UAE, Pakistan and Mirage 2000-9s

[CriticalThought]

I'm not going to "tell it as it is..." Ask Trump.

ROFLOL!!!

 

[MastanKhan]

I do know what I have read so far. And it does not provide ongoing maintenance costs. And no one is talking about ensuring we are on the top of the technology curve.

Pardon me, Sir, but as far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, the UAE airforce has 0 actual battle experience. They have never fired a shot in hostility, and certainly have 0 kills to their name. An aircraft built to their specs does not inspire trust in me. Whatever info you have provided tells me it has the same capability planned for JF-17 Block 3. And the only reason why I am 'banging my head against the wall' is the very real possibility that this becomes a white elephant which diverts our limited funds from other avenues. Or it becomes a cause for complacence and we stop looking for better aircraft.

To everyone else on the thread, do you feel confident about an aircraft which the army chief has to tout for the airforce chief? There is something fundamentally shady and broken here that makes me uncomfortable.

@Khafee

And one would think that the French---who have tons of battle experience---a world suoer power---will have no clue in building their Tier 1 fighter aircraft---. Isn't that atrocious.

In my 11 years on this board---I have yet to come across something this thoughtless.

Please accept my humble and unconditional apologies.

I just cannot get over it---how can a supposed engineer force themselves to be the laughingstock---

 

[ziaulislam]

Depends.

For Pakistan, labour isn't a scarcity, and if small arms, training, body armour, etc, production is all local (as per Pakistani labour, material and currency costs), then producing a lot of fairly well trained soldiers isn't necessarily expensive. To put it another way, having that many soldiers may not be costly enough to impact weapon system procurement.

At some point, someone needs to level the buck at whoever is responsible - directly and indirectly - for not tuning the Pakistani economy for generating high-value exports (e.g. essential foods, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, factory systems and long-term life-cycle support, etc). If the country sells valuable things, it'll pull in dollars, and those dollars will help create great jobs, and those jobs will in some shape or form feed into the public coffers.

true, but i will add, decreasing the force by say just 1-1.5 lac and devolving alot of anti terrorism activities to frontier crops and police will save atleast around 1 billion dollars every year, not much but will still help in some procurement

per report of 2015-16 a total of 327 billion were spent purely on salaries, additional 180 billion on pensions(though pensions is not counted as military spenditure)

i am just quoting pure salaries not the operational cost pertaining to training and other logistics etc

again the approach of whether troops should be reduced for modernization purposes is a difficult decision and i dont claim to be an expert in this field to make that decision, but it should at least be considered

on the topic, i think mirage 2000 are very capable AC i doubt any body with sensible analysis would think they are junk but question is their acquisition cost, PAF will opt for jf-17 or used f-16 if it can get them cheaper, so mirage has to be cheaper than 20 million with upgrades, weapons! a difficult thing to become reality

on part of selling i think UAE is willing to give up atleast some of them sooner(probably the older mirages2000) given the news of UAE discussing it with iraq and than their is qatar but the upgrades alone will balloon their cost beyond PAF budget

 

[Falcon26]

Depends.

For Pakistan, labour isn't a scarcity, and if small arms, training, body armour, etc, production is all local (as per Pakistani labour, material and currency costs), then producing a lot of fairly well trained soldiers isn't necessarily expensive. To put it another way, having that many soldiers may not be costly enough to impact weapon system procurement.

At some point, someone needs to level the buck at whoever is responsible - directly and indirectly - for not tuning the Pakistani economy for generating high-value exports (e.g. essential foods, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, factory systems and long-term life-cycle support, etc). If the country sells valuable things, it'll pull in dollars, and those dollars will help create great jobs, and those jobs will in some shape or form feed into the public coffers.

Point noted but isn't the Pakistani Army taking most of the defense budget? Shouldn't downsizing the army naturally free up funds for other critical sectors of your national defense?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Point noted but isn't the Pakistani Army taking most of the defense budget? Shouldn't downsizing the army naturally free up funds for other critical sectors of your national defense?

I'm not sure if infantry size is necessarily the culprit. The Army also maintains a large fleet of aviation assets, armour, artillery, its own C4I element, and so on. If anything, it's the extensive breadth of weapon systems that are probably taking up most of the Army's budget, but we know these systems are essential.

 

[ziaulislam]

Hi,

No you won't dare---if you saw me---you won't come close---even though I am hitting 60. Physically---I am not your average pakistani male.

You know in the U S---if you touch someone offensively---it is open season---so be careful.

congratulation for hitting 60, i believe you sir, when you say you are not physically average.
anybody can guess that from your threads/posts!

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm not sure if infantry size is necessarily the culprit. The Army also maintains a large fleet of aviation assets, armour, artillery, its own C4I element, and so on. If anything, it's the extensive breadth of weapon systems that are probably taking up most of the Army's budget, but we know these systems are essential.

The army wouldn't make the strategic mistake of diverting funds that ensure secure skies on their heads, would they? The army has a vested interest in making sure PAF gets the best there is.

 

[Falcon26]

I'm not sure if infantry size is necessarily the culprit. The Army also maintains a large fleet of aviation assets, armour, artillery, its own C4I element, and so on. If anything, it's the extensive breadth of weapon systems that are probably taking up most of the Army's budget, but we know these systems are essential.

I tend to disagree with this point. When the corps commanders proposed reductions of just 50k troops, cost was the culprit. Per their thinking, the reduction "will transform the army into a more potent institution, enhance its response capabilities and result in a fine balance between quality and quantity"

http://www.dawn.com/news/393707/pakistan-to-reduce-army-size-by-50000

 

[ziaulislam]

The army wouldn't make the strategic mistake of diverting funds that ensure secure skies on their heads, would they? The army has a vested interest in making sure PAF gets the best there is.

it depends whether the army is thinking that way or not..remeber there are lot of issues that come into play, reduction of troops will also mean less no of core commanders and higher rank officers too.

modern forces tend to be leaner, nearly every other force has gone reduction but as pointed before by bilal labor is still cheaper in Pakistan, regardless, by rough estimate i guess reducing troops by 1 lac should free up at least around 80-100 billion rupees, whether we need more troops or less troops in context of current terrorism is a discussion for professionals

what i can say is that we have one of largest standing armies in world probably only second to india-china-america

 

[MastanKhan]

I'm not sure if infantry size is necessarily the culprit. The Army also maintains a large fleet of aviation assets, armour, artillery, its own C4I element, and so on. If anything, it's the extensive breadth of weapon systems that are probably taking up most of the Army's budget, but we know these systems are essential.

Hi,

Bilal---Supposedly Napoleone lost his final battle because his Flank did not see the flag to move or the general holding the flank was just too busy---. It was just by one minute---and the fate of the war was decided.

9/11 and then 2002 incidence with india was a moment to realize for the Paf that the time to do normal procurements was long gone.

Things moved at a very different pace---the U S military strikes came in with a bang and fizzled out with a whimper---.

Osama Bin Laden was intentionally let go over Tora Bora---. For someone like me---sitting at my house in the U S---it was giving me " renal colic "---. I saw what was happening and what was coming and I saw the DRAMA QUEENS in the Paf playing their old game---having no clue that they were entering a ' time warp ' stage.

The first 2-3 years after 9/11 was the time for them to get whatever they wanted---because the main enemy also realized that and started creating scenarios and situations where the focus of the pak forces and its energies re-directed to own border on the other side + keeping a heavy presence on the normal channels of conflict.

That---by default resulted in increase in the overall number of troops---. The army cannot be blamed for what it had to do---.

The promise of a 350 K lean and mean machine had to be put on hold due to activities beyond their control---and a larger force was created to meet the needs of the land forces and the threat faced to the country from both the borders---.

The army simply cannot be blamed for the folly of the PAF---they had their chance---they got their chance---they had the money---they had the aircraft available---they did not strike the deal---they donated the money for charity.

The thing is---that if the Paf had made the bad mistake of ordering all Swedish awacs---the army being a fighting force as well---decided that if the sanctions hit---they will be doomed---thus they decided to go for 4 chinese awacs---.

Now that we have chinese awacs---no one is forcing sanctions on our european awacs---because they know---sanction won't do nothing---and if the sanctions came---we are still capable with chinese awacs..

The army still has to fight the battles---and to protect its assets---if it chose to buy or invest in aircraft or tells the Paf to buy this with the army money---then army has the right to do it and tell the Paf what needs to be bought---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I tend to disagree with this point. When the corps commanders proposed reductions of just 50k troops, cost was the culprit. Per their thinking, the reduction "will transform the army into a more potent institution, enhance its response capabilities and result in a fine balance between quality and quantity"

http://www.dawn.com/news/393707/pakistan-to-reduce-army-size-by-50000

But wasn't this cut mainly made to batmen and support staff? In that case, yes, the cut made sense as these people were not serving any operational purpose, it was a money pit.

Hi,

Bilal---Supposedly Napoleone lost his final battle because his Flank did not see the flag to move or the general holding the flank was just too busy---. It was just by one minute---and the fate of the war was decided.

9/11 and then 2002 incidence with india was a moment to realize for the Paf that the time to do normal procurements was long gone.

Things moved at a very different pace---the U S military strikes came in with a bang and fizzled out with a whimper---.

Osama Bin Laden was intentionally let go over Tora Bora---. For someone like me---sitting at my house in the U S---it was giving me " renal colic "---. I saw what was happening and what was coming and I saw the DRAMA QUEENS in the Paf playing their old game---having no clue that they were entering a ' time warp ' stage.

The first 2-3 years after 9/11 was the time for them to get whatever they wanted---because the main enemy also realized that and started creating scenarios and situations where the focus of the pak forces and its energies re-directed to own border on the other side + keeping a heavy presence on the normal channels of conflict.

That---by default resulted in increase in the overall number of troops---. The army cannot be blamed for what it had to do---.

The promise of a 350 K lean and mean machine had to be put on hold due to activities beyond their control---and a larger force was created to meet the needs of the land forces and the threat faced to the country from both the borders---.

The army simply cannot be blamed for the folly of the PAF---they had their chance---they got their chance---they had the money---they had the aircraft available---they did not strike the deal---they donated the money for charity.

The thing is---that if the Paf had made the bad mistake of ordering all Swedish awacs---the army being a fighting force as well---decided that if the sanctions hit---they will be doomed---thus they decided to go for 4 chinese awacs---.

Now that we have chinese awacs---no one is forcing sanctions on our european awacs---because they know---sanction won't do nothing---.

The army still has to fight the battles---and to protect its assets---if it chose to buy or invest in aircraft or tells the Paf to buy this with the army money---then army has the right to do it and tell the Paf what needs to be bought---.

It's not a direct response, but it's interesting to watch the Army evaluate the T-129 and Z-10.

On the surface, it would seem as though these choppers were competing against one another, but when we look at their respective capabilities, they're very different.

For example, the T-129 is a lightweight aircraft optimized for high-altitude operations, while the Z-10 is seeing a lot of use over the Army's desert exercises. The T-129 is also costly, while the Z-10 is (likely) much cheaper, yet their respective value is in different realms.

There is no air coverage for infantry in the Northern Areas, but few T-129s could provide some valuable force support. But the plains and deserts are vast, and in war, will be filled with armour from both sides - thus needing a low-cost but capable attack helicopter in the Z-10.

It'd be a dream to see both, but one kind of gets the sense that the Army was trying to see how each could support its needs in those key theatres.

 

[ziaulislam]

But wasn't this cut mainly made to batmen and support staff? In that case, yes, the cut made sense as these people were not serving any operational purpose, it was a money pit.

army still has batmans, a very bad practice, that should be cut, unfortunately it never happened, we should learn from Bangladesh regarding this

in my opinion fighting terrorism should devolve to frontier core and police once the army does the major role
fighting terrorism is not the role of army

It's not a direct response, but it's interesting to watch the Army evaluate the T-129 and Z-10.
.

if air force is defeated within a few hours than it will not matter whether we have the t-129 or z-10s
war will be fought on principal of cold start given extensive damage in case of prolonged war, hence air force will be the first force to engage each other and probably will be the deciding the factor, both numbers and quality will matter
when done a vis to vis comparison with india, our air force and navy(except in submarine depart) is far more obsolete as compared to army both in numbers and quality

 

[Falcon26]

But wasn't this cut mainly made to batmen and support staff? In that case, yes, the cut made sense as these people were not serving any operational purpose, it was a money pit.

It's not a direct response, but it's interesting to watch the Army evaluate the T-129 and Z-10.

On the surface, it would seem as though these choppers were competing against one another, but when we look at their respective capabilities, they're very different.

For example, the T-129 is a lightweight aircraft optimized for high-altitude operations, while the Z-10 is seeing a lot of use over the Army's desert exercises. The T-129 is also costly, while the Z-10 is (likely) much cheaper, yet their respective value is in different realms.

There is no air coverage for infantry in the Northern Areas, but few T-129s could provide some valuable force support. But the plains and deserts are vast, and in war, will be filled with armour from both sides - thus needing a low-cost but capable attack helicopter in the Z-10.

It'd be a dream to see both, but one kind of gets the sense that the Army was trying to see how each could support its needs in those key theatres.

That's true but in explaining its decision, the military said: The future battlefield will be different from what we have seen in the past, We are replacing men with machines to use new technology.

http://m.gulfnews.com/news/pakistan-to-downsize-its-army-by-50-000-1.320906

I think it will serve Pakistan well to fundamentally restructure its army and reduce its troop size to something manageable and in a way that doesn't compromise its fighting capacity. Other countries such as china are doing the same and even India at several times contemplated following suit. In my view, there's no treason to have 700k army that sucks up majority of the defense budget when the money is seriously needed in other sectors of national security. Iraq and Syria had hundreds of thousands of army soldiers and this didn't stop the rapid disintegration of their forces when they faced enemies that were backed by superior Air Force and intelligence. For a country like Pakistan that suffers from acute budgetary constraints, its counterintuitive to keep funding such a colossal army that will most likely not even be the deciding factor in any future war.

But that's just my opinion. Of course, circumstances on the ground are always different and not as straightforward.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

The french may have problems as well. In 2002 they had 59 aircrafts which were armie de aire 2000/5 which were the ones PAF was interested in. The air frames were going to be upgraded and all the frills and whistles PAF wanted were on offer. The cost remained an issue. If there is to be a sale they might want PAF to take the frsnch planes rather than the UAE ones. There cannot be any sale without the agreement of the provider.
PAF decided in 2002 to not avail the offer at $60 million a pop. I do not think they will go down the route again.
As to those who think UAE M2K9s are junk I am amazed that you guys without any knowledge are purporting views which border on the verge of being moronic. As @Khafee has said the M2k9s are not for sale at the moment and this is how it stands. So please listen to people who know better than you instead of arguing pointlessly.
Regards
A

Sir,
1) Are these still available?
2) If cost was $60 million in 2002 what would they approximately cost today?

Just thinking loud...
With F-16 blk 15 out, do you think PAF might increase the numbers if M2K's are selected?

Initially PAF wanted to have 110-150 F-16's. PAF has aprox 70 F-16's which would be used for strike roles and JF-17 for point defence.

Now replacing Mirage III/V and PN wanting medium to heavy category aircraft, 100-120 could be possible.

Keeping in view PAF is to replace 190 aircraft and JF-17's being developed till block 4 (200 aircraft).

 

[CriticalThought]

Sir,
1) Are these still available?
2) If cost was $60 million in 2002 what would they approximately cost today?

Just thinking loud...
With F-16 blk 15 out, do you think PAF might increase the numbers if M2K's are selected?

Initially PAF wanted to have 110-150 F-16's. PAF has aprox 70 F-16's which would be used for strike roles and JF-17 for point defence.

Now replacing Mirage III/V and PN wanting medium to heavy category aircraft, 100-120 could be possible.

Keeping in view PAF is to replace 190 aircraft and JF-17's being developed till block 4 (200 aircraft).

For me the matter of F-16 is wait and watch. The potential upcoming US defence secretary has given favorable hints but everything is up in air at the moment.