What's new

Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

were the 2 vipers then reimbursed?
Negative, the aircraft were flown and being operated by PAF with no terms of conditions regarding warranty or any other clauses. The only time the aircraft would have been possible to be replaced or reimbursed was during the 1st leg delivery flights to Saudi Arabia where the aircraft were then turned over to the receiving PAF pilots.

Both crashes happened within a span of few months. Cause was a turbine failure for both aircraft. All F-16s were grounded for almost a year.
 
No one said the engine defect caused the failure, but when you use non-OEM parts in the engine, its on you and not the manufacturer. Other engine failures like flameouts can happen for many other reasons as well.
I am very well aware of what type of failures can occur, the reasons behind it and how to try to get out of it.

No where is it stated about using Non OEM parts, (not denying the use of it as there has been an accident regards to it).

The crashes that I am talking about are those which were caused by a design flaw from the manufacturer----That is if I am interpreting it correctly.

In simple terms general dynamics product has a fault so it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to issue a bulletin on how to remedy or recall.

If an F-16 is lost due to a manufacturing defect then it is a possibility that the manufacturer compensates in one way or another----hence I did not use the term Replace ( by a similar example).

Cheerios.
Negative, the aircraft were flown and being operated by PAF with no terms of conditions regarding warranty or any other clauses. The only time the aircraft would have been possible to be replaced or reimbursed was during the 1st leg delivery flights to Saudi Arabia where the aircraft were then turned over to the receiving PAF pilots.

Both crashes happened within a span of few months. Cause was a turbine failure for both aircraft. All F-16s were grounded for almost a year.
makes sense now....stupid question but why were the aircraft not covered for such an incident.

Pakistan navy has had their aircraft replaced if I am not mistaken.
 
It has taken a very long time and Pakistan has paid a heavy price to get out of the yolk of US influence. It will be a stupid mistake to go back to the same vulnerable position by investing in more F-16. We should buy as many spares as we possibly can to keep using the existing fleet for as long as viable.

Due to the US sanctions we went the Thunder route, but we designed a jet to replace tier two fighters, nothing wrong with that as that was a bigger chunk of ageing assets and in reality PAF did an excellent job in the shape of Thunder which is much more capable than the retiring assets.

Instead of starting the Azm project for 5th Gen fighter, PAF should have first started work on a medium weight category fighter to replace F-16's in the next 10 years, and gained more experience by increasing the share of work to 70 to 80 percent in full production. In the mean time the strike fighter requirement could have been met by inducting J-10, J-15, J-30, or a combination of these.

Only after producing the second jet, undertaking a 5+ or 6th gen project would have yielded better results and also would have made us more independent and self reliant in 2nd tier (f-16) class category in the 5th gen fighter age.

Since the 5th gen fighter will only form the spear head of the strike force, and main bulk would comprise of a medium weight fighter , I think it is still not too late to start work on a medium weight class fighter after completion of block 3. That new medium weight fighter does not have to be a brand new design, we can take J-10 as the starting point and modify/add what would be required in the next 10 years. A home grown jet would be cheaper, sanction proof, and will keep the momentum going in the nascent Pakistani aviation industry.
 
It has taken a very long time and Pakistan has paid a heavy price to get out of the yolk of US influence. It will be a stupid mistake to go back to the same vulnerable position by investing in more F-16. We should buy as many spares as we possibly can to keep using the existing fleet for as long as viable.

Due to the US sanctions we went the Thunder route, but we designed a jet to replace tier two fighters, nothing wrong with that as that was a bigger chunk of ageing assets and in reality PAF did an excellent job in the shape of Thunder which is much more capable than the retiring assets.

Instead of starting the Azm project for 5th Gen fighter, PAF should have first started work on a medium weight category fighter to replace F-16's in the next 10 years, and gained more experience by increasing the share of work to 70 to 80 percent in full production. In the mean time the strike fighter requirement could have been met by inducting J-10, J-15, J-30, or a combination of these.

Only after producing the second jet, undertaking a 5+ or 6th gen project would have yielded better results and also would have made us more independent and self reliant in 2nd tier (f-16) class category in the 5th gen fighter age.

Since the 5th gen fighter will only form the spear head of the strike force, and main bulk would comprise of a medium weight fighter , I think it is still not too late to start work on a medium weight class fighter after completion of block 3. That new medium weight fighter does not have to be a brand new design, we can take J-10 as the starting point and modify/add what would be required in the next 10 years. A home grown jet would be cheaper, sanction proof, and will keep the momentum going in the nascent Pakistani aviation industry.
Anyone going through an embargo route, if they are serious enough they'd start their own fighter programs to benefit largely to their own desires and choices. This first was observed with Israel and then Pakistan followed suit...
 
3 crashes as far as I know. And 2 of them happened due to an engine design defect. Entire Viper fleet was grounded for almost a year.
Well - one is your father in 85720
85721 is CFIT
85725 was PAF maintenance technician putting in a Mirage part as “Juggar”

Not sure which engine design defect you are referring to.
 
Well - one is your father in 85720
85721 is CFIT
85725 was PAF maintenance technician putting in a Mirage part as “Juggar”

Not sure which engine design defect you are referring to.
723 and 725 had crashed. Both were investigated to be turbine failures.
 
Well - one is your father in 85720
85721 is CFIT
85725 was PAF maintenance technician putting in a Mirage part as “Juggar”

Not sure which engine design defect you are referring to.
85721 was a crash that happened during CCS. The pilot had pulled 16G instantaneously and had G-LOCed. Unfortunately he was in a dive as last seen in a HUD tape of another Viper, which caught the impact to the ground.
 
1611742052916.png
 
725 was PAF fault leading to Turbine failure, not a mfg defect - I know the pilot intimately.
723 might be turbine failure.
723 crashed while enroute to land after DACT at night. Turbines don't fail suddenly on their own. Both crashes in 1991 from the same squadron post Pressler sanctions could very well be due to similar reasons, ie PAF trying to either manufacture parts on their own that led to failure or using parts beyond their life. This is my speculation but in the end they had to bite the bullet and spend $ on buying parts from the private market.

PAF learns it's lessons the hard way. We lost the famous F-16 due to a boar on the runway, but how many here know we lost a Mirage in the exact same fashion years before that?
 
723 crashed while enroute to land after DACT at night. Turbines don't fail suddenly on their own. Both crashes in 1991 from the same squadron post Pressler sanctions could very well be due to similar reasons, ie PAF trying to either manufacture parts on their own that led to failure or using parts beyond their life. This is my speculation but in the end they had to bite the bullet and spend $ on buying parts from the private market.

PAF learns it's lessons the hard way. We lost the famous F-16 due to a boar on the runway, but how many here know we lost a Mirage in the exact same fashion years before that?
I heard it was on takeoff. My father took my grandparents and I to see the crash site a few days later. Unfortunately some people were killed on the ground.

As long as they learned from it.
 
723 crashed while enroute to land after DACT at night. Turbines don't fail suddenly on their own. Both crashes in 1991 from the same squadron post Pressler sanctions could very well be due to similar reasons, ie PAF trying to either manufacture parts on their own that led to failure or using parts beyond their life. This is my speculation but in the end they had to bite the bullet and spend $ on buying parts from the private market.

PAF learns it's lessons the hard way. We lost the famous F-16 due to a boar on the runway, but how many here know we lost a Mirage in the exact same fashion years before that?
These boars were found at other bases as well. While deployed at Murid in 2002, some of us hunted them with shotguns borrowed from the bird-bashers. Quite a fun thing during the night! The DSG guys were flabbergasted. Now, I don't know if the problem still persists at Sargodha and other places.
 
85721 was a crash that happened during CCS. The pilot had pulled 16G instantaneously and had G-LOCed. Unfortunately he was in a dive as last seen in a HUD tape of another Viper, which caught the impact to the ground.
16G ? how ?..... the only way I can think of pulling 16 g in the f-16 if it breaks up in mid air.

Shouldn't FCS limit that unless of course it has been overridden manually by the pilot.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom