What's new

KAYANI IS "DESPERATE" FOR HELICOPTERS

HAIDER

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
33,771
Reaction score
14
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Classified By: Anne W. Patterson, for reasons 1.4 (b)(d)
1. (C) Summary and Action Request. In a two hour conversation with Ambassador May 23, Chief of Army Staff General Kayani told Ambassador he was "desperate" for helicopter support as he had only five MI-17s operational. Kayani insisted that Pakistani technicians were capable of doing required helicopter maintenance. There are two ways for the Pakistani military to acquire additional helicopters relatively quickly: (1) a lease, and we understand a waiver to enable the USG to lease MI-17s now needs only congressional notification; and (2) procurement through Pakistan's FMF account, which also requires a waiver. We expect Pakistan to prefer the first option. Post acknowledges the frustration of dealing with the Pakistani military, but it is critical to our interests that they receive help as soon as possible to clear Swat and move on the Waziristans, the heart of cross-border operations against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Post recommends that we request expedited congressional notification of the MI-17 waiver. In the meantime, we continue to seek Cobra helicopter spare parts. End Summary and Action Request.

2. (C) In a two hour conversation May 23 (septel) Chief of Army Staff General Kayani told Ambassador he was "desperate" for helicopter support. He said he could not move against North and South Waziristan until he had more lift. At that moment, he said he had five MI-17s operational. (This is a lower number than others have told us.) As has been previously reported, Kayani wanted U.S. support to lease MI-17 helicopters, and he needed spare parts for the Cobra helicopters. Ambassador said she wanted to "clear the air" about some of the offers of U.S. assistance that had gone unanswered, such as the helicopter maintenance contract and the ISR platform.

3. (C) Kayani said he did not need U.S. help on maintenance: the Cobras were twenty-five years old and had been maintained by Pakistani technicians. But he needed the U.S. Government to stop the constant stream of leaks from Washington. These always made it appear as if he were taking steps in response to U.S. demands. He said he had been successfully moving troops from the eastern border, but this was undermined by the drumbeat in the U.S. press that he was taking this action in response to U.S. demands. The U.S., he said, is always trying to press on him sophisticated U.S. systems, which the Pakistani military had neither the ability nor the funds to manage. Domestic political support for current combat operations would be eroded by a bigger U.S. military presence, he said.

4. (C) Embassy understands that the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) waiver that enables the USG potentially to procure or lease MI-17s has just been approved by the Department, and the only remaining hurdle is the Congressional notification. The notification process needs to be expedited. The Mission is considering options to assist Pakistan Army in procuring or leasing MI-17s. If the supplemental is passed, our preferred option is to use the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF) to lease nine MI-17s. A U.S. controlled lease of this kind allows us to include necessary maintenance (which any contractor is likely to stipulate) and provides leverage over use of the helicopters in order to ensure the helicopters are applied in counter-insurgency activities. The nine MI-17s the Pakistanis have requested would be leased for the duration of ongoing overhauls of nine Pakistan Army MI-17s and would, in effect, be a 1-for-1 backfill of those helicopters in overhaul.

5. (C) Alternately, if the supplemental is not passed in time, the Mission can advise the GOP to use its FMF to buy or lease MI-17 helicopters. If the GOP chooses to use its FMF for this purpose, the Mission will need to obtain an Offshore Procurement (OSP) waiver from DOD, with State Department and Department of Treasury concurrence, and an agreement with the GOP specifying the conditions on how they intend to use these new MI-17 helicopters, The terms of the agreement will specify use of the helicopters in support of counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency (COIN) operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the Northwest Frontier Province, and portions of Balochistan. Further, if a purchase, the agreement will require a comprehensive

ISLAMABAD 00001119 002 OF 002

maintenance and logistics package in conjunction with the helicopters.

6. (C) Finally, we will require access to the helicopters above and beyond normal End Use Monitoring standards in order to certify the helicopters' use in COIN operations. The Mission's assessment is that because the Pakistan military has not forecast the use of FMF for helicopter procurement, the opportunity cost of using FMF to procure helicopters makes it unlikely that the GOP would choose to do so quickly. In any case, we are fully prepared to assist the Pakistan Army to address the maintenance issues of the MI-17 helicopters if it so desires. If, as General Kayani indicates, only five MI-17s are operational, we can produce the equivalent of 'new' helicopters by assisting the Pakistan Army to repair the helicopters that are non-operational.

7. (C) Other helicopters in Pakistan's aviation fleet face equally troubling operational readiness and availability issues. We are searching for and acquiring specific critical spare items for Cobra helicopters as quickly as possible, and have provided an agreement to resume work on eight Pakistani Cobras now in the U.S. Despite the urgency of the existing situation in the NWFP and FATA, we are waiting for the GOP to sign letters of agreement on Cobra spare parts.

8. (C) Comment: Embassy is aware that U.S. engagement with the Pakistani military has been frustrating. Transparency is often non-existent. Offers of assistance go unanswered or are overruled at headquarters, even as Pakistan's maintenance and training are inadequate. Still, the success of our own troop surge in Afghanistan and the stability of Pakistan's government depend on rolling back the terrorist threat in Swat and eliminating the terrorist safehavens in the Waziristans. The inability of the GOP to control North and South Waziristan has enabled terrorists to operate throughout the country. Kayani confided to an American visitor recently that he would not be able to move to Waziristan until late summer. While that movement will not be determined solely by the availability of helicopter support, it is certainly the case that the availability of helicopters will be a key factor in making the decision to go.

PATTERSON

US embassy cables: Pakistan army chief 'desperate' for US military support | World news | guardian.co.uk
 
What options do we really have ? in reailty .....
 
he said, is always trying to press on him sophisticated U.S. systems, which the Pakistani military had neither the ability nor the funds to manage.

Does this means that a lot more than blk52 and M1 Abrams is on offer but are are unable / reculant to buy it for numerous reasons?
 
Does this means that a lot more than blk52 and M1 Abrams is on offer but are are unable / reculant to buy it for numerous reasons?

M1 Abrams and F-16 blk 52 are conventional weapons. The U.S. might be offering expensive and sophisticated counter-insurgency weapons for which Pakistan does not really have much interest. Counter-insurgency is a temporary job for the Pakistan military. So, it might be saving funds to built up it's conventional forces. After the Afghan war ends, all that equipment will lay around gathering dust. However, tanks, missiles, jet fighters etc can be used against India, a more conventional and perpetual threat than guerrilla warfare.
 
Last edited:
M1 Abrams and F-16 blk 52 are conventional weapons. The U.S. might be offering expensive and sophisticated counter-insurgency weapons for which Pakistan does not really have much interest. Counter-insurgency is a temporary job for the Pakistan military. So, it might be saving funds to built up it's conventional forces. After the Afghan war ends, all that equipment will lay around gathering dust. However, tanks, missiles, jet fighters etc can be used against India, a more conventional and perpetual threat than gorilla warfare.

If I understand it right, where is US wrong in this, they are willing to give you weapons but you are not willing to Pay.
 
Funny is US denied Kiyani access to helicopters and drones when it was needed most in SAWAT and SW.

While UK helis were transporting injured TTP to field hospitals in northern Afghanistan.

India and UK built good working relationship while fighting covert war with Pak army in SAWAT and SW.
 
Can someone explain to me why Pakistan doesn't ask for AH-64s? Pakistan either asks the U.S. for helicopters that are long out of production (the AH-1) or those produced in Russia. What is the U.S. supposed to do that Pakistan can't?
 
Can someone explain to me why Pakistan doesn't ask for AH-64s? Pakistan either asks the U.S. for helicopters that are long out of production (the AH-1) or those produced in Russia. What is the U.S. supposed to do that Pakistan can't?

We never asked for ah-1(dont havr ah-1 in pak army service but upgraded ah-1F.... but other platforms..... we asked for ah-64 but were denied... we use Mi series helis coz we hae been using them since long nd are have infra to support them... but we r also buyin us made helis... just recently we ordered 36 helis for more then $$360 million...
 
I think this is slightly old news. Recently, it was announced that we were aiming to get Mi-35s.

The US blames it's failure in Afghanistan on problems stemming from "the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan", seems like everyone from their govt talks about this on tv everytime the AF war comes up. Just like they flamed up neighboring Cambodia when they were miserably failing in Vietnam. The logic is demented. Pakistan is fighting a war in those areas, and the militants are well-equipped and well-supplied. Takes alot of $$$ and a steady supplyline to fight pitched battles, can you imagine the logistics setup and supply volume required to feed even four or five thousand militants three times a day. Every bullet fired needs to be supplied from somewhere. It's literally *TONS* of supplies constantly moving in. Where does that supply-line come from?

And if you look at the map, the only place that can be, is Afghanistan. This is not some illogical conspiracy theory, the logic is plain and obvious. And it's a quantifiable fact that the US evacuated it's posts on the AF side of the border when the Pakistani Army started it's operations in Bajaur and S Waziristan - allowing militants to retreat to safety.

So if you look in the bigger context, it makes sense why they didn't give us helis when we needed them the most - and not just the helis, they also withheld laser-guided bombs, CSF "coalation support fund" repayments for expenses our army had already spent(causing, in part, the army to exceed it's budgetary limit for the fiscal quarter), a few months back the PM had to publically state that our stock of laser-guided bombs was depleting fast in this war and the US should really get it's act together and supply them already. And unless I'm mistaken, the US did eventually supply us kits to convert conventional bombs, but after alot of hessitation and delays, delays that cost lives here, but that doesn't bother the US AT ALL.

So yeah - it makes sense why we'd be desperate for helis, in the mountainous terrain in the north they are indispensable. They can blame us for not fighting their war and holding us responsible for their failure in Afghanistan, while at the same time sabotaging us by withholding critical supplies at all the right moments and allowing the militants to be supplied from AF. While at the same time, trying desperately to remove enriched uranium from our reactors and undermine our nuclear deterrent against India(as their recently leaked internal documents show).

Tell me where I'm wrong - which part is *not* a quantifiable truth. We were desperate for supplies and spares during the '65 war when the US did this, and again in '71 we were depending on them to deliver on their commitments. And again in the late '80s. And then we're responsible for their failures in Afghanistan. With "friends" like these...
 
Last edited:
^the 10 Mil-17s never made it to the PA - 5 were delivered after 'overhaul', one was lost, and 4 were returned bcuz they were in 'poor' operating condition even after the 'overhaul' - the US is 'buying' excess helos from former warsaw-pact countries and sending them to places like pakistan/afghanistan/iraq.

IMO these helos are worthless - we need new helos. that is the only way forward.
 
^the 10 Mil-17s never made it to the PA - 5 were delivered after 'overhaul', one was lost, and 4 were returned bcuz they were in 'poor' operating condition even after the 'overhaul' - the US is 'buying' excess helos from former warsaw-pact countries and sending them to places like pakistan/afghanistan/iraq.

IMO these helos are worthless - we need new helos. that is the only way forward.

Sir we need Black hawks and Chinooks not MI-07s. We also need some Gunships and i cannot get why US is not providing us with the right equipment yet they want our boys to go in N-waziristan unprepared !:confused:
 
I my humble opinion, US is not fighting this war to win, there is a hell of confusion in US about the war, they always gave wrong signals at right times.

Moreover if US want Pakistan to fight this war, US has to deal with us fair and sqaure, provide us all the equipments, intel and above all US should pay the bill without any ifs and buts, without any regards to Indian concerns and china Phoebia.

If US continue like it is doing today, lets US fight its war in its own manner in afghanistan, we should focus on law n order and economic issues. if any TTP activity is spoted it should be dealt according to over needs and recquirements.
 
MI17 has decades old maintenance infrastructure in Pak army. Pak engineer knows this machine very well compared to any latest induction from US with same loading and range capacity.
As far as Pak army should get AH64 , well Bush and company approved 6 AH64 for Pak army , but never materialized for some reasons. These were approved right after Pak govt promise to take action against Afghan militants.
 
Back
Top Bottom