Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan Air Force

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Pakistan Air Force

    Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, Linthicum Heights, Md., is being awarded a $99,500,000 firm-fixed-price contract. This action provides for government furnished property for the Government of Pakistan for F-16 Block 50/52 new aircraft and modernization program. The procurement of 54 AN/APG-68 (V) 9 Radar Systems will be accomplished under the firm-fixed-price portion of the contract. At this time, $49,750,000 have been obligated. This work will be complete May 2010. Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-07-C-6033).

    #2
    Unified Engagement 2006 kicks off

    11/3/2006 - SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, Hawaii -- In a welcoming speech to more than 300 military members and civilians at the Battle Command Training Center here, Gen. Paul V. Hester, Pacific Air Forces commander, kicked off Unified Engagement 2006.

    Participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Australia are here from Nov. 1 to 8 to carry out the Air Force Chief of Staff's simulation known as "UE". The purpose of UE06 is to investigate emerging Air Force, sister service, joint and multi-national operational concepts and capabilities, to learn how to prevent technological, strategic and operational surprise, and to advance coordination among global security partners.

    The scenarios used in UE06 are fictitious and set 10-12 years in the future.

    "The complexity of the scenario is set far enough out in the future that it gets us out of today's 'inbox,'" General Hester said. "The time frame is 2018, and hopefully our work here this week will prepare us for that future."

    The biannual UE series began in 1995. This was the first time the game has been conducted outside Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., or the Washington D.C. area. Because the chief of staff wanted to take the game to the war fighters, he chose the Pacific theater. He is interested in the complex challenges of working with the many nations having a stake in the security of the Pacific region.

    The UE06 series began with two small-scale events. The first was held in May in Malaysia and the second was held at Hickam AFB, Hawaii, in September. Participants from Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States took part. Representatives from Brunei, Pakistan and the Philippines were observers.
    "We deal with the 'tyranny of distance' here in the Pacific," General Hester said. "Unlike Europe, we don't have NATO-style organizations, so consequently we do things bilaterally. That's part of the challenge we face out here, but through events like Unified Engagement we're able to open up great learning opportunities with other countries."

    Experience gained from UE06, particularly integration into future national security methods, will be analyzed during and long after its completion.

    "As we look at the war on terror, we recognize we cannot kill our way to victory. Winning involves all the dynamics of national power between us, our allies and friends...that puts increased emphasis on our U.S. interagency work," General Hester said.

    (Courtesy of PACAF News Service)

    Strange as Pakistan comes under Central Command not Pacific Command

    Comment


      #3
      US-Pakistan defence ties being boosted




      By Anwar Iqbal

      WASHINGTON, Nov 15: The US and Pakistan have been quietly rebuilding their military-to-military relationship disrupted in 1990 when Washington slapped restrictions on Islamabad for its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, says a congressional report.

      The report by the Congressional Research Service notes that in June 2004, President Bush designated Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally of the United States.

      The report says the close US-Pakistan security ties of the cold war era which came to a near halt after the 1990 aid cut-off have been in the process of restoration as a result of Pakistans role in US-led anti-terrorism campaign.

      The Pentagon reported Foreign Military sales agreements with Pakistan worth $344 million between 2003 and 2004, growing to $492 million in 2005.

      In June 2006, the Pentagon notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military sale to Pakistan worth up to $5.1 billion. The deal involves up to 36 F-16 combat aircraft, along with related refurbishments, munitions, and equipment, and would represent the largest-ever weapons sale to Pakistan.

      Congressional concerns about the sale and displeasure at the Bush Administrations apparently improper notification procedures spurred a July 20 hearing of the House International Relations Committee. During that hearing, many members worried that F-16s were better suited to fighting India than to combating terrorists; some warned that US military technology could be passed from Pakistan to China.

      The State Departments lead official on political military relations sought to assure the committee that the sale would serve US interests by strengthening the defence capabilities of a key ally without disturbing the regional balance of power and that all possible measures would be taken to prevent the onward transfer of US technologies.

      A resolution disapproving the proposed sale, was introduced in the House of Representatives, but was not voted upon.

      Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later sent a letter to Congress indicating that no F-16 combat aircraft or related equipment would be delivered to Pakistan until Islamabad provided written security assurances that no US technology will be accessible by third parties.

      Islamabad has, however, denied that any extraordinary security requirements were requested.

      After further negotiations on specifics, including a payment process that will require a major outlay from the Pakistani treasury, the United States and Pakistan in September signed a letter of acceptance for the multibillion dollar F-16 deal.

      The United States has undertaken to train and equip new Pakistan Army Air Assault units that can move quickly to find and target terrorist elements.

      There has also been a direct US role in training the security detail of the Pakistani president, help to fund a 650-officer Diplomatic Security Unit, and assistance with numerous programs designed to improve the quality of Pakistans internal police forces through the provision of equipment and training.

      A revived high-level US-Pakistan Defence Consultative Group moribund since 1997 sits for high-level discussions on military cooperation, security assistance, and anti-terrorism; its most recent session came in May 2006.

      http://www.dawn.com/2006/11/16/top8.htm

      Comment


        #4
        The United States has undertaken to train and equip new Pakistan Army Air Assault units that can move quickly to find and target terrorist elements.
        Which, of course, means next to nothing if they continue to refuse to deal with Waziristan...
        Sean O'Connor

        Sean's Blog, now with forum
        ACIG.org Team
        Airliners.net

        Comment


          #5
          The thread already exist. Pleas merge this information into the already existing thread. Thanks.
          Existing Thread Link

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by SOC
            Which, of course, means next to nothing if they continue to refuse to deal with Waziristan...
            but they do. i read on the news they send in soldiers to fight Waziristan people and US join in with air attack. But it is hard to fight because it is mountainy.


            that is why Pakistan should not trust US much. China will always give supply steady.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AdmarilZhengHe


              that is why Pakistan should not trust US much. China will always give supply steady.
              Without going through any reasons like waziristan....its understandable for you to say this....
              PEOPLE.FIRST.MISSION.ALWAYS.
              Have a good one..

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by rayrubik
                Without going through any reasons like waziristan....its understandable for you to say this....
                i am happy you agree. Pakistan benefit very heavily from China. Pakistan use to have difficult time with developing engineers.. but with China help, China can teach Pakistan how to make airplanes like K-8 and FC-1. Very advance Pakistan has moved in 20 years.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Pakistan To Get 8 JF-17 Fighters from China Next Year

                  Pakistan is set to get the first batch of eight medium-technology fighter jets from China next year and the country would start manufacturing them locally from January 2008, a senior military official said on Nov. 22.
                  We shall...have the first two (JF-17 Thunder fighter) aircraft on March 23rd, while the remaining of the first batch of eight aircraft will also arrive next year, Air Marshal Khalid Choudhry, Chairman of Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, told Reuters.
                  The hardcore production of JF-17 in Pakistan will start in January 2008.
                  According to the agreement between China and Pakistan, once full production starts, half the planes would be produced in China and half in Pakistan.
                  Chengu Aircraft Design Institute designed the aircraft and the prototypes were manufactured by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Company both based in Chinas Sichuan province.
                  Choudhry said the medium-technology aircraft, a joint production with China, matches the Mirage in performance but has better avionics and weapons.
                  Air force officials said the JF-17 could achieve a speed of 1.6 Mach, altitude of 55,000 feet and carry weapons of modern warfare.
                  The JF-17 are due to replace the aging fleet of Mirage 3 and 5, A-5 and F-7 aircraft.
                  Choudhry said the Pakistan Air Force was looking to acquire 200 to 300 such aircraft, while the Chinese Air Force would also acquire some.
                  We plan to start producing 20 to 25 aircraft every year from 2008, and they would be the main strength of the Pakistan Air Force, Choudhry said on the sidelines of a four-day arms exhibition in the port city of Karachi.
                  He said Pakistan also planned to export JF-17 once its full production started in the country.
                  This aircraft will cost less then $20 million, so it is a very attractive equipment for the Third World and developing countries who has small air forces and small budget, he said.
                  A number of countries have already approached us, he said hoping that Pakistan Aeronautical Complex would start getting orders from other countries by next year.
                  Pakistan is mainly dependent on imports from the United States, France and China to meet its defense needs.
                  Last month, Pakistan and the United States signed a letter of acceptance for a multi-billion dollar package to supply the Pakistan Air Force with 18 new F-16 warplanes, as well as an unspecified number of upgraded second-hand F-16s.
                  The United States will also sell Pakistan missile weaponry and other support infrastructure, and upgrade Pakistans present fleet of 34 old-model F-16s.


                  http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2375924&C=airwar

                  Comment


                    #10
                    i think pakistan should have 100+ f-16 avionically block 52+ standard.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by SOC
                      Which, of course, means next to nothing if they continue to refuse to deal with Waziristan...
                      They are doing something, thats why west is still dealing with Pakistan. Its easy to target Pakistan to cover up your own mistakes, for reference, refer to search engine of CNN or BBC...google would be the best choice
                      --


                      Hoping to see JF-17 on 23rd march parade

                      --

                      I think we are talking about numbers of PAF as:

                      ~90-100 F-16s - If USA honours its words.
                      ~200-250 JF-17s in several blocks.
                      ~30-50? J-10s/FC-20.
                      ~AWACS, Swedish and Chinese(With complete ToT ) ~7-10+ AWACS :O, Refueling tankers.

                      By then Chinese will be having 'export' version of 5th gen fighter.

                      That would be I think the most dramatic change in an Airforce in quite sometime.. Also shows the weak side that nothing was done with PAF, sanctions, etc etc. Not PAF's fault ;d
                      Last edited by phrozenflame; 27th November 2006, 20:40.
                      www.JF-17.com

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by sealordlawrence
                        Instead of invading Iraq it should have been pakistan, seeing as that seems to be the favourite terrorist haunt these days.

                        :diablo:
                        PEOPLE.FIRST.MISSION.ALWAYS.
                        Have a good one..

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by sealordlawrence
                          Instead of invading Iraq it should have been pakistan, seeing as that seems to be the favourite terrorist haunt these days.
                          Instead of invading Pakistan it should have been the US/Western cold war policy makers who started the whole crap. Other then extremist propaganda of the west, just what you know about Pakistan? Here people ask me if Pakistan has McDonald or KFC? or are there any 3-5 star stars hotels in Pakistan? This is the General knowledge of 99% US/Europeans about Pakistan (and many other countries).

                          In 1979, when USSR attacked Afghanistan, US was eager to beat USSR in order to take revenge of its shameful defeat in Vietnam. And the whole damn thing was thus started. General Zia (then ruler of Pakistan) was stupid enough to extend his cooperation for a US proxy war in Afghanistan.

                          In the beginning (late 79 and early 80s) things were not so bad. However, as the war progressed, some SMART minds decided to introduce a new element in the war, primarily to get money and manpower from middle east. This element was "religion".

                          There are several ethnic fractions in Afghanistan. This is one country that never saw peace in several hundred years of its history. Just because of this ethnic rivalries and lust of taking control and dominating the other factions. The only thing that temporarily united Afghans was whenever they were attacked from outside (first British and then Soviets). So in the beginning, Afghans fought Soviets just because they wanted their country to be liberated from the invadres. Their was nothing like Islam vs Soviets. The fighters were called "freedom fighters" by the western media then.

                          However, after that fateful twist of introducing religion into the Afghan war, the whole thing got extremely complicated. Yes, this trick did work and a lot of money and manpower was poured into the region from the oil rich Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, it also brought extremist views of Wahabiism from Saudi Arabia/Kuwait. Ofcourse a war torn region was best breeding place of redical ideology. While a portion of oil money (as well as US/European AID) was used to buy weapon and warlords (yes those warlords were not fighting for free), a significant portion was spent on establishing Madrasas (religious schools) in the areas bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mainly, those Madrasas were established on Pakistani side.

                          These Madrasa were established to prepare a second generation of Mujahideen or holy warriors (a term coined by cold war policy makers). Infact, those Madrasas were envisioned as "Human ordnance factories" that would provide a steady supply of the Mujahideen to fight with Soviets. Secondary purpose of those Madrasa was to provide basic religious knowledge/reading writing skill to the hundred of thousand of orphans who took refuge in Pakistan.

                          Anyway, finally Soviets were defeated. However, SMART minds at Pentagon/ NATO had no plans for post-war Afghanistan. Thousands of armed men divided into several ethnic/tribal factions and loosely controlled by US-bought warlords were free to roam with no obvious job in sight.

                          Hastily, a funny accord called The Geneva Accords was signed on 14 April 1988 between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the US and the Soviet Union serving as guarantors. Several things were included, mainly, voluntary return of refugees (more than 3 million) and timetable of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. It was however not clear, who is going to take controll of post-Soviet Afghanistan. Ironically, the Afghan mujahidin, were neither party to the negotiations nor to the Geneva accords and, consequently, refused to accept the terms of the agreement. As a result, the civil war continued after the completion of the Soviet withdrawal.

                          Ofcourse after the war ended, the flow of Dollars was stopped and worrisom warlords started looking for other "sources" for easy money. That came from drug and wepon smuggling. They wanted that money to keep their private militias in order to control their areas and invade others (somthing they and their forefathers had been doing for hundred of years).

                          Long story short, civil war kept going for years and neither US nor NATO ever tried to address the problem (because they never wanted a solution, it was a part of their New World Order). Finally, some of the students of those wartime religious schools came forward and tried to stop the civil war and established a Government that was badly needed to run the country. Even though a Government was established, it never got a support from US/ NATO because it was not the part of the plan.

                          Now I am not advocating for Taliban here. I am just saying that they did establish a Goverment even though it had its shortcomings (like all other Governments have in anywhere in the world). And that Government was overthrown later even though it had no grudges against US. And now look at the US backed Kabul Government. They are the one who once were with Soviets. The vary enemey against whom the whole war was fought. Are there any principles ?

                          The bottom line. No principles whatsoever. If they fight against US enemies, they are Freedom fighters/ holy warriors. If they refuse to take US dictations, they become terrorists. Algeria vs France, Palestine vs Israel, Pakistan vs India, Iraq vs Iran, Iraq vs US. You name it and it is same every where.

                          It is a simple anti-muslim sentiment that is driving the whole issue. Now all muslims know that. And time is not far away when they will get rid of their traitor rulers and be able to decide their own fate.

                          No hard feelings friends. Just wanted to make a point. I apologize if something that I said hurt you.

                          Cheers

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by qsaark
                            The bottom line. No principles whatsoever. If they fight against US enemies, they are Freedom fighters/ holy warriors. If they refuse to take US dictations, they become terrorists.
                            If they limited their attacks to military targets, I for one would have no problem calling them insurgents, or even soldiers. But when they seek out shopping centers, funeral processions, or cafes to detonate suicide bombs -- or when they drag innocent civilians into the street and shoot/behead/immolate them for being of the "wrong" religious sect -- these actions are what make them terrorists.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Meat
                              If they limited their attacks to military targets, I for one would have no problem calling them insurgents, or even soldiers. But when they seek out shopping centers, funeral processions, or cafes to detonate suicide bombs -- or when they drag innocent civilians into the street and shoot/behead/immolate them for being of the "wrong" religious sect -- these actions are what make them terrorists.
                              According to this logic, the USAAF crews in the WWII bombing German or Japanese cities were terrorists, as well? AFAIK, they made no difference between ball bearing facilities, shops, funerals or theaters and we all will agree that attacks on civilian infrastructure were deliberate, not accidental.
                              Last edited by flex297; 4th December 2006, 11:29.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Meat
                                If they limited their attacks to military targets, I for one would have no problem calling them insurgents, or even soldiers. But when they seek out shopping centers, funeral processions, or cafes to detonate suicide bombs -- or when they drag innocent civilians into the street and shoot/behead/immolate them for being of the "wrong" religious sect -- these actions are what make them terrorists.
                                going by what you said this also makes US and many allied countries terrorists also.for instance last night on the BBC documentary show panorama they were following the actions of a british commando unit fighting the taliban and they were under siege in a village in hellmand and called in artillery strikes and air strikes on "suspected" enemy positions.this was in a village which was populated and not abdanoned,regardless of weither or not taliban fighters were killed in the strikes,innocent civilians homes were being destroyed in these attacks!

                                im not taking sides but just saying that such actions taken in the knowledge that civilians could be involved and killed,do these actions not also qualify as "terrorist"?
                                visit www.irishairpics.com

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  According to this logic, the USAAF crews in the WWII bombing German or Japanese cities were terrorists, as well? AFAIK, they made no difference between ball bearing facilities, shops, funerals or theaters and we all will agree that attacks on civilian infrastructure were deliberate, not accidental.
                                  Yes, it was a terrorist attack on a large scale and numerous debates have gone on since then whether it was necessary. Lets not forget it was a race towards who was going to develop the atom bomb first. The Germans had already shown their indiscriminate killing of civilians wherever they invaded including multiple and random V2 rocket bombing acts on london city.
                                  And lets not forget the Japanese atrocities on civilians over much of south east asia at the time.

                                  I personally believe that if the Germans or the Japanese developed the bomb first, they would have used it on civilians that they were fighting against.

                                  going by what you said this also makes US and many allied countries terrorists also.for instance last night on the BBC documentary show panorama they were following the actions of a british commando unit fighting the taliban and they were under siege in a village in hellmand and called in artillery strikes and air strikes on "suspected" enemy positions.this was in a village which was populated and not abdanoned,regardless of weither or not taliban fighters were killed in the strikes,innocent civilians homes were being destroyed in these attacks
                                  So the way i see this is a british commando unit got stuck fighting their known enemy in a WAR situation and probably called in air strikes becasue they were in a hole and would have died if not. Their intel in this war scenario told them that the enemy was located at a certain positon and asked them to bomb that area.

                                  While it may be unfortunate that civilian homes and civilians may have died in the encounter, the commando's did not ORDER the strike on the civilians. In war its unfortuante when civilians are caught in the cross fire, but such is the nature of war. Everyone knows this prior. We can all induct and try to minimise the damage with gps bombs, precise artillary shelling but no equipment is infallable.

                                  If the commando's ordered indiscrimanate shelling of civilian homes and random killing without an objective, yes they would have been seen as terrorists and be court martialled. They would and can still have to answer for their crimes.

                                  To an extent i agree with Meat, Random acts of mass indiscriminate killing on populations without any warning of how and when to prepare designed to scare and create terror for alterior motives is terrorism and should be distinguished from unfortunate casualties of war.

                                  If the taliban and their support groups stuck to fighting their guerilla warfare on combat troops sent to fight them instead of blowing up buildings and buses with civilians thousands of miles away, i for one would not call them terrorists.

                                  2 cents.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    If the snake bites you, it is normal to kill it. Why allow it to roam freely? Why complain about those lathi blows then?

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      And what do all these have to do with PAF?

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by broncho View Post
                                        And what do all these have to do with PAF?
                                        Apologies... my mistake. Previous post deleted.
                                        MTFBWY

                                        Comment


                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X