IIRC Pakistan basically refused to pay for them from national funds, only from CSF and FMF. It'll be interesting to see if the US offers an alternative, like a loan, to get these to Pakistan. So far the US industry has lost on quite a few deals (follow-on attack helicopters, OPVs, corvettes, etc) due to the lack of an export loan.
These are USMC spec AH-1Zs, if there is no hope for delivery to Pakistan the US could simply divert them to USMC. Till not transferred to USMC their delivery to Pakistan is hopeful.
I think its not a money issue but rather some disputes with Bell and their local rep with regards to maintenance procedures and billing. After overcharging (also billed to US tax payers) and delays Pakistan has started started maintaining/overhauling Bell-412s and AH-1s on it's own. PA actually returned 5 UH-1s supplied by US for border management and didn't exercise it's option to buy them because maintenance issues.
Pakistan returns US helicopters used to monitor Pak-Afghan border
October 30, 2017
http://www.historyofpia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25884
They might have delayed AH-1Z deliveries but if you look at recent pictures and videos of our old Cobras you can see dramatic change in condition. The ones shown at the 23rd March parade looked pristine.
Same goes for Mi-17s, PAA was maintaining some of them through coalition support funds as well but now PA has a in house facility.
Problems with Bell arn't new for Pakistan.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1055153
November 09, 2013
Facebook Count113
Twitter Share
8
— File photo
ISLAMABAD: Two companies supplying helicopters to the army have been blacklisted for allegedly leaking sensitive information to the United States.
The companies — Aerotron Private Ltd and Aerotron FZE (AF) — which had been supplying Bell and Sikorsky helicopters to the army for over 38 years were blacklisted on May 26 last year because of security reasons.
The companies had challenged the ban in the Islamabad High Court in September last year. At the request of the military authorities, the IHC had held the proceedings in camera and recently reserved its judgment.
In a joint reply submitted to the court through their counsel Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, the respondents — chief of general staff, director general of the Military Intelligence, general officer commanding and director general of procurement (army) — alleged that the companies had “passed on to an unauthorised person classified information pertaining to the Pakistan Army”.
The sensitive information had been provided to the US Office of Defence Representative in Pakistan by Azhar Wali Mohammad and Fahad Azhar. It said: “The petitioners (companies) had no reason to pass on that information to the US office.”
The reply claimed that during a meeting with senior officials of the MI in Rawalpindi in Sept 2011, the companies’ owners admitted that they had passed on the information but insisted that it was not classified. According to them, it was available in the media and was essential for business purposes. “If the petitioners are concerned about their fundamental rights and wanted their enforcement under the constitution of Pakistan, they should also be cognizant of their duty to remain loyal to the state under the provision of the same constitution,” the reply argued.
The petitioners had challenged the May 26, 2012 letter by the director general procurement, informing them that their companies had been barred from any business deal with the army and defence organisations because of security reasons.
They said their principal, Bell Helicopters Supply Centre in the Netherlands, had been informed on May 9. The army told the centre that it had severed its ties with the Aerotron companies on Oct 14, 2011, and requested it to stop communications with the companies and their representatives.
During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, said that after the ban the companies served legal notice on the respondents but they neither responded nor pointed out any illegality on part of the petitioners.
He argued that the reference to security concerns in the May 9 letter to the Bell Helicopters Supply Centre was ambiguous and insufficient to constitute a valid reason as required by law. Also it was written without informing or providing the companies an opportunity to show cause and being heard to rebut any alleged ground for the purported decision of blacklisting.
“The executive and public functionaries under the constitution cannot take any unilateral decision or pass an adverse order without hearing the accused party,” the counsel argued.
