What's new

Pakistan Air Force Transport

airomerix said:
Some Belgian C-130's are up for sale. We have been trying to get them but everything requires congressional approval.And we dont have the odds yet.
Click to expand...

Pakistan is still MNNA and should have no problem acquiring C-130s. Won’t change the balance of power with India.
 
cloud4000 said:
Pakistan is still MNNA and should have no problem acquiring C-130s. Won’t change the balance of power with India.
Click to expand...

GriffinsRule said:
I agree, there should be no issues getting approvals for acquiring transport aircraft
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this is not how it works. Every US made asset transfer requires congressional approval. It was required for ex NSAWC F-16s, P-3s, RJAF F-16s, Oliver Perry Class frigates and what so on.

Getting C-130's has been harder for us as compared to getting F-16s. There were two reasons.

1) C-130 is an asset no Air Force wants to get rid of. It has too much utility and Air Forces prefer to keep it in their storage areas rather than selling it off. This is one of the reasons why we seldom see used C-130's in the market.
2) US hated the idea of Pakistan using C-130's for bombing missions back in 1965 and 1971. Pakistan has used C-130's to its maximum potential and has been doing a variety of experiments with it which has also been objectionable to the US. In 2005, Pakistan approached US to transfer two C-130H's with Spectre gunship configuration to fight the militants. The idea was gunned down by the pentagon before it even made it to the congress.

We desperately need to raise the third C-130 squadron in Multan. The pressure on 6 squadron is way too much. 16 C-130's dont just cut it.

1) Transport conversion school has its own requirements of atleast 'X' number of airframes (sorry can't disclose the number)

2) PAC Kamra needs it for a variety of needs which includes but not limited to JF-17, F-16 parts from China, Turkey and US.

3) Tactical deployment of squadrons in war and peacetime presents the biggest demand. Since Feb'19. Our C-130's have been flying with AMRAAM's, sidewinders, SD-10s, PL-5s to forward bases along with the crew.

4) Round the clock ISR missions with our 'X' number of specially modified C-130's along the eastern and western borders.

5) Troop/crew/assets movement of the Army, Air Force and Navy.

6) Natural disasters - Self-explanatory.

7) Special flights for government

8) Standby C-130's at all times.


Now ask yourselves. Do 16 C-130's can do the job? If not then why PAF has not been able to get more than 16 in the last 50 years. There is a reason why its called HVA asset.
 
airomerix said:
I'm afraid this is not how it works. Every US made asset transfer requires congressional approval. It was required for ex NSAWC F-16s, P-3s, RJAF F-16s, Oliver Perry Class frigates and what so on.

Getting C-130's has been harder for us as compared to getting F-16s. There were two reasons.

1) C-130 is an asset no Air Force wants to get rid of. It has too much utility and Air Forces prefer to keep it in their storage areas rather than selling it off. This is one of the reasons why we seldom see used C-130's in the market.
2) US hated the idea of Pakistan using C-130's for bombing missions back in 1965 and 1971. Pakistan has used C-130's to its maximum potential and has been doing a variety of experiments with it which has also been objectionable to the US. In 2005, Pakistan approached US to transfer two C-130H's with Spectre gunship configuration to fight the militants. The idea was gunned down by the pentagon before it even made it to the congress.

We desperately need to raise the third C-130 squadron in Multan. The pressure on 6 squadron is way too much. 16 C-130's dont just cut it.

1) Transport conversion school has its own requirements of atleast 'X' number of airframes (sorry can't disclose the number)

2) PAC Kamra needs it for a variety of needs which includes but not limited to JF-17, F-16 parts from China, Turkey and US.

3) Tactical deployment of squadrons in war and peacetime presents the biggest demand. Since Feb'19. Our C-130's have been flying with AMRAAM's, sidewinders, SD-10s, PL-5s to forward bases along with the crew.

4) Round the clock ISR missions with our 'X' number of specially modified C-130's along the eastern and western borders.

5) Troop/crew/assets movement of the Army, Air Force and Navy.

6) Natural disasters - Self-explanatory.

7) Special flights for government

8) Standby C-130's at all times.


Now ask yourselves. Do 16 C-130's can do the job? If not then why PAF has not been able to get more than 16 in the last 50 years. There is a reason why its called HVA asset.
Click to expand...

Very informative post but again, aside from the armed version of C-130, I dont see any reason for congress to deny Pakistans request to get used one available for sale by any operators. If they are up for sale, as was the case with C-130Js that Bangladesh bought from the UK, it means they are available to anyone. I am sure there are other countries waiting to buy used transports too, and that is a separate issue, but you did not address any real reason for Congress to deny PAF's request for plain vanilla versions. I dont think what happened in 1965 has any bearing on this. What you did highlight is Pakistan's dire shortage of tactical lift, and from the way it seems to be going, PAF has shown little interest in even expanding its CN-235/295 fleet (if they were finding it that hard to buy C-130s). Seems like they are okay with making do with what they have.

In this past decade, RAAF gifted four and later sold 5 more C-130Hs to Indonesia in 2011-2012. Norway has had 5 C-130Hs up for sale with 50% of their life remaining for a few years. Turkey bought 5 used Saudi C-130Es in 2011. We all know Bangladesh bought 5 C-130Js from RAF just last year. Even Bahrain bought 2 C-130Js from RAF. Philippines just bought a couple used ones from US. I am sure there are others as well but I cant research them all. The point is, either PAF has sat on its requirement and missed opportunities to acquire used C-130s or they havent felt the need for them, operationally. Else they could have acquired other aircraft to supplement the fleet, such as CN-295s etc.
 
GriffinsRule said:
Very informative post but again, aside from the armed version of C-130, I dont see any reason for congress to deny Pakistans request to get used one available for sale by any operators. If they are up for sale, as was the case with C-130Js that Bangladesh bought from the UK, it means they are available to anyone. I am sure there are other countries waiting to buy used transports too, and that is a separate issue, but you did not address any real reason for Congress to deny PAF's request for plain vanilla versions. I dont think what happened in 1965 has any bearing on this. What you did highlight is Pakistan's dire shortage of tactical lift, and from the way it seems to be going, PAF has shown little interest in even expanding its CN-235/295 fleet (if they were finding it that hard to buy C-130s). Seems like they are okay with making do with what they have.

In this past decade, RAAF gifted four and later sold 5 more C-130Hs to Indonesia in 2011-2012. Norway has had 5 C-130Hs up for sale with 50% of their life remaining for a few years. Turkey bought 5 used Saudi C-130Es in 2011. We all know Bangladesh bought 5 C-130Js from RAF just last year. Even Bahrain bought 2 C-130Js from RAF. Philippines just bought a couple used ones from US. I am sure there are others as well but I cant research them all. The point is, either PAF has sat on its requirement and missed opportunities to acquire used C-130s or they havent felt the need for them, operationally. Else they could have acquired other aircraft to supplement the fleet, such as CN-295s etc.
Click to expand...

Bangladesh, Indonesia are countries which have no prior history of sanctions with US. Pakistan has. Neither they have an enemy like India which is cozying up with US.

I agree. The Bangladesh example was quite surprising for PAF And trust me when is say this. We have jokes here in C-130 sqns about this now.

And PAF has never sat on this requirement. We have lost so many C-130's to accidents. We recently lost one and it has pushed our response time further by x number of minutes.

Do you know the reason why C-130's were NOT included in the 23rd march fly past of this year? Take a guess?

We were trying to protect them from IAF. We did not want them flying close to the border since IAF knows C-130's are responsible for the deployment of our jets at forward bases. You take out C-130s. You paralyse our entire Air Force.

We very much need them but have been unable to acquire them due to political reasons. They are just there. You cant do much about them.
 
airomerix said:
Bangladesh, Indonesia are countries which have no prior history of sanctions with US. Pakistan has. Neither they have an enemy like India which is cozying up with US.

I agree. The Bangladesh example was quite surprising for PAF And trust me when is say this. We have jokes here in C-130 sqns about this now.

And PAF has never sat on this requirement. We have lost so many C-130's to accidents. We recently lost one and it has pushed our response time further by x number of minutes.

Do you know the reason why C-130's were NOT included in the 23rd march fly past of this year? Take a guess?

We were trying to protect them from IAF. We did not want them flying close to the border since IAF knows C-130's are responsible for the deployment of our jets at forward bases. You take out C-130s. You paralyse our entire Air Force.

We very much need them but have been unable to acquire them due to political reasons. They are just there. You cant do much about them.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true, why haven't we acquired CN-295, given the commonality between CN-235s we already operate? If the need is that dire, moving supplies such as bombs and missiles, can be done by that aircraft as well.

Edit: I think the original requirement for CN-235s was 20 aircraft back in the late 90s, early 2000s. Do you know what happened?
 
Last edited:
airomerix said:
Bangladesh, Indonesia are countries which have no prior history of sanctions with US. Pakistan has. Neither they have an enemy like India which is cozying up with US.

I agree. The Bangladesh example was quite surprising for PAF And trust me when is say this. We have jokes here in C-130 sqns about this now.

And PAF has never sat on this requirement. We have lost so many C-130's to accidents. We recently lost one and it has pushed our response time further by x number of minutes.

Do you know the reason why C-130's were NOT included in the 23rd march fly past of this year? Take a guess?

We were trying to protect them from IAF. We did not want them flying close to the border since IAF knows C-130's are responsible for the deployment of our jets at forward bases. You take out C-130s. You paralyse our entire Air Force.

We very much need them but have been unable to acquire them due to political reasons. They are just there. You cant do much about them.
Click to expand...
This might explain the lack of headway re the LM-100J. LM specifically made a low cost version of the J meant for baseline transport at an all-in (unit procurement and support) cost of around $100 m, and the PAF still can't get it.

I recall asking a serving pilot why we're not getting certain types of aircraft, like A330 MRTT, A400M or LM-100J, and he said, "the US actively blocks the sale of strategically valuable assets to us, even when they're not of US origin."

For all our dreams of Su-35s or Typhoons, we at the end of the day went with Azm, and that's a hint as any that when we tried getting a twin engine jet, we got blocked. Hence we locked our chips into a homegrown solution.

We're at a stage now where the PAF will need to look at something like the Y-9, Y-20, or Ukraine's An-72.
 
airomerix said:
I'm afraid this is not how it works. Every US made asset transfer requires congressional approval. It was required for ex NSAWC F-16s, P-3s, RJAF F-16s, Oliver Perry Class frigates and what so on.

Getting C-130's has been harder for us as compared to getting F-16s. There were two reasons.

1) C-130 is an asset no Air Force wants to get rid of. It has too much utility and Air Forces prefer to keep it in their storage areas rather than selling it off. This is one of the reasons why we seldom see used C-130's in the market.
2) US hated the idea of Pakistan using C-130's for bombing missions back in 1965 and 1971. Pakistan has used C-130's to its maximum potential and has been doing a variety of experiments with it which has also been objectionable to the US. In 2005, Pakistan approached US to transfer two C-130H's with Spectre gunship configuration to fight the militants. The idea was gunned down by the pentagon before it even made it to the congress.

We desperately need to raise the third C-130 squadron in Multan. The pressure on 6 squadron is way too much. 16 C-130's dont just cut it.

1) Transport conversion school has its own requirements of atleast 'X' number of airframes (sorry can't disclose the number)

2) PAC Kamra needs it for a variety of needs which includes but not limited to JF-17, F-16 parts from China, Turkey and US.

3) Tactical deployment of squadrons in war and peacetime presents the biggest demand. Since Feb'19. Our C-130's have been flying with AMRAAM's, sidewinders, SD-10s, PL-5s to forward bases along with the crew.

4) Round the clock ISR missions with our 'X' number of specially modified C-130's along the eastern and western borders.

5) Troop/crew/assets movement of the Army, Air Force and Navy.

6) Natural disasters - Self-explanatory.

7) Special flights for government

8) Standby C-130's at all times.


Now ask yourselves. Do 16 C-130's can do the job? If not then why PAF has not been able to get more than 16 in the last 50 years. There is a reason why its called HVA asset.
Click to expand...
Hi if I may ask your opinion can we get something similar to c130 in configuration/ price wise
I can understand about the infrastructure pAF have to have but if you don’t have the choice of getting them for the last so many years with all the other —— USA / Pakistan
Specially in gunship configuration
Thank you
 
73099098_1263854820460496_3542559411664846848_n.jpg
 
Could be the afsar syndrome.
Our C130s, Mirages, Cobras and Ilyushins are historic relics.
Need to be changed.

For C130 we should have a commuter jet design that can cater to civ and mil requirements like kc390 etc. Several such designs are popping up around the world.
GriffinsRule said:
Very informative post but again, aside from the armed version of C-130, I dont see any reason for congress to deny Pakistans request to get used one available for sale by any operators. If they are up for sale, as was the case with C-130Js that Bangladesh bought from the UK, it means they are available to anyone. I am sure there are other countries waiting to buy used transports too, and that is a separate issue, but you did not address any real reason for Congress to deny PAF's request for plain vanilla versions. I dont think what happened in 1965 has any bearing on this. What you did highlight is Pakistan's dire shortage of tactical lift, and from the way it seems to be going, PAF has shown little interest in even expanding its CN-235/295 fleet (if they were finding it that hard to buy C-130s). Seems like they are okay with making do with what they have.

In this past decade, RAAF gifted four and later sold 5 more C-130Hs to Indonesia in 2011-2012. Norway has had 5 C-130Hs up for sale with 50% of their life remaining for a few years. Turkey bought 5 used Saudi C-130Es in 2011. We all know Bangladesh bought 5 C-130Js from RAF just last year. Even Bahrain bought 2 C-130Js from RAF. Philippines just bought a couple used ones from US. I am sure there are others as well but I cant research them all. The point is, either PAF has sat on its requirement and missed opportunities to acquire used C-130s or they havent felt the need for them, operationally. Else they could have acquired other aircraft to supplement the fleet, such as CN-295s etc.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

JohnWick
Pakistan Eyes More J-10C Fighters
Replies
0
Views
1K
JohnWick
JohnWick
N
Indian Air Force To Get 1st Airbus C-295 Transport Aircraft This Month
Replies
0
Views
521
NG Missile Vessels
N
SBD-3
"I Locked Onto A Pakistani F-16 For 30 Seconds": Kargil Hero's Account
Replies
0
Views
361
SBD-3
SBD-3
N
IAF inducts first C-295 transport aircraft at Hindan Air Force Station
Replies
5
Views
907
nahtanbob
N
Zarvan
Air Force chief receives first of 56 C-295 transport aircraft in Spain
Replies
8
Views
1K
hembo
hembo

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom