USS Reagan, OEF and Pakistan

[MastanKhan]

Hi Keyesersoze,

I believe that you are getting carried away in this discussion. Please stop and re-think what you want to say. You claim to be an ex millitary---you should know better-----how long does it take to be an SAS operative---many many years of true hard work and brutal training after an impossible screening and selection process.

If at the end of the day, the purchase of a package deal is denied due to the lack of ability, does not make any difference what the reasons are and which part of the flying wing is not capable of absorbing the technology---it reflects upon the overall ability of the PAF. When it comes to fight the battle---the air war----you will not have these planes to back you up in the air. That is the bottomline. What is in it that is so difficult to understand?

The ACM clearly states otherwise and you are bringing in TOT issues. He is talking about the lack in the bases of aerial technology and you are talking about engines and metallurgical skills----you are trying to sound more ' catholic than the pope '.

 

[fatman17]

when in the 60s, the PAF selected the F-104A/B starfighter as their supersonic interceptor, the USAF was reluctant to give it to us saying the technology cannot be handled by the PAF. well we all know... the rest is history.

 

[MastanKhan]

Fatman,

Same thing about the F 16's. Other air forces didnot anticipate that either.

At Hill air force base, in 1982-83, pakistani air force personale were considered super stars----in ogden and salt lake news papers there were articles coming out praising the ability of PAF, about their proffessionalism and very high standards. Tha PAF integrated the F 16's in the shortest and fastest time possible except for the USAF.

The PAF wanted those planes and they proved beyond any doubt that they can handle the technology.

In case of the grippens, the PAF chief is claiming that we do not have the ability, now I am beyond comprhension what the problem is of not understranding in this case.

In the case of F 104, PAF was also the first air force to ground these planes as well when other air forces were still flying them.

 

[fatman17]

In the case of F 104, PAF was also the first air force to ground these planes as well when other air forces were still flying them.

MastanKhan - you know very well the reasons for their grounding was simple - they were one dimensional - interceptor - whereas the PAF wants multi-role a/c.

 

[blain2]

Fatman,

Same thing about the F 16's. Other air forces didnot anticipate that either.

At Hill air force base, in 1982-83, pakistani air force personale were considered super stars----in ogden and salt lake news papers there were articles coming out praising the ability of PAF, about their proffessionalism and very high standards. Tha PAF integrated the F 16's in the shortest and fastest time possible except for the USAF.

The PAF wanted those planes and they proved beyond any doubt that they can handle the technology.

In case of the grippens, the PAF chief is claiming that we do not have the ability, now I am beyond comprhension what the problem is of not understranding in this case.

In the case of F 104, PAF was also the first air force to ground these planes as well when other air forces were still flying them.

Mastan,

I wrote a very detailed response to your post #28 and unfortunately I mistakenly deleted my post before I could post it

I will try again but it will take time.

I am not sure if you are reading what you yourself posted. The issue is the transfer of technology by SAAB to Pakistan. ToT is not the aircraft itself. Pakistan has been unable to handle ToT for many of the advanced platforms (esp. aircraft) so this is nothing new or surprising.

On the issue of Gripen, in my earlier post I had written that PAF evaluated the aircraft in 96 or so. They liked it and wanted to have further discussions but the Swedes were not forthcoming due to US sanctions so nothing materialized.

PAF never had any problems with the absorption of the type and that is why they were interested in its purchase. Again, PAF history 88-98 has a whole section on Gripen evaluation and episode. Not once does it mention any sort of inability of the PAF on technical grounds to acquire the aircraft.

The statement that you keep on quoting above seems to be very clear in terms of its context as Keys and I have pointed out (along with Titanium and now Fatman confirming). The issue is what the Pakistani industry can absorb in terms of ToT for the Gripen....the CAS is absolutely correct that our industry cannot absorb this technology. However the PAF is fully capable of inducting and operating the type (had it not been then 11 years ago we would not have been evaluating the aircraft). What applies to the Gripen also applies to the F-16...thus Pakistan has not pushed for any industrial offsets for the blk-52...we cannot absorb it thus why push it?

I was in the US when the PAF pilot training was going on in the US. I had a distant relative who was under training who happened to be converting from Mirage V over to the Viper and he did not mention any "difficulty" in the conversion although the technology was very new and I also spoke to a USAF instructor who trained the initial cadres of the PAF on the type and I can say with complete agreement with you that PAF has very good talent on hand that can handle all of the 4.5 gen aircraft that are on the market. I can't say the same for our defense industry though.

On the issue of the F-104s, PAF grounded then once it realized that it was not getting the spares and the IAF was moving over to aircraft that were more capable than the Starfighter. This decision led to the purchase of Mirage IIIs and F-6s.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hi Keyesersoze,

I believe that you are getting carried away in this discussion. Please stop and re-think what you want to say. You claim to be an ex millitary---you should know better-----how long does it take to be an SAS operative---many many years of true hard work and brutal training after an impossible screening and selection process.

If at the end of the day, the purchase of a package deal is denied due to the lack of ability, does not make any difference what the reasons are and which part of the flying wing is not capable of absorbing the technology---it reflects upon the overall ability of the PAF. When it comes to fight the battle---the air war----you will not have these planes to back you up in the air. That is the bottomline. What is in it that is so difficult to understand?

The ACM clearly states otherwise and you are bringing in TOT issues. He is talking about the lack in the bases of aerial technology and you are talking about engines and metallurgical skills----you are trying to sound more ' catholic than the pope '.

You use the SAS as a example but anyone who knows the military knows that the SAS are merely very well trained soldiers (They don't have superpowers and tend to use military skills they should know from their prior training) the screening process is more to do with physical fitness and getting the people with the right psychology to fit into the high stress situations. I doubt many of them could build some of the devices that they use.

The bottom line is that PAK is in the process of getting aircraft/tanks/ships/guns/body armour/ ad are making up for the glorious era of civilian rule.

It has been repeated ad nauseum that there is a difference between TOT and pilot skills. As for me speaking of metallurgical skills let me ask you this what are planes made of? what do aeroplanes use to fly with? (here's a hint.... engines) I am curious to what you think is covered by "aerial technology"


I am lost as to the point you are trying to make......

 

[blain2]

Just to set the facts straight, here is the official PAF Gripen evaluation story:

The Induction of JAS 39 Gripen

A three member SAAB team gave a presentation on the JAS-39 aircraft at AHQ on 8 Aug 1994. During the presentation, the characteristics, performance, and avionics of the aircraft were discussed in detail. The aircraft appeared to be an attractive option for $25 million a piece. It consisted of 60% Swedish, 20% European and 20% American components. From the PAF's perspective, further progress on the matter was subject to guarantees with regard to the US made equipment used in the aircraft. Earlier, ACM Abbas Khattak had paid a visit to Sweden where he talked to the concerned people about the PAF's interest in the aircraft. All those present in that meeting, including the Swedish Air Chief, were excited about the potential of Pak-Swedish cooperation. They agreed to initiate the necessary process to obtain the American clearance. later, ACM Abbas Khattak also met the USAF Chief in Belgium during an air show and sought USAF support. The American Air Chief in turn promised to take up the issue with the US Secretary of state.

The Swedish ministry for Foreign Affairs thereafter received a request from the SAAB aircraft company in which they informed the ministry that Pakistan was keen to purchase the JAS-39 Gripen aircraft. SAAB's request was not processed because Sweden had indirectly approached the concerned authorities in the the USG regarding the possibility of purchase of aircraft by countries where restrictions such as the Pressler Amendment were in force. The Americans were very categorical in their reply in stating that Sweden could not sell the aircraft to a country affected by the Pressler Amendment. This eliminated the Gripen from Pakistan's list of feasible choices.

Source: The Story of the Pakistan Air Force 1988-98, pp 97. Shaheen Foundation via Oxford University Press.

So Pakistan put a request in to purchase the aircraft through SAAB in 1994 and it was rejected due to above reasons, and not because of Pakistan's inability to absorb the technology involved in this aircraft as has been suggested by some.

 

[MastanKhan]

Blain2,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I never talked about the purchase of grippens in 1994. I am talking about the recent decision to go for the BLK 52 rather than grippens. My next question to you is ---the ACM clearly states in his interview that PAF does not have the ability to absorb the plane---regardless of what the circumstances are----pilots---technology--support---spare parts---whatever----the copy of the interview is posted on this web-site and I pasted it over here as well.

Now, my question to you is---without any prejudie and disrespect because you have spent a lot of time answering my post----are you over and above the AirMarshall of PAKISTAN AIRFORCE that you know better than him.

I don't understand what you and keyersoze are fighting with me for. Are both of you running the affairs of PAF and have become incharge of the PAF and the public interview of the Air Marshall is a lie. Smell the roses you two. Both of you are going on and on and writing without thinking. Stop---take a breather-----.

Everybody with any common sense knew that with the american sanctions in place, there was no chance of getting the grippens at that time in 1994. So, I would say that it was a waste of time for the PAF even to consider that plane then.

 

[blain2]

Mastan,

For some reason you are the only one not getting the point. Since this is going in circles, I'll skip this back and forth. Those with some insight (and experience) know what I am trying to say. CAS' statement is clear enough for all to understand so its not even a matter of one of us knowing more or less than the CAS.

In the end make what you will of the statement.

Regards

PS: Comparing the blk 52 with Gripen is a no-brainer for the PAF. PAF likes the F-16 better. Gripen was and will always be considered as an alternate.

 

[MastanKhan]

Blain,

You are right I am not getting your point.

I have made many a mistakes but I have tried to learn from those mistakes to understand things better. So, I want to learn a little more over here and have the board members help me.

I want to ask the members on this board to explain to me in simple english when the ACM of PAF states that we cannot integrate this plane because it exceeds our abilities-----what is the meaning of his statement.



Keysersoze,

Youngman, you don't have to be a metallurgist to work on flying or maintaining the grippen---. In the USAF, you have to be an certified air force air craft mechanic / technician and I believe the same holds true for PAF.

Metallurgist don't work on maintaining grippen, as pakistan would not have been authorized to to manufacture or modify the the aircraft engine. Pakistan does not have any metallurgist to do any modifications on aircraft jet engines of the calibre of grippen.

Now, who is talking about TOT and pilot skills---maybe you are---I am not and niether I did in that context. I only talked about the whole package---was it acceptable or not. That is it.

 

[EagleEyes]

AIR CHIEF MARSHAL KALEEM SAADAT - PAKISTAN AIR FORCE CHIEF OF STAFF
Andrew Koch JDW Bureau Chief
Washington, DC

The Pakistan armed forces are deeply troubled by what they see as a changing balance of power tilting dangerously in regional rival India's favour, says Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Kaleem Saadat, Pakistan Air Force Chief of Staff.

To address that situation, ACM Saadat says that Pakistan is looking for new foreign supplies of advanced weaponry, outlining the Pakistan Air Force's (PAF's) ambitious list of modernisation priorities during a recent trip to Washington.

A top near-term priority for the PAF, ACM Saadat says, is the acquisition of beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMs). While he notes that Pakistan is interested in buying such a missile from US or European suppliers, "that option is not yet open" and therefore "I guess ultimately it will have to be Chinese". Pakistan has been working with China on developing the SD-10 BVRAAM missile, which ACM Saadat says could be ready for operational use "in less than a year". Whichever missile Pakistan chooses, the ACM notes, "money is [now] not a problem" as had previously been the case.

Although the BVRAAM would initially be integrated into the JF-17 Thunder lightweight fighter (previously known as the FC-1/Super-7), ACM Saadat says the plan is to ultimately retrofit the missile into all PAF fighter aircraft.

The service has also named acquisition of new fighters with "F-16 and above capability" as another primary need. The PAF is currently exploring a number of options, he notes, including F-16s repeatedly requested from Washington, Mirage 2000-9s similar to those bought by the United Arab Emirates and Gripens. Regarding the last two, ACM Saadat notes that "the service is actively talking" to the suppliers, adding that Pakistan is also exploring options to acquire used F-16s - with the possibility of receiving them from Belgium or the Netherlands having been raised because both plan to dispose of some F-16s. "What we were suggesting is that if the US government has objections to only [supplying] the new [F-16s], acquiring used ones is one alternative option." He notes that "they [Washington] haven't said 'yes', they haven't said 'no'".

The PAF intends to take up the US offer to upgrade the country's existing F-16s, the ACM says, with capabilities that would allow the service to add a BVRAAM as a top priority. Such work would include digitised electronics, structural support changes and increased sensors such as improved radars.

The PAF prefers the F-16 option because Pakistan already possesses the necessary logistical and training infrastructure to support the aircraft. If Pakistan is able to get more F-16s, it would also be able to afford additional aircraft, ACM Saadat says, noting "it is not an either/or situation". However, he explained, if another high-tech model aircraft was bought, that would be the only aircraft the PAF could afford.

Pakistan had also been interested in buying used Mirage 2000-5s from Qatar, but ACM Saadat says that following Indian interest in the same aircraft, it "is [now] too complex a deal, so perhaps it would not be easy to complete." Nevertheless, he adds, the PAF will continue to pursue the deal because "my philosophy is that regardless of the obstacles we must try on every axis in order to have success on one".

Moreover, he explained, "The Chinese option is also available" beyond the JF-17, hinting that Pakistan may consider procuring Chengdu J-10 multirole combat aircraft if they are available.

Regardless of which top-of-the-line fighter Pakistan ultimately acquires, it is also seeking larger numbers of less sophisticated aircraft to replace its ageing fleet. "We have to replace our A-5s, F-7s, and Mirages within five to seven years," ACM Saadat explains, noting that the JF-17 "bodes well for our future and fits into our plan. It is a good investment". Pakistan plans to build at least 150 of the aircraft, which will be co-produced with China at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex in Kamra. The plant will be capable of building at least 20-25 aircraft per year, he notes, and production is expected to begin within three years.

If Islamabad fails to acquire additional sophisticated fighters, it would seek to apply those funds to improving its ground-based air-defence systems, the ACM says. Pakistan has requested the HAWK surface-to-air missile system from the US, and is also exploring similar Ukrainian, Spanish, Italian and Chinese systems. But, he added, due to the systems' high costs, any such purchases are likely to be deferred if the funds are spent on new high-tech fighters.

Another priority the PAF will pursue is the acquisition of mid-sized airborne early-warning and control aircraft like the E-2C Hawkeye or a variant of the Embraer EMB-145. Although the US has not answered a Pakistani query on whether it might be willing to provide Islamabad with the estimated six to 10 aircraft ACM Saadat says are needed, he notes that the US could be more amenable to providing them because they are viewed as defensive in nature, adding that the US has already allowed Pakistan to conduct paper evaluations of the aircraft. Pakistan would want used Hawkeyes and would hope to upgrade them, ACM Saadat notes.

In order to address "the threat posed to our navy by the Indian Navy", the PAF is also looking to acquire an air-to-air refuelling capability that would "extend the range of our aircraft", ACM Saadat says. This capability would allow PAF aircraft to travel sufficient ranges to be able to assist the country's naval assets against a growing Indian naval threat, he notes. In this regard, "we would look for a fast jet airplane", likely a commercial aircraft derivative, ACM Saadat says, and the service could look to begin the acquisition process in "two years time".

Finally, Pakistan is looking to buy a number of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions along the country's borders . Islamabad "has already put in a letter of request for UAVs" with the US, ACM Saadat explains, noting that he expects it to be approved. Pakistan is looking for two categories of UAVs - the first with a range of 200km, and the second with a range of 500km, he adds.

I guess this will add something to the discussion.

Can you please give us the link of which article your talking about Mastan? I think you understood it differently (you saw the interview?)?

Thanks.

 

[blain2]

Blain,

You are right I am not getting your point.

I have made many a mistakes but I have tried to learn from those mistakes to understand things better. So, I want to learn a little more over here and have the board members help me.

I want to ask the members on this board to explain to me in simple english when the ACM of PAF states that we cannot integrate this plane because it exceeds our abilities-----what is the meaning of his statement.

Since you specifically asked, see the parts underlined (admittedly the Q/A is poorly worded and written out).

Q. Why Pakistan is not going for JAS-39C Grippen, in which their is room for upgradation of aircraft as well SAAB has agreed to transfer the technology to Pakistan?

Ans. As i have mentioned earlier, latest upgradation, airborne equipment and weapon system can increase the lethality of the aircraft. New variants are certainly different from their older counterparts. As far as transfer of technology is concerned, to tell you the truth, we are not in a state of handle extremely high technology used in JAS-39 Grippen, as we don't have the bases of aerial technology.


The clarification is in the question and answer itself. The CAS was specifically asked about the offer from SAAB for Transfer of Technology. When is the ToT considered? Its considered when you have plans to do some local development, assembly and production leveraging the transferred technology. Pakistan has no intentions of doing so with the Gripen since we do not have the industrial base for absorbing technology which is involved in the development of Gripen.

The CAS' response, as underlined, is within the context of Transfer of technology when he says "As far as transfer of technology is concerned".

So the above should not be mis-construed to be the reason for our inability to acquire the aircraft

The sole purpose of posting the excerpt about the Gripen evaluation above was to point out the fact that PAF was ready to induct the type in Mid-90s and was not being held back because the aircraft was too advanced for our Airforce to fly and support.

Beyond the above, I really am not sure what else I can say to explain this issue to you.

 

[blain2]

Webby,

Here is the whole interview.

Mastan,

May want to pay attention to the bolded part to put some light on what PAF thinks of F-16s vs. Gripen or any others evaluated including M2K.

INTERVIEW WITH CAS ACM TANVIR MAHMOOD AHMAD
Taken by Mr Naeem, Mr Bukhari.


Q. Would the new Pakistani F-16s would be performing with a handicap or limitations after the American concerns of the use of F-16s by Pakistan?

Ans. There are no handicaps or limitations following the use of the latest F-16C/D Block-52 as well as F-16A/B MLU Fighting Falcons, imposed by the US authorities. PAF can use these aircraft against any target whenever and wherever it wants to. PAF is totally independent in deploying these aircraft against all sorts of targets, in both defensive and offensive roles. All US suspicions are cleared.


Q. Can you explain that why a US team of experts will also accompany these aircraft in Pakistan?

Ans. This is not a new thing. In 1961, a US team of experts accompanied the 12 F-104A Starfighters. Again in 1983, a team accompanied the F-16A/B Fighting Falcons. Similarly French and Chinese team of experts have also accompanied aircrafts of the origin of their countries for the discussion about technical and maintenance details, initially when Mirage III, F-6, F-7MP and F-7PG were inducted.
The only thing which US do not want is that Pakistan does not transfer the technology of the new Falcons to a third country, especially China.


Q. What are your remarks about the new F-16C/D Block-52 Advanced Vipers?

Ans. I am impressed by these new breed of Fighting Falcons. I’m confident that these aircraft along with the MLU F-16A/Bs will bolster PAF’s capabilities and would balance the technological gap of the airforces in the Sub-Continent.
F-16C/D Block-52 is relatively larger, will have enhanced fuel capacity, better engine, powerful radar, better avionics, better payload carrying capacity and range than the earlier versions. Apart from that the aircraft will have night vision, sophisticated targeting pods, ability to carry smart weapons, latest BVR weapons (AIM-120C AMRAAM) and latest Sidewinder missiles and latest sophisticated PGMs and ASMs.
These aircraft will provide all weather day/night capability to hit targets in air, land and sea. Their would be very minimum set up for these as well as upgraded Falcons as Pakistan already has facilities and ground support equipment for the F-16 Fighting Falcons.


Q. How do you compare Pakistan Airforce with Indian Airforce?

Ans. In the present scenario, the role of Pakistan Airforce is to ensure peace in the region and to defend Pakistan from all sorts of aggression. The ratio between PAF and IAF is still the same 1:3 in IAF’s favor. India also enjoys the marvels of latest technology more than Pakistan. Though our F-16A/B Block-15s are still considered as a major threat along the other side of the border, IAF is constantly adding latest and sophisticated aircraft n their arsenal as well as upgrading their old aircraft to meet the requirements of the air warfare arena of today. Practically speaking, PAF even today has the capability to counter any sort of IAF’s aggression but if we won’t take any necessary steps for our modernization in the coming 5-7 years, IAF will go way ahead from us. The balance of power will shift in their favor so much that it would virtually impossible to cope up with them at that time.


Q. Is PAF inducting the Swedish Erieye AEW&C system along with SAAB-2000 aircraft from Sweden? If so, then when will they enter service?
Ans. Affirmative! Pakistan is ready to receive the Swedish Erieye AEW&C systems and Inshallah these systems will enter service in 2009. These radar systems will be used to gather important information and forward it to our Command and Control System, which is linked to the ground radar systems. Thus important information can be forwarded to the Command Operations Center in no time.


Q. What are measures taken for this system to be compatible with PAF fighters?
Ans. All the combat aircraft in PAF’s inventory will be linked to the Erieye system by a data link. New as well as upgraded F-16s, F-10A and JF-17 Thunders are equipped with data links. We are moving towards Network Strategic Warfare, and for that we have worked out on a plan for the modernization of Pakistan Airforce.



Q. Is Pakistan interested in purchasing an aerial refueling system? If true how will PAF utilize this air asset? There is unconfirmed news that Pakistan is considering Ukrainian aerial refueling systems. Is this true?

Ans. Correct! PAF is inducting four Russian origin aircraft equipped with aerial refueling systems from Ukraine. This will enhance defensive and offensive capabilities i.e. PAF’s deep strike capability as well as endurance for long CAP and BARCAP missions. Basically our major aim is to provide a complete aerial refueling system for our JF-17 Thunders which will form our backbone in near future.


Q. Will Pakistan be inducting Chinese KJ-2000 system?
Ans. China is our most sincere friend and in the previous decades, China has excelled in the aircraft development industry and has always offered us frontline equipment with the best package available. Hence we will consider our policies, revise our modernization program and will consider this system to be inducted in our air arsenal along with Erieye System.


Q. What are the options available for PAF to enhance its fleet, and what new fighter types are expected to join PAF in the next five years?

Ans. As I have mentioned earlier, we are keeping all available options open and wants a well balanced multirole jet fighter aircraft. We will be inducting 18 new F-16C/Ds and most probably will use our option of 18 more after the first squadron will be operational. We will also be inducting 26 MLU F-16A/B as well as our existing fleet of 34 aircraft will also undergo the MLU upgrades. 150 JF-17 Thunders and 36 F-10A aircraft will also be joining PAF, and more F-10s can be expected. Most probably we will also purchase FC-20 fighter aircraft from China.


Q. Is acquiring aircraft from Europe won’t be more feasible?
Ans. In my opinion every option has some special features. We have studied all available options in details. Our main priorities are totally clear in front of the media i.e. Multirole Fighters, High Tech Airborne Radars, BVR Capability and Weapons, Top of the line Weapon Systems and Electronic Warfare Suites. We want to acquire all these things within our resources, and these things in the European market are quite expensive.



Q. How can you compare F-16 and Su-30?

Ans. These aircraft can be compared in many ways. Su-30 MKI has powerful radar but it can be detected by the AEW&C systems and the F-16s will thus be aware of its presence. Apart from that both aircraft can carry latest weapon systems. Su-30 MKI has the capacity to carry heavy loads and more fuel but this can be countered with the help of AAR. In the same manner Chinese F-10A is also an excellent platform in countering this threat and can carry heavier loads than the F-16.



Q. How can we compare F-16 with F-10A and F-18?
Ans. Similarly as I have said it above.



Q. If you are given the authority to induct an aircraft for the PAF, which aircraft will you prefer regarding the resources available?

Ans. The western world has a huge variety of high tech aircraft in which I personally like Typhoon, Grippen, Rafale and FA-18/E. But either these aircraft are expensive or political factors poses some hurdles in their procurement. You would probably understand that their procurement is a sensitive matter hence to be practical and modest F-16C/D or F-16E/F will be my choice.



Q. Initially Pakistan wanted to induct JAS-39 Grippen or Mirage-2000. Will PAF still go for either any of these aircraft, if not then why didn’t this deal materialize?
Ans. We have carried out a detailed series of tests and evaluation on these aircraft and after all the tests were conducted, F-16 was considered as the best due to many reasons.



Q. As you know that the Mirage 2000-9 fighter aircraft was released for the sale to Pakistan. Do you still have any contacts with Dassault for this matter?
Ans. Yes, but not for the Mirage 2000-9 but for our own Mirage series of fighter bombers.


Q. Is this a reality that Thrust Vectoring technology gives an edge in air to air combat? PAF does not possess this technology whereas IAF possess it.

Ans. Thrust Vectoring is an added capability in turning dogfights and close combat, but since the air war of today mostly is fought beyond visual range and effective medium to short range missile coupled with HMS, it’s importance has declined.
Thrust vectoring can be effective in evading a missile, either BVR or SAM.



Q. How will you compare JF-17 with India’s LCA Tejas, Israeli IAI Kfir and Iranian latest jet fighter?

Ans. JF-17 is a fourth generation aircraft, and much more capable than IAI Kfir and Iranian jet fighter. JF-17 can fight any fourth generation fighter and give it either a tough fight or outclass it by using latest tactics of air warfare. Mash Allah, JF-17’s development has taken a lightening pace whereas India is facing problems in LCA Tejas’ development. JF-17’s capabilities are well known by the media whereas LCA Tejas’ capabilities are yet to be revealed.



Q. Can you please provide a comparison between the BVR capabilities of Su-30 and Mirage-2000?

Ans. This is basically a comparison between Russian and French BVR technology. Both are different in performance as well as prices but unlike American BVR missiles, both Russian and French BVR missile are not COMBAT PROVEN.



Q. Can you please inform us about Pakistani PGM capabilities?
Ans. We have top of the range PGM capability, which comprises of both imported as well as domestic weapons.



Q. Can you please tell us that how much money does PAF will require in its modernization program which includes, development of new fighter aircraft, induction of new aircraft and systems and upgradation of old aircraft?
Ans. We will be requiring at least 8-10 Billion Dollars, but since we do not want to put a strain on our economy, our modernizaion program would be completed in 6-8 years starting from now.



Q. What are the measures which you will take for the PAF to make it a formidable fihting force?
Ans. Our targets for modernization should be fullfilled within the time i.e. 6-8 years. We are including AEW and AAR in our fleet as well as gradually replacing old aircraft with new aircraft.


Q. Pakistan is going for F-16s. After 5 years their won't be any room left for the upgradation of F-16C/D whereas F-16 MLU will already been upgraded and cannot be upgraded further. Why Pakistan is not going for JAS-39C Grippen, in which their is room for upgradation of aircraft as well SAAB has agreed to transfer the technology to Pakistan?

Ans. As i have mentioned earlier, latest upgradation, airborne equipment and weapon system can increase the lethality of the aircraft. New variants are certainly different from their older counterparts. As far as transfer of technology is concerned, to tell you the truth, we are not in a state of handle extremely high technology used in JAS-39 Grippen, as we don't have the bases of aerial technogy.

 

[courageneverdies]

I do agree with ahf_nuke1. Other countries and specially the western block is in final phase of aircrafts with human pilots. For example F-35 of USAF and EF-2000 of European block MiG-31 Foxhound of Russia is one of them as well. We have no match for them with our Mirages, F-7s, A-5s and even F-16s. We need to develop and advance our Airforce both in quality and quantity. Our rival inida basically depends on MiGs from Russian block and we can not depend on America to counter this problem. But China can prove "The Best" in resolving this issue. Because they are an ally of Russia and know most about Russian air capability.

over n out

 

[melb4aust]

The sole purpose of posting the excerpt about the Gripen evaluation above was to point out the fact that PAF was ready to induct the type in Mid-90s and was not being held back because the aircraft was too advanced for our Airforce to fly and support.

Beyond the above, I really am not sure what else I can say to explain this issue to you.

I guess thats the point where every one was confused....