Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[Trailer23]

@Trailer23
Morocco signed a deal of 25 F-16 C/D BLK 70 with a cost of US $3.787 Billion. Unit cost is US $151 million.
Here are the details. However this deal includes a lot of spares and munitions.

Bulgaria also purchased 8 Blk 70 F-16s. The initial price was US $1.26 Billion while each unit costed US $157.5 million. But in statement released by states that 8 F-16s will be sold at US $512 million bringing unit price to US $64 million.

Your opinion???

Yeah, I read 'bout it too & was curious 'bout it too. Haven't really crunched the numbers or looked deeply into it.

A couple of factors could be the reason why you & I are coming up with those number.

Morocco: They are upgrading a number of their old F-16 (too), so there is a possibility why the number is so high.
Bulgaria: That amount of USD $64 Million might be fly away conditions without Training, Spares and other goodies like the JHMCS.

It was discussed by all of us months ago. [Let me help the wifey with the kids & i'll get back to you later at nite].

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Trailer23
Morocco signed a deal of 25 F-16 C/D BLK 70 with a cost of US $3.787 Billion. Unit cost is US $151 million.
Here are the details. However this deal includes a lot of spares and munitions.

Bulgaria also purchased 8 Blk 70 F-16s. The initial price was US $1.26 Billion while each unit costed US $157.5 million. But in statement released by states that 8 F-16s will be sold at US $512 million bringing unit price to US $64 million.

Your opinion???

DSCA figures are the total program costs (usually over 5-10 years).

The DoD statement is the amount paid to LM to build the F-16s, not including maintenance, spare parts, etc.

To be safe, I'd use the DSCA figures, you at least get the 'upper-end' of the total cost.

However, keep in mind, that cost wouldn't fall to the procurement budget alone, but is split between procurement and the PAF's annual budget (i.e., maintenance, support, etc).

So, if (hypothetically) the PAF ordered 36 Block-72 for $150 m each, the total cost is $5.4 b over 5 years.

Now, over 5 years, that's an outlay of $1,08 billion per year. Based on the DoD statement, we can estimate that the procurement cost of each F-16 is around $65 m. This is 43% of the annual outlay, so around $464 m per year. This is the amount Pakistan needs to pay the US over a period of 5 years (or $232 per year for 10 years with a loan).

The rest goes into the maintenance/support of those F-16s, which could include new installations at bases for the aircraft, training, spare parts, scheduled overhauls, etc. This is covered in our annual budget.

 

[Trailer23]

Well @Haris Ali2140 , I think you got your response from a much more credible source in @Bilal Khan (Quwa) .

You can also compare the numbers with of both Morocco & Bulgaria:
https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/morocco-f-16-block-72-new-purchase
https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/bulgaria-f-16cd-block-7072-aircraft-support

Keep in mind, that Morocco is going for P&W Engines & they've ordered 04 Spare Engines.
Bulgaria on the other end have gone for GE Engines and have ordered 02 Spare Engines.

You can also compare what all Morocco have gone for compared to Bulgaria.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

DSCA figures are the total program costs (usually over 5-10 years).

The DoD statement is the amount paid to LM to build the F-16s, not including maintenance, spare parts, etc.

To be safe, I'd use the DSCA figures, you at least get the 'upper-end' of the total cost.

However, keep in mind, that cost wouldn't fall to the procurement budget alone, but is split between procurement and the PAF's annual budget (i.e., maintenance, support, etc).

So, if (hypothetically) the PAF ordered 36 Block-72 for $150 m each, the total cost is $5.4 b over 5 years.

Now, over 5 years, that's an outlay of $1,08 billion per year. Based on the DoD statement, we can estimate that the procurement cost of each F-16 is around $65 m. This is 43% of the annual outlay, so around $464 m per year. This is the amount Pakistan needs to pay the US over a period of 5 years (or $232 per year for 10 years with a loan).

The rest goes into the maintenance/support of those F-16s, which could include new installations at bases for the aircraft, training, spare parts, scheduled overhauls, etc. This is covered in our annual budget.

Do you think PAF can afford 36 Blk-70s if we go by your plan???

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Do you think PAF can afford 36 Blk-70s if we go by your plan???

They'd have to make heavy trade-offs from other programs.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

They'd have to make heavy trade-offs from other programs.

Well we do need a deterrence against Rafales. Even though JF-17 Blk-3 will be a capable jet, addition of Blk-70 will make stakes higher for India if they want to pull another round.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Well we do need a deterrence against Rafales. Even though JF-17 Blk-3 will be a capable jet, addition of Blk-70 will make stakes higher for India if they want to pull another round.

Yes, but we'll always be 1 step behind. If we buy 36 Block-72+ -- and upgrade our 18 Block-52+ and 40-odd MLUs to F-16V -- then the Indians will double or triple their Rafale numbers. Not only that, but a Block-72+ purchase will mean taking money away from Project AZM, so that will get pushed to a much later point.

Sure, not spending on an off-the-shelf fighter could mean taking 1 or 2 steps back, but the $250-300 m that could have gone into imports will go to AZM. It means we run into development problems sooner, and solve them earlier, and we get our very own high-performance fighter quicker.

So, take the 2 steps back, and leapfrog 6 steps up ahead. The cost of raising our internal production capacity for a few more AZM each year will cost less than imports, especially from a macroeconomic standpoint. In fact, the PAF can always induct AZMs every year, just some years will see more jets than others, but it'll continuously modernize and improve, no more 'gap' or 'lost' years.

In the mean time, improve what you already have. So, if you need better strike capabilities, then enhance the JF-17 through new SOWs. If you need more air intercept assets, acquire more JF-17 Block-IIIs. If you need to diversify, then acquire another batch of JF-17s, but with Leonardo Grifo-E and Turkish AAMs. There are always other ways, all we need to do is work with an open-mind.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Yes, but we'll always be 1 step behind. If we buy 36 Block-72+ -- and upgrade our 18 Block-52+ and 40-odd MLUs to F-16V

Wish we could do this along with AIM120Ds. PAF maintains Technical and professional superiority not numerical superiority @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Wish we could do this along with AIM120Ds. PAF maintains Technical and professional superiority not numerical superiority @Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Sure, but the numbers still matter. There is always a % of aircraft out of service due to maintenance. The side with more aircraft and skilled manpower will sustain more sorties/deployments. We can bruise a nose a few times during limited skirmishes, but we must be prepared for full-scale war.

I believe it's time to work towards absolute deterrence.

This means maintaining our nuclear/strategic capability and building a conventional deterrence capability that can inflict irreparable damage. In other words, we must produce a disproportionate number of modern fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, self-propelled howitzers, submarines, light commando battalions/specialized infantry, etc.

There's no way to get there except to put our industry first, and by several leagues.

 

[Shah_Deu]

Yes, but we'll always be 1 step behind. If we buy 36 Block-72+ -- and upgrade our 18 Block-52+ and 40-odd MLUs to F-16V -- then the Indians will double or triple their Rafale numbers. Not only that, but a Block-72+ purchase will mean taking money away from Project AZM, so that will get pushed to a much later point.

Sure, not spending on an off-the-shelf fighter could mean taking 1 or 2 steps back, but the $250-300 m that could have gone into imports will go to AZM. It means we run into development problems sooner, and solve them earlier, and we get our very own high-performance fighter quicker.

So, take the 2 steps back, and leapfrog 6 steps up ahead. The cost of raising our internal production capacity for a few more AZM each year will cost less than imports, especially from a macroeconomic standpoint. In fact, the PAF can always induct AZMs every year, just some years will see more jets than others, but it'll continuously modernize and improve, no more 'gap' or 'lost' years.

In the mean time, improve what you already have. So, if you need better strike capabilities, then enhance the JF-17 through new SOWs. If you need more air intercept assets, acquire more JF-17 Block-IIIs. If you need to diversify, then acquire another batch of JF-17s, but with Leonardo Grifo-E and Turkish AAMs. There are always other ways, all we need to do is work with an open-mind.

Excellent reply as always.

I would just like to add one more thing here. Sometimes as the time progresses we tend to forget why we decided to move away from the F-16s and invested in JF-17s at the first place which was to reduce our dependence on the US and F-16s. That logic still holds valid till this day! We made a difficult decision to move away from the F-16s and looking back now, we dont have any regrets, JF-17 is making us proud every passing day. The history is repeating itself again today. Now we have to decide, whether we want to follow the path of JF-17 and go towards AZM or pluck the juicy fruit from someone else's tree and go back to the Square One of the 80s. Had we not moved towards the JF-17, we still would have been begging the US to give us more F-16s and our F-7s and Mirages would have never rested in peace knowing no one is there to replace them!

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Excellent reply as always.

I would just like to add one more thing here. Sometimes as the time progresses we tend to forget why we decided to move away from the F-16s and invested in JF-17s at the first place which was to reduce our dependence on the US and F-16s. That logic still holds valid till this day! We made a difficult decision to move away from the F-16s and looking back now, we dont have any regrets, JF-17 is making us proud every passing day. The history is repeating itself again today. Now we have to decide, whether we want to follow the path of JF-17 and go towards AZM or pluck the juicy fruit from someone else's tree and go back to the Square One of the 80s. Had we not moved towards the JF-17, we still would have been begging the US to give us more F-16s and our F-7s and Mirages would have never rested in peace knowing no one is there to replace them!

Indeed. The F-16s offer that immediate quench in thirst; it makes us think we're moving along by giving us a thing of substance. In fact, at some level, it causes India serious issues too, so it helps. But the F-16 is not the solution to the underlying problem, the imbalance in South Asia. The truth is, if we start thinking in terms of how to solve the regional imbalance, it forces us to take the economy, education, R&D, industrial development, etc all very seriously.

None of these things are as tangible as nice jets or roads, which is why it's so difficult to 'sell' people on it. It's the same issue with AZM. For a lot of people here, it's this abstract thing, especially when there's no apparent link to it and the FC-31 (a somewhat tangible entity). But AZM is the solution here, it's the thing that's meant to break our reliance on foreign OEMs for fighters and start closing the regional imbalance, albeit gradually.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

Indeed. The F-16s offer that immediate quench in thirst; it makes us think we're moving along by giving us a thing of substance. In fact, at some level, it causes India serious issues too, so it helps. But the F-16 is not the solution to the underlying problem, the imbalance in South Asia. The truth is, if we start thinking in terms of how to solve the regional imbalance, it forces us to take the economy, education, R&D, industrial development, etc all very seriously.

None of these things are as tangible as nice jets or roads, which is why it's so difficult to 'sell' people on it. It's the same issue with AZM. For a lot of people here, it's this abstract thing, especially when there's no apparent link to it and the FC-31 (a somewhat tangible entity). But AZM is the solution here, it's the thing that's meant to break our reliance on foreign OEMs for fighters and start closing the regional imbalance, albeit gradually.

Sir do you personally think that JF-17 Blk-3 with Pl-15 and aided with AWACS & SOJ will keep Indians at bay till AZM arrives???

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The Paf needs to name a couple of new sqdrns---Paf Follies---Paf Blunders---.

Amongst the many a blunders---the one after 9/11 was extremely severe when the Paf did not push the US for F16's after joining the WOT and just took the american excuses for no F16's---.

I would have loved to see the reaction of the PAF's air chief if when his son and daughter were refused the US visa for education and then later a green card and would love to see how hard he would have fought to get it---.

There were a multiple parallels running at that time---so criss crossing those lines is not intelligent---. The only fearful factor was "running against time"---.

The JF17 program had its own value---till the J10 A became available---that was the time to dump it and join the J10 program---. That is one line of the parallel running against time---. The Israelis did it successfully---swallowed their pride & ego---dumped the levi and rode on the back of the american F16's---and never had to look back since then.

The F16's should have been pursued harder in 2002 and an immediate deal made---if there was an absolute no from the US---then the pursuing deal for the M2K's or the Rafales made---. Those two are the second and third lines of the paralell---running against time.

The problem here is that---from the US---there was not a HARD NO on the F16---it was only that the PAF had not pushed harder---.

If Pres Bush could declare a war on a nation---then he could find ways to have had the sanctions removed---. That was another parallel line running at that time---against time.

For the M2k's or the Rafale---the Paf failed miserably to assess the most potent 4.5 gen aircraft in the industry and declared it sub par---. Paf fabricated a concrete block and put it in front of that line---.

The real sabotage by the Paf on the integrity & sovereignty of Pakistan occurred when the Paf air chief decided and donated the 5 billion dollar funds to earthquake relief---. That was another concrete block placed in front of that line---.

The yemen crisis was the final straw---for not taking advantage of it---pakistan has fallen to its knees---. An issue that would have resulted in the economic salvation of the country has resulted in doom and destruction---.

The yemen crisis salvation was like a broad brush that would have painted over all those parallel lines---bad judgements---bad leaders---weak vision less generals---illiterate population---thoughtless considerations---make the nations pay a heavy price---.

 

[Shah_Deu]

Indeed. The F-16s offer that immediate quench in thirst; it makes us think we're moving along by giving us a thing of substance. In fact, at some level, it causes India serious issues too, so it helps. But the F-16 is not the solution to the underlying problem, the imbalance in South Asia. The truth is, if we start thinking in terms of how to solve the regional imbalance, it forces us to take the economy, education, R&D, industrial development, etc all very seriously.

None of these things are as tangible as nice jets or roads, which is why it's so difficult to 'sell' people on it. It's the same issue with AZM. For a lot of people here, it's this abstract thing, especially when there's no apparent link to it and the FC-31 (a somewhat tangible entity). But AZM is the solution here, it's the thing that's meant to break our reliance on foreign OEMs for fighters and start closing the regional imbalance, albeit gradually.

I certainly believe, if the Indian planners envy of something in our arsenal, now its for sure not the F-16s which might have been the case in the past. Yes we shot down their jets using AMRAAM equipped F-16s, the Meteors would take this advantage away not that far in future and we surely arent going to get the 120Ds due to obvious reasons, and hence this edge will be lost. The thing that worries their military planners now is how fast our JF-17 has matured and the huge numbers of such jets replacing our legacy fighters quickly and that too with a exponential leap in capabilties.

Secondly the price, the F-16 comes at especially after the development of JF-17 block 3 certainly doesnt justify the difference in the capabilties between the two. Not taking anything away, the F-16 still remains a remains a superior fighting machine than the JF-17, but for how long? For one, F-16 has never been able to provide us the so-called real Multirole capabilties that the JF-17 now offers, air to sea being the one, which had been denied to us for so long! Now we have to ask ourselves, are the $5.7 billion dollars worth of 36 F-16s better than the 100 extra JF-17s block 3s that could be inducted at a fraction of that price? Numbers again have their own quality!

Lastly, our dependence on F-16s in our Arsenal remains our weakness which stands ripe to be exploited by India sooner or later. The evolving strategic situation in the region means, the US would always be looking at us the same way in the foreseeable future. Hence more the F-16s, more the 'leverage' Indians would be having 10 years from now in their dealings with the US and more vulnerable we would be at that point of time!

F-16 is an excellent machine and an automatic choice had we been a strong economy. With low on finances, even if we buy it, we would never be able to field it in numbers. IMHO, in the right hands, 3 Jf-17 Block 3s would be much more effective in an aerial combat than a single F-16 Block 70.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

DSCA figures are the total program costs (usually over 5-10 years).

The DoD statement is the amount paid to LM to build the F-16s, not including maintenance, spare parts, etc.

To be safe, I'd use the DSCA figures, you at least get the 'upper-end' of the total cost.

However, keep in mind, that cost wouldn't fall to the procurement budget alone, but is split between procurement and the PAF's annual budget (i.e., maintenance, support, etc).

So, if (hypothetically) the PAF ordered 36 Block-72 for $150 m each, the total cost is $5.4 b over 5 years.

Now, over 5 years, that's an outlay of $1,08 billion per year. Based on the DoD statement, we can estimate that the procurement cost of each F-16 is around $65 m. This is 43% of the annual outlay, so around $464 m per year. This is the amount Pakistan needs to pay the US over a period of 5 years (or $232 per year for 10 years with a loan).

The rest goes into the maintenance/support of those F-16s, which could include new installations at bases for the aircraft, training, spare parts, scheduled overhauls, etc. This is covered in our annual budget.

Sir,
No doubt PAF loves the F-16's like with the Mirrage but we know that when PAF bought the F-16's they were thinking of going on the same lines they had done in the past by procuring more Mirrage III and V's from those countries that were decommissioning them. PAF planners had hoped that 40 years down the line USA would have removed the F-16 from their main forces and would have replaced them but they had never thought that USA will continue to upgrade and continue to procure and use them for another 20-30 years as drones along with the F-22 and F-35's.

Moreover PAF was also surprised to see how the US Navy destroyed the F-14's so that Iran could not get any thing. This is why PAF had to rethink on how can Pakistan could circumvent and procure more F-16's, the same old files were brought up again and suggestions were asked where everyone decided that PAF still can procure those F-16's that are manufactured in Europe and even procure those from Jordan and other Muslim countries. In reality when PAF wanted to procure some of the Jordanian F-16 they were refused by USA rather those F-16 were bought by private owner in USA and upgraded. Today they are for sale on e-bay but not to Pakistan.

Its about time PAF must decide what our priorities are and how to work around with the F-16's we have in the time of need incase it moves not as planned. Today PAF is in dire need of LIFT platforms that can also be converted into light attack aircraft so that the main fighters can be free for more engagements.

The amount for procuring 35 F16blk70/72 can buy around 150-200 KAI-T-50 Golden Eagle/ FA-50 which uses the same weapons that are on F-16. This will cost around 40-50 mil USD similar to what JF-17blk3 costs.