F-16 Block 15MLU/50/52 Fighter

[TOPGUN]

Thx 23 march i do hope we go for it !

 

[IceCold]

Putting on my defence professional hat I am only going to say that it is very probable (~75%) that the PAF is going to recieve more than just 18 F-16 given the sensitivity of the purchases under discussion which also involve MLU airframes from third parties.

Hmmm well i am certainly not aware of it and perhaps would not argue over it since the line of field you are in, obviously you know more then whats on the paper. By the way wasnt your line of field Navy

Just because a platform has an AESA radar on it does not mean it automatically is 'superior' to one that does not-given the NC nature of the next air battle. War is NOT some kind of noble one-on-one duel as many on this forum see it. It's more of a mugging with the numbers making the difference as I have repeatedly mentioned in my posts. The Rafale does not currently have an AESA radar and will not for the next 5 years at least unless a major buyer is found (40+ airframes) to justify R&D for the proposed RBE mk-2. Morever compare the stated performance of output (kW) and ES antenna length of the RF modules of the proposed AESA above to the APG-78 on the SHornet-in essence Dassault would be developing a "dead-on-arrival" radar unit inferior to what's out there in the market.

I agree with the one on one duel thing however my point was solely related to an AESA radar. The importance of AESA radar in PAF is seen by the mere fact that PAF wants an AESA radar on the JF-17 which as some suggests a radar worth 5 million over a jet that cost 15 million. Point is that the way you ruled out its importance in air to air combact is simply beyond my understanding. While i would agree that in present era of missile centric warfare any jet even the F-22 hit by a missile would turn into a ball of fire, but what about the first lock on and fire probability and how decisive will this prove to be the fact who locks on first. India has made an AESA radar must in their tender for MRCA.

Utter rubbish. New build and MLU Falcons in terms of design features are far superior to say the J-10 if we use your line of argument. In this era of missile-centric combat any aircraft will be a burning heap of scrap if hit by a missile and the F-16/AMRAAM combination is as lethal as any out there. You also miss the F-16's significance in the PAF force structure as the Falcon is the only asset capable of carrying out precise strike+deep interdiction roles on major Indian facilities w/ the Sniper/JDAM combination. You only have to ask PAF personnel why they prefer the Falcon as well as the range of ordnance/flexibility available to the PAF.

I havent doubted the fact that the F-16s are not superior then the J-10 but we are not comparing it with the J-10 here. My point was that more then three decades have been passed since F-16s first roled out. Now i know and can understand the fact that alot has been changed, upgraded and modified in it but how exactly is it comparable to lets say the EF. Come on days of the F-16 are done, it wont see any more changes in it(upgrades). Even the production line was about to end untill Pakistan and a few nations like turkey decided to but it and hence the assembly line kept alive to meet the order.

The only strings attached is "buy French" with ordnance, maintenance and upkeep. It doesn't come cheap and Meteor AAMs are NOT guaranteed simply because if any one of five patners object then no sale will be forthcoming. The PAF simply will not take this sort of risk both with funds and inventory.

The happening of an objection for the sale of meteor is probally very low as compared to something of the US orgin. Even if the meteor is not available, there are other options available and it wont stop the jets from flying unlike in the case of US where the essentialy need spare parts to keep the birds alive are held back, thats not going to happen in case of french.

Please, don't make me laugh. There is no chance on this Earth the US Gov will allow Pakistan to sell F-16s to a third party-you may only sell back to the US and I don't doubt for an instant you will even recieve 1/3 of the resale value (hint: the DSCA website lists a certain resale quote for RMAF F-18C/D trade-ins for the SHornet). And then have a look at the prices being quoted for the Singaporean bid.

Well i just presented the idea, and the reason behind the idea was that Nations sell F-16s to other nations with the premission of the US. Pakistan too was looking for F-16s from third parties. Obviously they wont come for free. PAF bought mirages from australia. We too can do the same with obviously US premission in this regard.

Thats your opinion. Your Air Marshal certainly does not think so and neither do I.

Thats not my opinion. It has been stated by the ACM himself previously that we need a fighter that could possibly carry more weapons load. JF-17 for now is a point defence fighter. Otherwise why would we be looking for the J-10s if JF-17 could perform all roles?

 

[IceCold]

i think one of the back up plans for PAF would be to increase the number of JF-17 or FC-20 with more French input or go with 2004 plan for "Gripens?"..

Wasnt Pakistan refused over Gripen even though Musharraf personally requested for it.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Wasnt Pakistan refused over Gripen even though Musharraf personally requested for it.

that was because i think the sweeds did not support pakistani military "dictatorship".. lol .. even though mush was nothing like it..

 

[araz]

that was because i think the sweeds did not support pakistani military "dictatorship".. lol .. even though mush was nothing like it..

gripen was denied to PAF because it is an offensive weapon and Swedes have a policy of not selling arms in theatres of conflict.This must have obviously changed since they have decided to try their luck with the indian tender
it also has an American engine that makes it a liabiltiy for PAF if we are imbroiled in a controversy with the Americans.
Personally i have never seen the point of buying Gripen when we are developing a plane with similar capability(Thunder). Secondly te cost of inducting Gripen will be a lot more than inducting F16s.
Araz

 

[Owais]

Personally i have never seen the point of buying Gripen when we are developing a plane with similar capability(Thunder). Secondly te cost of inducting Gripen will be a lot more than inducting F16s.
Araz

you are right araz but JF17 is still learning to fly where as gripen is a matured and very advance platform. there are many things yet to be decided in thunder like radar, engine, hardpoints, composites etc

 

[Neo]

U.S. lawmakers question Pakistan funds ​

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday promised close scrutiny of a Bush administration request to use hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-terrorism aid to upgrade Pakistan's aging fleet of U.S.-made F-16 fighter planes.

The Bush administration argues that the upgraded F-16s will allow Pakistan to better conduct precision attacks on extremists. But the planes have not traditionally been used in anti-terrorism operations, and Pakistan sees them as an asset in its arms race against rival India.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, Democratic chair of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South Asia, suggested that the planes were more important as a symbol in Pakistan's competition with India than in helping fight extremists using parts of Pakistan as a safe haven to attack American troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

"Let's be grown-up about this. Do you think the average Pakistani thinks the symbolism has something to do with fighting terrorism or confronting India?" he asked at a hearing. "I think we are trying to build the confidence of an ally that is not so allied with us sometimes."

Lawmakers also expressed concern about the comments of a Pakistan army spokesman who said the military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border. Those orders follow a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos that raised tensions between the two allies.

Donald Camp, deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, said the F-16s would not upset the balance of power in the region, where Hindu-majority India and Muslim Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947.

Camp said the F-16s are a point of pride for Pakistan and an important part of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. The message the U.S. wants to send to Pakistan is, "We are there for the long-term," he said.

Pakistan's military has won American praise for a recent offensive against militants. But many in Washington say Pakistan has not done enough with the billions in aid the U.S. has provided to fight terrorists.

Republican Rep. Ed Royce said Congress should closely study the request. Pakistan, he said, had an "unconscionable" proliferation record, a reference to Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's nuclear architect, who leaked atomic secrets to countries including Iran and Libya.

In July, the Bush administration asked for about $226 million of proposed military equipment aid for Pakistan's anti-terrorism programs be used to upgrade the F-16s. Democratic lawmakers requested a hold on the money, saying it could be better used for more effective counterterrorism tools like helicopters, missiles and night-vision goggles.

Congress has released $116 million of the $226 million. The administration is now asking for the remaining $110 million, as well as up to $142 million in the future, Camp said.

 

[Munir]

I would move to other high tech fighterjet. F16 is a nail in the coffin for Pakistan. It is raised often for anti pak propaganda. It will force paf to have alternatives just in case. I would have taken cash and bought anything else...

 

[BATMAN]

I would have taken cash and bought anything else...

Me too.... but we know decision was not wrong and was made on merit and in a good faith.
I’m sure risks were considered but it was not expected that anti Pakistan lobby will become so aggressive immediately after replacing P.Musharraf.

 

[fatman17]

Defeating al-Qaeda's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism

Donald Camp, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and

Statement Before the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South Asia

Washington, DC

September 16, 2008

Chairman Ackerman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to address you today on Pakistan’s F-16 program.

On February 18 of this year, the Pakistani people went to the polls and elected moderate leaders who are working to set a stable, prosperous, democratic path for Pakistan into the future. The journey along this path is going to be a difficult one as Pakistan faces increasing economic challenges and the serious threat of growing instability in the border regions. The United States wants to see this new government succeed, not only because it represents the desires of the Pakistani people but because we believe that a moderate government with a democratic mandate is the most effective partner in the fight against terrorists and violent extremism.

During Prime Minister Gillani’s visit to Washington in late July, you saw the United States and Pakistan committed to maintaining and strengthening our broad-based partnership, and the United States committed to steps that can help Pakistan deal with economic problems and increase its effectiveness in countering the extremist threat. The Administration’s request to re-direct Foreign Military

Financing in 2008 and beyond to support F-16 Mid-Life Updates speaks directly to these two commitments. Updates to Pakistan’s F-16s will make these aircraft far more effective against terrorist targets, while helping with these payments will provide the newly-elected Pakistani government valuable fiscal flexibility as they deal with rising food and fuel prices.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I represent the Administration’s commitment to the F-16 program and we ask for your support to approve the Administration’s request to re-direct the remaining $110 million in 2008 Foreign

Military Financing for the Mid-Life Update and an additional $142 million in the future. The new Government of Pakistan stands behind these requests and has committed to assume subsequent payments with national funds beginning in December 2009.

F-16s Defined U.S.-Pakistan Engagement

The sale of F-16s to Pakistan became a transformative element of the U.S.- Pakistan bilateral relationship over 20 years ago, and this historical context is important to understand and remember as we determine how to handle the questions of F-16 financing today. Not only a component of Pakistan’s national defense, the F-16 has become an iconic symbol of our bilateral relationship and our commitment to each other.

In the early 1980s, the U.S. government initially agreed to sell Pakistan 111 F-16 aircraft. This decision was influenced by our close partnership with Pakistan during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. By October 1990, however, Pressler sanctions were imposed when President (George Herbert Walker) Bush was unable to certify that Pakistan was not developing a nuclear weapon. The Pressler sanctions led to a decade-long suspension of security assistance to Pakistan and a deficit of trust between our two countries that we are still working to overcome. The suspension of our security assistance programs required under Pressler meant the suspension and eventual cancellation of an additional sale of F-16 aircraft that would have augmented the 40 F-16s Pakistan purchased in 1982. That cancellation has been viewed as a symbol of the collapse of our relationship during the 1990s, a period which remains highly emotional for many Pakistanis. The suspension of our security assistance also precluded Pakistani military officers from attending U.S. military schools, which has produced nearly a generation of Pakistani military officers who have not traveled to the United States to learn sideby- side with American officers.

September 11 Re-defined Our Relationship

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the September 11, 2001 attacks resulted in a profound shift in U.S. policy towards South and Central Asia. The terrorist attacks on our homeland led to a strategic choice by the Government of Pakistan to support U.S. efforts to remove the Taliban regime from power in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s decision gave us the support of a critical neighbor, enabled us to undertake Operation Enduring Freedom and has helped to sustain coalition operations over the last seven years, with Pakistan’s road networks and port facilities serving as the critical supply line for our military forces in Afghanistan. - 3 -

In return, after September 11th, the Administration committed to reinvigorating the security relationship between our two countries. This led to Pakistan’s designation as a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2004 and the President’s commitment to provide Pakistan a $3 billion assistance package over five years, evenly divided between security and development. Soon after, the Administration sought to overturn decades of bitterness by agreeing to sell Pakistan a new generation of F-16s and providing it with the ability to upgrade its existing fleet. This agreement was formally codified in September 2006 when Pakistan signed three separate Letters of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) that constitute the core of Pakistan’s F-16 program. Prior to signing the Letters of Offer and Acceptance, the Administration notified Congress that the sale would serve to stabilize the conventional military balance in South Asia, provide Pakistan the ability to conduct Close Air Support in ongoing operations in the Global War on Terror and restore Pakistan’s confidence in the enduring nature of our relationship with them.

The Purchase

Pakistan had originally planned a total purchase valued at $5.1 billion, almost all of it in national funds. The 2005 Kashmir earthquake and subsequent financial constraints caused Pakistan to reduce the number of new planes it wanted to purchase from 36 to 18, which lowered the overall value of the deal to approximately $3.1 billion. The 18 new planes are valued at $1.4 billion, with the remainder of the $3.1 billion dedicated to associated munitions (valued at approximately $641 million) and 46 Mid-Life Update (MLU) kits for Pakistan's existing F-16 fleet (estimated to cost $891 million). Additionally, the United States has provided Pakistan with 14 F-16s designated as Excess Defense Articles (EDA).

Pakistan will use reprogrammed funds to purchase the Mid- Life Update kits to upgrade the Excess Defense Article F-16s delivered over the last two and a half years. The Mid-Life Update case was written and agreed upon by the U.S. and Pakistan as a "mixed funding" case, allowing Pakistan to use $108.395 million in FY 2006 FMF credits on the overall $891 million case. Pakistan’s subsequent request to use additional Foreign Military Financing has led us to the current request to re-direct funds in FY 2008 and beyond. The Pakistanis have requested that the Administration allow it to use a portion of its FY 2008 and FY 2009 Foreign Military Financing Presidential commitment, totaling $368M, for the Mid-Life Update program. They have also - 4 - committed to making all additional payments beyond this request with national funds. Even with this Pakistani request, over 83% of the F-16 program will have been funded through Pakistani national funds. It is important to note that Pakistan has a consistent payment record on the three other Foreign Military Sales cases associated with this sale and historically on all other Foreign Military Sales cases.

F-16s and the War on Terror

F-16s provide a critical counterterrorism capability to Pakistan and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has recently made extensive use of its aging F-16 fleet to support Pakistan Army operations in the Swat Valley and in the Bajaur Agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). According to information furnished to us by the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, the PAF flew 93 sorties in August 2008 in operations against the Taliban. However, their current model F-16 can be used for close air support missions only in daylight and good visibility. They cannot be employed at night, a fact not lost on the Taliban and other extremist groups being targeted.

U.S. F-16s use day-night, all weather, air-dropped precision-guided munitions to great effect in Iraq; and we believe Pakistan should be able to use this capability to achieve our shared goals in countering militants along its western border. The new and enhanced F-16s will provide Pakistan the ability to attack fleeing targets with precision during all weather conditions. The Mid-Life Update will enable the Pakistan Air Force to use an advanced targeting pod that provides the ability to generate ground position data that can then be used to direct guided munitions to a target. In addition, the Mid-Life Update comes with an advanced communications system that enables real time communication with ground forces – a critical capability for Close Air Support missions. Combined, these systems provide Pakistan’s Air Force with the technological capability to conduct precision close air strikes against Al Qaeda, Taliban, and associated terrorist targets in the FATA, as well as provide non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (NTISR), a critical enabler in a counterinsurgency campaign. The Pakistan Air Force will receive considerable training associated with the F-16 cases including specific F-16 pilot and maintenance training for their F-16 technicians. We are currently finalizing a comprehensive training plan with us that will include Close Air Support, Combat Search and Rescue, aerial refueling, and night flying operations. This will also mean an improved ability to limit civilian casualties, which will in turn lead to greater willingness on the part of the Pakistani military to employ the F-16s in a counter-terrorism role.

It is also important to note that Pakistan’s request to use Foreign Military Financing for the Mid-Life Update program will not detract from investments in other equipment that is being employed in direct support of ongoing military operations in the Tribal Areas. Our original congressional notification for the use of $247 million of Pakistan’s Foreign Military Financing allocation stated that Pakistan would use this assistance to finance the refurbishment of Pakistan Navy P-3C aircraft, to purchase Pakistan Air Force Command and Control articles and services, tactical radios for Pakistan’s Army, TOW missiles and to modernize and maintain Pakistan’s Cobra helicopters. Twenty million dollars of the $247 million will still be used to purchase TOW missiles and tactical radios. In addition, the Cobra helicopters, for which there are signed Letters of Offer and Acceptance, will be financed through Pakistan’s remaining FY 2008 Foreign Military Financing allocation of $50.57 million, which will be released pending expiration of the congressional notification period.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize the strategic importance of Pakistan to U.S. interests, not just regionally, but globally. While the F-16 plays an important role in Pakistan’s efforts to defeat extremism, it also has achieved strategic importance as a symbolic barometer of the overall state of our relationship and trust between our militaries. Given the tangible and symbolic importance of Pakistan’s F-16 program we request Congressional support to redirect the remaining $110 million in Foreign Military Financing in Fiscal Year 2008 and up to $142 million in the future. I thank you for this opportunity to appear before this Committee. My colleagues and I are happy to respond to your questions at this point. Thank you.

source: Defeating al-Qaeda's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism

 

[Jliu]

Hmmm well i am certainly not aware of it and perhaps would not argue over it since the line of field you are in, obviously you know more then whats on the paper. By the way wasnt your line of field Navy

Navy background yes.

I agree with the one on one duel thing however my point was solely related to an AESA radar. The importance of AESA radar in PAF is seen by the mere fact that PAF wants an AESA radar on the JF-17 which as some suggests a radar worth 5 million over a jet that cost 15 million.

I agree that sounds fishy unless PAF brass have decided on one JF-17 acting as "controller" in illuminating incoming hostiles with active radar. Unfortunately that same controller will be missile bait but gives all other fighters the chance to loose off whatever AAM the JF-17 is going to be equipped with.

Point is that the way you ruled out its importance in air to air combact is simply beyond my understanding. While i would agree that in present era of missile centric warfare any jet even the F-22 hit by a missile would turn into a ball of fire, but what about the first lock on and fire probability and how decisive will this prove to be the fact who locks on first. India has made an AESA radar must in their tender for MRCA.

I'm making the point that AESA radars should be compared by output, scan rate and LPI. All detection+lock on ratios above are subject to a myriad of other factors on the day. AESA does not equal good. Some AESAs have been around since the 90's and are actually inferior to contemporary PESA beam formed arrays with the M-X "AESA" on the JASDF F-2 coming to mind immediately. An expensive AESA is only critical on a platform that is going to be survivable-assuming the size of the array can even fit into the nose cone of the fighter. As you've said earlier it is rather expensive and there is only one logical answer which I have outlined. As for the Indians they would like AESA radars on ALL 126-200 MRCA because a) they can afford it via 100% offsets and b) all platforms under consideration are HVA in the strike role and thus not expendable "cannon fodder" in the subclass of the JF-17 and Mig-21M.

I havent doubted the fact that the F-16s are not superior then the J-10 but we are not comparing it with the J-10 here. My point was that more then three decades have been passed since F-16s first roled out. Now i know and can understand the fact that alot has been changed, upgraded and modified in it but how exactly is it comparable to lets say the EF. Come on days of the F-16 are done, it wont see any more changes in it(upgrades). Even the production line was about to end untill Pakistan and a few nations like turkey decided to but it and hence the assembly line kept alive to meet the order.

Ever read about the Desert Falcons with the UAE and exactly WHY the UAE selected the Block 60 of all things as a "multirole fighter with an emphasis on air superiority operations to the range of 1000km" over other contenders such as the EF and Rafale?
It'll trump a EF-2000/Rafale anyday by sheer virtue of its integrated sensor suite and weapons package. That said, the Block 52+ for the PAF is the second most lethal variant of the Falcon out there and one league ahead in weapons and systems fit of the J-10. For all the J-10's supposed maneuverability, assuming its in the magnitude of ~4.5-6G can it evade a 9G AMRAAM -C5 inbound at +/-M.5?

Its not about the airframe anymore, sensors/missiles rule the day-it explains why the Mig-21s are still flying and the JF-17 even being inducted.

The happening of an objection for the sale of meteor is probally very low as compared to something of the US orgin. Even if the meteor is not available, there are other options available and it wont stop the jets from flying unlike in the case of US where the essentialy need spare parts to keep the birds alive are held back, thats not going to happen in case of french.

Without the Meteor the Rafale will be at a severe disadvatange vs any contemporary in any scenario given the fact potential adversaries enjoy the use of the R-77 which outranges the MICA/IR MICA and which Meteor was designed to outrange given the lack of EU expertise in kinetic VLO technology. We'll wait and see as to future sales even though the PAF miraculously recieving 500 120C-5s. Don't say America isn't nice to you with those aid packages (begun in 2001) because the Europeans always insist you pay up front with cash.

Thats not my opinion. It has been stated by the ACM himself previously that we need a fighter that could possibly carry more weapons load. JF-17 for now is a point defence fighter. Otherwise why would we be looking for the J-10s if JF-17 could perform all roles?

More load= new Falcon variants or J-10s etc. for the strike role. Admittedly the Rafale is one heck of great A2G platform w/AASM/GBU-12+Damocles TPod and would greatly boost the PAF's strike capabilities but given the cost and integration into the future force structure it seems unlikely in addition to being at somewhat of a disadvantage in A2A against any of the MRCA contestants and the MKI. Yet playing with figures if the PAF drop procurement of the J-10, slashes BM R&D funds and caps Al-Khalid numbers then enough should be scraped together if combined in a "mega" French arms package to procure 24-40 Rafale and 2-3 Scorpene/Marlin to boot. Its all about opportunity cost and balancing priorities.

 

[was]

US officials call F-16s component of Pakistan’s national defence

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: United States administration officials, refusing to wilt under hostile questioning from a number of congressmen over what the latter projected as a sweetheart F-16 deal with Pakistan, described the aircraft as a “transformative element” in US-Pakistan relations and a “component of Pakistan’s national defence”.
The officials, including Donald Camp of the State Department’s South Asia Bureau and Vice Admiral Jeffrey Wieringa of the Defence Security Agency, were testifying before a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing presided over by Rep Gary L Ackerman, who has a long record of being overly and often unfairly critical of Pakistan.
Ackerman’s main thrust at the hearing lay in his assertion that the US was using American tax-payer’s money to bail out Pakistan by diverting money from Foreign Military Fund credits to enable Islamabad pay the instalments due on F-16 upgrades.
Ackerman was unabashedly sarcastic on several occasions. Even the title of the hearing ‘Defeating Al Qaeda’s air force: Pakistan’s F-16 programme in the fight against terror’ reeked of sarcasm.
The veteran legislator also called Pakistan as “the world’s leading sub-prime borrower”, namely someone who borrows without the ability to repay. He also made fun of Pakistan’s economic vulnerability. Ackerman also claimed that there were videos of Pakistanis shooting at Americans, an assertion that took most present at the hearing by surprise because such a claim had not been heard being made before. Ackerman mocked Camp for what he implied was the State Department official’s ignorance about the alleged videos.
Camp told the congressmen that Pakistan has requested that the administration allow it to use a portion of its 2008 and 2009 FMF commitment, totalling $368 million for the midlife F-16 update programme. Pakistan had committed that it will make all additional payments beyond this request from its national funds. Even with the Pakistani request, Camp emphasised, over 83 percent of the F-16 programme will have been funded through Pakistani national funds. He told the subcommittee to note that Pakistan has a “consistent payment record on the three other foreign military sales cases”.
He stressed that F-16s provide a ‘critical counterterrorism capability’ to Pakistan and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) had recently made extensive use of its aging F-16 fleet to support Pakistan army operations in Swat Valley and in Bajaur Agency. The PAF had flown 93 sorties in August this year in anti-Taliban operations. He disagreed with Ackerman that Pakistan wanted the F-16s against India, while emphasising that the aircraft was part of Pakistan’s national defence.
Camp told the subcommittee, “I would like to emphasise the strategic importance of Pakistan to US interests, not just regionally, but globally. While the F-16 plays an important role in Pakistan’s efforts to defeat extremism, it also has achieved strategic importance as a symbolic barometer of the overall state of our relationship of trust between our two militaries. We ask for your support to approve the administration’s request to redirect the remaining $110 million in 2008 Foreign Military Financing for the Midlife Update and an additional $142 million in the future.”
The administration has already released $116 million for updates of the Pakistani F-16 A and B versions of the plane.
Camp, driving his point home, told the congressmen, “Updates to Pakistan’s F-16s will make these aircraft far more effective against terrorist targets, while helping with these payments will provide the newly-elected Pakistani government valuable fiscal flexibility as they deal with rising food and fuel prices.”
Camp said the Pakistan’s F-16s will not upset the regional arms balance. He also called the aircraft a “symbol of pride” for Pakistan.
Pakistan had originally planned a total purchase of F-16s valued at $5.1 billion principally from its national funds. The 2005 Kashmir earthquake and subsequent financial constraints made Pakistan reduce the number of new planes from 36 to 18, which lowered the overall value of the deal to $3.1 billion. The 18 new planes are valued at $1.4 billion, with the remainder of the $3.1 billion dedicated to associated munitions (valued at approximately $641 million) and 46 Midlife update kits for Pakistan’s existing F-16 fleet, estimated to cost $891 million.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[blain2]

We'll wait and see as to future sales even though the PAF miraculously recieving 500 120C-5s. Don't say America isn't nice to you with those aid packages (begun in 2001) because the Europeans always insist you pay up front with cash.

Jliu sir,
America is only as nice to us as she would be to Koreans, Germans, Indians or anyone else who is willing to pay. The entire Weapons package of $650 million is being funded by Pakistan herself (trust me on this). This is in addition to the monies for the blk52 F-16s which we are funding on our own. The only thing that the US is giving in aid is the MLU package out of the aid through FMF for this work. Ironically, the same amount of money (as in the case of the weapons package) in the past was returned to us in the form of soybean oil after charging us parking fees for F-16s that were never given to us. Its a story unheard of in the realm of military sales. Even the USG were embarrassed over it in talks with our guys.

It'll trump a EF-2000/Rafale anyday by sheer virtue of its integrated sensor suite and weapons package. That said, the Block 52+ for the PAF is the second most lethal variant of the Falcon out there and one league ahead in weapons and systems fit of the J-10. For all the J-10's supposed maneuverability, assuming its in the magnitude of ~4.5-6G can it evade a 9G AMRAAM -C5 inbound at +/-M.5?

This has a lot to do with what stage the blk60 vs Rafale were in when the UAEAF went all out for blk60. Rafale has still not been declared IOC with a true MR capability so its hard to say that Blk60's sensors and weapons suite is better than those of Rafale. The Spectra ECCM suite is a beauty in its own right and is right up there with the latest series of ALQ EW suites on offer on the F/A-18 SH and F-16 blk52/60 aircraft. What sucks for the French is that they have not been quick enough to get the Rafale to a demonstrated fully MR capability. No wonder they are the dark horses in every single evaluation for the next gen fighter acquisition.

Also the J-10 is definitely a +/- 9G airframe. There is no doubt in my mind about it. The PAF pilots who have flown it have some good things to say about the basic maneuverability and enhancement possibilities with the type. The venerable Chinese J-6 (F-6s) in the PAF service could do better than 5Gs and would give a tough time to the Viper during DACT. So I would not underestimate the J-10 in such rudimentary areas as the ability to withstand maneuvers in the 9G range.

Without the Meteor the Rafale will be at a severe disadvatange vs any contemporary in any scenario given the fact potential adversaries enjoy the use of the R-77 which outranges the MICA/IR MICA and which Meteor was designed to outrange given the lack of EU expertise in kinetic VLO technology.

I believe this is a theoretical assumption which does not take into account that the Rafale has the lowest RCS of all the non-stealth fighter types around. So the theoretical ranges of R-77 outgunning the Rafale may be debatable. Meteor definitely gives the French a much better standoff, first shot capability though. Also the assumption that Rafale would not be a capable deterrence against the IAF MKIs and MMRCA type is also an underestimation of the type. I know that PAF will never go for the Rafale given the current situation with it, however at least in the Indo-Pak context, the Rafale would be just as good if not better than the Blk52 F-16s. The benefit of blk-52s for us is that its a known quantity. We have operated the earlier types, have dealt with the US, know about the spares market, know that many other operators are out there etc. etc., know that in the future, the enhancements would be cheaper to integrate owing to so many other operators out there etc. Unfortunately the French cannot match many of these extraneous benefits.

 

[Jliu]

Jliu sir,
America is only as nice to us as she would be to Koreans, Germans, Indians or anyone else who is willing to pay. The entire Weapons package of $650 million is being funded by Pakistan herself (trust me on this). This is in addition to the monies for the blk52 F-16s which we are funding on our own. The only thing that the US is giving in aid is the MLU package out of the aid through FMF for this work. Ironically, the same amount of money (as in the case of the weapons package) in the past was returned to us in the form of soybean oil after charging us parking fees for F-16s that were never given to us. Its a story unheard of in the realm of military sales. Even the USG were embarrassed over it in talks with our guys.

Sir, I will take your word on the details but it is highly significant that the US would release 500 AMRAAMs to Pakistan. This deal symbolises the strength of US-Pak ties and in relation to my previous post it demonstrates that the defence relationship remains important-comparitively more than Pak-EU defence relations.

This has a lot to do with what stage the blk60 vs Rafale were in when the UAEAF went all out for blk60. Rafale has still not been declared IOC with a true MR capability so its hard to say that Blk60's sensors and weapons suite is better than those of Rafale.

Hope so mate otherwise we might have to find out the hard way. Personally I'd love to see a PAF Rafale v IAF MKI/MRCA bar Mig-35 duel but it'll probably never happen.

The Spectra ECCM suite is a beauty in its own right and is right up there with the latest series of ALQ EW suites on offer on the F/A-18 SH and F-16 blk52/60 aircraft. What sucks for the French is that they have not been quick enough to get the Rafale to a demonstrated fully MR capability. No wonder they are the dark horses in every single evaluation for the next gen fighter acquisition.

They'll have to cut into procurement (numbers) to pay for block upgrades=bad
That sir, is a huge problem since the Rafale's role is primarily MR with a secondary strike emphasis ie. in design philosophical terms the weapons package was structured around the fighter as is the case with US designs. When the Rafale can't even achieve demonstratable baseline IOC for MR capability in its core competency that is rather unfortunate. Comparing the F-16 B60 and the Rafale in terms of EW, sensors etc yes I agree it is hard-because the Rafales in Afghanistan (the first observable deployment o/s) don't even have the full suite! That said, I find it hard to believe French systems that have just finished the Systems Development Life Cycle can compete with equivalent US offerings that are tested and true.

Also the J-10 is definitely a +/- 9G airframe. There is no doubt in my mind about it. The PAF pilots who have flown it have some good things to say about the basic maneuverability and enhancement possibilities with the type. The venerable Chinese J-6 (F-6s) in the PAF service could do better than 5Gs and would give a tough time to the Viper during DACT. So I would not underestimate the J-10 in such rudimentary areas as the ability to withstand maneuvers in the 9G range.

My apologies if I've put down the wrong numbers. My point was that no fighter can outmaneuvere an inbound multi-seeker AAM w/ terminal lock once within the AAM's NEZ.

I believe this is a theoretical assumption which does not take into account that the Rafale has the lowest RCS of all the non-stealth fighter types around.

That in itself sir is debatable. As you are probably aware RCS values on the airframe vary, ie. the F-35 has an excellent frontal RCS against X-Band threats while the other aspects of the fuselage such as the tail are less protected and are somewhat vulnerable to other frequencies. The Rafale is no different as an airframe inherently less VLO than the Lightning II or in my opnion the EF-2000. All we precisely know about the Rafale is that:

a) It incorporates "some" reduced RCS tech
b) Frontal RCS: About 1/10 of Mirage-2000 (Declared by Dassault in 1998)

That said, I've compiled a OSINT list of references about the Rafale:

RAFALE the Omnirole Fighter

Width: 10.80 m
Length: 15.27 m
Height: 5.34 m
Wing surface area: 45.70 m2

Empty weight: 10 ton-class (1 ton = 907.18474 kg) by Dassault
# Rafale C 9,400 kg
# Rafale B 9,600 kg
# Rafale M 9,900 kg

MTOW: 24,500 kg - May be increased to 27,200 kg in the future

Internal fuel: 4,500 kg - Rafale C / 4,240 kg - Rafale B

External load: 7,500 kg - Standard / 9,500 kg+ - Upper Limit

Number of pylons: 14 for Rafale B/C, and 13 for Rafale M. 5 of them are "Wet" pylons.

======================================================

Maximum speed, high altitude: Mach 1.8+
Maximum speed, low altitude: 750kts
Minimum speed: 115kts
Approaching speed: 120kts
With two MICA EM, two Magic-II, and one 1250L tank, the upper limit of speed for RAFALE B is Mach 1.6

Road lenght for take off.......400~600 m
Road lenght for landing...............450 m
Climbing rate, sea level...............305 m/sec+
Operational flight height....16,750 ~ 18,400 m


Combat radius:
a. 1,100 km: Tanks * 3 with 4,300 L fuel + MICA AAM * 4 + 1,000 Ib bombs * 12
b. 1,830 km: 1150L CFTs * 2 + Tanks * 3 with 5,700 L fuel + SCALP-EG * 2 + MICA *2
c. 1,852 km: Tanks * 4 with 6,600 L fuel + MICA AAM*8
d. CAP: more than 2 hours: Rafale M ; six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 100 nm, 185 km from the carrier
e. Ferry range: 5,593 km (Maximum loand of internal and external tanks' fuel); 2,100 km (Internal fuel only)

T/W ratio, sea-level (100% internal fuel + eight MICA, M88-2 engine):
1. Rafale C: 1.02 0.68 AB Max. Mil
2. Rafale B: 1.01 0.67 AB Max. Mil
3. Rafale M: 0.99 0.66 AB Max. Mil

T/W ratio, sea-level (100% internal fuel + eight MICA, M88-3 engine, "post-2010"):
1. Rafale C: 1.18 0.79 AB Max. Mil
2. Rafale B: 1.16 0.77 AB Max. Mil
3. Rafale M: 1.14 0.75 AB Max. Mil

Wing-Load: (100% internal fuel + eight MICA):
1. Rafale C: 328.2 kg / m2
2. Rafale B: 331.5 kg / m2
3. Rafale M: 339.1 kg / m2

Flight Capability and Agility:

1. (Air to surface configuration, with 600 Gal tanks * 3 + SCALP-EG * 2 + MICA *4)
Upper limit for G-loading: 5.5G; Upper limit for rotating rate: 190 deg/sec; Upper limit of speed: Mach 1.04; Upper limit for AoA: 25 degrees.

2. (Air to air configuration)
Upper limit for G-loading: 9.0 ~ 11.0 G+; Upper limit for rotating rate: 290 deg/sec; Upper limit of speed: Mach 2.1; Upper limit for AoA: 32 degrees.

3. G-loading: -3.2 to + 9.0 G ~ 11.0 G+

4. AoA: 32 degrees, normal upper limit by FBWs; more than 100 degrees without the restriction from FBWs.

5. Maximum rate of turning:
?30 deg/sec Instaneous
24 deg/sec Persist

6. With a clean Rafale, using afterburner, you can enter a turn at 500 kt. and 10,000 ft., pull the maximum 9g and still accelerate. Cornering speed for the Rafale is 360 kt.

7. (Rafale of air to surface heavy configuration) I started a loop in military power and 450 kt. using a 4g pullup and speed at the top was 180 kt. The aircraft was responsive both in pitch and roll control, and I ended up some 600 ft. from the starting altitude. For the next maneuver, I selected afterburner, banked some 75 deg. and pulled to the maximum allowable gs of 5.5/6, in the heavy configuration. Starting at 420 kt., the speed was 360 kt. after completing a 360-deg. turn.

8. Rafale M can bring back 4,804 kg load of fuel and weapons to land on the carrier. The upper limit for the bring-back of weapons is 3,444 kg in day, and 2,989 kg at night.

Frontal RCS: About 1/10 of Mirage-2000 (Declared by Dassault in 1998)

So the theoretical ranges of R-77 outgunning the Rafale may be debatable. Meteor definitely gives the French a much better standoff, first shot capability though.Also the assumption that Rafale would not be a capable deterrence against the IAF MKIs and MMRCA type is also an underestimation of the type.

Without the Meteor the Rafale is almost dead against a Su-30MKI due to lack of AMRAAM (and all other BVRAAM integration). MICA @50-60km doesn't cut it against a ~80km AA-12 when given the fact that the Bars-M the IAF possesses at cruising altitude ~15,000km has a claimed detection range of 300km (I instead rely on the tracking range as a true est-200km) v the "track 40 and engage 8" of the RBE-2 (unless the French cut numbers and/or win export comps they are never going to get an AESA version as the CAPTOR-E/CAESAR is out of the question). Based on those figures and extensive consultation I say the tracking range of the French radar is a paltry 60-100km. Now while the RG MICA is not to be underestimated I would hate to be on the recieving end of 3-4 AA-12s coming my way.

I know that PAF will never go for the Rafale given the current situation with it, however at least in the Indo-Pak context, the Rafale would be just as good if not better than the Blk52 F-16s. The benefit of blk-52s for us is that its a known quantity. We have operated the earlier types, have dealt with the US, know about the spares market, know that many other operators are out there etc. etc., know that in the future, the enhancements would be cheaper to integrate owing to so many other operators out there etc. Unfortunately the French cannot match many of these extraneous benefits.

Agreed sir. The Gripen would be a far better bet if any other options for non Chinese/Pak fighters were to be pursued.

 

[shehbazi2001]

Navy background yes.

Without the Meteor the Rafale will be at a severe disadvatange vs any contemporary in any scenario given the fact potential adversaries enjoy the use of the R-77 which outranges the MICA/IR MICA and which Meteor was designed to outrange given the lack of EU expertise in kinetic VLO technology. We'll wait and see as to future sales even though the PAF miraculously recieving 500 120C-5s. Don't say America isn't nice to you with those aid packages (begun in 2001) because the Europeans always insist you pay up front with cash.

.

You are talking of longer range of AA-12 as compared to MICA but you are forgetting that AMRAAM also has a shorter kinematic range than AA-12 under similar conditions. AA-12 is bigger in size than both of these.

The range of a BVR is not so simple calculation. The manufacturer MBDA gives a range of 60-70 km but Taiwan has destroyed a drone at 73km with MICA fired from Mirage 2000.

The range of BVR AAM strongly depends upon following factors,

1- Altitude of the launch aircraft
2- Speed of the launch aircraft
3- Altitude of the target aircraft
4- Direction of flight of target, whether closing in or moving away

The more you fly faster and higher, the more range will your BVR AAM have. More range is enjoyed if target is coming towards you, less when he is going away.

Another very important factor is A-pole, the distance from target aircraft when your BVR missile goes active. Thats very important. You can move away and do evasive maneuver only when your BVR goes active and see the target himself. Then you dont need to send updates to missile.

You should bring figures of A-pole on AMRAAM, MICA and Adder. A-pole is more important than kinematic range, which depends mostly on motor burn time.