Pakistan Airforce F-16 blk 52+ order

Discussions about F-16.net news articles. A topic is created automatically whenever someone posts a comment in the F-16 News section.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

PAFviper

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2006, 13:46

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 17:31

OK, as most of you guys should know PAF F-16 deal has been approved by the congress worth of $5.1 billion.

one of the deal include 36 New F-16 Block 50/52s worth of $3 billion meaning about $90 milion per piece!!! Whereas Indian new Su-30 mki is around $23 million per piece, mki being more superior why is it so cheep?

I believe both Israeli and PAF new F-16s are block 52+. Which F-16 has better edge over each other?
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post31 Jul 2006, 19:43

23 mil is just the MKI carcase with engines - the avionics are western-made and will pump up the price considerably. An all-Russian made Su-30MK is between 35-45 mil., depending on the equipment

The price for the PAF birds is so high because it includes an initial batch of spare parts, the support equipment and the initial training. The plane alone should cost something like 37 mil. give or take.

The F-16I Sufa will be better equipped than the PAF ones
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

falcon_fan

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 08:03

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 08:44

Well the deal has gone through but with some rather strange restrictions. First the State department requested a biannual inspection of the delivered planes to ensure they are not being used for nuclear delivery purposes( how, I have no idea) and now the State department has placed the condition that the planes should not fly out of Pakistani airspace without their clearance.

For the first condition, I really don't understand how biannual inspections are going to demonstrate anything regarding whether PAF has plans to arm them with nuclear weapons in the extreme circumstances of a war, if it really has any. In the presence of a wide array of ballistic missiles and now with the delivery of the nuclear capable JF-17 beginning, it really doesn't make much sense. I think when the inspection team comes around to make its first inspection, they should park some ballistic missiles tipped with the warhead at the airbase, and then make the team walk in front of some of the other aircraft that are armed and ready. Would be interesting, just for the fun of it!

As for the second condition, does that mean PAF would require Pentagon clearance in the event of war to initiate bombing on enemy territory (Since that requires exiting Pakistani airspace)? Most of the planes would be taken out by enemy airforce by then. This whole deal must be a joke since I don't expect seasoned policy makers to come up with such a deal!
Offline

pafpilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 28 May 2005, 20:28

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 09:33

I really don't understand how biannual inspections are going to demonstrate anything regarding whether PAF has plans to arm them with nuclear weapons in the extreme circumstances of a war, if it really has any


Making a plane nuclear dilivery capable is not an easy job.It cant be done in 4 or 5 hours. Special modifications are required.If inspections take place regulerly then it will make PAF unable to make the planes nuclear capable.
Anyway that doesnt reduce our nuclear delivery capability.With a wide array of ballistic missiles and A-5 and JF-17 already nuclear capable ,then even if the new Vipers are not nuclear capable then its no bad deal.

As for the second condition, does that mean PAF would require Pentagon clearance in the event of war to initiate bombing on enemy territory (Since that requires exiting Pakistani airspace)? Most of the planes would be taken out by enemy airforce by then


No it doesnt mean we would have to take prior permission from the US in case of war. It means that we would have to take their permission when our planes have to leave for foreign exercises.

I know its a sh*t deal but nevertheless, we get the new vipers!
As far a 5.1 billion$ are concerned , we are not only getting the planes but support equipment, MLU upgrade kits, spare parts, advanced helmets, AMRAAMs and personnel training.Not too bad for that much! And don't forget the used F-16s.
A MiG at you SIX, is better than no MiG at all!!
Offline

pafpilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 28 May 2005, 20:28

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 09:45

Falcon_fan wrote:
Meathook wrote:With Pakistan making noise that they can make up to 50 Nuclear grade weapons, why are they still being sold aircraft...amazing how this gets screwed around the handle with foreign policy...makes no sense to me


Well for starters, its not that Pakistan "can make upto 50 nuclear weapons", it already has over 50 nuclear weapons and an officially declared nuclear power.


Falcon_fan , I don't think Meathook was talking about Pakistan's current number of nuclear bombs. I don't know if you have heard the news or not , satellite images over Pakistan have indicated that Pakistan has built a nuclear plant near Khushab, which can enrich enough Plutonium for 50 nuclear weapons a year. Our current capability is 2 -3 nuclear bombs a year.
A MiG at you SIX, is better than no MiG at all!!
Offline

MarkSien

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006, 14:42

Unread post14 Aug 2006, 16:43

If there is a war between Pakistan and India - there is a 110% chance that Pakistan will get embargoed by the U.S (for at least the duration of the war). Now it would not make sence for the PAF to ask for permission to use the aircraft - even after an embargo; however they might risk a potential lift of embargos after a war.
Offline

falcon_fan

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 08:03

Unread post15 Aug 2006, 07:51

I agree with MarkSien that incase of a war, Pakistan should not expect the US to rush to its aid by supplying spares and weapons like it recently did for Israel. If a war breaks out Pakistan would have to completely depend on what they have acquired before the war, as the US reaction is not expected to be any better than the one in the 1965 war.

At the same time, waiting for any good news after the the war doesn't seem like a choice either. If the models built by various US thinktanks during the 2002 mobilization are anything to go by, there won't be anything left to look forward to if Pakistan and India end up having a full scale war.

As for PAF pilot, well I ain't got anything against the viper, but the number of strings attached seem to have turned it into a web and PAF is right in the middle of it.

Regarding the new nuke plant, the state department has already refuted the claims of a larger breeder reactor since Pakistan lacks the infrastructure as well as is short on funds to be able to produce the vast amounts of heavy water needed in a reactor of that size. They believe its more likely to be a replacement for the older reactor with only "slight" enhancement in plutonium output.
Offline

Meathook

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3304
  • Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

Unread post28 Aug 2006, 18:22

I recently watched a program on CNN (over the weekend) titled "In the Footsteps of Ben Laden".

It covered all the terrorist activities he and his group have been involved with and to my surprise, at the end of the program, it was reported that the US Forces were denied "permission" to hunt for this murder in Pakistan. (that government would not allow the US in)..that blew me away.

Here we are selling and supporting this country and this government wont allow US or any other Forces to hunt for this murder when everything points to the fact he might be hiding in their mountains (their intell was discussed on that show to a small degree).

If that is not a slap in the face of the US and the world...I don't know what is and here we are providing aircraft and equipment support to them, that appears to be pure crap if you ask me.

If it were up to me, I would not give them a damn thing...they can kiss my butt if that is how their going to behave.

The report was very informative and if what they say is true and I have no reason to doubt it, then we should "kiss off this country" and give them nothing until they change their attitude in this hunt for this killer.
More than likely have "been there and done that at some point", it sure keeps you young if done correctly
Offline

pafpilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 28 May 2005, 20:28

Unread post28 Aug 2006, 19:38

Meathook , I think we were supposed to keep politics off this forum...

it was reported that the US Forces were denied "permission" to hunt for this murder in Pakistan. (that government would not allow the US in)..that blew me away.


What else do you expect! No country would allow forces from another country to carryout a search(or even kill) operation for a person who has milllions on his head.For example , there is a person who is most wanted in Pakistan , and we BELIEVE he is in the US and US authorites fail to capture him , do you expect that your country would allow forces from Pakistan to enter US and carryout a search operation.You know and i know that it would never happen.Sovereignty of every independent country in this world has to be safeguarded.

Here we are selling and supporting this country and this government wont allow US or any other Forces to hunt for this murder when everything points to the fact he might be hiding in their mountains .


First of all ,how can you certainly say that he is in Pakistan. The US intelligence or even Pakistani intelligence dont know whether he is in Pakistan or Afghanistan.One day they say that he is hiding in Tora-bora mountains(Afghanistan) and the next day they say he is in Pakistan.So ,your stament is clearly based on your idea and not on the facts. Have you seen the rough terrain in that border area?Not even locals living there their entire life can certainly say where Afghanistan starts or say Afghanis can say where Pakistan starts.

If that is not a slap in the face of the US and the world...I don't know what is and here we are providing aircraft and equipment support to them, that appears to be pure crap if you ask me


The US has violated Pakistani airspace many times in thier hunt for Osama or anyother AL-Qaieda members.In doing so they have killed many innocent people. Most of the dead were found to be women and children and the US has not always succeeded in their missions.You dont ask us, or even inform us about your operation, violate our air-space , bomb the area and dont even appologise. That has not happened once,twice but many times.Now isnt that a slap on the face of Pakistan.You have your problems and we have mine. If the US has any intel that Osama is in Pakistan , then they ask Pakistan to carryout an operation and if Pakistan allows , then operate with them in Pakistan. As I already talked about the border situation , there have been several incidents in which US/Nato troops mistakenly entered Pakistan (3-4 kms). They were told by locals living in those areas that they were in Paksitan , not in Afghanistan.You seem to really care about the support equipment and aircrafts you are providing us , but you seem forget what Pakistan has done for the war against terrorism.We allowed you to use our airspace during the war with Taliban , without which US would have almost failed to succeed in destroying Taliban. You have two airbases in Balochistan.US has itself agreed that no country has suffered so much against fighting taliban .We have lost thousands of our troops while fighting taliban or al-qaeida.This certainly is not CRAP.

The report was very informative and if what they say is true and I have no reason to doubt it


Well then I think US intelligence should merge CNN in their intelligence , also listen to that report, and stop spending millions of dollars in search of operations.
A MiG at you SIX, is better than no MiG at all!!
Offline

Meathook

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3304
  • Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

Unread post28 Aug 2006, 20:36

::Post removed by moderator - Let's keep it nice, and please no personal attacks::
Offline

Meathook

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3304
  • Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

Unread post28 Aug 2006, 23:43

OK..maybe it was a bit rude but read his comments too please, I made a statement based on a television report I saw, asking a question (as I did, then making my opinion to it).

The point remains, if this country does not work with the US (and other nations) and allow any tracking of him within their boarders, why should they be supported with weapons sales from any government...it is a fair question, isn't it, is that considered too political of a question?

Who did the USA kill in Pakistan as the poster suggested above, why is that shallow statement (answer) allowed to remain...just wondering, or is it merely a one sided debate (his)?

pafpilot - has his views and others have theirs, what's the deal here?

It was not politics, it was a special report on CNN that was mentioned and questioned based on that report, it was reported that way, are we to think CNN made it all up?

I'd like to hear other points of view on this, is that wrong, should this discussion not take place about support Pakistan gets with F16s and does not reciprocate with help to Allied Forces in the hunt for this terrorist?

Does one hand not help the other, if CNN was correct in their statement about Pakistan not allowing Armed Forces to hunt down this murder, why should we continue to do business with them, it is a fair question I think, why sell them F-16s, are we being taken advantage of again, should the "sales" not work to both of any governments advantage?

What do you guys think....of course, strictly based on that CNN Report of course.
Offline

MarkSien

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006, 14:42

Unread post29 Aug 2006, 00:12

It is Pakistan's borders - it can do what it wants with them, simple as that; and it might consider its national integrity on the line if it allows U.S forces within its soil. Just imagine a politically emotional country came to find out that American forces are operating unrestricted within Pakistani soil; such would break the country apart. Now please tell me - is it within American interest to let a nation which for whatever reason put itself on the frontlines for any American-led conflict in the region be put through such torture?

Besides, officially/publically the Pakistanis are buying those F-16s in exchange for cash; there is no proof that those F-16s are free. For a nation to put so much resources into the hands of a country that has twice embargoed it speaks volumes of Pakistani trust in the U.S. And of course American trust in Pakistan for transferring crucial technology. Not to mention 80K troops on the Pak-Afghan border, Pakistani intelligence/ops resources into hunting elements which were no harm to Pakistan to begin with, etc. Seems like an 'equivalent exchange' to me.
Offline

Meathook

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3304
  • Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

Unread post29 Aug 2006, 02:00

Nice points but your words are mixed (yes it is there boarder but they invited us there too but now we cant hunt, the very reason we are there, makes no sense to me).

So then, your saying they are involved already if that is true (and I know it is to a point). What is the harm in taking that plunge further as they have already by your own words are allowing a force per agreement to hunt for the terrorist, it makes no sense to limit what has already started, then lets go after them since we are on their boarders now.

I think for the technology they are getting, the bargain is a bit loped sided in their favor, after all, the sanctions you mentioned, they caused in the past, to begin with, it was voted on by the UN first, then backed by the US for the actions that country took in general, countering what the world felt was in it's best interest, that happens daily.

The US does not apply sanctions as fast as many might think, there is more to the story always and I think the US has twice agreed to lift the sanctions for what ever reason. That was big of us and good for them too.....you have to be realistic in your thought process concerning them too, some of it was due to their boarder wars with India and the Nuke issue.

The issue of terror affects us all, no one is safe, so you might as well engage in that hunt before the country in question is hit again even harder, it is in all of our best interest do hunt these folks down.

Sorry you cant or wont see the greater good in that concept but thanks for sharing your points of view (even if I don't agree with them). There is always room for any opinion, good thing about them, we all have them. So thanks...really
Offline

MarkSien

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2006, 14:42

Unread post29 Aug 2006, 02:45

Like I said earlier, it is Pakistan's borders - and that country is under no obligation to let the Americans operate freely there. How about going further by perhaps giving solid evidence that Bin Laden is in Pakistan? You can hardly say that he is in a country without a fairly specific location. There are 80K troops on the border, lots of activity in the region - Bugti was found and killed, BLA seperatists found and killed, etc. How far could Bin Laden go to hide?
Offline

Meathook

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3304
  • Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

Unread post29 Aug 2006, 03:11

I don't know, but I will admit, he hides very well, shame so many die for his beliefs and madness.

I wish we knew for sure he was there but that is what hunting is all about, playing hide and seek, it would be worth breaking any agreement to get him and his followers in my book, no matter where in the world the hunt needs to take place, there should be no free hiding zones.

IF he is hiding there and this government suspects it but does not allow those looking to search, then they too would be guilty...this concept applies to any country that harbors this killer (I am not saying it is this country but IF it was, then they or whoever, should never be trusted again).

We cant find these terrorists if we cant go looking for them, especially if we have a trade or arms agreement with a particular country, then I think they should open their doors to the "hunt" and join us for the sake of world peace.

But that's just me and I guess my method of justice is out of style, but that close minded position of any government is the problem, your either part of the problem or part of the solution, that's how I feel about it.

See ya.......
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests