USS Reagan, OEF and Pakistan

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Let me share with you guys what I am saying and why I am saying what I am saying and by the time I am done with what I am saying, you all will understand what I am saying. I would relate this quote to Rumsfeld.

Blain, I am not talking about transfer of technology. That is not what I am arguing about. I am talking about the bottomline----bottomline is what counts---do we have it or do we not--- and the ACM's answer to the last question states it all and I am posting the last two lines of the interview that you have posted over here.

"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".

 

[EagleEyes]

"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".

He means that we cannot handle extremely high technology used in Grippen (in regards to transfer of technology) as we have no infrastructure or capability to do so. Transfer of technology is more in the lines of JF-17 for which we had no capability during that time. Only after JF-17... things like that can be done, such as transfer of technology (all the parts of the aircrafts).

It has nothing to do with flying Gripen, operating it, and maintaining it.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hi,

Let me share with you guys what I am saying and why I am saying what I am saying and by the time I am done with what I am saying, you all will understand what I am saying. I would relate this quote to Rumsfeld.

Blain, I am not talking about transfer of technology. That is not what I am arguing about. I am talking about the bottomline----bottomline is what counts---do we have it or do we not--- and the ACM's answer to the last question states it all and I am posting the last two lines of the interview that you have posted over here.

"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".

I'm sorry mastankhan but you are making as much sense as Rumsfeld did.....

I don't wish to make the impression that that I am arguing with you, but you can't seem to see the woods for the trees........You are cherry picking the whole question to make some obscure point.

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.

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY!!!!!!!!!!

Pakistan did not get transfer of technology with the F-16's or the F-104 or the F-86 Sabres either! Now I am sure the esteemed members of the PAF will attest to the effectiveness of the aircraft in their hands....

If your point is about the lack of base industries in Pakistan then maybe you could start a thread on it in the economic areas of the fora.

This simple issue is that the PAF is capable of using any aircraft it is given including the F-22 and F-35. HOWEVER it is not capable of manufacturing parts for it.

 

[blain2]

Hi,

Let me share with you guys what I am saying and why I am saying what I am saying and by the time I am done with what I am saying, you all will understand what I am saying. I would relate this quote to Rumsfeld.

Blain, I am not talking about transfer of technology. That is not what I am arguing about. I am talking about the bottomline----bottomline is what counts---do we have it or do we not--- and the ACM's answer to the last question states it all and I am posting the last two lines of the interview that you have posted over here.

"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".

To be very honest, its just a matter of what you understand from the statement vs. what others think it was referring to. I do not see your point in the CAS' statement because what you quote above is lacking the "context" within which he was speaking. I have underlined the context many a times and you choose to ignore it so no worries. Had PAF been so cluesless about being able to handle the technology in the Gripen, we would not have been talking to these guys about buying the aircraft in 94 which is a good 13 years ago.

In either case, neither mine nor your understanding changes the facts on the ground. So lets just stick to our own understanding here.

 

[EagleEyes]

I think he was having trouble understading the traditional use of "transfer of technology".

He should now understand well.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Let me try explaining myself in a different manner---now remember TOT is not an issue over here. TOT was not an issue when the F 16's were sold to pakistan. So, please donot bring TOT into the discusion---the reason being---


My question to you all is---suppose you are the commander in chief---an ACM---or a corporate ceo---after the analysis of a certain equipment that you want to buy----you find out that the technology used in that machine is too advanced for your company to handle it----you donot have the infra structure to absorb the high end of the technology-----so you decide not to buy that machine and look for other machines which are not, as much advanced.

Now, you have this odd job of giving the bad news to the public who have been anxiously waiting for that good news for the last 15 years. What are you gonna do? How are you going to put it in palatable words that you had to pick out the second best equipment----? Now, would the people make it a personal issue and refuse to believe that there are things that are beyond our means---let yoube the judge.

 

[Titanium]

Mastan,

I have been watching keenly this thread, Since some well versed people were explaining in so many ways, I thought you would get the message.

Anyway, here is my take to that effort. Lets forget ToT, as you requested. The point of your contention being, Gripen is too advanced for an Air force who operate lowly F-16, F-7 and Mirages. (In respect of operation and maintance....right?)

Contrary to that, Gripen claims that it is the most Maintenance friendly, in the sense that a team of 1 Technicians and a pair of conscripts can maintain Gripen in any roadside. This in keeping with the gripen doctrine of fighting from any stretch of road, in remote place away from airbase.

Now coming to the operation side, Is it not all Man machine Interface, the so-called Human Interface thing, should make the job easier than the primitive F-16. Have gripen made the fighting/Operating more complex or easier by their interface of pilot to the system, with all the easy to understand graphics and situation awareness data.

Here is from Horse Mouth:

Gripen’s operational costs are 50 per cent lower than its closest competitor. This is because Gripen is nearly twice as reliable, uses less fuel, is easier to repair, requires fewer personnel, fewer spares, less ground support equipment and less maintenance.

Gripen is designed to be 'care-free' in aircraft handling and very easy to fly. Because of this, the training system can be maximized for system usage (operational use) rather than pure flying training. Gripen´s modern training system enables safe, effective and efficient conversion-to-type training and is flexible enough to allow refresher training to be undertaken and for customers to develop a self-sustaining indigenous capability.

If all the above is BS marketing, then tell how can thai's able to handle Gripen technology. They are also in the same state I belive.

Hope it is clear now, if only you want to understand.

 

[Always Neutral]

Why not invite the Air Marshal to clarify the issues ?

Regards

 

[EagleEyes]

Mastan,

We guys know the stuff, and researched it well. Accept it now.

 

[MastanKhan]

Webby----I love you my brother,

But, sorry my friend----you guys assume that you have researched the subject. I don't think that most have you any corporate management or executive level experience----so your observations and analysis and translation of the ACM's interview is not correct. When he says that we don't have the ability---he means it. Now what you guys are rumbling about is ----you don't want to accept, that we don't have the ability as the ACM stated. And you guys are putting one excuse after the other and putting one spin after the other to make it what it is not.

You guys are putting on the paper what you think is right. I am not asking you to put on the paper what you supposedly think is right. I told you what the ACM meant in his interview. Take it it for the words that it has been put in.

I don't want to be disrespectful----but you guys are not looking at the picture through the right lens.

Bottom line is when you you are facing the SU 30 with your outdated aircraft---what are you going to tell the indian pilot---to wait for the next ten years---.

 

[Keysersoze]

Webby----I love you my brother,

But, sorry my friend----you guys assume that you have researched the subject. I don't think that most have you any corporate management or executive level experience----so your observations and analysis and translation of the ACM's interview is not correct. When he says that we don't have the ability---he means it. Now what you guys are rumbling about is ----you don't want to accept, that we don't have the ability as the ACM stated. And you guys are putting one excuse after the other and putting one spin after the other to make it what it is not.

You guys are putting on the paper what you think is right. I am not asking you to put on the paper what you supposedly think is right. I told you what the ACM meant in his interview. Take it it for the words that it has been put in.

I don't want to be disrespectful----but you guys are not looking at the picture through the right lens.

Bottom line is when you you are facing the SU 30 with your outdated aircraft---what are you going to tell the indian pilot---to wait for the next ten years---.

Mastan Khan I think simply have taken a sentence and chopped out a section of it, to fit point you are trying to make. You have now accused us of spin which is ironic as that is exactly what you have done with this whole line.... Even titanium has has placed a valid point (That the Gripen was designed to be maintained by a conscript workforce) which I have confirmed through other sources.
The ACM has made a statement which you have ignored the first part of (sentences don't begin where you start to like what is being said.) Starts with
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 Capital at the start of the sentence denotes the start of the sentence. therefore you can't start the sentence at the part that suits your point of view. Ergo we have taken what is written on the paper(clear as day) and have understood clearly.

The Indian pilot won't have to wait ten years, the new planes are going to be there by 2009.

 

[Titanium]

... Even titanium has has placed a valid point .

I never thought you could actually say this....

 

[blain2]

Webby----I love you my brother,

But, sorry my friend----you guys assume that you have researched the subject. I don't think that most have you any corporate management or executive level experience----so your observations and analysis and translation of the ACM's interview is not correct. When he says that we don't have the ability---he means it. Now what you guys are rumbling about is ----you don't want to accept, that we don't have the ability as the ACM stated. And you guys are putting one excuse after the other and putting one spin after the other to make it what it is not.

You guys are putting on the paper what you think is right. I am not asking you to put on the paper what you supposedly think is right. I told you what the ACM meant in his interview. Take it it for the words that it has been put in.

I don't want to be disrespectful----but you guys are not looking at the picture through the right lens.

Bottom line is when you you are facing the SU 30 with your outdated aircraft---what are you going to tell the indian pilot---to wait for the next ten years---.

Mastan,

The problem with your posts is that its full of assumptions about what others may not know and for some reason you assume that only you can read what the CAS is saying. That has been a theme in most of your posts for as long as I have read your posts on multiple forums.

I do not want to go off on the tangent here on the issue of Corporate management (especially Technology management etc.) but suffice it to say in the words of LTC Frank Slade (Scent of a women), "I Have been around, you know". (as have many others here on this forum and elsewhere, so to assume that you are the only authority is being less than modest given the company)...In one of my posts I was going to talk about this aspect in the past but decided not to, but typically for any new technology induction, even in non-military capacity, a good deployment plan takes into consideration the training aspect of the induction. But in any case that is not the point.

I don't even want to get into the issue of what the CAS said and did not say since you seem to be set on your own way of thinking. The only point I want to discuss is another off the mark statement like

"Bottom line is when you you are facing the SU 30 with your outdated aircraft---what are you going to tell the indian pilot---to wait for the next ten years---"

Do you even read the things that you post for others to read? If you do so then you may want to take a look at what the CAS said when asked about the MKI threat. He essentially laid out the PAF counter to the MKI. F-16 blk 52 and blk 15 MLU with AIM-120C5 and EW support from Erieye is a considerable deterrance for any IAF MKI strike package. If things get closer than a BVR engagement, then too F-16s have a very good chance with the JHMCS-AIM-9x combination to take on the MKIs (it has certainly been proven in the CI exercises when a USAF F-16 (without JHMCS and AIM-9x) got on the MKI's blind spot and had the MKI in his Weapons Engagement Zone). So lets not get carried away comparing type vs. type. The way the air scenario is panning out, PAF is investing considerably to build a good picture in the air so in any future conflict, their assets in the air will have very good situational awareness. This allows PAF to maximize the benefit of even older airframes considerably (by older airframes, I am talking about blk 15s, ROSE Mirages etc.).

 

[melb4aust]

Do you even read the things that you post for others to read? If you do so then you may want to take a look at what the CAS said when asked about the MKI threat. He essentially laid out the PAF counter to the MKI. F-16 blk 52 and blk 15 MLU with AIM-120C5 and EW support from Erieye is a considerable deterrance for any IAF MKI strike package. If things get closer than a BVR engagement, then too F-16s have a very good chance with the JHMCS-AIM-9x combination to take on the MKIs (it has certainly been proven in the CI exercises when a USAF F-16 (without JHMCS and AIM-9x) got on the MKI's blind spot and had the MKI in his Weapons Engagement Zone). So lets not get carried away comparing type vs. type. The way the air scenario is panning out, PAF is investing considerably to build a good picture in the air so in any future conflict, their assets in the air will have very good situational awareness. This allows PAF to maximize the benefit of even older airframes considerably (by older airframes, I am talking about blk 15s, ROSE Mirages etc.).

Pardon my ignorance.........being patriotic we can say anything, we can assume anything.

I am with Mastan Khan. These things.... those F-16's and its gadgets can certainly minimize the threat and can counter those MKI's like u said above. But what do we have in our hands right now......who has seen 2009. I understand the point from where he is coming from and he is quite right about things and facts. The way things are happening in pak, no 1 can guarantee anything.

 

[blain2]

Pardon my ignorance.........being patriotic we can say anything, we can assume anything.

I am with Mastan Khan. These things.... those F-16's and its gadgets can certainly minimize the threat and can counter those MKI's like u said above. But what do we have in our hands right now......who has seen 2009. I understand the point from where he is coming from and he is quite right about things and facts. The way things are happening in pak, no 1 can guarantee anything.

That is your prerogative and I can't argue with it. My difference of opinion was on what could be gleaned from the CAS' statement

The only point I would like to make about your point is that its not simply a matter of platform vs. platform. Most of the capital investment on the part of PAF is going into force multipliers (money that could easily have been diverted towards a platform like Rafale etc. if MKI threat was considered as the only issue that PAF needed to cater to) but the PAF chose not to do so.

So lets take the point that blk -52 F-16s are not coming until 09. Fine, however what about the blk 15 MLU underway (in terms of avionics and weapons, the aircraft will be as good as blk 52)? Also how about the recent RC400 and MICA combination which PAF has decided upon (and the French have agreed upon) for the JF-17? That in itself is a very capable and relevant combination in the South Asian context. The SD-10 is a viable option today on the JF-17 and don't tell me that regardless of what some say about SD-10 not being all that hot etc., that any pilot would like to be facing the prospects of having a SD-10 on him. (Now if you say that every thing is in the near future and not with us today then how is that any different than when we went to war in 65 and 71?) We went to war with all of our deficiencies and did what we could, I see things to be no different this time around either.

So talking about today is a moot point. No matter what PAF does, even if it had gone for M2K back in the 90s, this issue of force disparity would have existed albeit with different aggregate numbers but the ratio remaining the same and in favor of IAF. So the threat of a super-duper AI (Air Intercept) radar with a range of 200 miles exists but its not foreseen by PAF as something that needs to be countered by our own very long range AI radar equipped aircraft. When you have overlaying AEW coverage along with IFR capabilities, then a lot of lesser assets can become very effective. PAF is betting on this and I can see a lot of promise in this approach.