1. Mirage 2000 deal for 32 copies had actually climbed to $4 billion. Had PAF agreed agreed, it would have paid an astronomical price which was actually inflated by over $1 billion dollars over already an inflated price of $100 million per aircraft.
Shamim saheb, If I am not mistaken the cost was actually $3.2 billion (or maybe 3 billion) if you could do a down payment but rose to $4billion if on installments. Am I right?
i have decided not to trust any of mastankhan's posts regarding PAF issues----- he acts like he knows better then the PAF----- and if you dont listen to him---- you are a delusional PAF fanboy----- and some bogus calims he like to make are such as----- PAF needs 5-10 years with F-16 in order to fully develop combat tactics----- and rest are pretty much laugh able.....
I wouldn't do that if I were you. MastanKhan is a senior member so he surely knows a thing or two. But different people have different opinions. The beauty of a good debate or discussion is everyone throws in his/her arguments and in the end everyone learns a bit.
He has a point. We are left far behind in terms of technology and only now have we realized this and have started to upgrade our conventional capabilities but the lost time cannot be regain within days, it takes time. Just take the example of a BVR capability. When did India first inducted this capability and then compare this with ours and the time span required.
Oh, I am not doubting his point. But from my point-of-view (and thats my opinion), his post does not take into account the financial aspect. If he does, than I would surely like to be enlightened and could possibly agree with him.
See we all know that keeping up with the latest technology is quite essential. I am not claiming that "its the man that matters, etc ". There is not an iota of doubt that we need hi-tech equipment and neither would it be true if I said the M2K was not a good platform. If you can get it cheap, I won't waste a damn second.
But getting 32 aircraft at $4 billion is another story altogether. Remember, our foreign reserves were like what.... $1.5 - 2 billion at max? thats like saying making a purchase of $20 billion in today's term. So the question is : Did we have that kind of money? Surely if we had gone for that, probably other things would have to be sacrificed.
In a cost-benefit and opportunity cost analysis, would 32 fighters would have been better if we had to sacrifice our missile program? would 32 fighters would have been better if we had to sacrifice say a sub-marine purchase? I don't think so but that's my view. Yes our airforce today is weak, but our other forces are much stronger as a result. I know you need to keep a balance, but most air threats have so far been avoided and would also be avoided in the near future.
If someone can throw in a better argument, I could change my views but in my opinion, going for 32 aircrafts for $4billion would not have been a smart idea albeit providing temporary and short term benefit.