Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[blain2]

Hi,

You got that right----the money back with no interest at all----how long they kept close to 3/4 billion dollars----.

One of the biggest screw ups of paf history---a law suit in the u s court of law would have earned them some respect----and also penalty as well---as well as interest and some dignity and honor.

Actually we barely got some of the money back----700 million dollars after 8---10 years at nominal interest rate would have been a substantial amount---it showed how impotent the paf management and pak govt was at that time----. Just consider the devaluation factor of the dollar during that time.

Giving an example-----when all the money was in----supposedlly in a construction project a 100 miles of road cost a 100 million dollars---after 10 years the cost to do the same job may have gone up as much as 5 to 10 times---ie from a 1/2 billion to a billion dollars.

So---basically---pakistan which gave close to 700 million dollars upfront got back in real money maybe about 100 million dollars worth of equipment and grain.

That is a black spot on PAF----.

MK,

This has nothing to do with the PAF. They are not supposed to push for litigation, rather its the job of the GoP. The issue was that the US administration kept on telling Pakistan yes we will return the money and not to make a bad situation worse, GoP did not go for litigation.

The Pakistani side got a raw deal and there is no denying this, however as I have said this before, its the job of the foreign office and the GoP to ascertain what the political climate is, what is going on with the Pak-US relations so we can safeguard our own interests (in this case had the FO and the GoP been mindful, we could have stopped making payments for the F-16s), but nobody had the foresight. PAF are the end user, they had indicated that they wanted this weapon system and they went along with the purchase. It was the job of our mission, the foreign office and overall the GoP to have decided to stop the payments as soon as the sanctions were put on. But due to certain assurances given by some in the US Admin and in the hopes of trying to keep a bad situation from becoming worse, decisions were taken.

Since its hindsight, its easy for us to say that it was a bad call, but at the time maybe those in the know must have thought lets continue the course. Hopefully we are all the wiser for it now and won't repeat this mistake again.

 

[razgriz19]

there is always gaps between what anyone says in a interview and the 'gory' details. if i offended you, i apologise for that!

yes, ur correct no one tells the true story...(i mean gov officials)

and definitely NO, im not offended! =)

 

[razgriz19]

Hi,

You got that right----the money back with no interest at all----how long they kept close to 3/4 billion dollars----.

One of the biggest screw ups of paf history---a law suit in the u s court of law would have earned them some respect----and also penalty as well---as well as interest and some dignity and honor.

Actually we barely got some of the money back----700 million dollars after 8---10 years at nominal interest rate would have been a substantial amount---it showed how impotent the paf management and pak govt was at that time----. Just consider the devaluation factor of the dollar during that time.

Giving an example-----when all the money was in----supposedlly in a construction project a 100 miles of road cost a 100 million dollars---after 10 years the cost to do the same job may have gone up as much as 5 to 10 times---ie from a 1/2 billion to a billion dollars.

So---basically---pakistan which gave close to 700 million dollars upfront got back in real money maybe about 100 million dollars worth of equipment and grain.

That is a black spot on PAF----.

so i guess u can say that $700 million from 80s would be nearly a $$billion in todays money!

so yea... in that case sir fatman17 is correct! US still owe us some money...

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

well I think GoP also did, within its very limited means and leverage, what it could do

we were enriching uranium, and therefore we faced consequences for it......we did what we had to do. But let bygons by bygons --as long as we learn lessons and don't repeat history --which is, unfortunately, something we keep doing over and over again

 

[v1per]

I don't see any use spending so much on the Block 50/52 for PAF as they have come with handlers who will decide where these planes get used. They are there because of the dirty banyas whose dothi is wetted every time Pakistan wants to purchase any thing. These handlers are there to make sure that these planes do not get used against the banya. Why bother with this, it would have been better to go for the Gripen or the Rafael or even waited for the Chinese J10.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

yaara, what's done is done at this point

and those Frenchies and other EU arms contractors and govts. don't do EDA or FMS programs for 'allied major Non-nato countries' as far as i know. They like to see cash upfront. And cash don't grow on trees, especially nowdays.

let's make do with what we have

FC-20 will take some more time to be mastered and to meet PAF requirements, though i definitely do see its induction within next 2-4 years

 

[blain2]

I don't see any use spending so much on the Block 50/52 for PAF as they have come with handlers who will decide where these planes get used. They are there because of the dirty banyas whose dothi is wetted every time Pakistan wants to purchase any thing. These handlers are there to make sure that these planes do not get used against the banya. Why bother with this, it would have been better to go for the Gripen or the Rafael or even waited for the Chinese J10.

There is no stopping PAF from using the aircraft against India or any others. Handlers and supporters came in the 60s as well as part of equipping Pakistan to handle the communist threat. However Pakistan used that equipment as and when it felt it was necessary.

Gripen and Rafale both are just as easily sanction prone as the F-16s. With the West, you have to be ready for such eventuality.

 

[MastanKhan]

Blain2,

Pak millitary had always been very involved in making its deals and very much involved in what to do and what to say---. The generals, admirals and air marshalls were always deeply involved in what they decided.

The only problem was that they were clueless about american business practises and operations of the american government. The picture was painted on the wall---pakistani generals, air marshalls, admirals and politicians were clueless as to how decipher it. They never took the oppurtunity to understand what the americans were saying.

We assumed what was going to happen---we assumed there were no issues---americans were openly stating there were issues.

Now, either they are europeans or otherwise---you have to make the contract with the manufacturer itself with the blessings of the state---secondly---the contractual agreements need to have ironclad guarantees---thirdly---the F 16 deal at that time was a bad choice for paf---they should have taken the french option---the mirage 2 k---that would have been a coupe de grace on the indian air force---.

Paf would have choked them to submission just like that----the F 16 purchase was a blunder of the worst kind.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

oh common Khan sahib, that's a bit 'unfair' no?

I wouldnt call it a blunder......

again, the europeans are not so flexible --especially the Frenchies! Of course when you have aircrafts you PAID for sitting in containers (along with the cash) then that isnt very 'flexible' either

but let's not be cynical bhai......the F-16 Falcon is by far (to me) one of the most potent, battle-proven, reliable, and adaptable fighter aircrafts to have served in any air defence service worldwide

 

[Mani2020]

Three of six Pakistani Falcons lined up on rwy 15 ready for departure back home after Red Flag

 

[fatman17]

extract from Jane's;

"Previously, in July 2007, the US agreed to deliver 28 additional F-16 fighter aircraft (13 F-16As and 15 F-16Bs) to Pakistan, following service with the USAF and US Navy. These aircraft were donated except for transportation costs, but were purchased and paid for by Pakistan many years ago only to fall foul of an embargo. All of the USAF machines (three F-16As and 11 F-16Bs) were handed over by July 2008, but the US Navy has not agreed to release its aircraft (10 F-16As and four F-16Bs)"

they owe us 14 a/c!

 

[ynmian]

Only blk 50/52+ (Pakistan, Poland, Chile, Greece, Morocco, Turkey, Singapore etc..), 60/62 (exclusive for UAE) are under production. Cost varies from 50-60 million$ for 50/52 to 70-80 million $ for blk 60/62.

I did not know blk 50/52 is 50million each. I thought at the max it will be 25million because typically a viper price is 22million

 

[ynmian]

extract from Jane's;

"Previously, in July 2007, the US agreed to deliver 28 additional F-16 fighter aircraft (13 F-16As and 15 F-16Bs) to Pakistan, following service with the USAF and US Navy. These aircraft were donated except for transportation costs, but were purchased and paid for by Pakistan many years ago only to fall foul of an embargo. All of the USAF machines (three F-16As and 11 F-16Bs) were handed over by July 2008, but the US Navy has not agreed to release its aircraft (10 F-16As and four F-16Bs)"

they owe us 14 a/c!

I dont understand why do we need Bs or Ds (two seate) so seriously. It says above 13As and 1Bs. why do we need that huge proportion of a two seater less agile aircraft. the backseater doesnt do anything, its not a tornado.

 

[Silk]

I dont understand why do we need Bs or Ds (two seate) so seriously. It says above 13As and 1Bs. why do we need that huge proportion of a two seater less agile aircraft. the backseater doesnt do anything, its not a tornado.

trainers, keeping up hours for more pilots, tasks that need long endurance or are complex for just one person. And during combat you can use extra eyes. Believe me. It is a lot more complex then driving a car at very high speed with lots of cars trying to hit you and at the same time you need to check and answer mail on your pocketcomputer...

 

[blain2]

Blain2,

Pak millitary had always been very involved in making its deals and very much involved in what to do and what to say---. The generals, admirals and air marshalls were always deeply involved in what they decided.

The only problem was that they were clueless about american business practises and operations of the american government. The picture was painted on the wall---pakistani generals, air marshalls, admirals and politicians were clueless as to how decipher it. They never took the oppurtunity to understand what the americans were saying.

We assumed what was going to happen---we assumed there were no issues---americans were openly stating there were issues.

Now, either they are europeans or otherwise---you have to make the contract with the manufacturer itself with the blessings of the state---secondly---the contractual agreements need to have ironclad guarantees---thirdly---the F 16 deal at that time was a bad choice for paf---they should have taken the french option---the mirage 2 k---that would have been a coupe de grace on the indian air force---.

Paf would have choked them to submission just like that----the F 16 purchase was a blunder of the worst kind.

You are right that the military has been involved in decision making because after all they are the end-users. Once the Air staff or the GHQ evaluates and approves a purchase, that is the extent of their involvement. The rest is handled by the ministry of defence through various Pakistani missions in the country of the origin of the weapon system. All that the services do after they have approved the acquisition is that they track its arrival and the associated activities for training and induction. The military at this point has no insight into the geo-political climate prevailing as far as our relations with the seller country are concerned. This is the job of the diplomats of our missions and the foreign office and thus my point that its not entirely the fault of the military to have been blind-sided by the American refusal to deliver.

Without a shadow of doubt, the F-16s were the most cost-effective solution as well as the best value for the money at the time of their purchase by the PAF in 82. There was virtually no other multi-role platform available to the PAF on the market at that time. Not Mirage 2000, not Gripen, not anything else.

As I have said, in my opinion, the decision to continue payments and not go the route of litigation was a government decision and not one taken by the PAF command.