araz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9,291
- Reaction score
- 81
YaaraMirages and F-7s aren't gonna be around forever and the agressive step of ACM to lessen the hours required to shift to F-16 ( JFT comes later cause F-16 got a trainer ) have made LIFT utmost necessity. Yet PAF chose economical option of TF-17 ( my designation, until official ) over dedicated LIFT platform, thus accelerating it's development which will help with exports too. As it was one of the handicaps preventing exports because as fatman17 said most potential JFT operators would be smaller Air arms with less resources and training hence can't adapt PAF's approach.
I have never denied the utility. I am just questioning the lack of vision on the part of PAF. The block obsolence of the fleet was apparent a long time ago and even PGs were a stop gap for lack of any other platform. The JFT was already signed for. So why did we not make a trainer/dual seat at the same time. This is what Iam trying to understand.
The previous ACMs statements were more a case of putting the best light to an adverse situation rather than actual fact. However it does bring to light the individuality of the decision making cycle rather than a well thought out and wetted group decision making. This is a bad thing as turn arounds and twists mid of a move are more wasteful and cost prohibitive.
Please understand that my question is more about understanding the decision making process than the actual decision. Ifully agree that it is a very prudent move. There maybe other factors which I dont want to discuss on the open forum. But let us leave those for the moment. One last factor which is a part of our national psyche is complacency. This is what this reeks of ."Oh chalo jee no problem sub kuch theek hai" should not be a part of the decision making cycle.
I hope I have clearified my statement and the reasons behind my earlier posts.
Araz