What's new

Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

.
Could the PAF use a similar technique to make replacement parts of the F-16 should supplies ever be cut off or parts wear out for the PAF F-16s?

This process could also help quickly replace parts from battle damage.

 
.
Could the PAF use a similar technique to make replacement parts of the F-16 should supplies ever be cut off or parts wear out for the PAF F-16s?

This process could also help quickly replace parts from battle damage.

PAF technicians who tried on the past have been court martialled.
I know as a matter of fact.
 
.
Pak Fizaiya over Islamabad ❤️
Snaptik.app_72973154383697707573.jpg
 
.
PAF technicians who tried on the past have been court martialled.
I know as a matter of fact.

So they went rogue and machined parts themselves? Surely you need some officer oversight for that.
 
.
So they went rogue and machined parts themselves? Surely you need some officer oversight for that.
Yes, something like that.
It was in the 90s when Pakistan was facing toughest sanctions.
The one case I am personally aware of was of an airman who fixed a part which had to be sent to USA for repair.
The airman realised that the part stopped working at nearly the same length of time, and guessed it must be a battery. Opened the part and found exactly as he guessed. Changed the battery , and it was singing and dancing.
He proudly told his findings to the officer in command, who bestowed upon him court Martial proceedings.
Reason was that Cartain parts of F-16 were and are declared classified by the manufacturer and no matter how simple to fix or reverse engineer they are, cannot be opened, serviced or fixed by the end user.
The airman who found the simple battery change fix, breached an inter government contract .
Hence the punishment.

Same is the issue with any repairs or replacement or reverse engineering of aircraft parts. All have limitations under contract about what the end user can or cannot do.
 
Last edited:
.
Yes, something like that.
It was in the 90s when Pakistan was facing toughest sanctions.
The one case I am personally aware of was of an airman who fixed a part which had to be sent to USA for repair.
The airman realised that the part stopped working at nearly the same length of time, and guessed it must be a battery. Opened the part and found exactly as he guessed. Changed the battery , and it was singing and dancing.
He proudly told his findings to the officer in command, who bestowed upon him court Martial proceedings.
Reason was that Cartain parts of F-16 were and are declared classified by the manufacturer and no matter how simple to fix or reverse engineer they are, cannot be opened, serviced or fixed by the end user.
The airman who found the simple battery change fix, breached an inter government contract .
Hence the punishment.

Same is the issue with any repairs or replacement or reverse engineering of aircraft parts. All have limitations under contract about what the end user can or cannot do.

That makes much more sense.

But other than the court martial, the wise thing from a learning point of view would be to bring in an SOP or maintenance practice which requires you to get a sign off from an officer for certain parts. This would prevent an airman from opening it in the first place, even if he doesn't know.
 
.
Yes, something like that.
It was in the 90s when Pakistan was facing toughest sanctions.
The one case I am personally aware of was of an airman who fixed a part which had to be sent to USA for repair.
The airman realised that the part stopped working at nearly the same length of time, and guessed it must be a battery. Opened the part and found exactly as he guessed. Changed the battery , and it was singing and dancing.
He proudly told his findings to the officer in command, who bestowed upon him court Martial proceedings.
Reason was that Cartain parts of F-16 were and are declared classified by the manufacturer and no matter how simple to fix or reverse engineer they are, cannot be opened, serviced or fixed by the end user.
The airman who found the simple battery change fix, breached an inter government contract .
Hence the punishment.

Same is the issue with any repairs or replacement or reverse engineering of aircraft parts. All have limitations under contract about what the end user can or cannot do.
PAF Technicians should know how to rebuild half the airframe by now, whether contracts stop them or not. So that when F-16 support from US falters, which it inevitably will, we would not be completely helpless. I believe they already do,but just don't tell.....🤔🤐🤐
 
.
PAF Technicians should know how to rebuild half the airframe by now, whether contracts stop them or not. So that when F-16 support from US falters, which it inevitably will, we would not be completely helpless. I believe they already do,but just don't tell.....🤔🤐🤐

Someone who have knowledge please correct me if I am wrong.

PAF are not allowed to do any thing on F-16 which is of any significance except for the ones PAF purchased from Jordan.
 
.
That makes much more sense.

But other than the court martial, the wise thing from a learning point of view would be to bring in an SOP or maintenance practice which requires you to get a sign off from an officer for certain parts. This would prevent an airman from opening it in the first place, even if he doesn't know.
I think such procedures are in place , but 90s were desperate times.
I still remember one of the F-16 pilots from Masroor base who frequently visited my flat in clifton.
He told me that they fly the Falcons without a functional ejection seat.
At the time Lockheed was in process of acquiring General dynamics, the original manufacturer of F-16.
The terms and conditions of repair were quite restrictive . I don't think back then the falcons had Martin Baker seats, instead had the American version.
The Americans stopped giving even safety critical parts, including those for ejection seats.
So very desperate times those were and PAF staff had to go out of the way to keep the falcons flying.
The terms and considerations only got worse with every new batch of F-16 Pakistan received.
 
.
I think such procedures are in place , but 90s were desperate times.
I still remember one of the F-16 pilots from Masroor base who frequently visited my flat in clifton.
He told me that they fly the Falcons without a functional ejection seat.
At the time Lockheed was in process of acquiring General dynamics, the original manufacturer of F-16.
The terms and conditions of repair were quite restrictive . I don't think back then the falcons had Martin Baker seats, instead had the American version.
The Americans stopped giving even safety critical parts, including those for ejection seats.
So very desperate times those were and PAF staff had to go out of the way to keep the falcons flying.
The terms and considerations only got worse with every new batch of F-16 Pakistan received.
The F-16 in PAF service has always had ACES II ejection seats. Never got swapped with MB seats.

All ejections with the ACES II seats were safe, most of the ejections happened after sanctions were placed.
 
.
The F-16 in PAF service has always had ACES II ejection seats. Never got swapped with MB seats.

All ejections with the ACES II seats were safe, most of the ejections happened after sanctions were placed.
Then the pilot who told me the story , must be bragging. I will never know.
Either that, or it is possible that they went through such a phase where Ejection seats were non functional, then found a way of sourcing the parts.
The so called "Haji Ayub Afridi" snuggling link , and the Turkish support.
Like I said, no way for me to verify. The guy who told me was an active duty F-16 pilot at the time, so I could only take his word for it.
 
Last edited:
. .
Then the pilot who told me the story , must be bragging. I will never know.
Either that, or it is possible that they went through such a phase where Ejection seats were non functional, then found a way it sourcing the parts.
The so called "Haji Ayub Afridi" snuggling link , and the Turkish support.
Like I said, no way for me to verify. The guy who told me was an active duty F-16 pilot at the time, so I could only take his word for it.
There was a period when the F-16 was grounded for over 10 months following back to back crashes in 1991 with No. 14 Squadron. But it was not related to ejection seats, those were engine problems.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom