Musharraf ruined PAF project, says ex-air chief

[Javed3]

Sapper:

With due respect, The proof is always in the pudding. Its purely circumstantial in the context of Kestral Trading. There is no way one get can a documented proof as the name of a proxy will never appear on the Articles of association or shareholders structure of the company.

The biggest proof is that for good about 8 years, more than 50% of the PAF procurement budget was routed through just One agent (Kestral); specially once you consider that there are more than 200 active supplier sources and their agents active in Pakistan. The only viable defense you may come up with the fact that Kestral represents Lockheed Martin Corp.; the main contractor for the F-16, C-130, TPS-77 etc.

What makes it more intriguing that the deals for AMRAM, AIM-9 and other Raytheon systems too were routed through the same agent. It is almost unprecedented to have the representation of major Defense contractors with conflicting interests to be represented by the same agent; unless:
 There is a clear direction from the very top to push the deal through a select party.
 The “gold touch” syndrome where a particular agent has an abnormally high success rate; and his engagement is the recipe for success.

AEW&C systems are critical nodes in a C4I environment. The costs of integration and life cycle support are truly horrendous. In this age of COTS architectures integration with specific platforms like JF-17,J-10 or F-16 is not a big deal. They all are based on Link-16 (or equivalent) architectures. The determining factor is not the platform, but the system topology, system model, and operational model; basically the software architectures.

Pakistan will be hard pressed to achieve successful integration of just One AEW&C system into a C4I / Air Defense Ground Environment. The Ericsson topology is probably the more matured as compared to the Chinese solution. However, if it was a question of National Sovereignty Pakistan should have opted to either the Chinese or the Swedish systems; but not both.

The bottom line is that Kestral could not be simply cut off from such a lucrative deal.

 

[solid state]

Ansar Abbasi is a conspirator after all?

what about former Air chief?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

SAAB is not integrated with JF17 platform , and Musharaf was correct to leave some room for Chinese AWACs

 

[OrionHunter]

He said the Pakistan Air Force had cautioned in advance that the Chinese system was inferior to the Swedish system and the two systems were incompatible. Also, one of the systems was superfluous.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...-project-says-ex-air-chief.html#ixzz1ztwcMTuX

Why is most Chinese stuff inferior? From defective locomotives that were dumped on Pakistan to inferior airborne surveillance systems to fake iPhones!

 

[graphican]

Ha the last few paragraphs say it all..........!

Not really.. he might had his personal interests but what is answer to question of compatibility? also what is your answer for that

"He said that he had also argued that even if the Chinese system was provided free of cost, it would be a burden on the Pakistan Air Force because it had to train its pilots, give technical training to others and create a separate specialised team of experts to deal with it."

 

[Hulk]

I agree that it doesn't really make sense.

My understanding of the reasons behind diversification of the AEW&C order were cost and not putting Pakistan's entire capability under a cloud in case of sanctions.

I get a feeling that airforce feels that they do not have enough say or they are arm twisted.

He might be intending to either.
1) Release his frustration.
2) Defame Musharraf.

 

[Viper0011.]

Why is most Chinese stuff inferior? From defective locomotives that were dumped on Pakistan to inferior airborne surveillance systems to fake iPhones!

Good question and simple answer. The Chinese may be a bit inferior because they don't take over American jobs illegally by using their human trafficking network, get American public jobless in their own country, use American's training budget to learn the tech and then offshore the rest of the work to China from the US. (hope you got the point).

The Chinese actually develop stuff in house with assistance from Russia and others. If there were Chinese going to the US on H1-B visas and under fake names, with fake degrees, etc, they'd learn everything from the States too and ship the work back to China. In which case, China may be developing an exact copy of the F 22 but that's not the case.

That brings up another question...India's got access to US jobs, tech, etc, etc (thanks to my country men sitting in Washington who've happily outsourced 13 million American jobs to India and have allowed Indian lobby to operate freely and as illegally as possible).....so the question is....what has INDIA built in the last decade that they can PROUDLY say is theirs with some assistance? The fact of the matter is.....NOTHING. The tech came from Israel, Russia and the US. Give Chinese these mediums and I guarantee you, five years from now and you'll see J 25 which will be pretty much equal to F-22.

The fact of the matter is the Chinese and Israelis are the 'go getters' and everyone knows it. Indians are the doers, not inventors. Now that should change with so billions of American tax payers salaries flowing through India but it'll take about 10 - 15 more years.

 

[Pakistanisage]

I know kaleem Saadat from my days in the PAF ( He was 1 year senior to me ). He was Chief of Air Staff from March 2003 to March 2006. Why has he waited for six years to come with this stupid story ? And the conflict of interest is obvious. He did not mention the kickback he received from SAAB ?

 

[Alphacharlie]

as PAFAce said -"we need the Chinese much more than we need the Swedes, for defence and much more. "
there is a flip side to it: how much would the swedes need us?
what is there to say that if the americans decide to pull the mat from under our feet, they would stop the swedes from further support of the awacs program?
the chinese awacs would at least always be available and not under any western pressure. its always good to have a backup system.
besides the saab-2000 combat software codes would be compromised even before our boys use the onboard toilet
(official note: saab 2000 DOES have toilet - - -Phalcon however does NOT-however the Mark-1 disposable dhoti is standard issue to all palcon crews of the IAF)

Being a Foe I still Consider General Parvez Musharaff as True son of Pakistan. If he got kick backs yes or no none of my Business But summing up all his actions he was a Core Nationalist.

In Uniform its not uncommon to agree to wishes of Superior.

However, seeing the Training Cost/Maintenance Cost is still consumable but 'You need to know a system, learn it BY your Officers who need to understand pros and cons of the system, its easy to speak." In my 12 years I still was learning Cheeta and What more it could do...Cheeta is nothing when you compared with a True High Tech system Like Awacs". When you buy a system all you get is a mannual and operating Trg.

Buying a system is not "IT" Rather servicability of the system at any given time. Number of servicable weapsys available.

European system have much much Higher service levels.''

Its like IAF Mig 29Bs, even though 68 in number now and 80 when produred. The serviceability issues in early 1980/90s were so massive at any Given time we only have 40-55% Birds available...I am not including major issues like Radar/weapservicability issues which only AELs can understand....

Remember when I buy a High Tech System I will deploy my Best most proficient officers. They need time to develop Strategy and would give them Best of the Best system I Can procure, in this case Saab. Agree or Disagree Chinese AWACS is still inferior.

 

[TAC]

The reason for getting a Chinese solution as well as the western option despite all the added burden etc etc was vey simply not to put all of the eggs (especialy when the eggs are key to future defence) in the western basket. If the relationship had completely crashed with the US -- and this has come very recently -- how many people here think that the Swedes would defy the US to continue to support the aircraft supplied to Pakistan??? Hence the PAF would be left up the creek without a paddle.
Having equivelant tech from China also means that sanctions are less likely from the West. For example if Pakistan retains AWACS capability despite Western sanctions -- what would be the point of the sanctions?
Musharaf made many mistakes -- but this was not one of them.

 

[tarrar]

I don't see how, JF-17 came in his time & he was a great leader.

 

[regular]

Source: Musharraf ruined PAF project, says ex-air chief

Musharraf did a great job by ruining the PAF air chiefs dreams cuz he was getting bribed by the swedish company under the table for the bigger contract...Musharraf was very smart guy. He knew how not to depend on west nomore cuz they are distrustful...The Saab is not superior to the Chinese system, its just hoax by the former chief.....The ex-PAF chief is very corrupt guy......damn..$ukkr.....trying to skrewup PAF for $$$......

 

[somebozo]

As far as media reports go..the AWACS recivied from Chinese is far superior and customized for PAF requirements vs the SABB deal.

PAF is maintaining two platforms for offense and defense so to avoid any future embargoes.

 

[MastanKhan]

Being a Foe I still Consider General Parvez Musharaff as True son of Pakistan. If he got kick backs yes or no none of my Business But summing up all his actions he was a Core Nationalist.

In Uniform its not uncommon to agree to wishes of Superior.

However, seeing the Training Cost/Maintenance Cost is still consumable but 'You need to know a system, learn it BY your Officers who need to understand pros and cons of the system, its easy to speak." In my 12 years I still was learning Cheeta and What more it could do...Cheeta is nothing when you compared with a True High Tech system Like Awacs". When you buy a system all you get is a mannual and operating Trg.

Buying a system is not "IT" Rather servicability of the system at any given time. Number of servicable weapsys available.

European system have much much Higher service levels.''

Its like IAF Mig 29Bs, even though 68 in number now and 80 when produred. The serviceability issues in early 1980/90s were so massive at any Given time we only have 40-55% Birds available...I am not including major issues like Radar/weapservicability issues which only AELs can understand....

Remember when I buy a High Tech System I will deploy my Best most proficient officers. They need time to develop Strategy and would give them Best of the Best system I Can procure, in this case Saab. Agree or Disagree Chinese AWACS is still inferior.

Hi,

Thank you for your post-----chinese awacs can still do the job---awacs are different creatures in operability---they cannot be compared with fighter aircraft----.

You need to understand that the trackers ( awacs ) are a different breed of creatures---hunter killers ( air superiority ) are a different breed of creatures---. Given the technology---a lot depends on the operator and the team leader---because you are living on whims most of the time---being some where between the truth or a lie---.

The difference between the swedish and the chinese is not such that the chinese system may be deemed as impotent---. We still need to keep the arena that we are going to be fighting in---in our minds----it is like fighting in a close looped circuit---only so many venues of attack and escape routes.

 

[killerx]

should have supported china and bought jet from them