Both r multirole fighter / bomber … so which one is better and why ???
both no beter becase only kill peapul!
You should compare it with F-15 which is much more at par with the Sukhoi
Is the Sukhoi a dedicated interceptor like the F15?
F-16s: should we be disappointed?
You’ll have to register to read this article through the link. The writer is an expert on defence issues in Pakistan.
http://www.thefridaytimes.com/inews6a.htm
Dr Ayesha Siddiqa
It was, and would be, a fallacy to imagine that Washington would give Pakistan its top-of-the-line aircraft for nothing
HE FACT THAT PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH has ruled out any immediate sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, making it clear that it will not be a part of a US$3 billion package deal announced for Islamabad, should put paid to earlier unconfirmed reports that Washington might be willing to give Pakistan the newer version of F-16s As and Bs. Interestingly, while these reports cited unnamed Department of Defense officials, Pentagon had denied them. The Pakistan Air Force, equally surprised at the reports, had also declined to comment.
It is an undeniable fact that the PAF is badly in need of modernisation. Its hope to update its fighter aircraft inventory by acquiring 72 additional F-16s in the late 80s was quashed due to the US arms embargo imposed in October 1990. The embargo also affected the supply of spares and other components for the 40 F-16s Pakistan actually held and which were transferred to it in early- to mid-1980s. Unsuccessful in obtaining quality aircraft from anywhere else, the PAF, as well as successive governments in Islamabad, kept pressing Washington to transfer the F-16s for which Pakistan had paid US$658 million. But the chapter closed on the deal when the US finally returned the money during former premier Nawaz Sharif’s second tenure.
This should have meant end of the story. But the subject came up again during General Pervez Musharraf’s first visit to the US following Islamabad’s decision to side with Washington on the latter’s war on terrorism. General Musharraf rightly calculated that procuring the aircraft would increase his importance within his own constituency, the military. The request surprised the Bush administration and most diplomats thought Islamabad’s assessment of rekindled Pakistan-US relations was erroneous. This is why it is surprising that the issue should have come up again, even as a rumour.
But the why may be important.
The possibility of the US signalling to Pakistan cannot be dismissed. Washington has an intricate system of leaking crucial news at the right time primarily to assess the reaction from the other side. Such reports are always denied, but tend to leave a lot of issues and questions in the minds of the other party. For instance, the report on the F-16s certainly set Pakistan’s establishment thinking about how to pave the way for procurement of these aircraft. Furthermore, what more could Pakistan do to please the US enough to ensure delivery of the aircraft.
Could such a deal strengthen Pakistan psychologically to a degree that it decides to silently roll back its nuclear programme? At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to look at what assets does Pakistan have that could be exploited to its benefit in strengthening ties with the US.
The ‘Al-Qaeda’ threat that has been used effectively up until this point is now a fast depleting resource. Capturing terrorists gave Islamabad a certain leverage in negotiating with Washington, but it cannot be relied upon indefinitely. In any case, transferring the F-16s in exchange for Islamabad’s cooperation was never on the cards. What, in fact, surprised the American establishment the first time round was why Pakistan should have seen any similarity between the strategic situation in the 1980s and the conditions prevailing after 9/11 to have expected such a transfer. Moreover, the financial and political support given by Washington to a military-led government was seen as a more than sufficient reward for the help rendered after 2001.
This leaves one with the fundamental question of what could be possibly done to acquire the latest version of the F-16s. Surely, there has been no obvious major change in the dynamics of the bilateral relations for Washington to think of rewarding Pakistan in such a way. Could the US dangle a carrot and suggest to Islamabad that its conventional capabilities could get a substantial boost, hence, eliminating the logic for Pakistan to maintain its nuclear-weapons capability. This option has been tried several times in the past as well from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to General Ziaul Haq. None was prepared to forego Pakistan’s nuclear-weapon capability for conventional goodies.
But while the US may not understand Pakistan’s security concerns enough, Islamabad, too, has to be faulted for imparting the impression that its nuclear capability is India-specific. Perhaps, a de-linking would help in explaining that Islamabad would not be willing to go non-nuclear for a broad range of security concerns.
It was, and would be, a fallacy to imagine that Washington would give Pakistan its top-of-the-line aircraft for nothing. The old aircraft Islamabad had originally paid for, in any case, are obsolete and wouldn’t be worth the effort. However, getting the newer version is a different ballgame. Some might argue that by transferring the F-16s the US could help divert Islamabad’s attention from the technology that would be given directly or indirectly to India. However, Washington is not considering a balancing act in the region, at least not presently. Disturbing the balance of power has never bothered the US in the past, nor is the issue currently a major concern with the Bush administration.
The principle which underpins US’ South Asia policy eschews any linkage between Pakistan and India. This means that Washington would establish relations with both countries without being caught up in the regional conflict. This hardly boosts up the case for Pakistan getting the aircraft even in the future.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
Is the Sukhoi a dedicated interceptor like the F15?
[/QUOTE]
First of all the F-15 is not a dedicated interceptor, but can secondarily assume that role by taking Medium Range Missiles, like the AMRAAM . It is optimized for strike role and air superiority by virtue of having updated avionics, including the F-15's stationed in Alaska possessing the state of the art AESA or Active Electronically Scanned Array radars . You want a dedicated American interceptor, then go for the Northrop Grumman F-14 Tomcat, which carried the specially designed, very long range, $1 million missile, the AIM-54 Phoenix to intercept targets at a very long range . Among the primary targets would have been the Russian Tu-22M Backfire Bombers from the Soviet AVMF squadron . Also, a single Tomcat could carry upto 6 Phoenixes simultaneosly.
The Su-30 MKI can play many roles because of the presence of an advanced radar, named the N011M Bars, which has a long range, is resistant to jamming. The plane has twelve hardpoints, because of which it can carry long range missiles, short range missiles and a multi bomb payload for striking ground targets. In addition to it, it also has Israeli Electronic Warfare equipment, jammers etc. which can be used to electronically attack ground control stations,or GCS/GCI, to disrupt communications. It also carries datalinks, using which it can have a role of a mothership guiding other aircrafts passively towards their unsuspecting targets.
Kiss the F16s Goodbye
Reliance on a country which has repeatedly slapped pakistan with an Arms embargo whenever it no longer needed Pakistan is not healthy, but besides the French what otehr options are available?
Op-ed: Kiss the F-16s goodbye
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2003_pg3_3
Ahmad Faruqui
Like a bad penny, the F-16 issue has turned up at every summit meeting between Pakistan and the US for the past decade. Life would become a lot simpler for both countries if the General turned toward a more reliable supplier who wants Pakistan’s business
To no one’s surprise, the US turned down General Musharraf’s request for the F-16s. The precise number of aircraft that were requested for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is not known, but it is believed to have been between 28 and 71. There were rumours that the Pentagon had already committed to supplying the F-16s prior to Musharraf’s arrival in the US. It was left to President Bush to squash these rumours. At Camp David, he acknowledged that Musharraf was brave enough to ask for the aircraft.
Pakistan’s case for acquiring the F-16 is self-evident. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF), which had a qualitative edge over its Indian counterpart for decades, has fallen woefully behind. If the conventional imbalance of power between Pakistan and India erodes any further, it will raise the risk of nuclear war.
The PAF operates 19 combat squadrons, comprised of some 350 aircraft. The fixed-wing aircraft include aging Mirage III-E and V variants of French origin, several of which have served in the Australian Air Force; Chinese variants of Soviet MiG-19 and MiG-21 aircraft, retrofitted with western avionics and fire control systems; and about 25 F-16s delivered in the 1980s.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) operates 42 combat squadrons, comprised of some 800 aircraft. The IAF inventory bristles with state-of-the art hardware, including Russian MiG-29s (equivalent to F-16s) and SU-30s (equivalent to F-15s), French Mirage 2000s and the Anglo-French Jaguar strike aircraft. A key strength of the IAF is its airlift capability, comprised of 12 fixed-wing aircraft squadrons and 11 helicopter squadrons. India plans to acquire about a 100 British Hawk jet trainers, filling a major gap in its inventory. The Indian Navy also operates 37 fixed-wing combat aircraft and 72 helicopter gunships.
India has equipped nearly two-thirds of its armed forces with Russian hardware. In late 2000, Russia clinched a $3.3 billion deal granting India a license to produce 140 Su-30MKI jet fighters. It is also upgrading the Indian fleet of MiG-21s, with Israeli assistance. In addition, Israel is providing laser-guided bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles and two Elta Green Pine long-range radar systems, a component of the Arrow Ballistic Missile Defence System. India also plans to purchase the S-300V air defence complex from Russia and lease four Tu-22M3 backfire bombers capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Moscow has offered the aircraft carrier, Admiral Gorshkov, with a full complement of carrier-based MiG-29s to India for $500 million.
Most ominously, the US has cleared the sale of the Israeli Phalcon AWACS to India. Reports indicate that three such systems mounted on Russian IL 76 platforms are planned for induction into the IAF. This will represent a quantum leap forward in India’s ability to project power. The Phalcon system is judged to be vastly superior to the Russian Beriev A-50 platform that was previously leased to and operated by the IAF.
The advantage of the IAF over the PAF has increased manifold over the past two decades. This poses a serious threat to Pakistan’s national security, since the IAF is now in a position to impose local and strategic air supremacy within days of the outbreak of hostilities. The experience of the Six Day War in 1967, the Gulf War in 1991 and the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates the pivotal role of air power in modern warfare. The only wars where air power has not been successful are protracted wars in which the weaker side uses guerrilla tactics, such as the wars fought in Vietnam and in Afghanistan against the Soviets.
To bridge the gap with the IAF, the PAF needs 100 frontline fighters. Pakistan should be wary of accepting F-16s from the US, even if they are offered. The original batch of 40 F-16s was designed for use against the Soviets during the Afghan war. Had they been used in a war with India, the US would almost certainly have cut off the supply of spares to Pakistan, like it had done during the September 1965 war. At that time, the mainstay of the PAF was the F-86 Sabre jet. Pakistan had received 120 of these versatile fighters as part of the Military Assistance Program during the 1950s. However, as subsequent documents have revealed, the US never intended Pakistan to use them against India. They were deployed to contain the communist threat from the Soviet Union and China. Once hostilities commenced with India, the US imposed an arms embargo on Pakistan. This had little effect on India, but effectively crippled Pakistan’s ability to carry on with the war.
To avoid an encore performance by the Americans in a future conflict with India, it would be best for Pakistan to seek munitions from another source. What are the options?
China is not an option, since it depends on Russia for the SU-30 strike fighter to counter Taiwan’s F-16s. Domestic production by Pakistan of an aircraft based on Chinese technology is not an economically viable solution. Russia makes a variety of aircraft that would be of interest to Pakistan, but it is unlikely to jeopardise its long-standing ties with India.
Sweden’s Saab JAS-39 Gripen fighter is an attractive option, and is worth pursuing. A more attractive option is France, with whom Pakistan has a long history of military cooperation dating back to the late 1960s. France has provided Mirage III-Es and Vs to Pakistan, Crotale surface-to-air missile batteries and Daphne and Agosta submarines. It has also granted Pakistan a license for the manufacture and export of the missile-capable Agostas.
The French make a variety of exciting fighter aircraft, including the Mirage 2000-5 and the Rafale. Either of these would make an excellent substitute for the F-16s that are unlikely to show up and will be a liability even if they did.
Like a bad penny, the F-16 issue has turned up at every summit meeting between Pakistan and the US for the past decade. After being denied the aircraft at Camp David, President Musharraf said that Pakistan would get them eventually from the US. Life would become a lot simpler for both countries if the General simply kissed the F-16s goodbye, and turned toward a more reliable supplier who wants Pakistan’s business.
Dr Ahmad Faruqui is an economist and author of “Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan”. He can be reached at [email protected]
Re: Kiss the F16s Goodbye
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
Reliance on a country which has repeatedly slapped pakistan with an Arms embargo whenever it no longer needed Pakistan is not healthy, but besides the French what otehr options are available?
[/QUOTE]
There are three options.
1) French Rafale - most likely. Hi-cost, but is not reliant on US components and so could survive a future embargo. Will develop the already critically important Pak-French military equipment ties.
2) Swedish JAS-39 Grippen. Equally good fighter, with the added benefit of having been design to operate from highways (something the PAF is experimenting with). Downside is that the Grippen uses some US components and is thus vulnerable to embargo.
3) Eurofighter - Least likely, most expensive option.
what you saying? why french guverment no embrago also?
To me, the only option for the PAF is the Rafale. That's because it comes from France, a reliable supplier as far as Pakistan is concerned. Also, it has truly cutting edge features which should be good enough to manage the Su-30 MKI threat.
The JAS-39 does not seem to be a probable sale, because of Swedish Arms Export policy. Apart from the fact that it uses American engines, so it is prone to sanctions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomSawyer: *
what you saying? why french guverment no embrago also?
[/QUOTE]
France has never participated in any embargoes against Pakistan, except for not selling nuclear equipment. This is because unlike the USA, France has no laws forbidding sales of military equipment to countries that attempt to develop nuclear arms.
France has always been more than happy to provide Pakistan with any military equipment that Pakistan is willing to pay for.
Re: Re: Kiss the F16s Goodbye
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
2) Swedish JAS-39 Grippen. Equally good fighter, with the added benefit of having been design to operate from highways (something the PAF is experimenting with). Downside is that the Grippen uses some US components and is thus vulnerable to embargo.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any further info on this testing? I was just curious, because I live right next to Chaklala airbase, and am also a frequent visitor to Kamra and Risalpur...
Re: F-16 Fighting Falcon VS SUkhoi-30 MKI FLANKER
The Sukhoi is a Far superior fighter plane than the F-16’s for the simple reason if you paid $700 million for Sukhoi’s then you would have had them by now!
The Pak air Force would not be begging the Russians were are our planes 
Instead the Pak Gov trusted the americans and for the $700 million they getting state of the art killer soya beans what a joke! the indians must be laughing at this incident for years what an embarassment 
mAd_ScIeNtIsT,
- I personally think it is a # game and I would like to see at least 3 sqdron of Mirage2000-9 with more advance subsystems (radar/Avionics) or integrations of some subsystems into mirage from Rafale.
The only reason I don’t want Rafale at this point is because it is brand New, no other Air force/navy has this planes + they are expensive has hell & Pakistan won’t able to at acquire them in high #s, max between 18-24. Rafale are not easy to operate, I think pilot has to wear special gloves, Etc.
Pakistan is not in position to acquire Rafale (60 million Each) but I think Pakistan should be able to afford 40-50 Mirage2000-9 (40 Millions Each), Plus it won’t cost lot of money to train new pilots because Pakistani Pilots are already flying Mirage2000 in UAE airforce.
-
Swedish Grippen might be better deal because they only cost 33 Millions each and it would be great if Pakistan can get some kind of a deal AWACS+ Grippen. But the only downside is Sweden can not guarantee the delivery before 2007.
-
Euro fighter: Forget it; Even if it is cheap Pakistan shouldn’t trust British & Italy. They will hold the supply of spare in any future conflict between Pakistan & India. UK still has not removed all the sanctions on Pakistan. Ask someone from Pak-Navy and they will tell you the whole Enchilada.
Germany has just removed the sanctions, and I would not trust bloody British for Anything, they need more dentist then anyone in the world.
ak47,
You just can’t say that Sukhoi is better the F16s, NO Sir…
Yeah, I agree that SU30MKI is the best plane in South Asia, and off course it is better then Pakistani F16s but F16 Block 60 will kick Indian SU30MKI a$$ any day.
Anyway, I think Pakistan Govt should close the chapter on acquiring new F-16s. Old/Used F-16s still not a bad Idea and USA might even agree to it in the future but right now Pakistan should focus on Super7 & acquiring 4th Level mid-high tech plane from European Country.
India has a strong lobby in Washington and they would not allow America to sell anything high tech to Pakistan, I think Pakistan should take advance of the 3 billion dollar military aid package and buy some stuff they can really use, my suggest would be to acquiring military technology, Radar/Aviation/Electronics, high tech surveillance & UAV tech, Cobra/Super Cobra (AH-1W), Apache, Naval Tech and more.
As far as why Russia is not selling Us anything…
Russian - Pakistan doesn’t have strong relationship and in any conflict they will be favor Indians over Pakistan.
Russians have suggested about forming an alliance between Russia+India+China+Pakistan in 1960s and again in 1996 Russian foreign Minster came and talk to Nawaz Sharef but Nanja didn’t pay any attention. You can’t blame Russian for not willing to sell any AC or any military equipment to Pakistan. They don’t want to upset India because 80% of their military export goes to India.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by earthquake: *
You can't blame Russian for not willing to sell any AC or any military equipment to Pakistan. **They don't want to upset India because 80% of their military export goes to India.*
[/QUOTE]
That not true. China is a bigger buyer of Russian arms hardware as compared to India. I think that you confused it with the fact that till recently 70%+ of India's armaments were of Russian origin.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
France has never participated in any embargoes against Pakistan, except for not selling nuclear equipment.
[/QUOTE]
not quite right. During Kargil conflict, France held back Mirage-V that Pakistan had acquired from Australia & sent to France for refurbishing.
Even though France didn't declare an outright embardo against Pakistan, but in effect it still was an arms embargo and even that came at the crucial time when the tensions were high b/w India & Pakistan and Pakistan badly needed every single airworhth fighter back in its inventory.
The reason Pakistan hasn't seriously explored other options beyond US hardware is cuz of the mentality that prevails in GHQ. Since 50s when US shrouded Pakistan with the so called mutual assitant program, military leadership in Pakistan has developed this mindset where as a natural instinct, almost always they'd look up to US for every major defence related need of the country. Back in 50s, the demand list from Pakistan grew so much so that it even included the basic unfiorms for officers of Pak Army. Thats where one US official had remarked "these Pakistanis won't let go of any chance to rip us off"
The situation would not improve until & unless those retarded brains in GHQ break out of this shell of insecurity and dependence on US. There are tons of other venus for them to explore. The way it works in international arms market in Europe is that you carry cash in one hand & a shopping list in other. You show 'em the money and they'll provide whatever you want, trick lies in how you play your card tactfully so that these arms manufacturing companies themselve pressure their respective governments to let the arms sell go through. Its sad that successive governments in Pakistan had had no money for PAF but continued to spend most lavishly for useless purposes.