Pakistan Air Force [PAF] News and Discussions

[airmarshall]

So, that means that
1.Pakistan will accept their personnel on their bases.
2.Pakistan will allow them to monitor and dictate how we will use the planes.

Is it wise to trade -ff your sovreignty for a few F-16s?

 

[uaf]

So, that means that
1.Pakistan will accept their personnel on their bases.
2.Pakistan will allow them to monitor and dictate how we will use the planes.

Is it wise to trade -ff your sovreignty for a few F-16s?

Oo yea I said this long time ago that F-16 with such constraints wont do any good but guyz lets just not think that we are getting only

 New 36 F-16s C/Ds Block 50/52

Look at this way that we are also getting additional equipment such as

 60 MLU kits for 32 existing F-16s A/B Block 15 further more

 26 new engines for the existing F-16s A/B and most importantly the long sought after BVR weapon system (AIM-120C AMRAAM)

 Additional 28 F-16s A/B Block 15 from US-EDA stocks (most probably the earlier embargoed F-16s due to their low air-frame hours)

And all the other equipment ( you can see detail on www.F-16.net ) badly needed by PAF

so keeping in view this scenario we should go for this deal in order to keep our existing f-16s flying BUT we should not go for such a deal with USA again m Huge supporter of it I did mention it in my previous posts ( alas ended up in hall of shame ) the past experience have shown us USA can’t be trusted at all
The End.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah right! Not discriminatory? The use of F-16s outside Pakistani airspace is to be only carried out with a permission sought in advance from the United States government? That is just a load of bullocks! Those F-16s are now, frankly, TRASH since now it is required that PAF first 'ask' US if they can use F-16s to counter IAF or not in the event of hostilities.

PAF should simply dump the deal and try to secure Gripens instead.

With their American sourced F414 engines, avionics and weapons, I feel certain that exactly the same conditions will be enforced. The problem is with the Swedes they are even MORE restrictive than the USA as to who can use their weapons.

Sweden wouldn't let Australia use it's Carl Gustav anti-armour weapons in Vietnam by threatening to cut off all support if we did.

The situation is the same with this deal. There's no way the US could actually stop PAF from doing what it wants with these jets (short of military force), so they warn in advance.

I don't really think Pakistan is trading off it's sovereignty by agreeing to these conditions. I'd bet if you could look at the finef details few if any Countries are "allowed" to do with as they please with their US sourced equipment. It seems to be a fact of life when doing business with the US for defence matters.

"You can buy this, but there are definitely strings attached"...

 

[tphuang]

It is only natural. Purchasing a weapon only allows you use to it - not to the wilful dismantling of it for purpose of technology mining or to allow others access to it for tech mining. The technology Pakistan requested is top notch, something China cannot provide. You could say the measures to safeguard American technology imposed on Pakistan is discriminatory, but there are indications that Pakistan allowed China access to its American sourced weapon systems in the past. So they are not unreasonable measures at all.

There is nothing in that package that China would be interested in copying other than PGMs and standoff weapons. Even then, they already have JDAM from the Kosovo bombing of their embassy.

 

[Transient]

I'm not so sure China won't want AIM-9X and AMRAAM technology. There's the JHMCS and Link 16 systems in there as well as advanced ECM systems (exact type to be determined). Throw in the Sniper system too. To say that China won't want to get their hands on those would beggar belief.

 

[falconlover81]

You placed PL-12 and SD-10 together. What does that say? You think they are equivalent in performance and I tell you that is not true.

tp do you have any updates on the sd-10 bvraam?secondly i read an article in sinodefence related to sd-10 and there its has been quoted that sd-10 and pl-12 are the same missile with different names could u clear this confusion plz thank u.

 

[airmarshall]

Oo yea I said this long time ago that F-16 with such constraints wont do any good but guyz lets just not think that we are getting only

 New 36 F-16s C/Ds Block 50/52

Look at this way that we are also getting additional equipment such as

 60 MLU kits for 32 existing F-16s A/B Block 15 further more

 26 new engines for the existing F-16s A/B and most importantly the long sought after BVR weapon system (AIM-120C AMRAAM)

 Additional 28 F-16s A/B Block 15 from US-EDA stocks (most probably the earlier embargoed F-16s due to their low air-frame hours)

And all the other equipment ( you can see detail on www.F-16.net ) badly needed by PAF

so keeping in view this scenario we should go for this deal in order to keep our existing f-16s flying BUT we should not go for such a deal with USA again m Huge supporter of it I did mention it in my previous posts ( alas ended up in hall of shame ) the past experience have shown us USA can’t be trusted at all
The End.

I do not think Pakistan needs F-16s badly. It will be of no of very low deterrence value if they are accepted with that type of agreement. Pakistan has done very well without the US equipment. They will do even better if they take the path of self-reliance as they have done post-F16 arms embargo situation.

The point of quoting this post was that no matter how much equipment we get, we cannot trade our sovereignty for that. It is a matter of principle. This deal is like selling the Air Force out to a country which has not been kind and fair to us in our prevoius dealings. And how about having US personnel posted at our bases. How can a sovereign nation ever accept that?

 

[tphuang]

I'm not so sure China won't want AIM-9X and AMRAAM technology. There's the JHMCS and Link 16 systems in there as well as advanced ECM systems (exact type to be determined). Throw in the Sniper system too. To say that China won't want to get their hands on those would beggar belief.

PAF didn't get 9x, they got 9M8/9. AIM-9M8/9 isn't really enough of an improvement over the existing Chinese SRAAM for China to copy. For example, they already have dual-spectra seeker that will probably be put on export missile like PL-9 and according to certain experienced Chinese military followers, most advanced PL-8 uses image infrared seeker.

As for AIM-120C5, even if PL-12 is currently equivalent to AIM-120B, it's probably not worth it for China to try to copy it but rather just continue to improve on its existing design. We are talking about a 5 year gap between when aim-120B and C4 was introduced. By the time PAF gets its hands on the C5s, we can shave a couple of years off that gap.

As for JHMCS, China had their own HMS with offbore sighting as early as 1996. I'm sure it has improved quite a bit in 10 years.

As for link 16, China has their own system of data linking installed on their latest fighters. The Chinese military complex uses different language than the American establishment in writing softwares. It most likly uses a different network protocol. Since the data linking system in China is already in place between fighters and AWACS and ground control, the benefits of studying and copying another system is debatable.

As for EW suite, I thought this is where PAF is getting the shaft? If PAF is getting a second rate EW suite, there is no reason to believe that it will be better than what China has right now or in a couple of years.

 

[tphuang]

You placed PL-12 and SD-10 together. What does that say? You think they are equivalent in performance and I tell you that is not true.

tp do you have any updates on the sd-10 bvraam?secondly i read an article in sinodefence related to sd-10 and there its has been quoted that sd-10 and pl-12 are the same missile with different names could u clear this confusion plz thank u.

That's because only SD-10 gets advertised. They are coming out at around the same time, so people just assume they are the same AAM. I made the same mistake. We know that SD-10 is 180 kg, but I think PL-12 is 198 kg. Also, we know that SD-10's maximum load is 38g, but PL-12 is definitely higher than this, because even PL-11 can do 40g+. We can safely assume that domestic missile will get better seeker. In general, there are always domestic version and export version for Chinese weapons:
J-10, JF-17
T-99, T-96/90-II
HQ-9, FT-2000
PL-8B, PL-9C
WS-12, WS-13
J-8F, F-8IIM

 

[Transient]

PAF didn't get 9x, they got 9M8/9. AIM-9M8/9 isn't really enough of an improvement over the existing Chinese SRAAM for China to copy. For example, they already have dual-spectra seeker that will probably be put on export missile like PL-9 and according to certain experienced Chinese military followers, most advanced PL-8 uses image infrared seeker.

As for AIM-120C5, even if PL-12 is currently equivalent to AIM-120B, it's probably not worth it for China to try to copy it but rather just continue to improve on its existing design. We are talking about a 5 year gap between when aim-120B and C4 was introduced. By the time PAF gets its hands on the C5s, we can shave a couple of years off that gap.

As for JHMCS, China had their own HMS with offbore sighting as early as 1996. I'm sure it has improved quite a bit in 10 years.

As for link 16, China has their own system of data linking installed on their latest fighters. The Chinese military complex uses different language than the American establishment in writing softwares. It most likly uses a different network protocol. Since the data linking system in China is already in place between fighters and AWACS and ground control, the benefits of studying and copying another system is debatable.

As for EW suite, I thought this is where PAF is getting the shaft? If PAF is getting a second rate EW suite, there is no reason to believe that it will be better than what China has right now or in a couple of years.

Ah, my bad. I saw the request list, but didn't see the approved list. So AIM-9X missiles are not approved. Even then, the C5 missiles are more advanced than you think. They are constantly upgraded since they have digitally reprogrammable memories, so software upgrades to their guidance and ECCM softwares are done continuously. Those are not things America wants China to have their hands on.

Sniper Pods also feature the latest in EO tech. Another no-no item that China must not have its hands on.

While China has fielded HMS, it is unlikely that they are as feature rich and versatile as the JHMCS. America sure wouldn't like China to have insight into its design.

Link 16 may not feature the latest and greatest in terms of American technology, but it is America's most widely fielded data-link standard. And there's little to say that even if it is not America's best, China cannot benefit from the robust anti-jam and LPI features. Finally, even if China isn't there to steal the tech, it would also be able to benefit from finding out about the vulnerabilities of the system. All in all, America's imposed measures are only a rational move considering Pakistans close relations with China and their past actions.

 

[uaf]

I do not think Pakistan needs F-16s badly. It will be of no of very low deterrence value if they are accepted with that type of agreement. Pakistan has done very well without the US equipment. They will do even better if they take the path of self-reliance as they have done post-F16 arms embargo situation.

The point of quoting this post was that no matter how much equipment we get, we cannot trade our sovereignty for that. It is a matter of principle. This deal is like selling the Air Force out to a country which has not been kind and fair to us in our prevoius dealings. And how about having US personnel posted at our bases. How can a sovereign nation ever accept that?

Dude aggression can’t be the answer of everything

1-Pakistan is not in the position to counter Su-30 our neighbors has now and further more they are trying to get sum more in shape of multi role fighters , something is better than nothing. ( We did fly our birds in past dureing sanctions , do you have any idea how PAF did it ?? ) you mean that we should let the 38 F-16s to become scrap ??? have we gave any order for any other plane yet which we will b getting soon ?? apart from JF-17 and J-10 )

2-Ok I agree with you what ever you saying, just give me some options what should we do ?? man I already said this think about options in future … just read the equipment detail and try to figure out is it very necessary for PAF or not ……..

 

[tphuang]

Ah, my bad. I saw the request list, but didn't see the approved list. So AIM-9X missiles are not approved. Even then, the C5 missiles are more advanced than you think. They are constantly upgraded since they have digitally reprogrammable memories, so software upgrades to their guidance and ECCM softwares are done continuously. Those are not things America wants China to have their hands on.

they can do that on PL-12 too and I'm sure PL-12 has things like digitally repogrammable memories. After all, they have been available in commercial industry for a long time.

Sniper Pods also feature the latest in EO tech. Another no-no item that China must not have its hands on.

any kind of targetting related or PGM related system would be something that China would be interested in.

While China has fielded HMS, it is unlikely that they are as feature rich and versatile as the JHMCS. America sure wouldn't like China to have insight into its design.

why, because JHMCS has ground targetting capability? If you looked at the recent Chinese cockpit related pictures. You would agree with me that China can easily develop something like JHMCS. It's HMS, not a turbofan engine. It's not any harder than grabbing targetting data and putting them on MFDs.

Link 16 may not feature the latest and greatest in terms of American technology, but it is America's most widely fielded data-link standard. And there's little to say that even if it is not America's best, China cannot benefit from the robust anti-jam and LPI features. Finally, even if China isn't there to steal the tech, it would also be able to benefit from finding out about the vulnerabilities of the system. All in all, America's imposed measures are only a rational move considering Pakistans close relations with China and their past actions.

I'm sure that America is not out there to release it's link 16 design specs to Pakistan. And if America is as smart as I think it is, I'm sure it has layers of software protection code on their link 16 systems.

Can China benefit from anti-jam and LPI features. There are research papers out there available in public that I'm sure have better idea than what is used on Link 16. If I am China, I would've started there.

 

[adsH]

Link 16 may not feature the latest and greatest in terms of American technology, but it is America's most widely fielded data-link standard. And there's little to say that even if it is not America's best, China cannot benefit from the robust anti-jam and LPI features. Finally, even if China isn't there to steal the tech, it would also be able to benefit from finding out about the vulnerabilities of the system. All in all, America's imposed measures are only a rational move considering Pakistans close relations with China and their past actions.

i would assume Information on the Link 16 is widely available (Unclassified information)! I wouldn't say its a closed spec system.it uses JTDIS protocols on this Backbone i wouldn't say its Easily replicable, since its something NATO Specific, it provides a common language for the NATO Partners to inter operate, i wouldn't say its US specific! its a STANAG system !

However the EW systems on the F-16 and the P3c would be something that would need to be kept in check! those would be the systems, that can Performs ECCM and ECM activities and would allow you to communicate and denny your enemies use of communication backbone!

I would assume PAF would be procuring the Swedish Link 16 system for there AEW&C, i really see no sense in procuring anything other then this, since almost all of the PAF's Networked assets would be utilizing Link 16.


Can someone confirm that PAF would be getting access to Link 16 systems, i see no reason why US would not provide those since any modern fighter would need Data-linking.

can someone elaborate further on the capabilities of the TADIL-J now this is something US specific !

 

[falconlover81]

I do not think Pakistan needs F-16s badly. It will be of no of very low deterrence value if they are accepted with that type of agreement. Pakistan has done very well without the US equipment. They will do even better if they take the path of self-reliance as they have done post-F16 arms embargo situation.

The point of quoting this post was that no matter how much equipment we get, we cannot trade our sovereignty for that. It is a matter of principle. This deal is like selling the Air Force out to a country which has not been kind and fair to us in our prevoius dealings. And how about having US personnel posted at our bases. How can a sovereign nation ever accept that?

airmarshall all the above things mentioned must have crossed the minds of the paf top brass before sending a lor and it has also been clarified by the fo spokeswoman tasneem aslam that only a standard clause not to transfer technology to a third country is normally included in such transactions and the rest of the whole john hillen speech is i would say by quoting a respectable member of pakdef "its all political mumbo jumbo".hope u get the message and as far as f-16 being of very low deterance i personally think its one of the most cost efficient options that we have at the moment and its package is really kick a$$ man

 

[vivtho]

F-14 is retired.

why would you want those old su-27/30s? they are not all that capable.

apparently, the Pakistanis did ask for J-11Bs from China, but the problem is that China hasn't even equipped them yet!

China only has a license to manufacture the J-11 for it's own use. They were not granted the license to export to third-parties.

 

[aaaditya]

China only has a license to manufacture the J-11 for it's own use. They were not granted the license to export to third-parties.

i doubt if china would be honourable enough to honour a contract,if they reverse engineer it,then they will definitely sell it to third parties despite their contractual obligations,look at their j7 series which are reverse engineered versions of the mig21 series.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Better then nothing

Dude pakistan air force's is not the largest int the world to be exact so if they are trying to do there best to deter against there neighbor enemy who is alot bigger then us to be sure and having bought 44 new f16 has caused a havic india as for the f16 they are one of the world best air fighter planes produced not so the for most that have evered been produced and yes i agree pakistan need more planes and from other countries that won't use them like USA did when they put embargoes on there part so think about it ok people oh yeah one more thing i just joined into this website i live in the USA but i m pakistani ok freinds

 

[SABRE]

i doubt if china would be honourable enough to honour a contract,if they reverse engineer it,then they will definitely sell it to third parties despite their contractual obligations,look at their j7 series which are reverse engineered versions of the mig21 series.

I dont think China had bought the technology of MiG-21, to be more precise I dont think China ever bought MiG-21s from USSR. The J-7 (F-7) is a copy of MiG-21 [look alike] but its based on Chinese technology. [I dont have much information regarding this so better ask a Chinese member]

However, J-6 was licensed produced version of MiG-19 & China had got complete ToT from USSR. With the decline in USSR-China relationship in late 1950s and Early 1960s, China started producing J-6 on its own and ignored the obligations of the contract and sold the aircrafts to Pakistan and other countries.

 

[vivtho]

Yes China has reverse engineered and exported equipment before. However, times have changed, and China needs Russia and the other arms exporters all the more now. China realizes that such tactics, even though they bring in some small amounts of case, cause ill will that could cause problems later.

Also, with today's military equipment going all digital, reverse-engineering is a lot harder.

 

[adsH]

Also, with today's military equipment going all digital, reverse-engineering is a lot harder.

Tell them that ! They seem to believe that they can build almost anything you pit against them. with there Impressive engineering infrastructure/capabilities, As far as technology goes i doubt there's anything they can't build !!