Hello Blain2,
Thanks for coming to the party. Did they call you for re-inforcement. How have you been? Are you married by now? If so---how is the married life!
MK, doing well. Thank you for asking. Hope all is well with you as well.
The question---why don't you ask that from two of our esteemed retd air force officers. Muradk and pshamim---they can answer better than me.
Have not chatted with Murad sahib recently about the JF-17, but with Pervez sahib, I have had many discussions and know first hand that he is a big fan of the aircraft with all of its pros and cons. Beyond that, you can talk to any serving PAF officer and he will tell you that given what has gone on in the recent past, a bird in hand is better than two in the bush and the two in the bush include the F-16 and any of the other Western options.
So they had sanctions on us---did we force the u s to lift the sanctions when they asked for our help----absolutely not----did we put a condition of releasing air bases if the sanctions were removed---no we didnot---. We could have given them two primary bases and for the other 3---we could have put it on the pak citizens---told the americans---my citizens are extremely angry---I can give you so much but not all----why don't you release my F 16's and I will give you some more.
In reality, this is exactly what has happened. The GoP has done a good job of making Pakistan's case. However we built geo-strategic capital on our end before we could go to the Americans and make this case. If you look at the statement of any American who is involved in dealing with our side, they all make the very same point - The F-16s are a recognition of firming US-Pakistan relations. This was not possible prior to 9/11, but became possible after and the Pakistani side worked with the US side because the environment was conducive.
Pakistanis proved to be the worst of the deal makers when it counted the most---paf wasted years checking out the grippen knowing upfront that there were sanctions involved---they could have worked at things a little better to get the sanctions removed---. Swedes were unhappy with the pak putting them together for about two years---that is the reason for no more deals---.
Pakistan looked at everything! At times there were simultaneous efforts and teams looking at various options that could work out for the PAF. You mix two nasty ingredients called lack of political and legal clearance along with paucity of funds and you get the same result which was always a no to Pakistan from any quarter we looked at. Swedes could not have been unhappy at Pakistan because I am 110% sure that they were the ones who said NO to Pakistan due to the GE engines and other components over which they could not give clearance. They approved the sale initially and then when the PAF inquired about the aircraft further, they were told that due to US involvement in the Gripen program, this sale was a non-starter. There is official documentation in existence regarding this issue.
Taking a pro-active approach against the taliban / al qaeda 6 years in advance would have been a better venue.
I do not disagree. However geo-political considerations were different back then. Secondly, I am a firm believer in the saying that hind-sight is perfect. It really is easy to look back and say we should have done things differently. While I can fault our government for messing up the governance at home, I would say the foreign policy reacted to the happenings around Pakistan. Who can say that the insurgency campaign being conducted right now will not pose problems in the future?
As for the 500 amraams---we don't have a single one in stock---and the plane still has to show up---now what kinds of restrainst we have in using the amraams---only time will tell.
This is an ill-informed statement. The AMRAAMs are not hand because of the delivery schedule that was decided back in 2005. It makes no sense for PAF to have AMRAAMs sitting and living out their shelf-life before the aircraft arrive. The smart thing is what has been done now, which is the coinciding delivery schedule for the blk-52s with the AIM-120s.
And again---we are still depending on systems that we are yet to own---come on son---give me a break---is this how the future and destiny of a nation is carved---that the young men of my nation are building palaces of wonder and imaginations---on what is gonna be tomorrow---. It is good to have imagination but to have ones life revolving around whats gonna be---
Son? MK, Last I checked you took offense at belittling titles such as this so what gives? Your point about me getting married (little do you know about my age etc.) was in line with this as well but I do not want to burden the folks here with my personal information so I will spare you and them this. This discussion is about the JF-17 which we have a whole lot more of on hand than the F-16s which you have brought into this discussion. I think sometimes you feel inclined to believe that only you have the thinking cap on. The reality is different MK. Since I am never involved in discussing inventories on paper, I am not sure if we should bother about what some others are engaging in, which is to talk about what is coming up on the horizon. My point is factual, which is, we have JF-17s on hand. Our pilots and Air Force like it. While other systems may offer selectively better performance in certain regimes, the JF-17, by virtue of its very decent capabilities and certainty of supply is strategically a much bigger win than the F-16 purchase.
Your comment about no tank or airplane has won---is so totally out of context to what I have been saying---.that it does not dignify a response
My comment was not aimed at you so not sure why it would impinge on your dignity? If you read it again, you will find that I was actually agreeing that talking about JF-17 as a war winner is over simplification of the situation.
Your comments about the jf 17---are words of emotion---and nothing more---you know they are shallow words---.
??
The last two paras of your post don't meet upto the calibre of posts that were expected of BLAIN2---.
Not sure what it was that I stated which seemed so out of place for you? Its a fact. Next time you get a chance, talk to the folks in service about the JF-17. You will get an overwhelmingly positive answer regardless of all the shortcomings of the aircraft because its a capable MR platform for our environment. This is the raison detre for the aircraft and for fulfilling this role, the aircraft has to be applauded.
There is nothing old fashioned about what you are saying----yes the JF 17 is indeed a matter of pride for pakistan---yes it a potent aircraft in its own calibre---and NO IT IS NOT THE SILVER BULLET that we needed---.
Good luck finding the silver bullet. This silver bullet has been the bane of all Air Forces world wide. The Europeans do not admit it but know that they have a white elephant in the form of Typhoon on their hand. The French have no one to sell the Rafale to. The Swedes are also struggling with their aircraft. All these cost more than $50 million per unit when the 5th generation aircraft are sure to come on line in strength. Each of these aircraft, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen has 40 year lifespan. Which means that their service will start in the next 3 to 5 years and 2 years after these aircraft are in service with Airforces beyond the original operators (this is a big if), 5th generation F-35 would be in service. Most of the countries flying the Typhoon are having problems justifying an aircraft which is a dedicated air interdiction platform with a very limited surface attack capability. So not sure which silver bullet you want to put in front of the PAF. Realize that the silver bullet is none of these 4.5 generation aircraft in service currently. If PAF wants a real silver bullet, it is not the Typhoon, its not the Rafale, Gripen or the Flanker derivative. It has to be a true fifth generation solution. So given what is available on the market and its limited efficacy and life (I am referring to all these 4.5 gen aircraft that would have to operate in environments with 5th gen aircraft) in the near future, our budget 4th generation fighter is a great deal.
You people keep twisting and turning what I have been saying---you read something that goes against your belief---you guys go red in the head and then stop listening to what I am saying.
This plane will never ever reach that stage of threat where the enemy will have to think twice---regardless of whatsoever radar system it has or the electronic warfare system it has---for the reason---the plane is limited by its size---there is no package in the eastern hemisphere which can make this plane an extremely formidable threat against the first line of enemy strike planes.
So who is suggesting changing the radar etc.? Why does it need it? Idea is to have the aircraft operate under own positive AEW cover. Have a decent standoff attack capability, which it does, and be available in good numbers and offer performance in the general F-16/Mirage 2000 category. The JF-17 can do all of this.
Maybe you should explain the invincibility of the other side's strike capability before we can discuss the specifics of the threat the JF-17 can pose to the other side. Any time the IAF comes up against an AEW directed adversary with a decent BVR capability, there will have to be a lot of considerations given to any strike mission.
If china had such a package---they could have already used it on the J 10's---.
Paf is going to face the isareli elctronic systems this time---possibly israeli opertators as well---it is a totally different ball game.
And the Indians will face PAF equipped with US, European and Chinese avionics. The current modernization plans for the PAF would have never come to fruition had this realization, about the IAF quality improving, not registered with AHQ. It is indeed a concern, but also one that should be tempered with the knowledge that the overall security situation in the region is as such that both sides will not want to provoke large scale wars. In a short, high intensity war, the PAF, given its current plans bear fruition by 2012 as envisaged, can hold its own. It will get bloodied, but the same goes for the other side as well.
Blain says---no tank or plane has won a war---I never said---that--twisting my words---I said a weapons system must make the adversary think and bring it to the peace table---seems like you want to read what you want to.
Read my post carefully. You are getting annoyed over a non-issue. I was actually agreeing with what you were saying in the post to which I responded.
NOW YOU GUYS WANT TO SHUT ME UP REAL BAD---- I will give you an oppurtunity---and be honest with yourself.
No such intention here. Fire away!
You say---weapons don't bring peace---I say they do---remember the cold war---I don't think so---the poster in question was in his diapers as were most of you---silly---it were the weapons of equal destruction that ultimately kept war away---.
Diapers? and then you have the gall to call others silly? Lets be a bit more mature about these posts. Who said weapons don't bring peace? What I said was wars are not won or lost on the basis of a single weapon system. There is a whole lot more that goes into winning a war. For some reason this point was lost on you.
Almost missed it---the F 16 weapons system stopped a so called attack on pakistani nuclear sites by the indians due to the fear of retaliation---that was in pak news a few days ago---BLAIN2---you are totally wrong in what you stated---
Yes the F-16s did it. Now its not the F-16 that gives the Indians a pause. Its the strategic capability which allows us deterrence. Given the nuclear overhang, the F-16 and the JF-17 will do alright for the PAF in the future.
So---here is your vote----if and it is a big big if---pakistan gets a batch of 230 F 15 SILENT EAGLES with all its pomp and glory package---I have 230 so you have one on one agains the su 30 fleet---then you get those fine fine 4 german subs that you had been negotiating for so long---what is the chance of india showing a more peace loving posture----I would say---looking at the past examples---pretty high.
No! India will simply go and place another order of 300 Su-30s. Lets learn something from the past and realize that Pakistan has to be careful in maintaining her deterrence. India always has and will continue to have more money to spend and they will ensure that they will always have an edge in terms of quantity. Pakistan's approach is selective deterrence to ensure that we have enough breathing room before things escalate up the nuclear rung.
Now on the reverse---what is the chance of pakistan changing its stance from a very defencive and controlled to a very offencive and right in your face kind of aggression---I would say---extremely high.
To what end? And if that is your goal, why can this not be done with PAF's current plans? Have enough multi-role aircraft with decent standoff and strike capability. Have good radars and have a good training program. You get a fairly aggressive capability to deter aggression.
[/QUOTE]
I think I have done this very same thing above.
