Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions.

[muse]

I'm always "shocked" reading some who continue to support shackling Pakistani strategic autonomy by arguing on behalf of the US - One way or another they always return to F16 - it's the only option, the best option, the cheapest option - but hidden in these supplications is the reality that going with US aircraft effectively gives away Pakistani strategic autonomy, it makes the US not Pakistan the master of the PAF, it opens the path to the blackmail and recruitment of Pakistani officers by US intelligence services - in effect, their argument is that the very best the PAF can ever hope for is to be the messenger boy of the US.

F16 this and F16 that - no where does one see or read the reality of US sanctions, the FACT that those sanctions crippled Pakistani security for more than 20 years, it enabled so dramatic a mismatch between the PAF and IAF that it may take several decades for the PAF, even with honest leadership and abundance of funds, for the PAF to rebuild a security infrastructure to offer Pakistani policy makers and public, a modicum of confidence in the security architecture of Pakistan.

All of this insecurity we owe to the decision to trust the US - and now we are expected to trust them all over again, knowing that they are ultimately hostile to Pakistan, that they have a "strategic ally" in the region an that ally is the adversary of Pakistan.

 

[Bratva]

Mysterious Pakistan Government Hawker 4000s

Posted on: June 12th, 2013


Mysterious Pakistan Government Hawker 4000, serial EYE77, seen recently on the ramp at Islamabad International Airport, Pakistan. It is suspected that the aircraft may be operated by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

TWO RAYTHEON (Hawker Beechcraft) Hawker 4000 executive jets appear to have recently been acquired by the Pakistan Government, although it is unclear what exactly they are being used for and which Government department is operating them. It is suspected that they may be in use with Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which is the country’s primary national security and intelligence agency.

A clue to their use may be in the ‘serial’ applied to one of the Hawker 4000s, which wears only ‘EYE77′, more than likely indicating that it has a surveillance capability. The first aircraft acquired was formerly A6-SHH (c/n RC-21), which was first noted on September 2, 2012, test flying from Dubai marked as ‘HBC21′, which appears to be its Pakistani serial. The aircraft then arrived at Raytheon’s facility at Chester-Hawarden, in the UK, on October 1, but on October 12, 2012, it was sold to Elegant Aviation of Dubai. It was then placed in trust with Wells Fargo Bank Northwest in the US as N621HB, but was never registered as such before being instead allocated N23EA on January 3, 2013. It was still at Hawarden on January 3 as HBC21 and its current status is unclear.

The second aircraft is N984JC (c/n RC-32), which departed from Dubai on February 6, 2013, and was cancelled from the US register the following day on sale to Pakistan. This is believed to be the aircraft that has since been operating as EYE77, being first seen as such in Dubai on February 22.

AFD-Dave Allport

 

[Argus Panoptes]

I'm always "shocked" reading some who continue to support shackling Pakistani strategic autonomy by arguing on behalf of the US - One way or another they always return to F16 - it's the only option, the best option, the cheapest option - but hidden in these supplications is the reality that going with US aircraft effectively gives away Pakistani strategic autonomy, it makes the US not Pakistan the master of the PAF, it opens the path to the blackmail and recruitment of Pakistani officers by US intelligence services - in effect, their argument is that the very best the PAF can ever hope for is to be the messenger boy of the US.

F16 this and F16 that - no where does one see or read the reality of US sanctions, the FACT that those sanctions crippled Pakistani security for more than 20 years, it enabled so dramatic a mismatch between the PAF and IAF that it may take several decades for the PAF, even with honest leadership and abundance of funds, for the PAF to rebuild a security infrastructure to offer Pakistani policy makers and public, a modicum of confidence in the security architecture of Pakistan.

All of this insecurity we owe to the decision to trust the US - and now we are expected to trust them all over again, knowing that they are ultimately hostile to Pakistan, that they have a "strategic ally" in the region an that ally is the adversary of Pakistan.

Might I submit that there is a much simpler explanation: The reality is that PAF has no other viable alternatives than to accept USA as its main supplier. The JF-17 is just a space-saver temporary tire to use.

 

[muse]

Might I submit that there is a much simpler explanation: The reality is that PAF has no other viable alternatives than to accept USA as its main supplier. The JF-17 is just a space-saver temporary tire to use.

See that would make sense but for the reason that the purpose of the Air Force is enable and ensure Pakistan's strategic autonomy - Yes, Pakistan is a Non-Nato member, though that is a "honor" devoid of substance - le me come back to that a little later.

Is the f16 a good capable ship, yes, do we have infrastructure to support it? yes, Do we have experience with the ship? yes - All good and fine -- and tomorrow when US domestic politics or lobbies associated with interests elsewhere influence US policy to the point where supplies and spares make operating the ship impossible, what then? Will the purpose for which there is a Pakistan Air Force not be folly and a farce?

Independence is what we seek, when it comes to the US, we are unfortunately in the Friends, not Masters mode - this tragic dysfunction has now assumed structural and societal dynamics, it is simply not able to sustain a security relationship that can have public support.

The NATO relationship fits the imperial model, Honor the Baloch and buy the Pashtun - it is devoid of security substance for the Pakistani public.

F16 the only option? The best advise I ever got was "A bad deal is worse than no deal at all" - over the years I have understood is better, a bad deal will defeat you, whereas no deal, simply offers you a opportunity to seek and craft a better deal --

What the panic about needing more F16, will the US really supply us F16 spares and support in case of hostilities with India? Is that why the US dictates where they may be positioned and even who may and may not enter the base?? And really Was it Indian aircraft and personnel who not only routinely enter and conduct operations on Pakistani territory? Or Kill Pakistani soldiers over a 7 hour period of time, knowing that they are attacking Pakistani positions?? Are we to believe US will supply weaponry that can be used against it??

The US is a great benefactor, more F16's is a deal we can and must say" No" to.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

See that would make sense but for the reason that the purpose of the Air Force is enable and ensure Pakistan's strategic autonomy - Yes, Pakistan is a Non-Nato member, though that is a "honor" devoid of substance - le me come back to that a little later.

.................................

Strategic autonomy? Surely you jest Sir. There is no autonomy, strategic or otherwise, even remotely possible, given our state of affairs.

The purpose of the PAF is to hold at bay a much larger Indian adversary for a few days at most in a mainly defensive posture in case of hostilities, that is all.

 

[muse]

Strategic autonomy? Surely you jest Sir. There is no autonomy, strategic or otherwise, even remotely possible, given our state of affairs. The purpose of the PAF is to hold at bay a much larger Indian adversary for a few days at most in a mainly defensive posture in case of hostilities, that is all.

India is the US's strategic Ally, you want to sell the line that the US will support us even for a few days against her own "Strategic ally"? and I'm jesting?

 

[Argus Panoptes]

India is the US's strategic Ally, you want to sell the line that the US will support us even for a few days against her own "Strategic ally"? and I'm jesting?

No Sir, given our nuclear deterrent, it is OUR policy that the PAF has a mainly defensive time-limited posture. We do not need anyone's support to do that. And if USA wants to bring us down, it will be economically, not by refusing to provide support to us against India.

 

[muse]

No Sir, given our nuclear deterrent, it is OUR policy that the PAF has a mainly defensive time-limited posture. We do not need anyone's support to do that. And if USA wants to bring us down, it will be economically, not by refusing to provide support to us against India.

Why then F16??

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Why then F16??

As I said before Sir, because it is the only proper choice available to us that serves our needs the best, as we have chosen to define them.

 

[muse]

As I said before Sir, because it is the only proper choice available to us that serves our needs the best, as we have chosen to define them.

First you say our policy is to go nuclear, then you say our only option is F16 -- I think you may have confused yourself -- Are the US then planning on us using their ships to go nuclear on their strategic ally? I think your position may need a rethink or at least the arguments to support it have to be better crafted

 

[Argus Panoptes]

First you say our policy is to go nuclear, then you say our only option is F16 -- I think you may have confused yourself -- Are the US then planning on us using their ships to go nuclear on their strategic ally? I think your position may need a rethink or at least the arguments to support it have to be better crafted

No Sir, I am not confused. First, our nuclear deterrence means that we do not need conventional weaponry that we would otherwise. And we have for many years now fitted our F-16s with nuclear launch capabilities that is free of any outside dependence, US approval be damned if the time comes. Further, we now have other standoff weapons that supplement the F-16s.

 

[muse]

No Sir, I am not confused. First, our nuclear deterrence means that we do not need conventional weaponry that we would otherwise. And we have for many years now fitted our F-16s with nuclear launch capabilities that is free of any outside dependence, US approval be damned if the time comes. Further, we now have other standoff weapons that supplement the F-16s.

Excellent - So why do we need more F16's again?? to use against whom?? Before you answer, refer to the highlighted portion of your response?

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Excellent - So why do we need more F16's again?? to use against whom?? Before you answer, refer to the highlighted portion of your response?

Please read the bold part again. The nuclear deterrent does reduce but not eliminate the need for conventional weapons, and F-16s form the backbone of the PAF as the only properly viable we have available to us. That is why, Sir, we need more of them to reduce the rapidly developing hole in our fleet as the rest of the fleet falls apart and the JF-17 program struggles to help fill that hole.

 

[muse]

Ok, but I would ask you to refer to the part i highlighted, those are your words, if you wish to qualify them, certainly I would be open to that.

F16 cannot be the ship to take as forward, even if we did end up with more, we would not have them in sufficient numbers to make any kind of impression -

Our larger issue is of a security orientation this at once clear but also enables us to maintain a veneer to argue that a measure of ambiguity in that security orientation. I am persuaded that the US cannot be a security partner for Pakistan, quite the opposite it is and will like be, hostile to Pakistan. Seeking to attenuate this hostility by inducting more F16 in the Air Force, open PAF personnel to blackmail and recruitment by hostile security services, denies Pakistan confidence in her security and robs Pakistan of the opportunity to build strategic autonomy. And finally, the public strongly rejects such a relationship with the US. For these reasons, we can and must say "No" to more F16

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Ok, but I would ask you to refer to the part i highlighted, those are your words, if you wish to qualify them, certainly I would be open to that.

F16 cannot be the ship to take as forward, even if we did end up with more, we would not have them in sufficient numbers to make any kind of impression -

Our larger issue is of a security orientation this at once clear but also enables us to maintain a veneer to argue that a measure of ambiguity in that security orientation. I am persuaded that the US cannot be a security partner for Pakistan, quite the opposite it is and will like be, hostile to Pakistan. Seeking to attenuate this hostility by inducting more F16 in the Air Force, open PAF personnel to blackmail and recruitment by hostile security services, denies Pakistan confidence in her security and robs Pakistan of the opportunity to build strategic autonomy. And finally, the public strongly rejects such a relationship with the US. For these reasons, we can and must say "No" to more F16

I would agree with you to the extent that our whole security doctrine does need an overhaul, top to bottom, but until that happens, we will not be free of US hardware such as F16s, or indeed its influence, which is far more pervasive than just the aircraft.

Please do note that there are many other ways to gain access to PAF personnel, that Pakistan's confidence in its security depends on many other more important factors, and that the path to building strategic autonomy is at least decades away, given that we have not even laid down the basics for achieving it.