equipment for export, and/or lower the price of what they are already offering to compete with the French stuff.
    the true power of religion does not lie with the deity, it lies with the priests.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Samsara View Post
    The Americans have sold to both sides..though they typically offer India the better systems.

    It is unfair to put Russia in the same category..other than the J-17 engines which were rerouted through China what other big ticket item have they sold Pakistan?
    I guess just the
    Mi-17

    aren't we forgetting importance of Ukraine?
    they sold Pakistan the Il-78 tankers, very important force multipliers
    and T-84s, which reportedly the Pakistani Army prefers over Al Khalid.
    And Ukraine has been favorable to China too, much of China's current technology could not have been done with Ukrainian assistance. i.e. Varyag, tank engines, Su-33/J-15. etc
    I have not heard Ukraine selling India anything, but if you heard other wise please let me know.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,730
    Nitpicking, but Ukraine sold Pakistan the T-80UD.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,730
    Quote Originally Posted by plawolf View Post

    When was the last time China bought anything of note from Russia?
    Besides from China and India, who else has been a regular billion dollar buyer of Russian arms? And since when were the Russian arms industry so well off they could afford to loose India's billions now that China's billions have dried up?

    .

    1.) They bought 123 Al-31s recently, that's something of note Not the only engines they have bought recently either.
    2.) Apparently well off enough to be the second biggest arms exporter for many years. They will do what they did when China's money stopped coming - diversify.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    324
    France is open to sell defense equipment to Pakistan as it pleases but they obviously know the higher sales potential from sales to India. That sales is not only in defense but other industries as well.

    Pakistan's GDP is not even comparable to India and the disparity is widening all the time. Thus there would be some need to avoid antagonizing the Indian government.

    So there is probably a reduced desire to sell weapons to Pakistan.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    313
    Much of this self congratulation for blocking PAF purchases from the West is much overblown in importance and rapidly becoming irrelavant. As plawolf has highlighted and thanks to China's rapid rise in military aviation capabilities PAF's interest is western stuff is increasingly limited to certain components and even here China is coming up with the goods. A senior PAF official is quoted in a recent AFM article as saying that 'A couple of years ago I told the French that if they did not help us by providing us with a avionics system, they could be assured the Chinese would come up with systems just as capable as theirs in a few years - and they have' - this was for the JF-17.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    349
    ^^^ Actually PAF will be much better off buying from Chinese shelf. But if China will give Pakistan its high tech stuff remains to be seen. Reason being leakage of info on high tech Chinese equipment like J-20 in future to Americans because of obvious reasons. Surely US will like to have a look at capabilities of J-20 etc.

    Originally Posted by Samsara

    So while India may not be able to stop them from selling to Pakistan atleast she can spoil the timelines in when any defense item is offered to Pakistan.
    Good point it worked last time assuming it was because of Indian pressure. That is a big assumption BTW, there could be other reasons.
    Last edited by Corrosion; 16th July 2011 at 04:23.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    6,181
    The thread has been cleaned up from the last mud slinging contest.

    May I remind everyone here that there is a code of conduct?
    Regards,

    Frank

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by plawolf View Post
    So what happens if the French bid is not the favorite?

    If they have little chance of winning an Indian contract, they risk little by selling to Pakistan do they? Given a remote chance at billions compared to a certainty to get tens, or even hundreds of millions, the billions suddenly doesn't look quite so attractive does it?

    If anything, rumors that they might be offering things to Pakistan might actually improve their odds of winning, since the Indians will probably want to have a quiet word when they hear such rumors, and well, if they want favors from the French, its only natural the French would expect a little quid pro quo non?

    There is even a chance all the rumors of French selling stuff to Pakistan could just be a convenient smoke screen for both parties. The French get the Indians all wound up and maybe get certain assurances or concessions from them. OTOH, the Pakistanis can use these rumors to leverage the Chinese to release better equipment for export, and/or lower the price of what they are already offering to compete with the French stuff.

    If that is the case then yes..but that almost never happens that the French stuff is not there at the top or nearby on a tech basis(cost wise they are almost always expensive). The tech gap between the various companies is negligible..invariably the decision falls on other factors here.
    Do you think Germany,UK or France will offer Pakistan a big ticket item before the MMRCA is selected?
    Right after that contest all these countries will be competing in the submarine tender.again with all having almost the same tech level so a good chance of winning for every contender. Do you think they will offer Pakistan something during that tender either?

    That is why I said at the very least..India can havoc with Paksitan's acquisition timelines.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    I guess just the
    Mi-17

    aren't we forgetting importance of Ukraine?
    they sold Pakistan the Il-78 tankers, very important force multipliers
    and T-84s, which reportedly the Pakistani Army prefers over Al Khalid.
    And Ukraine has been favorable to China too, much of China's current technology could not have been done with Ukrainian assistance. i.e. Varyag, tank engines, Su-33/J-15. etc
    I have not heard Ukraine selling India anything, but if you heard other wise please let me know.
    The Mi-17 is not a big ticket item.

    And Ukraine is a independent country who can do what they want..but they are not Russia.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Samsara View Post

    And Ukraine is a independent country who can do what they want..but they are not Russia.
    did some one say other wise?

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
    I guess just the
    Mi-17

    aren't we forgetting importance of Ukraine?
    they sold Pakistan the Il-78 tankers, very important force multipliers
    and T-84s, which reportedly the Pakistani Army prefers over Al Khalid.
    And Ukraine has been favorable to China too, much of China's current technology could not have been done with Ukrainian assistance. i.e. Varyag, tank engines, Su-33/J-15. etc
    I have not heard Ukraine selling India anything, but if you heard other wise please let me know.
    Off topic but fyi Ukraine has sold India countless gas turbine engines for naval vessels (if you add the value its more than their arm sales to pakistan) and served as consultant in design of some vessels. Also as sirpi it sold over 400 R-27.
    Last edited by JonS; 20th July 2011 at 02:13.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES