Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[Windjammer]

Wrong. The PAF has never cannibalised its Viper fleet, even during the height of the Pressler sanctions in the 90s. Happy to be proved wrong. So you're telling me the USAF cannibalises its Viper and Eagle fleet? Do you know what 'cannibalise' means in this context?


Nope, they weren't, we never cannibalised an entire Viper airframe for the sake of any other, but happy to be proved wrong.

Sir, just leave it, the member already has contradicted himself by claiming in one post that a certain F-16 ''just sits at an airbase, stored and cannibalised most of it's life''.....and a few posts later posts a recent image of the same F-16 in a formation flight. !!!

 

[araz]

Wrong. The PAF has never cannibalised its Viper fleet, even during the height of the Pressler sanctions in the 90s. Happy to be proved wrong. So you're telling me the USAF cannibalises its Viper and Eagle fleet? Do you know what 'cannibalise' means in this context?


Nope, they weren't, we never cannibalised an entire Viper airframe for the sake of any other, but happy to be proved wrong.

I have heard that during the 90s a few airframes were cannibalized to keep the rest of the fleet up in the air. That was the reason we ended up with 32 air frames out of the 40 that we had. I cannot remember how many were l9st but I think they were 3-4.
I friendly fire.
1 boar accident.
1 CFit due to pilot disorientation due to night.
1 more I cannot remember the reason but possibly related to a tech issue.
The rest were cannibalized to keep the fleet up.
A

 

[Windjammer]

I have heard that during the 90s a few airframes were cannibalized to keep the rest of the fleet up in the air. That was the reason we ended up with 32 air frames out of the 40 that we had. I cannot remember how many were l9st but I think they were 3-4.
I friendly fire.
1 boar accident.
1 CFit due to pilot disorientation due to night.
1 more I cannot remember the reason but possibly related to a tech issue.
The rest were cannibalized to keep the fleet up.
A

Oh please, a simple search on F-16 Net reveals details of all the 10 F-16s lost to date through accidents or mishaps and none were grounded due to so called cannibalisation.

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

 

[araz]

Oh please, a simple search on F-16 Net reveals details of all the 10 F-16s lost to date through accidents or mishaps and none were grounded due to so called cannibalisation.

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

Thank you. I stand corrected.
A

 

[Side-Winder]

Temporary cannibalization of parts is done in order to ensure higher serviceability. How?
You have an F-16 due for Phase inspection after certain flying hours for N number days (I won't reveal here how many). Then you have got an F-16 at flight lines which goes MICAP (Mission Incapable) due to sudden malfunctioning of a component that's not available at logistics, and has to be ordered from OEM which would take alot of time. So what you do is, you cannibalize that component from the F-16 which was on Phase inspection ( Aircraft already non-operational) and put it on that F-16 on flight lines. And there you go, Your F-16 at flight lines is good to go. Meanwhile you get your component from OEM after all the processing.

@The Raven @airomerix @Windjammer @araz

 

[ghazi52]

PAF F-16 | Cuban 8 | No 11 | Rehearsals | Arrows | 2021

 

[The Raven]

Temporary cannibalization of parts is done in order to ensure higher serviceability. How?
You have an F-16 due for Phase inspection after certain flying hours for N number days (I won't reveal here how many). Then you have got an F-16 at flight lines which goes MICAP (Mission Incapable) due to sudden malfunctioning of a component that's not available at logistics, and has to be ordered from OEM which would take alot of time. So what you do is, you cannibalize that component from the F-16 which was on Phase inspection ( Aircraft already non-operational) and put it on that F-16 on flight lines. And there you go, Your F-16 at flight lines is good to go. Meanwhile you get your component from OEM after all the processing.

@The Raven @airomerix @Windjammer @araz

That's completely different to the cannibalisation being referred to here, where it's been implied that an entire aircraft has been stripped for parts, similar to what occurred with the Mirages.

 

[airomerix]

Wrong. The PAF has never cannibalised its Viper fleet, even during the height of the Pressler sanctions in the 90s. Happy to be proved wrong. So you're telling me the USAF cannibalises its Viper and Eagle fleet? Do you know what 'cannibalise' means in this context?


Nope, they weren't, we never cannibalised an entire Viper airframe for the sake of any other, but happy to be proved wrong.

That's completely different to the cannibalisation being referred to here, where it's been implied that an entire aircraft has been stripped for parts, similar to what occurred with the Mirages.

There is a gap in your understanding of the word 'cannibalization in the context of fleet readiness.

First lets understand this.

If part A goes wrong in aircraft# 707 and part B goes wrong in aircraft #709, it makes greater sense to cannibalize aircraft # 708 of these two parts compared to ordering, sourcing, delivering and then installing these parts. This is 4 months time on average right there.

No one has said there are bunch of viper airframes at Sargodha eating the dust. However, in context of PAF F-16s, we have routinely cannibalized older F-16s of crucial components in an effort to support maybe an airframe that is perhaps newer and needs to clock x number of hours as planned by F-16 office at AHQ.

The reason is simple. the supply chain is not lean and is far from simple due to a variety of reasons. It is fairly easy and QUICK to cannibalize one airframe and keep other 7 airframes airworthy. While the engg prepares a summary of requirements and HQ deals with the rest of the procurement cycle which is a LONG process.

Every time Pakistan requires technical support for its F-16s, it is awarded to multiple companies in the US. And do a little search, how often does that happen? It's a recurring process. Pakistan does not manufacture the mission critical parts of F-16s.

Sir, just leave it, the member already has contradicted himself by claiming in one post that a certain F-16 ''just sits at an airbase, stored and cannibalised most of it's life''.....and a few posts later posts a recent image of the same F-16 in a formation flight. !!!

When elders speak, you listen and learn. Pictures are supposed to be your forte. Next time come up with pictures when someone asks. I don't want to do it for you.

I have heard that during the 90s a few airframes were cannibalized to keep the rest of the fleet up in the air. That was the reason we ended up with 32 air frames out of the 40 that we had. I cannot remember how many were l9st but I think they were 3-4.
I friendly fire.
1 boar accident.
1 CFit due to pilot disorientation due to night.
1 more I cannot remember the reason but possibly related to a tech issue.
The rest were cannibalized to keep the fleet up.
A

Whatever the case, we never had 'operational' 32 F-16s even in those times. Heck, look at the mission readiness rates of USAF F-16 fleet. On a good day it has been around 82%. Even they cannibalize their aircraft as per the need.

It is appalling that fans believe we have all 75 vipers mission ready as we speak. Like really.

Temporary cannibalization of parts is done in order to ensure higher serviceability. How?
You have an F-16 due for Phase inspection after certain flying hours for N number days (I won't reveal here how many). Then you have got an F-16 at flight lines which goes MICAP (Mission Incapable) due to sudden malfunctioning of a component that's not available at logistics, and has to be ordered from OEM which would take alot of time. So what you do is, you cannibalize that component from the F-16 which was on Phase inspection ( Aircraft already non-operational) and put it on that F-16 on flight lines. And there you go, Your F-16 at flight lines is good to go. Meanwhile you get your component from OEM after all the processing.

@The Raven @airomerix @Windjammer @araz

Beautifully explained.

 

[The Raven]

There is a gap in your understanding of the word 'cannibalization in the context of fleet readiness.

First lets understand this.

If part A goes wrong in aircraft# 707 and part B goes wrong in aircraft #709, it makes greater sense to cannibalize aircraft # 708 of these two parts compared to ordering, sourcing, delivering and then installing these parts. This is 4 months time on average right there.

No one has said there are bunch of viper airframes at Sargodha eating the dust. However, in context of PAF F-16s, we have routinely cannibalized older F-16s of crucial components in an effort to support maybe an airframe that is perhaps newer and needs to clock x number of hours as planned by F-16 office at AHQ.

The reason is simple. the supply chain is not lean and is far from simple due to a variety of reasons. It is fairly easy and QUICK to cannibalize one airframe and keep other 7 airframes airworthy. While the engg prepares a summary of requirements and HQ deals with the rest of the procurement cycle which is a LONG process.

Every time Pakistan requires technical support for its F-16s, it is awarded to multiple companies in the US. And do a little search, how often does that happen? It's a recurring process. Pakistan does not manufacture the mission critical parts of F-16s.




When elders speak, you listen and learn. Pictures are supposed to be your forte. Next time come up with pictures when someone asks. I don't want to do it for you.



Whatever the case, we never had 'operational' 32 F-16s even in those times. Heck, look at the mission readiness rates of USAF F-16 fleet. On a good day it has been around 82%. Even they cannibalize their aircraft as per the need.

It is appalling that fans believe we have all 75 vipers mission ready as we speak. Like really.

View attachment 726651


Beautifully explained.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, and yes you're correct, it is all in the context. Without further elaboration, simply stating 'cannibalisation' in the PAF context usually refers to what we have done with the Mirage III/V fleet, i.e. in the absence of newly sourced critical OEM parts, we had to resort to the 'complete' cannibalisation of entire used airframes, as well as manufacture of components. Of course, an entire fleet is never 100% available for service, due to a specific fraction needing MRO. My only point here was to clarify that we never had to resort to sacrificing entire airframes of Vipers at the expense of keeping other airworthy, despite sanctions. An example of where this has occurred is the IRIAF where they quite literally had to sacrifice a fraction of their airframes of F-14 Tomcats and F-4 Phantoms to keep a certain number airworthy - the PAF never had to resort to that, even during the height of the Pressler sanctions.

 

[Windjammer]

When elders speak, you listen and learn. Pictures are supposed to be your forte. Next time come up with pictures when someone asks. I don't want to do it for you.

Yes wise old guy with I love me, who do you love attitude.
BTW, back then there were no exclusive CCS F-16s, the unit use to borrow Vipers from the two F-16 Squadrons co-located at the base.

 

[Raider 21]

Yes wise old guy with I love me, who do you love attitude.
BTW, back then there were no exclusive CCS F-16s, the unit use to borrow Vipers from the two F-16 Squadrons co-located at the base.

He worked for PAC Kamra. So he may have a better idea. And rotational cannibalisation did exist at the time yet fortunately it didn't affect flying time much with sanctions. That's why the selection for F-16 aircrew was kept a lot more strict than today.

However, there were no hangar queens with the Vipers other than a particular B model.

CCS still does the borrowing as does the OCU for training new cadre of Viper IPs and studs.

 

[airomerix]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, and yes you're correct, it is all in the context. Without further elaboration, simply stating 'cannibalisation' in the PAF context usually refers to what we have done with the Mirage III/V fleet, i.e. in the absence of newly sourced critical OEM parts, we had to resort to the 'complete' cannibalisation of entire used airframes, as well as manufacture of components. Of course, an entire fleet is never 100% available for service, due to a specific fraction needing MRO. My only point here was to clarify that we never had to resort to sacrificing entire airframes of Vipers at the expense of keeping other airworthy, despite sanctions. An example of where this has occurred is the IRIAF where they quite literally had to sacrifice a fraction of their airframes of F-14 Tomcats and F-4 Phantoms to keep a certain number airworthy - the PAF never had to resort to that, even during the height of the Pressler sanctions.

I agree. We never had to 'throw away' a viper. The reason being, we saw MLU update in mid 2000's, it brought back every airframe to life. Still, the 708 was cannibalized a lot more. It has seen a lot of flying in 80s and 90s anyway. Cannibalization doesn't necessarily mean we take off wings of one viper and put them on another. There are hundreds of components that go wrong on regular basis.

Similarly, for the longest of time, I've seen JF-17 #111 and #101 I think cannibalized to keep the rest up. It is a routine thing. Same goes for C-130's.

 

[Windjammer]

He worked for PAC Kamra. So he may have a better idea. And rotational cannibalisation did exist at the time yet fortunately it didn't affect flying time much with sanctions. That's why the selection for F-16 aircrew was kept a lot more strict than today.

However, there were no hangar queens with the Vipers other than a particular B model.

CCS still does the borrowing as does the OCU for training new cadre of Viper IPs and studs.

I don't doubt that or have any issues about it.....was just trying to defuse a futile argument between him and the other member but end up getting the attitude.
I maybe wrong but now see Vipers with ''Aggressors'' logo and am under impression they are permanent CCS birds.
BTW, any idea what USAF is bringing to ACES MEET next week.

 

[airomerix]

Yes wise old guy with I love me, who do you love attitude.
BTW, back then there were no exclusive CCS F-16s, the unit use to borrow Vipers from the two F-16 Squadrons co-located at the base.

Genius, this still is the case. Clearly shows that your JSCC guest didnt teach you much.

There are still no exclusive CCS vipers. They still borrow from either 9 or 29. #708 has been the red force aggressor for decades now, which means more stress on the airframe. However, red forces do not operate for 365 days and CCS courses are not structured this way. I have said enough already on this, Take a hike.

I don't doubt that or have any issues about it.....was just trying to defuse a futile argument between him and the other member but end up getting the attitude.
I maybe wrong but now see Vipers with ''Aggressors'' logo and am under impression they are permanent CCS birds.

No sweetheart. OC 9 can any day take a 29 bird.

Similarly, OC 29 took a No. 9 bird (731) for swift retort.

 

[airomerix]

He worked for PAC Kamra. So he may have a better idea. And rotational cannibalisation did exist at the time yet fortunately it didn't affect flying time much with sanctions. That's why the selection for F-16 aircrew was kept a lot more strict than today.

However, there were no hangar queens with the Vipers other than a particular B model.

CCS still does the borrowing as does the OCU for training new cadre of Viper IPs and studs.

Dont give out much my man.