Pakistan rumored to be interested in additional RJAF F-16s

[VCheng]

But that just proves the point. What is this something else other than money that is useful? Remember we weren’t paying the US directly for those engines so it can’t be that it’s not enough money.

Same with the Zulus. It’s not the lack of money that halted the deal. We were paying the full cost either way. (And yes, I don’t consider using the money that we’re owed to begin with a subsidy).

The lack of money is the first hurdle, and the lack of anything else that would make up for the lack of money just seals the fate of any deal - the old "gas, grass or ***" deal since no ride is for free.

 

[EternalMortal]

The lack of money is the first hurdle, and the lack of anything else that would make up for the lack of money just seals the fate of any deal - the old "gas, grass or ***" deal since no ride is for free.

Again, the examples listed I gave had nothing to do with a lack of money.

 

[VCheng]

Again, the examples listed I gave had nothing to do with a lack of money.

Really? How would one judge whether enough money was offered for a deal?

 

[EternalMortal]

Really? How would one judge whether enough money was offered for a deal?

You must be taking about something else. I'm talking about ATAK & Ah-1z.

 

[VCheng]

You must be taking about something else. I'm talking about ATAK & Ah-1z.

The point that I raise applies to them, equally.

 

[EternalMortal]

The point that I raise applies to them, equally.

I completely disagree, so I'll end it here.

 

[VCheng]

I completely disagree, so I'll end it here.

Disagree you might, but the point stands. How would one judge whether enough financial resources are made available for an equipment acquisition?

 

[EternalMortal]

Disagree you might, but the point stands. How would one judge whether enough financial resources are made available for an equipment acquisition?

Simple.

1) We were buying the ATAK from Turkey. Turkey would have bough the engines, not us. Turkey having an issue with money is unlikely & they were able to secure engines for Philippines & Nigeria so clearly that wasn't the problem.
2) The Ah-1z deal had been confirmed & finalized which would include financing. 9 choppers had been built before deal broke down. If there had been an issue with money then they wouldn't have agreed to the deal to begin with.

Hope that answers your question?

 

[VCheng]

Simple.

1) We were buying the ATAK from Turkey. Turkey would have bough the engines, not us. Turkey having an issue with money is unlikely & they were able to secure engines for Philippines & Nigeria so clearly that wasn't the problem.
2) The Ah-1z deal had been confirmed & finalized. 9 choppers had been built before deal broke down. If there had been an issue with money then the deal wouldn't even have been made to begin with.

Hope that answers your question?

1. Turkey would have bought the engines, but not the rights to sell them onwards without additional costs that its buyer could not afford.

2. Being built does not mean the price at delivery was being met.

Quite simple, actually.

 

[EternalMortal]

1. Turkey would have bought the engines, but not the rights to sell them onwards without additional costs that its buyer could not afford.

2. Being built does not mean the price at delivery was being met.

Quite simple, actually.

1. There was financing agreed to with Turkey. It's part of the contract. Financials are ALWAYS part of a contract. Our ability to pay the turks wasn't an issue since they agreed to it.

2. Again, the contract wouldn't even have been signed if money was an issue. The fact that the choppers had been built proves that US had agreed to a contract, including financing, with Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

1. There was financing agreed to with Turkey. It's part of the contract. Financials are ALWAYS part of a contract. Our ability to pay the turks wasn't an issue since they agreed to it.

2. Again, the contract wouldn't even have been signed if money was an issue. The fact that the choppers had been built proves that US had agreed to a contract, including financing, with Pakistan.

1. Did the contract specify the approval necessary to transfer the engines, or were the Turks trying to sell onwards what they did not have the rights to sell?

2. Good point, so did Pakistan sue for any breach of contract?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The lack of money is the first hurdle, and the lack of anything else that would make up for the lack of money just seals the fate of any deal - the old "gas, grass or ***" deal since no ride is for free.

and it never should be,
Israel, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are good examples of special relationship outside the Western Europe and each of these countries 3 countries have brought enough on the table to justify the level of American partnership they enjoy . in my view its beyond being Jewish or supplying oil or serving as a front line against communism.
but then again, if you just go and tell the American authorities if they really want our airforce to use these F-16s then they must come and convince us on this forum.
you can start by putting some of your relevant aviation photography here.

 

[EternalMortal]

1. Did the contract specify the approval necessary to transfer the engines, or were the Turks trying to sell onwards what they did not have the rights to sell?

2. Good point, so did Pakistan sue for any breach of contract?

1. That's not a money issue then....

2. No, lol doesn't have the courage & pretty sure the gov doesn't have the additional resources to take the US gov to court. Btw this doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate issue which caused the deal to break down. It just wasn't a money one.

 

[VCheng]

and it never should be,
Israel, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are good examples of special relationship outside the Western Europe and each of these countries 3 countries have brought enough on the table to justify the level of American partnership they enjoy . in my view its beyond being Jewish or supplying oil or serving as a front line against communism.
but then again, if you just go and tell the American authorities if they really want our airforce to use these F-16s then they must come and convince us on this forum.
you can start by putting some of your relevant aviation photography here.

So the burden of selling should fall on USA, or should the burden of making the case for acquisition should fall on Pakistan? Quite the dilemma. NOT!

1. That's not a money issue then....

2. No, lol doesn't have the courage & pretty sure the gov doesn't have the additional resources to take the US gov to court. Btw this doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate issue which caused the deal to break down. It just wasn't a money one.

1. But it is, since the costs of transferring the engines was not included in the deal.

2. Because no breach of contract occurred, so the production of 9 units does not mean anything. Not a money issue? You say yourself, the government did not have the resources to even pursue a lawsuit.

 

[EternalMortal]

1. But it is, since the costs of transferring the engines was not included in the deal.

No, it isn't. The deal b/w us & Turkey would obviously have included ALL costs the Turks would incur. It wasn't an issue for them since they did it for Philippines & Nigeria.

2. Because no breach of contract occurred, so the production of 9 units does not mean anything. Not a money issue? You say yourself, the government did not have the resources to even pursue a lawsuit.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall lol The very fact that 9 units were produced proves that financing had been agreed to. Whether we were paying out of pocket or through a loan, it doesn't matter b/c that's what the US agreed to. You can't change your mind & decide you want to be paid upfront with cash. That's a breach of contract. So are you saying the US breached the contract?

All this assuming there wasn't another legitimate issue.

Money for lawsuits is a completely different story b/c you're paying out of pocket not through a financing scheme (that has been agreed to).