Pakistan buys 13 F16 from Jordan

[elitepilot09]

 

[MastanKhan]

i was not discussing with ACM, so no reason to believe.... i was falsifying him, neither i was falsifying any one else. which, I have made very clear in my reply to araz, same post you have quoted.

This is my way, i always think logically, to any claim or statement from any one, hence my calculation and nor did i find your (above) reply very convincing.

Sir,

No disrespect----You have to look at it this way---are you qualified to make that assessment----. Logical thinking is not enough---. There is more to it that meets the eye.


As for the sale of JF17---pakistan needs to stop talking about it---stop marketing it----. Put a veil on the program for awhile.

Let the THIRSTY COME TO THE WELL----don't go abegging to sell your wares.

In car sales talk---we have a saying for weak sales people who cannot sell anything-----like---" this saleman cannot sell a bottle of water to a thirsty in the middle of sahara desert under a hot blistering sun "-----this is how bad pakistan is.

 

[Munir]

This is one of the best post i have read. Someone who links two aspects like no other. I agree, paf is not able to do this. If i want to sell Ferrari to a rich man then i do not ask the engineers to do that. Nor would the best f1 driver do that. We might hate car sellers but they do know our psycology and they know how to sell. These kind of talents are what we need in the jf17 team. This is one of the biggest mistakes of the jf17 project.

Sir,

No disrespect----You have to look at it this way---are you qualified to make that assessment----. Logical thinking is not enough---. There is more to it that meets the eye.


As for the sale of JF17---pakistan needs to stop talking about it---stop marketing it----. Put a veil on the program for awhile.

Let the THIRSTY COME TO THE WELL----don't go abegging to sell your wares.

In car sales talk---we have a saying for weak sales people who cannot sell anything-----like---" this saleman cannot sell a bottle of water to a thirsty in the middle of sahara desert under a hot blistering sun "-----this is how bad pakistan is.

is​

 

[Munir]

One doesn't sell a plane to pilots or engineers but to political leaders or commercial parties. Every fighterjet sold to the Dutch was political motivated and often (probably surely) not the best option to buy. Somehow PAF thinks it needs fighterpilots to convince politicians.

 

[krash]

This is one of the best post i have read. Someone who links two aspects like no other. I agree, paf is not able to do this. If i want to sell Ferrari to a rich man then i do not ask the engineers to do that. Nor would the best f1 driver do that. We might hate car sellers but they do know our psycology and they know how to sell. These kind of talents are what we need in the jf17 team. This is one of the biggest mistakes of the jf17 project.

​

This is what you get when it's been instilled in you that you are the best at everything and above all the lowly maggots roaming around you. Pakistan military's marketing is just embarrassing, but do they learn? Of course not. It's like a bunch of highschoolers trying to sell a plane, even the slides they make are pathetic.

 

[rockstar08]

Sir,

No disrespect----You have to look at it this way---are you qualified to make that assessment----. Logical thinking is not enough---. There is more to it that meets the eye.


As for the sale of JF17---pakistan needs to stop talking about it---stop marketing it----. Put a veil on the program for awhile.

Let the THIRSTY COME TO THE WELL----don't go abegging to sell your wares.

In car sales talk---we have a saying for weak sales people who cannot sell anything-----like---" this saleman cannot sell a bottle of water to a thirsty in the middle of sahara desert under a hot blistering sun "-----this is how bad pakistan is.

I completely agree with this part Sir ...

 

[Quwa]

We're also assuming that prospective JF-17 customers actually think based on their own free will and not the wishes of their foreign patrons (i.e. investors, aid donors, etc).

 

[Munir]

If you buy 34 years old adf f16's while you want to sell your brand new jf17's... Even an idiot would think twice buying your jf17. Surely those f16's are cheap and will be improved but what message did you send? It is not about f16's but bad marketing of your jf17. It is like France buying us f5 while trying to sell Rafales... But then again... Uk buys jsf while trying to decrease ef2000 as much as possible. The arabs are still buying ef2000 (which cannot even win against paf mlu f16's)... But Arabs have never bought anything based on logic.

 

[Quwa]

Well everyone knows Pakistan is broke, the PAF buying used F-16s (dirt cheap) and trying to sell JF-17s (for profit) actually does make a lot of sense. The PAF wanted 250 JF-17, but the lack of money is a deficiency and the PAF's next best option is used F-16s, especially when there are F-7s and Mirages that need to be replaced soon.

That said, there are plenty of countries out there that do not have the option to go and simply buy used F-16s, yet they operate F-7s and other old fighters. MiG-29 and Su-30 may be an option for quite a few of them, but I doubt either is as accessible (financially and politically) as JF-17. There's something stopping these air forces from getting JF-17 and it's not likely the fighter itself or Pakistan, but other powers.

Countries such as Nigeria, Albania, Bangladesh, etc are like Pakistan in that their rulers don't care about vital national interests, they're just looking to make a quick buck from aid and shady investment. These governments are basically sell-outs and could care less about the needs of their armed forces, the pockets of generals notwithstanding.

The ones enabling that aid and investment are governments - e.g. America - that do not want systems such as JF-17 prolific and operated globally. Let alone the possibility of a BVR and precision-strike platform being everywhere, imagine the thought of the Chinese deepening their military-to-military relations across Africa, the Balkans, Asia, etc. Heck imagine if Pakistani officers end up in half as many places as the Chinese...

Some of these air forces might have prepared the papers for evaluating JF-17, but when the papers went up the chain, they got "lost" (i.e. shredded).

Back to the topic of used F-16s, I think the PAF is actively aiming to build a fleet of 100+ F-16A/Bs of various types (OCU, ADF and MLU). I'm interested in seeing how F-16C/Ds go. In 2005 (pre-earthquake) the PAF intended to acquire as many as 55-75 new F-16C/Ds, it'd be interesting to see if they can reach that point. Of course, new F-16s are largely out of the question, but used F-16C/Ds are possible, and with CCIP as well as new upgrades (e.g. AESA), these might be very potent.

 

[Pfpilot]

Sir,

No disrespect----You have to look at it this way---are you qualified to make that assessment----. Logical thinking is not enough---. There is more to it that meets the eye.


As for the sale of JF17---pakistan needs to stop talking about it---stop marketing it----. Put a veil on the program for awhile.

Let the THIRSTY COME TO THE WELL----don't go abegging to sell your wares.

In car sales talk---we have a saying for weak sales people who cannot sell anything-----like---" this saleman cannot sell a bottle of water to a thirsty in the middle of sahara desert under a hot blistering sun "-----this is how bad pakistan is.

In my opinion, a great portion of the blame also lies in our expectations. Arms deals to the third world aren't like a car sale, unless the Japanese government twists my arm and passively forces me to buy a Honda Civic, as a part of a wider deal in which they rebuild half my house, receive permission to land armed forces in my backyard and gain my support on most political issues and agreement to buy almost exclusively Japanese cars as a means to prop up their automotive industry. As a car buyer, I am not a slave to Japanese policies against other nations and am free to flip flop on which brand to give my business, without having to worry about loosing access to Civic parts and electricity to my house.

Money speaks above all else in arms purchases, but it does not do so at the expense of what a purchase entails for the buying nation. This is magnified in the case of third world nations, because many of these sales are sweeteners to higher level diplomatic and economic dealings and come with favorable financing terms, which are the price for the strings attached. The f-16 was such a success, not simply because it is a great fighter, but because, in the same mold as the mig-21 for the Soviets, it forms a significant part of the American global diplomacy. F-16s and the like are a gift for: surrendering an authentic foreign policy to the American cause, a free pass to use sovereign territory for US power projection, and as a means to support American arms industry.

While this is an exaggerated assumption that doesn't apply to all cases of arms transactions, it highlights the very problem with the jf-17 sales push: the type of nations looking to buy such an aircraft seldom do so based on merit alone. It is a balancing act consisting of which nation a buyer chooses to ally with, the benefits received from the seller's government (financial, economic, diplomatic), the advantages to local industry and, possibly last,how effective the aircraft is in filling it's intended role. The jf-17 may be very cost effective, but Pakistan does not offer a fellow third world nation any overarching protection against potential adversaries, nor does it have funds to invest in local economic projects; as such siding with Pakistan on a geopolitical level brings no advantages of any kind.

The jf-17 sales pitch failed the day Pakistan was attached to the project. It may garner sales at some point, but to expect it to become a volume seller, it will require the Chinese to become active in global politics in the same mold as the Americans are today; at which point the Chinese and all the perks that come with doing business with them, will sell the aircraft. We should be satisfied with what the jf-17 is doing for the PAF, it is unfair to expect anymore.

 

[MilSpec]

In my opinion, a great portion of the blame also lies in our expectations. Arms deals to the third world aren't like a car sale, unless the Japanese government twists my arm and passively forces me to buy a Honda Civic, as a part of a wider deal in which they rebuild half my house, receive permission to land armed forces in my backyard and gain my support on most political issues and agreement to buy almost exclusively Japanese cars as a means to prop up their automotive industry. As a car buyer, I am not a slave to Japanese policies against other nations and am free to flip flop on which brand to give my business, without having to worry about loosing access to Civic parts and electricity to my house.

Money speaks above all else in arms purchases, but it does not do so at the expense of what a purchase entails for the buying nation. This is magnified in the case of third world nations, because many of these sales are sweeteners to higher level diplomatic and economic dealings and come with favorable financing terms, which are the price for the strings attached. The f-16 was such a success, not simply because it is a great fighter, but because, in the same mold as the mig-21 for the Soviets, it forms a significant part of the American global diplomacy. F-16s and the like are a gift for: surrendering an authentic foreign policy to the American cause, a free pass to use sovereign territory for US power projection, and as a means to support American arms industry.

While this is an exaggerated assumption that doesn't apply to all cases of arms transactions, it highlights the very problem with the jf-17 sales push: the type of nations looking to buy such an aircraft seldom do so based on merit alone. It is a balancing act consisting of which nation a buyer chooses to ally with, the benefits received from the seller's government (financial, economic, diplomatic), the advantages to local industry and, possibly last,how effective the aircraft is in filling it's intended role. The jf-17 may be very cost effective, but Pakistan does not offer a fellow third world nation any overarching protection against potential adversaries, nor does it have funds to invest in local economic projects; as such siding with Pakistan on a geopolitical level brings no advantages of any kind.

The jf-17 sales pitch failed the day Pakistan was attached to the project. It may garner sales at some point, but to expect it to become a volume seller, it will require the Chinese to become active in global politics in the same mold as the Americans are today; at which point the Chinese and all the perks that come with doing business with them, will sell the aircraft. We should be satisfied with what the jf-17 is doing for the PAF, it is unfair to expect anymore.

Excellent Post. If pakistan has identified the market : for example say south america of developing african countries, pakistan needs to make it's presence felt there. Trade missions, port calls, joint exercises, hosting leaders for military parades, humanitarian missions and nudge China to do the same. Once that happens, should use holistic approach not just with Jf17 but also with other ordinances.

 

[Quwa]

In my opinion, a great portion of the blame also lies in our expectations. Arms deals to the third world aren't like a car sale, unless the Japanese government twists my arm and passively forces me to buy a Honda Civic, as a part of a wider deal in which they rebuild half my house, receive permission to land armed forces in my backyard and gain my support on most political issues and agreement to buy almost exclusively Japanese cars as a means to prop up their automotive industry. As a car buyer, I am not a slave to Japanese policies against other nations and am free to flip flop on which brand to give my business, without having to worry about loosing access to Civic parts and electricity to my house.

Money speaks above all else in arms purchases, but it does not do so at the expense of what a purchase entails for the buying nation. This is magnified in the case of third world nations, because many of these sales are sweeteners to higher level diplomatic and economic dealings and come with favorable financing terms, which are the price for the strings attached. The f-16 was such a success, not simply because it is a great fighter, but because, in the same mold as the mig-21 for the Soviets, it forms a significant part of the American global diplomacy. F-16s and the like are a gift for: surrendering an authentic foreign policy to the American cause, a free pass to use sovereign territory for US power projection, and as a means to support American arms industry.

While this is an exaggerated assumption that doesn't apply to all cases of arms transactions, it highlights the very problem with the jf-17 sales push: the type of nations looking to buy such an aircraft seldom do so based on merit alone. It is a balancing act consisting of which nation a buyer chooses to ally with, the benefits received from the seller's government (financial, economic, diplomatic), the advantages to local industry and, possibly last,how effective the aircraft is in filling it's intended role. The jf-17 may be very cost effective, but Pakistan does not offer a fellow third world nation any overarching protection against potential adversaries, nor does it have funds to invest in local economic projects; as such siding with Pakistan on a geopolitical level brings no advantages of any kind.

The jf-17 sales pitch failed the day Pakistan was attached to the project. It may garner sales at some point, but to expect it to become a volume seller, it will require the Chinese to become active in global politics in the same mold as the Americans are today; at which point the Chinese and all the perks that come with doing business with them, will sell the aircraft. We should be satisfied with what the jf-17 is doing for the PAF, it is unfair to expect anymore.

Extremely well said. If I may add something, we need to be aware of the fact that Pakistan itself isn't a fully independent country, i.e. a country that values its own vital interests. We are a nation that took US drone strikes lying down and India's IWT violations bending. In fact, Pakistan might have had a much, *much* better shot selling JF-17s (and other arms) while being under US embargo, genuine governments abroad (e.g. Brazil) could at least be assured of Pakistan's seriousness in trying to build its own bridges (without piggybacking on the 'legitimacy' standards set by the US).

Pakistan would do exponentially better off being independent and considerate of its own vital interests. Will it upset the US and those like them, e.g. Britain, France, KSA, etc? Certainly. Will it earn Pakistan the genuine respect of the likes of China, Brazil, Sweden, Germany, South Africa, and many others? Definitely.

 

[araz]

In my opinion, a great portion of the blame also lies in our expectations. Arms deals to the third world aren't like a car sale, unless the Japanese government twists my arm and passively forces me to buy a Honda Civic, as a part of a wider deal in which they rebuild half my house, receive permission to land armed forces in my backyard and gain my support on most political issues and agreement to buy almost exclusively Japanese cars as a means to prop up their automotive industry. As a car buyer, I am not a slave to Japanese policies against other nations and am free to flip flop on which brand to give my business, without having to worry about loosing access to Civic parts and electricity to my house.

Money speaks above all else in arms purchases, but it does not do so at the expense of what a purchase entails for the buying nation. This is magnified in the case of third world nations, because many of these sales are sweeteners to higher level diplomatic and economic dealings and come with favorable financing terms, which are the price for the strings attached. The f-16 was such a success, not simply because it is a great fighter, but because, in the same mold as the mig-21 for the Soviets, it forms a significant part of the American global diplomacy. F-16s and the like are a gift for: surrendering an authentic foreign policy to the American cause, a free pass to use sovereign territory for US power projection, and as a means to support American arms industry.

While this is an exaggerated assumption that doesn't apply to all cases of arms transactions, it highlights the very problem with the jf-17 sales push: the type of nations looking to buy such an aircraft seldom do so based on merit alone. It is a balancing act consisting of which nation a buyer chooses to ally with, the benefits received from the seller's government (financial, economic, diplomatic), the advantages to local industry and, possibly last,how effective the aircraft is in filling it's intended role. The jf-17 may be very cost effective, but Pakistan does not offer a fellow third world nation any overarching protection against potential adversaries, nor does it have funds to invest in local economic projects; as such siding with Pakistan on a geopolitical level brings no advantages of any kind.

The jf-17 sales pitch failed the day Pakistan was attached to the project. It may garner sales at some point, but to expect it to become a volume seller, it will require the Chinese to become active in global politics in the same mold as the Americans are today; at which point the Chinese and all the perks that come with doing business with them, will sell the aircraft. We should be satisfied with what the jf-17 is doing for the PAF, it is unfair to expect anymore.

A really good and comprehensive response. I think one other drawback of the JFT is the lack of a Chinese engine. The day the Chinese cure that deficiency they will probably buy a few and then the sales may pick up. In the current scenario PAF with not having a Chinese engine will not satisfy buyers enough to make the sale. The rest I am really happy with the reply above. I think the above can be the basis of an article for the Board. What are the deficiencies preventing the sale of JFT? Since you have made the start you might as well finish it.
Regards
Araz

 

[araz]

Extremely well said. If I may add something, we need to be aware of the fact that Pakistan itself isn't a fully independent country, i.e. a country that values its own vital interests. We are a nation that took US drone strikes lying down and India's IWT violations bending. In fact, Pakistan might have had a much, *much* better shot selling JF-17s (and other arms) while being under US embargo, genuine governments abroad (e.g. Brazil) could at least be assured of Pakistan's seriousness in trying to build its own bridges (without piggybacking on the 'legitimacy' standards set by the US).

Pakistan would do exponentially better off being independent and considerate of its own vital interests. Will it upset the US and those like them, e.g. Britain, France, KSA, etc? Certainly. Will it earn Pakistan the genuine respect of the likes of China, Brazil, Sweden, Germany, South Africa, and many others? Definitely.

Mark Sien!
You are touching some very painful chords. That which you ask for is not possible from the people who are firstly of doubtful loyalty to pakistan, secondly of doubtful faith not only in Allah SWT but also in the capabilities of this great nation. Nothing like an external threat will bring this nation together and surely we will have to eat grass, but the end results would be freedom from slavery of the mind. We cant keep jumping from one lap to another like a Jigalo. We need to become men having some self respect , a national identity and most importantly faith in Allah SWT that provided we do everything for His(SWT) pleasure and in good faith He(SWT) has the power to turn a bad move into a good result..
I hate to say this but the capitulation of our land repeatedly to one or another external power by our Leaders including the military Junta is the saddest aspect of our history. We have repeatedly seen how low a self esteem our leadership including the military Junta have. It is this sense of remaining at ease which has caused our downfall, right from the decisions of 1948, to 1958 to 1962 and then post 9/11. We need Balls and guts and our leadership has repeatedly proven that it does not have any. Till we develop some we are not going anywhere.
Araz

If you buy 34 years old adf f16's while you want to sell your brand new jf17's... Even an idiot would think twice buying your jf17. Surely those f16's are cheap and will be improved but what message did you send? It is not about f16's but bad marketing of your jf17. It is like France buying us f5 while trying to sell Rafales... But then again... Uk buys jsf while trying to decrease ef2000 as much as possible. The arabs are still buying ef2000 (which cannot even win against paf mlu f16's)... But Arabs have never bought anything based on logic.

Munir.
An interesting thought process. Dont the two planes have different roles from one another? ie F16 for Hi and JFT for Lo of the Hi-Lo scenario. Regarding the EF, was it not vconceived as a cold war plane. the situation having changed and the next war having different requirements, the UK Government is buying F35s. I would say that the Arab logic is more to do with the preservation of their fiefs and inter Arab rivalries. The reason UAE will not consider EF is not because of its deficiencies but because Saudis have them. they would rather go for rafale. The problem is that the Rafale's current engines do not perform well in the hot air of the gulf and they wanted uprated engines which the french are reluctant to put on unless the UAE shares in the cosat of developement. this is the controversy as i have understood it. As a response to that the UAE has decided to go for more Bl. 60s or so I remember having read. The EFT v/s Rafale is from first hand knowledge.
Araz

 

[Munir]

Araz saheb, block 2 jf17 is pretty much dominating f16 adf in every field. While block 52 or latest mlu do well in high these adf are not even low at the moment. I consider block 2 as medium and a workhorse.

The idea of buying crap and selling jf17 is not only unwise in terms of marketing but it sounds stupid idea to me. There are limitations in terms of usage. I doubt that if next time not obl but someone else is targeted we could use these cheap more then three decades old planes. And who wants to wait till india gets all the data it needs to counter?