Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for? [Recent F-16 deal news, etc]
- Thread starter Mukesh Patel
- Start date
mysterious
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Hmm, a little background on your friend and his dad please? Which community is it on orkut? I can try and join in too when I get the time. :smokingc:
Hmm, a little background on your friend and his dad please? Which community is it on orkut? I can try and join in too when I get the time. :smokingc:
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
if we get 18 f-16's then there is no doubt that the current ones would be upgraded. and a few years down the line we would be getting more f-16's but thats if we get these 18 new ones first.
and myst i think iranian people go on orkut because my iranian friend uses it. not to sure though.
if we get 18 f-16's then there is no doubt that the current ones would be upgraded. and a few years down the line we would be getting more f-16's but thats if we get these 18 new ones first.
and myst i think iranian people go on orkut because my iranian friend uses it. not to sure though.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Anyways this discussion is here:
Community name: PAF-Pakistan Air Force
Threat Name: Can PAF's F-16 Face Indian Migs N Flankers?
He is not a friend in a friend sense. HE is just a member at the orkut.mysterious said:
Anyways this discussion is here:
Community name: PAF-Pakistan Air Force
Threat Name: Can PAF's F-16 Face Indian Migs N Flankers?
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/120627/1/.html
WASHINGTON : President George W. Bush was to welcome Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to the White House for talks on pursuing democratic reforms and battling terrorism, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday.
The two leaders were to meet in the Oval Office early Saturday and hold a brief joint public appearance before Musharraf was to sit down separately with outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Bush's agenda included issues like US-Pakistan trade and overall relations, the hunt for Al-Qaeda and Taliban members operating along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, as well as US hopes for democratic reforms in Pakistan.
The meeting will be "an opportunity to continue to talk about our shared commitment to winning the global war on terrorism. It will be an opportunity to talk about our bilateral relationship, as well, and to talk about regional issues, like the situation between India and Pakistan," said McClellan.
But Bush aides dampened expectations for any new agreement, with one senior official telling AFP on condition he not be named: "I don't expect any new policy announcements."
And McClellan poured cold water on the idea that Bush might green light Pakistan's long-stalled bid to buy sophisticated F-16 fighter jets, saying: "I don't expect any such announcements on matters like that at this time."
The US leader was, however, expected to prod Musharraf on pursuing democratic reforms.
"There are places where great progress has been made," the anonymous official said, citing the number of women holding elected office in Pakistan.
"Certainly there is more to do."
General Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, this week pushed through a new law in parliament enabling him to continue as military chief despite earlier pledging to relinquish his dual post.
Bush "will probably raise that," said the anonymous US official.
Musharraf has said that donning military uniform was crucial in his highly complicated campaign against the Al-Qaeda network and other Islamic militants and to seek a settlement of the thorny Kashmir dispute with India.
When Musharraf said last year that he would hang up his uniform by the end of 2004, Washington hailed it as a welcome step.
But McClellan denied that Bush had put his call for reforms in Pakistan on the back burner as a reward for Islamabad's help in battling global terrorism including Al-Qaeda members thought to operate on Pakistan's border.
"We make our views very clear publicly and privately when it comes to our support for democracy and moving in that direction," said the spokesman. "We continue to talk to them about those issues."
Asked whether Bush was satisfied with Musharraf's help in hunting down Al-Qaeda McClellan replied: "There's always more that can be done. We've said that."
"But we've good, close cooperation with Pakistan in going after some of the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda members. We're going to continue working closely with them. We have good intelligence cooperation, and this is something that's a priority for both our nations," he said.
Of late, the United States has taken a softer line in its campaign for democratic reforms in Pakistan.
"A little bit of understanding is necessary as you watch somebody like President Musharraf" carefully steer his country out of a host of problems, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently.
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Musharraf won't be happy if what McClellan says is how events unfold.
WASHINGTON : President George W. Bush was to welcome Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to the White House for talks on pursuing democratic reforms and battling terrorism, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday.
The two leaders were to meet in the Oval Office early Saturday and hold a brief joint public appearance before Musharraf was to sit down separately with outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Bush's agenda included issues like US-Pakistan trade and overall relations, the hunt for Al-Qaeda and Taliban members operating along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, as well as US hopes for democratic reforms in Pakistan.
The meeting will be "an opportunity to continue to talk about our shared commitment to winning the global war on terrorism. It will be an opportunity to talk about our bilateral relationship, as well, and to talk about regional issues, like the situation between India and Pakistan," said McClellan.
But Bush aides dampened expectations for any new agreement, with one senior official telling AFP on condition he not be named: "I don't expect any new policy announcements."
And McClellan poured cold water on the idea that Bush might green light Pakistan's long-stalled bid to buy sophisticated F-16 fighter jets, saying: "I don't expect any such announcements on matters like that at this time."
The US leader was, however, expected to prod Musharraf on pursuing democratic reforms.
"There are places where great progress has been made," the anonymous official said, citing the number of women holding elected office in Pakistan.
"Certainly there is more to do."
General Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, this week pushed through a new law in parliament enabling him to continue as military chief despite earlier pledging to relinquish his dual post.
Bush "will probably raise that," said the anonymous US official.
Musharraf has said that donning military uniform was crucial in his highly complicated campaign against the Al-Qaeda network and other Islamic militants and to seek a settlement of the thorny Kashmir dispute with India.
When Musharraf said last year that he would hang up his uniform by the end of 2004, Washington hailed it as a welcome step.
But McClellan denied that Bush had put his call for reforms in Pakistan on the back burner as a reward for Islamabad's help in battling global terrorism including Al-Qaeda members thought to operate on Pakistan's border.
"We make our views very clear publicly and privately when it comes to our support for democracy and moving in that direction," said the spokesman. "We continue to talk to them about those issues."
Asked whether Bush was satisfied with Musharraf's help in hunting down Al-Qaeda McClellan replied: "There's always more that can be done. We've said that."
"But we've good, close cooperation with Pakistan in going after some of the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda members. We're going to continue working closely with them. We have good intelligence cooperation, and this is something that's a priority for both our nations," he said.
Of late, the United States has taken a softer line in its campaign for democratic reforms in Pakistan.
"A little bit of understanding is necessary as you watch somebody like President Musharraf" carefully steer his country out of a host of problems, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently.
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Musharraf won't be happy if what McClellan says is how events unfold.
Man will the PAF get off the crack and stop this F-16 obsession. It's beginning to make them look demented.
Why is the PAF lusting after this plane? If its not available then screw it and concentrate on more useful stuff rather than wasting time with these unreliable suppliers who have screwed them up in the past.
Why is the PAF lusting after this plane? If its not available then screw it and concentrate on more useful stuff rather than wasting time with these unreliable suppliers who have screwed them up in the past.
mysterious
New Member
F-16 sale ‘still on the table’
F-16 sale ‘still on the table’
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The United States has made no final decision on the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan and “the issue is still on the tableâ€, a Pentagon source here is quoted as saying.
Noted South Asia expert Dennis Kux told India Abroad in a story published this week that it was unlikely the US would have offered F-16s to India when it was looking at making such a sale to Pakistan.
The unnamed Pentagon source said India has neither asked for nor been offered F-16s. He added that US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, who is visiting India and Pakistan this week, “will not be carrying any such offer eitherâ€.
The source asserted that the administration has made no formal offer to sell India the Patriot missile system either. However, in view of the growing defence ties between the two countries, manufacturers such as Raythorn and others would “naturally be looking toward the Indian market tooâ€.
He also confirmed earlier reports that the offer of P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft – that reportedly are also being sought by or being given to Pakistan – had been on the table for some years, but India has not yet availed itself of the offer.
During President Musharraf’s meeting with President Bush, the F-16 issue did come up but both sides have remained tight-lipped about it. There have been reports in India that the Indian prime minister’s office had told the Bush administration that it would have no objection if F-16s were sold to Pakistan because what was reportedly on offer were “old†F-16s, minus the latest avionics that could be fitted with shelves or platforms to carry nuclear warheads, or which could be reconfigured to carry such warheads. However, another report says Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, who was recently in Washington, told National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that sale of F-16s to Pakistan would have an adverse impact on US-India relations.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-12-2004_pg7_1
Looks like a lot that was being talked about in the media of India being offered this and that proved out to be nicely crafted 'sell-out' stories and nothing more. And I always giggle when I read information regarding India's objections to the sale of F-16s to Pakistan like above because that seriously makes me believe that IAF knows its Su-30s won't have much of an edge left over PAF if Pakistan gets a Block 50+ batch of F-16s because they know Pakistani pilots breathe F-16 flying and its tactics. Anywayz, on the F-16 issue, even though it has lost ifs flavor in much ways, I'm still quite optimistic. :smokingc:
F-16 sale ‘still on the table’
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The United States has made no final decision on the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan and “the issue is still on the tableâ€, a Pentagon source here is quoted as saying.
Noted South Asia expert Dennis Kux told India Abroad in a story published this week that it was unlikely the US would have offered F-16s to India when it was looking at making such a sale to Pakistan.
The unnamed Pentagon source said India has neither asked for nor been offered F-16s. He added that US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, who is visiting India and Pakistan this week, “will not be carrying any such offer eitherâ€.
The source asserted that the administration has made no formal offer to sell India the Patriot missile system either. However, in view of the growing defence ties between the two countries, manufacturers such as Raythorn and others would “naturally be looking toward the Indian market tooâ€.
He also confirmed earlier reports that the offer of P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft – that reportedly are also being sought by or being given to Pakistan – had been on the table for some years, but India has not yet availed itself of the offer.
During President Musharraf’s meeting with President Bush, the F-16 issue did come up but both sides have remained tight-lipped about it. There have been reports in India that the Indian prime minister’s office had told the Bush administration that it would have no objection if F-16s were sold to Pakistan because what was reportedly on offer were “old†F-16s, minus the latest avionics that could be fitted with shelves or platforms to carry nuclear warheads, or which could be reconfigured to carry such warheads. However, another report says Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, who was recently in Washington, told National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that sale of F-16s to Pakistan would have an adverse impact on US-India relations.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-12-2004_pg7_1
Looks like a lot that was being talked about in the media of India being offered this and that proved out to be nicely crafted 'sell-out' stories and nothing more. And I always giggle when I read information regarding India's objections to the sale of F-16s to Pakistan like above because that seriously makes me believe that IAF knows its Su-30s won't have much of an edge left over PAF if Pakistan gets a Block 50+ batch of F-16s because they know Pakistani pilots breathe F-16 flying and its tactics. Anywayz, on the F-16 issue, even though it has lost ifs flavor in much ways, I'm still quite optimistic. :smokingc:
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
On his visit to France President Musharaf answered a question regarding Fighter jets to a reporter. He said that fighter jet discussion did come up with French President.
He also said that he brought up disucssion regarding the Fighter Jet Pakistan is making.
On his visit to France President Musharaf answered a question regarding Fighter jets to a reporter. He said that fighter jet discussion did come up with French President.
He also said that he brought up disucssion regarding the Fighter Jet Pakistan is making.
A10 Warthog
New Member
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
So am i led to believe, that China will be providing PAF with Su27s of some sort or their version of the Su 27 which is J11??
So am i led to believe, that China will be providing PAF with Su27s of some sort or their version of the Su 27 which is J11??
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Do not believe internet rumors until you see a nation's official announcing it. Until it is confirmed, all is just rumor.
No China will not export any Su-27 to Pakistan. It is stated in the contract between Russians and Chinese when they first negotiated for the aircraft. Breaching the contract means Russian will stop all asistance to China on its J-11(Su-27SK)program and keep the rest of the money leftover as said in the contract.A10 Warthog said:
Do not believe internet rumors until you see a nation's official announcing it. Until it is confirmed, all is just rumor.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
did this happen, i did tell people here it would end up happening French/Pakistani Avionics onboard JF-17 it would be a hell of a deal for france, they would be able to cash inn from-the project, once PAF starts selling the Aircraft not to mention the weapons system that would come with the AC.SABRE said:
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/18/top6.htm
Pakistan needs 'high-performance' aircraft, says Karamat
By Our Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: Pakistan needs 'high-performance' aircraft and will need to make 'alternative arrangements' if it fails to get the F-16s from the United States, says Ambassador Jehangir Karamat.
Pakistan's newly appointed envoy to Washington also dispelled the impression that Islamabad may end up allowing US and other international inspectors into its nuclear installations to probe the allegations that Dr A.Q. Khan had supplied uranium enrichment equipment to Iran.
"We have drawn a line where we thought we needed to and nobody will be allowed to cross this line," said Mr Karamat. While welcoming the US decision to offer a $1.2 billion arms package to Pakistan, the former army chief said that "arms alone cannot make a country stable, we also need a stable economy for that."
The ambassador, who presented his credentials to President George W. Bush earlier this month, expressed these views at his first meeting with Washington-based Pakistani journalists on Thursday evening.
Although it was an informal meeting, Mr Karamat also spoke on major issues confronting the country such as Pakistan's defence needs, relations with the United States and the peace process in South Asia.
The ambassador said he did not understand why India says that the proposed US arms package for Pakistan will disturb the balance of power in South Asia. "We believe the US military assistance will strengthen our defence without causing any harm to India."
Ambassador Karamat said Pakistan needs "high performance aircraft" and if "we fail to get the F-16s (from the United States), we will have to make alternative arrangements."
He said Pakistan already has three P-3 Orion planes, which are used for maritime surveillance, and under the proposed arms package we will get three more. He rejected some media reports as incorrect that the United States had not supplied proper avionics with the first batch of P-3 Orion planes and that was why those planes were being used for transportation only.
"They have all proper equipment and are being used for surveillance, not transportation," said the ambassador, adding that Pakistan was acquiring more P-3s because "we need them."
Mr Karamat said he believes the US military assistance to Pakistan would not be stopped unlike what had happened after the 1965 war and again after the Afghan war in 1990.
In the 1960s, he said, the Americans were very clear that the weapons they had given to Pakistan were meant to be used against the Soviet Union and not India and "when we used them against India, they stopped the supplies".
In 1990, he said, the supplies were stopped because of the dispute over Pakistan's nuclear programme. "This time it is different. Today there's no cold war. America has separate relationships with both India and Pakistan. And nobody knows when this war against terror would end, 5 years, 10, years, 15 years."
Besides, he said, it's not just the military assistance but the United States was also providing assistance to improve the national economy and fight poverty, which indicated a much deeper engagement.
Ambassador Karamat said that even in areas of concern, Pakistan and the United States had a convergence of views. It's in the interest of both the countries to fight those who continue to bomb civilian targets, he added. Pakistan, he said, was also seeking to considerably improve its trade with the United States and is engaged in negotiations for a free trade agreement
if we don't get f-16s then i think that rafale, mirage 2000-5, gripen is the best choice. i would have liked to have said eurofighter but there is no way the british would let that happen. thus rafale would be the best choice.
http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/18/top6.htm
Pakistan needs 'high-performance' aircraft, says Karamat
By Our Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Dec 17: Pakistan needs 'high-performance' aircraft and will need to make 'alternative arrangements' if it fails to get the F-16s from the United States, says Ambassador Jehangir Karamat.
Pakistan's newly appointed envoy to Washington also dispelled the impression that Islamabad may end up allowing US and other international inspectors into its nuclear installations to probe the allegations that Dr A.Q. Khan had supplied uranium enrichment equipment to Iran.
"We have drawn a line where we thought we needed to and nobody will be allowed to cross this line," said Mr Karamat. While welcoming the US decision to offer a $1.2 billion arms package to Pakistan, the former army chief said that "arms alone cannot make a country stable, we also need a stable economy for that."
The ambassador, who presented his credentials to President George W. Bush earlier this month, expressed these views at his first meeting with Washington-based Pakistani journalists on Thursday evening.
Although it was an informal meeting, Mr Karamat also spoke on major issues confronting the country such as Pakistan's defence needs, relations with the United States and the peace process in South Asia.
The ambassador said he did not understand why India says that the proposed US arms package for Pakistan will disturb the balance of power in South Asia. "We believe the US military assistance will strengthen our defence without causing any harm to India."
Ambassador Karamat said Pakistan needs "high performance aircraft" and if "we fail to get the F-16s (from the United States), we will have to make alternative arrangements."
He said Pakistan already has three P-3 Orion planes, which are used for maritime surveillance, and under the proposed arms package we will get three more. He rejected some media reports as incorrect that the United States had not supplied proper avionics with the first batch of P-3 Orion planes and that was why those planes were being used for transportation only.
"They have all proper equipment and are being used for surveillance, not transportation," said the ambassador, adding that Pakistan was acquiring more P-3s because "we need them."
Mr Karamat said he believes the US military assistance to Pakistan would not be stopped unlike what had happened after the 1965 war and again after the Afghan war in 1990.
In the 1960s, he said, the Americans were very clear that the weapons they had given to Pakistan were meant to be used against the Soviet Union and not India and "when we used them against India, they stopped the supplies".
In 1990, he said, the supplies were stopped because of the dispute over Pakistan's nuclear programme. "This time it is different. Today there's no cold war. America has separate relationships with both India and Pakistan. And nobody knows when this war against terror would end, 5 years, 10, years, 15 years."
Besides, he said, it's not just the military assistance but the United States was also providing assistance to improve the national economy and fight poverty, which indicated a much deeper engagement.
Ambassador Karamat said that even in areas of concern, Pakistan and the United States had a convergence of views. It's in the interest of both the countries to fight those who continue to bomb civilian targets, he added. Pakistan, he said, was also seeking to considerably improve its trade with the United States and is engaged in negotiations for a free trade agreement
if we don't get f-16s then i think that rafale, mirage 2000-5, gripen is the best choice. i would have liked to have said eurofighter but there is no way the british would let that happen. thus rafale would be the best choice.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
At the moment we need to be stable and strong in economy. Its also in the interest of US to make Pakistan stable economically than millitry. Weak Pakistan is not in the interest of anyone including India coz there is a fear that pakistani nukes can get in the hands of extremists if Pakistan become weak. If exremist ever get their hands on nukes than it will be a great desaster for India coz extremist will love to use it agaisnt India. So US India and all others want Pakistan stronger economically not millitry wise thats why everyone providing economic support. On the other hand we need a strong defense too. Minimum ability to defend against agaisnt anyone.
At the moment we need to be stable and strong in economy. Its also in the interest of US to make Pakistan stable economically than millitry. Weak Pakistan is not in the interest of anyone including India coz there is a fear that pakistani nukes can get in the hands of extremists if Pakistan become weak. If exremist ever get their hands on nukes than it will be a great desaster for India coz extremist will love to use it agaisnt India. So US India and all others want Pakistan stronger economically not millitry wise thats why everyone providing economic support. On the other hand we need a strong defense too. Minimum ability to defend against agaisnt anyone.
Re: Which Aircraft Should PAF opt for?
Today I was reading few articals on Mirage2000 & I read some where that mirage 2000 is very nuch similar to its predecessors Mirage 3, 4& 5. It was just made cause Mirage 3 was not able to perform few duties & upgrades were not possible for what dessault & france wanted mir3 to do. Also for some latest weapons mirage 3 were very small. Their cockpit happened to be very small too for putting some aditional equipment.
So dessault went on to make Mirage2000 bigger & a bit better.
So if Mirage 3 & 2k r some what similar than y lose Mirage3. Give it all the possible upgrades. Dont let the french rip their ones off. Buy the best of them. Keep them for quantitative air superiorority missions.
My cousin was tellin me that French have also agreed to look into multi targeting (to target more than 1 jet) system for Mirage3 of PAF.
If these upgrades r possible than its a major news.
& thats not major.P.A.F said:
Today I was reading few articals on Mirage2000 & I read some where that mirage 2000 is very nuch similar to its predecessors Mirage 3, 4& 5. It was just made cause Mirage 3 was not able to perform few duties & upgrades were not possible for what dessault & france wanted mir3 to do. Also for some latest weapons mirage 3 were very small. Their cockpit happened to be very small too for putting some aditional equipment.
So dessault went on to make Mirage2000 bigger & a bit better.
So if Mirage 3 & 2k r some what similar than y lose Mirage3. Give it all the possible upgrades. Dont let the french rip their ones off. Buy the best of them. Keep them for quantitative air superiorority missions.
My cousin was tellin me that French have also agreed to look into multi targeting (to target more than 1 jet) system for Mirage3 of PAF.
If these upgrades r possible than its a major news.
cheenamalai
Banned Member
Hey I have a question.. Only a genius can answer
Which aircraft can SMKE Indian Aircraft Su-30MKI?
Can Typhoon?
Can Rafale?
Any other? :help
Be realistic...about the Aircraft.
Thanks :smokingc:
Which aircraft can SM
KE Indian Aircraft Su-30MKI?Can Typhoon?
Can Rafale?
Any other? :help
Be realistic...about the Aircraft.
Thanks :smokingc: