Repeating the same example of the Ak-47 from darra bazaar or some vague and frankly ridiculous reference to dead generals does not reflect knowledge, it reflects simplistic equation or pure stubbornness of thought.
i dont know why paksitani posters are beating around the bush.
The Gripen wasn't selected because of the money, the money spent on those gripens PAF rather buy f16's with it or invest in the own fighter programme which was the jf17. in the long run run PAF made the better decision.
pakistan needed a new jet and the Gripen was 4th choice on a list of F16's, J10's, Jf17's and Gripen.
Paf decided to go for a limited number of f16's and spent much of the money on jf17
posters are beating around the bush either due to inadequate knowledge or plain need for theatrics.
Post 9/11, the PAF went looking for hardware after the sanctions went and the FMS and other ancillary aid started flowing in.
The focus was to build up capability fast using both existing and new systems. As the JF-17 was already decided as the self reliant choice, multiple avenues were looked at to provide a capability upgrade quickly.
The PAF still had 38 F-16s in operational conditions with good available hours due to sparse usage during the 90's.
The F-16 as a weapons system is extremely well integrated within the PAF . Everything from operations, training to logistics is procedurally refined and runs without a hitch. It is well factored into PAF's war plans.
The MLU upgrade is something the PAF has been looking to do since the mid90s and despite the sanctions was able to at least do cursory updates to the PW-100.
If purchased, the F-16 represents the least investment the PAF has to do today in terms of training, operational integration and logistics planning than any other new aircraft.
In case(likely) that some members are unable to grasp the basics of how machines such as cars run, try asking rental car providers how they estimate fleet costs(that is basic financial forecasting that most with half a brain can understand.. at least those with normal personalities anyway).
From a decision standpoint, the F-16 was a no brainer in terms of the capability increase both new and MLU aircraft would bring in a very short time. Capability that can be integrated much faster than any other aircraft.
(Contrary to the usual hot air of some, the JF-17 too was integrated into operations quite quickly despite being slowed down as a program due to the disasterous Zardari era, any made up thoughts can be verified with Acdre R- those that can reach him)
In ADDITION to the F-16 and Jf-17, the PAF was looking for a strike fighter to hit the deeper targets which currently are assigned to a mix of M3 with H-4 and rose-ii.
However, the Rose Mirages are no longer survivable enough to guarantee a return from most targets beyond a certain depth in India. While the F-16 upgrades would make up for most of the capability vis a vis a survivable asset ; they are not available with a standoff weapon and would be a difficult diplomatic situation to get one approved.
The PAF had seen the M2k time and time again and liked what it brought, our pilots had flown multiples of hundreds hours on it with friendly arab nations and some were instructors in their own right.
Additionally, the French would give the PAF a standoff weapon for the right money. It was a no brainer.
However, as it transpired the French tried to shove the Rafale at the high cost down our throats and we refused.
The Gripen story is different, it started out with the PAF need for AEW. The E-2 had been looked at earlier and the PAF wanted to first make the effort there, but having seen the Erieye operational with Brazil they approached the swedes with interest right around 2002-3(dates can be rechecked).
Gen Musharraf was briefed of the need as it was part of air staff req along with the need for a high end fighter apart from the F-16. The PAF did want to get a second look at the Gripen as they had an informal intro to it in the 90s(and were refused further- can be read in official history published for those years).
Once it was looked at on paper, it was seen that it essentially mirrored the capability of the F-16 and the planned capability(and role) of the JF-17. Logic would tell most why you would not want a third platorm that does the same job essentially as the first two.
Yet, while the focus was on the Erieye- Gen Musharraf was told to ask for the Gripen as an additional incentive to SAAB to try and get them to work on a good contract price for the Erieye.
At this time, the Gripen was still being considered on the basis of it being offered with AsHM systems. By 2005 , the PAF had made its conclusion that they dont want it. The agent for SAAB kept pushing it via meetings , Musharraf kept mentioning it to incentivise diplomatic relations. The swedish parliament ended the possibility of it there and then.
Any further ideals of the PAF dying for the Gripen or it being a replacement for F-16s or JF-17s are the opinions and fantasies of posters, not the ground realities.
Just as with any large scale procurement, there are supporters of each option available within the end user. There are Rafale proponents within the PAF as there are EF guys. There are those that want the J-11 , those that prefer more JF-17s , those that want more F-16s. Some support out of their points of view on force makeup and others support because either their retired coursemate(or senior) is a middleman who will make millions(and pass some on to them).
The decision goes then to the air staff who also have similar differring opinions but also technical evaluations and other considerations. They make their recommendations which then end up to procurement where all the dirty games begin. However, despite this; most of these people are much more informed about their jobs and the needs and challenges of the PAF.
Where corruption plays in, the best decision is not taken- or if it is taken it ends up being less effective then it should be due to bloated pricing or needless hurdles created.
This is not unique to the PAF, other nations have similar procurement issues, there are still those that think the YF-23 was better than the YF-22; and the lockheed bid was selected on the basis that Northrop was over budget and behind schedule on the B-2. Same procurement delays, issues and questions on decisions.
Yet, those that do overview these decisions are much more informed or at the least go beyond cockamiemie examples and "because I said so" logic. Capability , pricing and procedures are discussed with those that belong to the field and provide insight that if nothing else, speaks the language.
That lesson is important here as well. In all discussions, the focus on relevant technical knowledge, logic and basic value of opinion.
Anywhere in a group of experts, trying to pass off apples and oranges peels as relevant examples to instaneous and sustained rates are being discussed is like giving a bad interview and not knowing about it. It generates a lot of laughter after you leave the room.
Addendum: The Gripen might still be a considered after thought based on its newest iteration, but all of that is based on the Swedish parliament
