Pakistan to buy only 18 F-16s

[EagleEyes]

I dont know what this fuss is all about. Pakistan to buy only 18 F-16s, well so far only because we have paid for that many (its a contract). Pakistan never agreed to buy 36 of them, it said that the option will be open and it will think about buying them. Also the amount quoted is all wrong.

I think this is posted all above.. now move on!

 

[gnabi]

This is good step by GoP. This is insane if any country buys Fighter Jet of $5 B when cash reserve is only $15B.

People, just think about poors in our country, then need Roti, Kapada aur Makan not Jet.

And there is not threat from Indian side to Pakistan. Tell me any country who is doing every thing to grow its economy, how can afford to attack a nuclear power. Whole threat perception is illusion created by people who want to grab some money.

My dear friend from across the border let me make it very clear that the threat Pakistan faces is multifarious and emanates not primarily from India at the moment but from the US and Israel. Remember a Muslim nuc power would always be considered a grave threat to Israel in particular due to their continued atrocities on Muslims and their control over US. So this threat can emanate from India as well if they feel Pakistan is in any way creating a hurdle in their progress or even to offset the China factor and access to deep sea ports.
CHEERS

 

[Myth_buster_1]

can some one please elaborate on new F-16plus vs mlu. i cant see much diffrence other then CTF in new F-16 while radar, weapons, electronic warfare suits etc are not much difference in the two. it will cost only 10 million$ for MLU per plane while cost of new F-16 is wooping 40 million$?
i think the best deal for PAF would be if they aquire 28 block15 F-16s and give them MLU with existing 34 f-16 in the fleet.

 

[Ahassan]

well simple question is can these 18 birds stand against 40+ su-30's...

 

[IceCold]

Ice, in my opinion and in terms of an Air Defence deterrence (with its BVR/WVR capability), the MLU offers the same capability as the blk 52. For Strike and Maritime interdiction, the Blk52 is a better solution.

Sir if only deterence is the main concern here, then at home, the JF-17s and the J-10s both can effectively perform this role. However striking over enemy terrority is an altogether different issue. Besides the MLU though offers the same cpability however there is some heavy duty flying on the airframe of these birds.
My point was that we need more Block52 type F-16s one for a reason they will be new and will serve PAF for long time to come and second we need to have a jet with better Strike and maritime interdiction then what we currently have and 18 imo is too small of a amount to serve the purpose, specially when the adversary is increasing the its force level with the latest MKI's.

 

[ak56]

guys lets cool down now on this topic, we should realise that what ever decision that PAF will take, they know what is best, they have always taken the best decisions in the interest of PAK, this is one of the reasons PAK still stands today as a proud Nation and the only Muslim Nuclear power, after fighting many wars, so let them do what they do best!!!!

WE ARE PROUD OF OUR ARMY, NAVY and AIRFORCE

May Allah help them in all times!!!

Why you dont use your national flag in your avatar/profile. Be proud of your own flag rather than the flag of country where you may be working.

 

[blain2]

Why you dont use your national flag in your avatar/profile. Be proud of your own flag rather than the flag of country where you may be working.

ak56,

The fact that he is on this forum is a proof enough that Sohail cares for Pakistan. Lets not get bogged down by who is displaying which flag to judge their devotion to the country of their origin please.

 

[sohailbutt]

Why you dont use your national flag in your avatar/profile. Be proud of your own flag rather than the flag of country where you may be working.

my friend, let me make somethin clear, the reason i have Saudi flag is because i live there, i love Pakistan more than Saudi Arabia, as it is my real home, this doesnot mean that u show love for ur Country by displayin its flag, DO U?????

PLEASE READ MY FIRST POST WHICH WAS MY INTRODUCTION IF U R NOT CLEAR WHO I M

i would not get into a debate with u

 

[ak56]

ak56,

The fact that he is on this forum is a proof enough that Sohail cares for Pakistan. Lets not get bogged down by who is displaying which flag to judge their devotion to the country of their origin please.

Point taken.

 

[EagleEyes]

well simple question is can these 18 birds stand against 40+ su-30's...

India will always buy twice. You cant compete, but you can force them to increase their numbers, and thats what happening.

 

[mujahideen]

India will always buy twice. You cant compete, but you can force them to increase their numbers, and thats what happening.

So in other words we are smarter. I mean we buy 10 they buy 20. We spend 10 rupees they spend 20 rupees. They are out spending us but in the long run it will hurt them.

 

[Contrarian]

So in other words we are smarter. I mean we buy 10 they buy 20. We spend 10 rupees they spend 20 rupees. They are out spending us but in the long run it will hurt them.

Actually...no.

That would work if we were spending a greater percentage of our GDP on defence compared to Pakistan which would then be hurting other aspects like education, social programmes, etc.

In India/Pakistan case, India spends more than twice of what Pakistan spends on defence, YET our defence expenditure as a percent of our GDP is much lower than Pakistan's.

And India spends keeping China in mind as well. So being better equipped does not hurt at all, while if we buy something that raises or ups the ante, Pakistan has to follow to maintain its credible detterence, so it hurts Pakistan more.

Its hurting Pakistan in the long run, not India. Bur unfortunately, Pakistan has no option but to spend.

 

[blain2]

This is where the idea of credible minimal deterrence comes in. We do no spend to match India one for one or even to match each capability. We know certain gaps have to be made up and money is spent to do that. Beyond that Pakistan will not allow herself to be drawn into an arms race specially when there is nuclear parity.

 

[fatman17]

Actually...no.

That would work if we were spending a greater percentage of our GDP on defence compared to Pakistan which would then be hurting other aspects like education, social programmes, etc.

In India/Pakistan case, India spends more than twice of what Pakistan spends on defence, YET our defence expenditure as a percent of our GDP is much lower than Pakistan's.

And India spends keeping China in mind as well. So being better equipped does not hurt at all, while if we buy something that raises or ups the ante, Pakistan has to follow to maintain its credible detterence, so it hurts Pakistan more.

Its hurting Pakistan in the long run, not India. Bur unfortunately, Pakistan has no option but to spend.

i think india's policy is quite similar to that of the US policy on arms procurement/decelopment v. the then USSR. they (the US) would continue to upgrade its weapons systems forcing USSR to play catch-up until one day its whole system collapsed due to the demands placed by the USSR military on the economy of the USSR.

 

[Contrarian]

This is where the idea of credible minimal deterrence comes in. We do no spend to match India one for one or even to match each capability. We know certain gaps have to be made up and money is spent to do that. Beyond that Pakistan will not allow herself to be drawn into an arms race specially when there is nuclear parity.

I know blain. I was just clarifying to Mujahideen, that its the otherway round of what he understood. Its not India who's suffering because of Pakistan buying x amount of military equipment, its Pakistan who's suffering because at the end of the day Pakistan wants to maintain conventional minimum detterrence.

If India was spending more as a percentage of her GDP compared to Pakistan, then he or the webby would be right. As of now, it hurts Pakistan much more.

P.S: Terrorism in Kashmir has been a direct result because Pakistan has been unable to match India one for one. It was an unconventional response or asymmetrical response to spend less while hurting India.