This is not the nineties !

[waz]

F16 are great additions.

BUT the threat of sanctions at any given moment is a CLOUD over your heads that will never go away

in 1999 AT THE HEIGHT of KARGIL war when indian Mirage2000 & Jaguar fighters where bombing NLI the ACM of PAF confirmed to Mushraff that if the Indians crossed THE LOC and escalated the war PAF had only

13 operational F16 out of 32 PLANES.

and they could not stand up to MIG29 MIRAGE2000

so rejoice and demand USA fighters but you will never be guaranteed the spares and maintenance that other nations like
Japan
Israel
South Korea
Taiwan
Nato

countries enjoy

F16 is PAF TRUMP CARD and ACHILLIES HEEL rolled into one AND THE INDIANS KNOW THIS

That will also apply to your Apaches, Boeing Poseidon craft etc.

 

[Storm Force]

TO WAZ RE YOUR COMMENT

That will also apply to your Apaches, Boeing Poseidon craft etc.

100% correct

THIS IS WHY india rejected both F18 super hornets with AESA radars & F16 block 70 WITH TOT.

THE indian military just cant TRUST THE USA not to sanction anyone during a war.

YOUR BEST FIGHTER cannot be prone to sanctions in the eyes of the IAF planners

 

[Drebin]

@Windjammer

Hello sir. This is my first ever post quoting you. Therefore, I hope that I do not end up sounding like a buffoon in asking/assuming that PAF intends to supplement it's viper fleet by placing yet an other order for Block 52s in future and, later upgrading them to "V" standard? And talking about "V" standard, it's a popular assumption that USA simply won't allow AESA for Pakistani F-16s for fear of Chinese getting there hands on 'em. But, my question is that how can that ever be possible when all our Viper fleets are deployed on basis where there is significant American military presence? Not just that but, in order to maintain the Block 52+ fleet we have contract with American forward deployed contractors, which costs us significantly I might add, to keep those birds airworthy. In such circumstances, what exactly is the compulsion of United States to not allow AESA for our Vipers? In other words, don't you think that had we negotiated 8 Block 61s instead of 52+ with additional goodies and whatnot, it might have had proved expansive in the short run but, proved to be extremely economical in long run for via it, it would have been much easier to negotiate the acquisition of future Block 61s and upgrade of existing Block 52s and MLUs to "V" standard along with western tech FINALLY finding it's way to JF-17s?

Thanks and your reply would be appreciated and highly regarded.

Peace.

 

[Windjammer]

@Windjammer

Hello sir. This is my first ever post quoting you. Therefore, I hope that I do not end up sounding like a buffoon in asking/assuming that PAF intends to supplement it's viper fleet by placing yet an other order for Block 52s in future and, later upgrading them to "V" standard? And talking about "V" standard, it's a popular assumption that USA simply won't allow AESA for Pakistani F-16s for fear of Chinese getting there hands on 'em. But, my question is that how can that ever be possible when all our Viper fleets are deployed on basis where there is significant American military presence? Not just that but, in order to maintain the Block 52+ fleet we have contract with American forward deployed contractors, which costs us significantly I might add, to keep those birds airworthy. In such circumstances, what exactly is the compulsion of United States to not allow AESA for our Vipers? In other words, don't you think that had we negotiated 8 Block 61s instead of 52+ with additional goodies and whatnot, it might have had proved expansive in the short run but, proved to be extremely economical in long run for via it, it would have been much easier to negotiate the acquisition of future Block 61s and upgrade of existing Block 52s and MLUs to "V" standard along with western tech FINALLY finding it's way to JF-17s?

Thanks and your reply would be appreciated and highly regarded.

Peace.

@Drebin , once again, i will quote the source who can be considered to be one of the pioneers of Block-52s for the PAF....''The original order for around 40 Block-52s, later cut back to 18 is no secret, however under the circumstances, the security requirement for further 20 odd aircraft is still pending, which has to be duly met with either same or similar capability platform, hence PAF is working on this acquisition with options''..... as for your query, let's just look into recent history, ln 90s, US embargoed our ''paid for'' F-16s and even influenced some Western companies to withhold supplies to us, but a decade later, it not only released the withheld aircraft but allowed us to purchase the latest state of the art systems....there was a similar carry on with the 1Z gunships. As for Chinese equation, off course US wants to protect it's cutting edge technology, which country wouldn't and i have learned that same restrictions apply on other F-16 operators including Israelis, however to my surprise, i was told that there is no issue with our F-16s exercising with PLAAF....

 

[Farah Sohail]

@Drebin , once again, i will quote the source who can be considered to be one of the pioneers of Block-52s for the PAF....''The original order for around 40 Block-52s, later cut back to 18 is no secret, however under the circumstances, the security requirement for further 20 odd aircraft is still pending, which has to be duly met with either same or similar capability platform, hence PAF is working on this acquisition with options''..... as for your query, let's just look into recent history, ln 90s, US embargoed our ''paid for'' F-16s and even influenced some Western companies to withhold supplies to us, but a decade later, it not only released the withheld aircraft but allowed us to purchase the latest state of the art systems....there was a similar carry on with the 1Z gunships. As for Chinese equation, off course US wants to protect it's cutting edge technology, which country wouldn't and i have learned that same restrictions apply on other F-16 operators including Israelis, however to my surprise, i was told that there is no issue with our F-16s exercising with PLAAF....

@bold.. This is exactly the question, which i asked u earlier too.. Tht the orignal requirement was for around 36 f16s block 52... So when we have put up a new order of the same f16s, why is it for only 8 more? Why not around 18 more of the same to meet original requirement? If US is willing to sell us more, it wouldnt matter to them wheteher its 8 or 18... Regarding another similar capability platform, wel the number required, as per our original demand, of around 36 or 40, the remaining number is too small to induct a new similar capability platform.. So when we have already put up a new order of more f 16s, why not make it of 18 to 20 more, to make up for tht number? Sorry to bother u again... Its just tht i am genuinely confused...

 

[Super Falcon]

First of all PAF is nutts and its think tank when twice as good fighter jet available at almost same price tag why bagging to US for old F 16 blk 52 time to enter new era

Worlds 80 percent fighter jets are twin engine countries more smaller than pakistan countries which do not have any threat of war using twin engine and PAF stupid mindset still wants old jets when russia willing to sell top of the line SU 35

 

[Paksanity]

@bold.. This is exactly the question, which i asked u earlier too.. Tht the orignal requirement was for around 36 f16s block 52... So when we have put up a new order of the same f16s, why is it for only 8 more? Why not around 18 more of the same to meet original requirement? If US is willing to sell us more, it wouldnt matter to them wheteher its 8 or 18... Regarding another similar capability platform, wel the number required, as per our original demand, of around 36 or 40, the remaining number is too small to induct a new similar capability platform.. So when we have already put up a new order of more f 16s, why not make it of 18 to 20 more, to make up for tht number? Sorry to bother u again... Its just tht i am genuinely confused...

Answers lie in the corridors of Ministry of Finance and not in the Headquarters of PAF.

 

[Windjammer]

@bold.. This is exactly the question, which i asked u earlier too.. Tht the orignal requirement was for around 36 f16s block 52... So when we have put up a new order of the same f16s, why is it for only 8 more? Why not around 18 more of the same to meet original requirement? If US is willing to sell us more, it wouldnt matter to them wheteher its 8 or 18... Regarding another similar capability platform, wel the number required, as per our original demand, of around 36 or 40, the remaining number is too small to induct a new similar capability platform.. So when we have already put up a new order of more f 16s, why not make it of 18 to 20 more, to make up for tht number? Sorry to bother u again... Its just tht i am genuinely confused...

My dear, as i said elsewhere, the 8 aircraft are to bring No-5 squadron up to it's full strength with perhaps a couple in reserve...as for the overall requirement, the security environment around us is evolving, our needs may have altered, even the PAF airchief disclosed we are looking into options from both East and West.....just like to point out that some three years earlier, when the Indians decided on the Rafale, there were noises that we should immediately go for the J-10s......three years later, while Rafles are still nowhere to be seen, we would have been paying for J-10s through our nose....i guess people on the top are well ahead of the game plan.