Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[Pak123]

45+18=63 birds=3 Sqdns with 14 a/c still to be delivered.

so in total we will be having 77 F-16's ?

 

[farhan_9909]

33 squardens nt enough we need atleast 6-7 squardens

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

F-16C block 52 #10901, returns to base after a test flight.

 

[Mani2020]

F-16C block 52 #10901, returns to base after a test flight.

beautiful pic man.apart from most successful aircraft in the history of aviation ,it is also the most beautiful and handsome aircraft ever build in the history of aviation .although first built in80's but still after 30 years its looks still better than most of the aircrafts recently deployed by airforces

 

[fatman17]

so in total we will be having 77 F-16's ?

the original tgt was 100 and i believe the PAF is still 'persuing' this objective!

 

[Manticore]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...6-mlu-specifications-36-blk-52-prospects.html

ive updated your above comment here ,sir!

 

[fatman17]

9th squadron (PAF)

"Griffins"

Status: Active

Version: F-16A/B block 15 MLU
Role: Multirole, Training
Tailband: N/A
Motto: How high you fly depends on how brave you are.
Badge: A standing Red Griffin.

F-16 History

The 9th squadron was the second within the PAF to be equipped with the F-16. The first aircraft arrived in the course of 1984. With the introduction of the F-16, the squadron was moved from Masroor AB to Sarghoda AB to form the 38th Wing there. This move was meant to reinforce the units at Sarghoda AB which is situated closer to the Afghan border then Masroor AB, which lays on the southern coastline.

Immediately with its introduction, the F-16 was the premier front-line fighter of the Pakistani Air Force. This meant that the F-16 was sent out to patrol Pakistans borders. With the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in 1979, a lot of turmoil existed in the Pakistani-Afghan border region. Russian and Afghan aircraft regularly crossed the border with Pakistan. F-16s were sent to counter these intrusions.

This tense situation existed until the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. In that period, 9th squadron was credited with three air kills against Soviet and Afghan aircraft. The first interception occurred on May 17th, 1986 when Squadron Leader Mohammed Yousaf shot down two Su-22 fighters near Parachinar. The second interception occurred on March 30th, 1987 when an An-26 fell victim to Squadron Leader Sikander Hayat near Miranshah.

Already worked up as an air defence asset, the Pakistani Air Force wanted to expand the possibilities of the F-16 and also use it in the ground attack role. Therefore it installed the Thompson-CSF ALTIS II laser designation pod on its F-16s from 1987 onwards. Pakistan was the first country to introduce this pod on its F-16 which makes it possible to accurately deliver laser guided bombs as the GBU-10/12.

With the decision to upgrade the existing F-16s to MLU standards in the near future, the possibilities of the PAF to put the F-16 into operation will expand drastically.

The PAF F-16s were pooled at this time and no unit marking were present on the tail. Only a Pakistani flag adorned it in the center with the serial number on the tail base. The flag also existed in a full color format.

The Pakistani flag and serial number remained. A squadron logo was added below the flag with the squadrons name added on top of the tail.

Unit History

1943: Activation of the squadron in Risalpur (Indian squadron)
1943: ‘Hurricane’ IIC
1944: ‘Spitfire’ VIII
1947: Re-activation of the squadron in Peshawar (as Pakistani squadron)
1947: ‘Tempest’ Mk. II
1950: 'Fury' FB60
1956: 'Fury' FB60 (Kohat AB)
1961: F-104A ‘Starfighter’
1973: Mirage VPA (Rafiqui AB)
1981: Mirage VPA (Masroor AB)
1984: F-16A/B ‘Fighting Falcon’ (Sarghoda AB)
2007: F-16AM/BM 'Fighting Falcon

f-16.net

 

[xuwei]

May I ask what's the f16A/B's MLU program of PAF?(The time start and end,and the number of Each time)
Besides 34 f16A/B inventory,will PAF buy how many secondhand F16MLU?
Thanks!

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

May I ask what's the f16A/B's MLU program of PAF?(The time start and end,and the number of Each time)
Besides 34 f16A/B inventory,will PAF buy how many secondhand F16MLU?
Thanks!

MLU will be equal to blk 52 status.

We have 45 MLUs and 18 BLK-52s,18(blk-52) more in negotiation and more embargoes jets might be released....... also PAFs total fleet will consist of 100+ F-16s mix of MLUs and new blk-52s.

 

[Arsalan]

Six F-16 fighter planes arrive in Pakistan from U.S.


ISLAMABAD, (Xinhua) -- Six more F-16 fighter planes arrived in Pakistan from the United States on Saturday, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) said.

Pakistan had signed a contract with the U.S. administration in 2005-06 for the acquisition of 18 F-16 C/D Block 52 aircrafts, the PAF said.

The PAF said that, under the arrangement, PAF would receive these aircraft from the U.S. government in staggered batches.

The first batch of three fighters were handed over to Pakistan in May 2010. In October the second batch of three fighter aircrafts arrived in Pakistan.

The third group of six aircrafts were delivered on Saturday at the PAF Base, Shahbaz in Jacobabad in southern Sindh province, the PAF said.

The last batch of another six aircrafts is expected to be delivered to Pakistan in December 2010.

The F-16 C/D Block 52 aircraft is a high tech fighter aircraft equipped with state-of-the-art avionics suite and latest weapons with Night Precision Attack capability, the PAF said.

These aircraft are part of the bid by PAF to modernize and enhance its air defence capabilities.

Pakistan receives the fighter jets after the U.S. government proposed shifting 230 million U.S. dollars from its counter-terrorism aid package to Pakistan to help the country upgrade its aging F-16 fighter jets.

keep a llok out for this guys..

the birds will be flying home soon!!!
i hopr this time around they come with the CFT on for a signature shot:

i wish to see the MLU and STAR upgrades to proceed NOW, this really will take PAF to a new level!

regards!

 

[Kompromat]

Why no CFT's anyone ?

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Why no CFT's anyone ?

Someone does not want us to fly far away on long DISTANCE missions wink wink say ... some where north of Middle east

 

[Mani2020]

we have block 52+ which come along with CFT's ,even the ACM said that we will get CFT's

now where are CFT's nobody knows may be they are come on cargo planes along with other equipment thats why nobody is picking them up

 

[BATMAN]

Kill Switches on F-16s

12/5/2010
Meinhaj Hussain, m.hussain@grandestrategy.com

This article is part of a series on articles covering the JF-17 and the PAF through reviewing posts from Pakdef, a premier Pakistani defense forum. The main page for this series is available here.

The discussion about kill switches existing or not in Pakistani F-16s is a critical issue since Pakistan cannot afford to find its planes of no worth in case of war. Further, another issue is whether in such a mode these F-16s may be able to infect other data linked platforms. We have only recently observed how the Stuxnet virus infected the Iranian reactors. We also observed how Syrian radars could not observe the Israeli planes that attacked Syria’s supposed nuclear facilities. There have been concerns raised that this may have been a form of new EW systems that are closer to computer viruses in that they exploit the software of the radars.

Pakistan’s C4I could be compromised if these F-16s or other US equipment are found to be Trojan horses or less identifiably, entry points for such attacks.

We open the discussion with Brother Shamim’s analysis that the discussion of kill switches in Pakistani F-16s may be one that is politically motivated. The purpose behind this is described as American attempts to sell their weapons, particularly combat jets, to India.

Brother Shamim notes that the Pentagon’s “Non Lethal Weapons Directorate” has only recently begun sending RFPs for such technologies. The proposed technology would allow aircraft to be safely diverted or prevented from taking off. The respected Pakdef member confirms his analysis through a conversation with a former Lockheed Martin colleague. This reviewer notes that such RFPs are mainly targeted for general purposes. Public and open RFPs are needed to make this technology acceptable for FAA purposes. Embedding such technologies in foreign military sales would not be related to such RFPs, but rather be black projects unknown to the public and not shareable with individuals considered attached to foreign militaries.

Brother Munir’s analysis looks to evidence of tampering with aircraft sold by the United States to foreign countries. He notes that even a close ally such is Australia, has had issues with technical limitations programmed into them. Brother Munir notes that Australia has had a problem with BVR weapons capabilities. He comments that Australia overcame their limitations by hacking into the system, an issue on which they do no see eye-to-eye with their American counterparts on.

Brother Munir also gives the example of Malaysia’s F/A-18s and notes issues with accuracy [perhaps discussing targeting systems]. This author also notes that Malaysian F/A-18 pilots found, to their surprise, that they cannot designate way-points on Singapore. Malaysia is unlikely to be a customer of US military aircraft.

Another point raised is that Indonesian Su-27s had mysterious glitches that would suddenly indicate that the planes were under attack. Brother Munir doubts that this was merely a software error. He also notes that it is not possible to go through everything as such planes are extremely complex machines with million of lines of codes. A thorough review would be expensive, time consuming and by and large, beyond the reach of a customer.

Brother Munir also talks about how a Chinese purchase of a Boeing aircraft was bugged by the CIA. He asks us to ponder upon why the JSF has only black boxes that need to be returned to the USA with everything produced and maintained by US companies. Essentially, he is telling us that the Americans can best be understood in a Machiavellian light. They cannot be trusted and cannot be relied upon in any way.

Brother Munir believes that the F-16 can be compromised using its satellite receiver. This is located on the spine of the aircraft. Any party that controls the GPS transmission can scramble anything it wants into the aircraft’s receiver. This can simple be a passive activation of a hidden trigger. He notes that this has implications not only for the aircraft, but also for the air force. He gives the example of Israel’s attack on the Syrian supposed nuclear site. Brother Munir wonders allowed what could happen if the Indians receive such EW devices which could not only impact the F-16s, but could impact the entire C4I through these Trojan horses.

The respected Pakdef member notes that such details and information is not likely to be confirmed or rejected in a manner than can be considered reliable because of the conflict of interest. He notes that such kill switches, judging by past US policy, is in their interest.

References:

JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010
JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010
JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010
JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010

 

[Mani2020]

Kill Switches on F-16s

12/5/2010
Meinhaj Hussain, m.hussain@grandestrategy.com

This article is part of a series on articles covering the JF-17 and the PAF through reviewing posts from Pakdef, a premier Pakistani defense forum. The main page for this series is available here.

The discussion about kill switches existing or not in Pakistani F-16s is a critical issue since Pakistan cannot afford to find its planes of no worth in case of war. Further, another issue is whether in such a mode these F-16s may be able to infect other data linked platforms. We have only recently observed how the Stuxnet virus infected the Iranian reactors. We also observed how Syrian radars could not observe the Israeli planes that attacked Syria’s supposed nuclear facilities. There have been concerns raised that this may have been a form of new EW systems that are closer to computer viruses in that they exploit the software of the radars.

Pakistan’s C4I could be compromised if these F-16s or other US equipment are found to be Trojan horses or less identifiably, entry points for such attacks.

We open the discussion with Brother Shamim’s analysis that the discussion of kill switches in Pakistani F-16s may be one that is politically motivated. The purpose behind this is described as American attempts to sell their weapons, particularly combat jets, to India.

Brother Shamim notes that the Pentagon’s “Non Lethal Weapons Directorate” has only recently begun sending RFPs for such technologies. The proposed technology would allow aircraft to be safely diverted or prevented from taking off. The respected Pakdef member confirms his analysis through a conversation with a former Lockheed Martin colleague. This reviewer notes that such RFPs are mainly targeted for general purposes. Public and open RFPs are needed to make this technology acceptable for FAA purposes. Embedding such technologies in foreign military sales would not be related to such RFPs, but rather be black projects unknown to the public and not shareable with individuals considered attached to foreign militaries.

Brother Munir’s analysis looks to evidence of tampering with aircraft sold by the United States to foreign countries. He notes that even a close ally such is Australia, has had issues with technical limitations programmed into them. Brother Munir notes that Australia has had a problem with BVR weapons capabilities. He comments that Australia overcame their limitations by hacking into the system, an issue on which they do no see eye-to-eye with their American counterparts on.

Brother Munir also gives the example of Malaysia’s F/A-18s and notes issues with accuracy [perhaps discussing targeting systems]. This author also notes that Malaysian F/A-18 pilots found, to their surprise, that they cannot designate way-points on Singapore. Malaysia is unlikely to be a customer of US military aircraft.

Another point raised is that Indonesian Su-27s had mysterious glitches that would suddenly indicate that the planes were under attack. Brother Munir doubts that this was merely a software error. He also notes that it is not possible to go through everything as such planes are extremely complex machines with million of lines of codes. A thorough review would be expensive, time consuming and by and large, beyond the reach of a customer.

Brother Munir also talks about how a Chinese purchase of a Boeing aircraft was bugged by the CIA. He asks us to ponder upon why the JSF has only black boxes that need to be returned to the USA with everything produced and maintained by US companies. Essentially, he is telling us that the Americans can best be understood in a Machiavellian light. They cannot be trusted and cannot be relied upon in any way.

Brother Munir believes that the F-16 can be compromised using its satellite receiver. This is located on the spine of the aircraft. Any party that controls the GPS transmission can scramble anything it wants into the aircraft’s receiver. This can simple be a passive activation of a hidden trigger. He notes that this has implications not only for the aircraft, but also for the air force. He gives the example of Israel’s attack on the Syrian supposed nuclear site. Brother Munir wonders allowed what could happen if the Indians receive such EW devices which could not only impact the F-16s, but could impact the entire C4I through these Trojan horses.

The respected Pakdef member notes that such details and information is not likely to be confirmed or rejected in a manner than can be considered reliable because of the conflict of interest. He notes that such kill switches, judging by past US policy, is in their interest.

References:

JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010
JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010
JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010
JF-17 related discussion: Jan - Dec 2010

I always brought up that issue many times in this forum specially after seeing the past record of US but many senior members (i don't want to take their names as they might feel offended) rejected it simply by saying that i m bringing in childish stuff,and it can't happen in reality but i believe everything is possible keeping in mind US track record and the type of tech they have

By the way it will be eye-opener for those members who denied my effort because these words are directly coming out from none other than Paf associates