Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7558
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby nachiket » 06 May 2012 15:11

Ajay Sharma wrote:^^
Flamethrowers were fairly effective in 1971 war. That was something that really soiled many salwars. Psyched out the pakis since they wouldn't be in pristine condition when they met their 72 :lol:

How do you get close enough to a bunker housing one or more machine gun nests, to fire the flamethrower?

hailinfreq
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 21:27

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby hailinfreq » 06 May 2012 15:18

How do you get close enough to a bunker housing one or more machine gun nests, to fire the flamethrower?

See video:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby rohitvats » 06 May 2012 15:27

PA is in the process of enlarging and establishing forward cantonments in the area south of Bahawalpur. They rightly perceive that main Indian mechanized assault is expected in this sector. All this effort at fortification is to delay the results in case of implementation of CSD - these fortifications are expected to delay the initial Indian response and give time to local formations.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7558
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby nachiket » 06 May 2012 15:44

hailinfreq wrote:
How do you get close enough to a bunker housing one or more machine gun nests, to fire the flamethrower?

See video:

They mention the same limitation of range in thst video as well. Their solution was to put the flamethrowers on tanks pulling a huge fuel buggy behind them. We don't have anything like that. And I don't think that is feasible these days either, especially with the proliferation of portable anti-tank missiles in the PA.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Brando » 06 May 2012 16:55

Ajay Sharma wrote:^^
Flamethrowers were fairly effective in 1971 war. That was something that really soiled many salwars. Psyched out the pakis since they wouldn't be in pristine condition when they met their 72 :lol:


The Flamethrower is a crude and barbaric weapon. It has questionable effectiveness and is dangerous to field in any suitable numbers. For every video demonstrating a flamethrower's "effectiveness", there are 5 videos that demonstrate what happened to a soldier strapped with a giant zippo on his back when struck by enemy fire - he lights up like a Roman candle!

No modern Army is going to field that monstrosity any time soon as its far easier and cleaner to use RPG's and artillery. Further today war is as much about "public opinion" as it is about fighting and using flamethrowers is going to be extremely damaging politically.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_22906 » 06 May 2012 17:52

^^

Err... Pls then tell me your list of "politically correct" waepons that can be certified by the Human Rights Commission, Jholawalas, etc etc etc...

Flamethrowers are not the end all but one of the choices you have. They dont and cannot substitute the other weapons that were being discussed, but give a local commander the freedom of a choice based on scenarios. That was precisely the case in 1971.

Having said that it surely has a big psychological advantage over the enemy and in many cases facilitated a faster surrender at the local field level.

Don't have the links right now (will need to dig), but even in Kargil, the Pakis suspected the Indian side to have used chemicals in the last few days of mop up operations based on the discoloration of the bodies. We ofcourse denied it

Frankly speaking, we should always have the right of using any and every weapon that gives us an advantage (other than perhaps the NBC variety)

Avik
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Avik » 06 May 2012 18:52

Flamethrowers were fairly effective in 1971 war.


Ajay: Do you have any link, photo, any reference that flamethrowers were used in 1971?


Don't have the links right now (will need to dig), but even in Kargil, the Pakis suspected the Indian side to have used chemicals in the last few days of mop up operations based on the discoloration of the bodies.


BTW, the above doesnt imply that we used flamethrowers

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_22906 » 06 May 2012 20:01

^^
Avik: No, don't have any links but surely got to know this from my Dad who fought in 1971 in the western sector (Punjab)

For Kargil I wasnt referring to flamethrowers but supposed use of chemical weapons

Avik
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Avik » 06 May 2012 20:21

^^^^

Ajay: The IA has never used flamethrowers. In 1971 specifically, on both the eastern and western fronts, napalm was dropped by the IAF. That led to fire related casualties on the Paki side. Flamethrowers- never.

In Kargil again, the chemical traces that were noticed in post mortem of corpses was because of the density of fire brought down on specific targets, and the subsequent melting of metal fragments from older rounds when new arty fire were brought down on the same target The Paki version of chemical weapons is pure BS

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36409
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby SaiK » 06 May 2012 21:28

chemical weapons would not be the option.. other wise we could dispatch smoke bombs and rat poison smokes.

btw, that reminds me of DRDO's bomb made out of mirch? we can rain them mirch bombs, and spice them out... and then rain them with regular long range shells.

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_22906 » 06 May 2012 22:47

Avik: Will recheck and confirm to you. Give me a couple of days...

member_22906
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_22906 » 06 May 2012 22:58

Some links on the Paki accusation about India using chemical weapons in Kargil

http://www.indianexpress.com/Storyold/103747/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/cw.htm
In June 1999 there were published allegations that India had used or was planning to use chemical weapons against the Mujahideen and Pakistani army elements fighting at the Kashmir border. Former Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence chief Gen.(retd) Hamid Gul [who had opposed Pakistani ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention] said that Mujahideen had captured a very sensitive posts at Kargil and that there were clear chances that India would use chemical weapons against the Mujahideen. Despite published reports of evidence that India had shifted chemical weapons and to the Kashmir theater, claims of the use of lethal or non-lethal chemical agents remain unconfirmed.


Now before someone jumps the gun and accuses me of spreading Paki propoganda, I have clearly stated earlier that India had rejected these allegations. IIRC, the Paki allegation was based on the skin discoloration of the bodies of the NLI soldiers returned by India to them

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3786
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby saip » 06 May 2012 23:07

^^
How much reliance can you place on an allegation from that idiot Gul? After all he was lying in that same sentence about 'mujahideen' knowing full well that it was the Pakistani Army that was fighting in Kargil. If he lies once he could be lying about chemical weapons too.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Brando » 06 May 2012 23:30

Ajay Sharma wrote:Don't have the links right now (will need to dig), but even in Kargil, the Pakis suspected the Indian side to have used chemicals in the last few days of mop up operations based on the discoloration of the bodies. We ofcourse denied it

Frankly speaking, we should always have the right of using any and every weapon that gives us an advantage (other than perhaps the NBC variety)


The use of Chemicals weapons would be a "war crime" as India is one of the earliest signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Pakistani allegations if true could have involved the Hague to investigate but as such they were unsubstantiated.

No, the excuse that "war" gives somebody the "right" to use ANY weapons that gives them the advantage is erroneous and outright criminal in some cases if it causes needless civilian casualties or goes against established conventions. (See Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons that India is a signatory to. ) India being a responsible nation has obligations even in war and military commanders MUST NOT recognize any orders that contravene the Geneva Convention or the Rules of War 1912 according to most uniform codes of military justice.

hailinfreq
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 21:27

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby hailinfreq » 06 May 2012 23:35

Avik: Flamethowers seem to be a part of the Indian Army inventory.

4.5 Flame throwers

To meet urgent requirement of the weapon for operations, Army HQ proposed in June 1999 procurement of 600 disposable flame throwers. The proposal also indicated that 600 more flame throwers were required under the ninth Army plan.

In response to Ministry’s enquiries KBP Tula Russia offered (June 1999) to supply the weapon at unit rate of US $ 3600 for an order of 600 throwers and at the rate of US $ 3500 for an order of 1200 numbers.

Ministry urgently concluded a contract in June 1999 for 1200 flame throwers at US $ 3500 each with delivery schedule in two lots of 600 pieces each aggregating US $ 4.2 million equivalent to Rs 18.22 crore by two months from the date of signing of the contract.

Audit scrutiny revealed that a delegation of the Army witnessed a live demonstration of the weapon conducted by the firm as early as in September 1995. In its evaluation report, the delegation had observed, among other things, that target engagement could not be analysed beyond 350 metres vis a vis the 1000 metres range claimed by the firm in its technical offer, the firing could be conducted only during day light as no night-sight device was developed and “the terminal effect could not also be assessed as there was no incendiary effect”. The Scientific Adviser to RM had also brought to the notice of the Defence Secretary ( November 1995) that the DRDO representative in the delegation had reported that during the demonstration of September 1995, 14 weapons were fired at a range of 200 metres and none of the shots hit the targets at that range. However, the delegation recommended procurement of the weapon only as a one time buy, suggesting future requirement be met from indigenous source by its development and production. Accordingly 300 flame throwers were procured in September 1996 as a one time buy.

Against these recommendations of the delegation, the Ministry at the instance of Army Headquarters decided to go ahead with further procurement of flame throwers at a total cost of Rs 18.22 crore even though it did not meet operational requirement. The delivery commenced only after August 1999 thereby being non - available during the operation.


Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/articlefullwidth.aspx?213999#4.5

Here is a report of a relatively recent use (2001)

A senior Indian Army official announced in Jammu that the Indian artillery shelling had destroyed 11 Pakistani posts. An Army spokesman said that the Indian forces used rockets, mortars, flame-throwers, grenade-launchers and machine guns during the operations.


Source: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1822/18221210.htm

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3421
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya G » 07 May 2012 00:00

Erm, this is what a "flame thrower" looks like in today's army:

Meet the Shmel:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69/70x94i.jpg/

Image

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby abhischekcc » 07 May 2012 00:22

Brando wrote:The Flamethrower is a crude and barbaric weapon.


That is why it should be used against crude and barbaric pakis.

There is a religious injunction in Islam against burning a corpse - those guys are mortally scared of being burnt to death, or even after death. We should make sure all of them are burnt, before or after death is optional. :lol:

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby ArmenT » 07 May 2012 01:10

Brando wrote:The Flamethrower is a crude and barbaric weapon. It has questionable effectiveness and is dangerous to field in any suitable numbers. For every video demonstrating a flamethrower's "effectiveness", there are 5 videos that demonstrate what happened to a soldier strapped with a giant zippo on his back when struck by enemy fire - he lights up like a Roman candle!

No modern Army is going to field that monstrosity any time soon as its far easier and cleaner to use RPG's and artillery. Further today war is as much about "public opinion" as it is about fighting and using flamethrowers is going to be extremely damaging politically.

Flamethrowers are no longer the same device as that shown in World War II. For one thing, the World War II device was highly inefficient and really wasted a lot of fuel getting to the target. Also, the image of a soldier's tank getting hit and the soldier lighting up is largely a Hollywood myth. Fact is that even in World War II era flamethrowers, the tanks were filled with a non-flammable gas fuel and they needed a special magnesium igniter to just light it. Shooting a flamethrower tank is like shooting a vehicle's gas tank: Hollywood would have you believe that it will explode into a giant ball of flame. Mythbusters proved that this was not the case, unless you use special incendiary bullets. It is the same situation with flamethrower gas tanks as well -- the fuel will generally leak out of the hole unless the bullet is an incendiary type specially designed to ignite the target.

New generation of flamethrowers don't have a stream of flame coming out any more, because that is a waste of fuel and it is also too short ranged. Instead, newer generations of flamethrowers like the RPO (Shmel) shoot out a container of incendiary materials towards the target. The container ignites when it strikes the target. That way, there is no fuel wastage between the user and the target and the range of the weapon can also be higher.

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4409
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Mahendra » 07 May 2012 02:26

Ajay Sharma wrote:Some links on the Paki accusation about India using chemical weapons in Kargil

http://www.indianexpress.com/Storyold/103747/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/cw.htm
In June 1999 there were published allegations that India had used or was planning to use chemical weapons against the Mujahideen and Pakistani army elements fighting at the Kashmir border. Former Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence chief Gen.(retd) Hamid Gul [who had opposed Pakistani ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention] said that Mujahideen had captured a very sensitive posts at Kargil and that there were clear chances that India would use chemical weapons against the Mujahideen. Despite published reports of evidence that India had shifted chemical weapons and to the Kashmir theater, claims of the use of lethal or non-lethal chemical agents remain unconfirmed.


Now before someone jumps the gun and accuses me of spreading Paki propoganda, I have clearly stated earlier that India had rejected these allegations. IIRC, the Paki allegation was based on the skin discoloration of the bodies of the NLI soldiers returned by India to them


Pakistanis are fair. Indians are dark
Pakistanis when they cross into India become dark and discoloured

BTW Where does NLI come into the picture? The intruders in Kargil were Mujahideen!
I wonder why this allegation from a nation of liars, charlatans and inbreeding scum is being discussed here

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby shiv » 07 May 2012 08:34

abhischekcc wrote:
Brando wrote:The Flamethrower is a crude and barbaric weapon.


That is why it should be used against crude and barbaric pakis.

There is a religious injunction in Islam against burning a corpse - those guys are mortally scared of being burnt to death, or even after death. We should make sure all of them are burnt, before or after death is optional. :lol:


Naah these caste riddled Pakis are SDREs at heart. That is why they must be cremated.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2540
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby darshhan » 07 May 2012 19:45

Flame throwers might be obsolete/clumsy for modern warfare needs but surely we can use thermobaric warheads/Fuel air explosive.This will have the same effect as flamethrowers along with additional blast pressure.The advantage is that you get to shoot them at standoff ranges relative to flamethrowers.

By the way does Carl gustavs come with a thermobaric warhead ?

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2540
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby darshhan » 07 May 2012 19:54

Aditya G wrote:Erm, this is what a "flame thrower" looks like in today's army:

Meet the Shmel:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/69/70x94i.jpg/



This comes with a thermobaric projectile.Check out the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybpr3g0v7_8

Truly a terrifying weapon.If I were a warrior and my enemies were equipped with this weapon , I would never forget to take a bag of painkillers to the battle.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2540
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby darshhan » 07 May 2012 19:58

Here is the wikipedia link on this weapon system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A

The RPO-A "Shmel" (Rus. "РПО-А Шмель") ("Bumblebee") is a man-portable rocket launcher although it is classified as a flamethrower (Rus. Реактивный Пехотный Огнемет) by the manufacturer, KBM, Kolomna.

The "Shmel" is designed, produced and exported by Russia and the former Soviet Union. It entered service with the Soviet Armed Forces at the end of the 1980s as the successor for the RPO "Rys".

Description

The RPO-A is a single-shot, self-contained tube shaped launcher which operates much like some RPG and LAW rocket launchers. The launcher is a sealed tube, carried in a man-pack in pairs. The same person can remove the tube, place it in firing position, and launch the weapon without assistance. After launch, the tube is discarded. All models are externally similar.
Ammunition

Each weapon contains a single rocket, of which there are three varieties. The basic rocket is the RPO-A, which has a thermobaric warhead and is designed for attacking soft targets under moderate cover. The RPO-Z is the incendiary warhead (Rus. зажигательный) designed to spread fire and ignite targets. Finally, there is a smoke-producing warhead (Rus. дымовой) offered, the RPO-D.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2323
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby VinodTK » 08 May 2012 07:55

Taliban beheads 13 Pakistan soldiers
The Taliban killed 14 security personnel and beheaded all but one of them before displaying the heads of two soldiers on wooden poles in the lawless North Waziristan tribal region of Pakistan, security officials said today.

Nine soldiers were beheaded yesterday when militants overran a security picket in Miranshah, the main town of North Waziristan Agency. The Taliban had been firing at the picket for the past few days, the military said.

Authorities later found the beheaded bodies of the soldiers, security officials were quoted as saying by the local media.

Five soldiers were captured by militants when the military raided a house in Miranshah last night. They were later killed and four of them were beheaded. The heads of two soldiers were hung on poles in Miranshah and the bodies were dumped in the local market.

During the raid, the troops killed a Taliban commander and several other militants. The military said troops had inflicted heavy casualties among the rebels.

Security forces imposed a curfew and targeted militant positions with helicopter gunships, killing about 30 rebels.

Three houses and a mosque were also hit during the air strikes, killing three civilians and injuring 20 others.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3421
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya G » 09 May 2012 20:45

Pakistan Maritime security agency info + fleet:

http://www.indianmilitaryhistory.org/cp ... Agency.pdf

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Austin » 13 May 2012 16:18

Just came across this tweet

CombatAir Pakistani Mirage 5 crashed today soon after taking off from Masroor Air Base in Karachi. Both the pilots managed to eject. #Pakistan

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1844
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby eklavya » 13 May 2012 18:34

Given the age of their Mirage III/V fleet (original and 2nd hand), engine/airframe life and spare parts must be a real issue.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Singha » 14 May 2012 09:05

they skimp of paying the french for OEM brand new parts by using the 50+ mothballed libyan AF mirages they purchased for cannibalization.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1598
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby andy B » 14 May 2012 10:23

GD dont forget they also got lots of mirages from their gora paki RAAF bretheren too!
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&s ... uVLdKnUCn0

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby rohitvats » 14 May 2012 11:14

^^^There was a time when I had tabulated each Mirage squadron in PAF, the type of aircraft it operated, origin of those aircraft and which country supplied how much 2nd hand mirages to PAF...all lost when the hard drive crahsed. :((

That aside, PAF purchased lot of 2nd hand Mirages to cannibalize for spares from west and Arabian countries.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1598
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby andy B » 14 May 2012 11:23

^^^ Why am I not suprised that joo would have that sort of data collated together hain :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

jokes aside would be interesting to see if you could find it....IIRC they got some 50 odd mirages in the 90s from the RAAF ex stock and possibly some more before that.

I actually admire their approach with the mirages...i think we can learn a thing or two from these buggers about maximising bang for ze buck with frugal resources....bliss to not bash me merely stating my view.

Also having said the above I know that the IAF does a great job with maximising its own resources too case in point being the sutlej fleet and the jag fleets

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Singha » 14 May 2012 11:40

its somewhat unknown what is the uptime, sortie rate intensity of their Mirage fleet and how well they would hold up under a 3-week war deployment. even pak posters say on open forums that the Mirages are worn out.

that being said, I fully expect similar war intensity issues in our Mig27, Bison and older Jaguar fleet. and likewise Cheen's effective numbers will be much less than on paper, they are even more opaque wrt to training cycles, peacetime sortie rates and so on...

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Samay » 14 May 2012 15:53


what is this bs :evil:
seems like one could publish anything in the name of freedom ..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby shiv » 14 May 2012 16:18

Samay wrote:

what is this bs :evil:
seems like one could publish anything in the name of freedom ..


Hey that's new from 50 years ago. 1962.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4296
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Cain Marko » 17 May 2012 04:57

andy B wrote:^^^ Why am I not suprised that joo would have that sort of data collated together hain :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

jokes aside would be interesting to see if you could find it....IIRC they got some 50 odd mirages in the 90s from the RAAF ex stock and possibly some more before that.

I actually admire their approach with the mirages...i think we can learn a thing or two from these buggers about maximising bang for ze buck with frugal resources....bliss to not bash me merely stating my view.

Also having said the above I know that the IAF does a great job with maximising its own resources too case in point being the sutlej fleet and the jag fleets


Well Andy San, they have found more innovative ways to "maximise" their resources. Wonder what Gilani offered? Freehand in POK?

China gives Pak 50 fighters

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Anujan » 17 May 2012 07:17

^^^

That is BS. Dont believe anything Pakis say. In late 2011, early 2012 Pakis were involved in a Psy-Ops against the US which went along the lines of "If you dont give us money, we will Proxytute ourselves to China" This was part of it. This is what really happened:

Anujan wrote:
The original cost of the project was expected to be $1 billion (Pakistan hoped to manufacture 250 JF-17s). As part of this new agreement, Pakistan obtained a loan, again from CATIC, at an interest rate of 7% to purchase these aircraft in 2008. The terms of this loan were excessive, given the world economic crisis and the fact that Pakistan had just entered into another loan agreement with CATIC at a considerable price for an aviation system. As a result, Pakistan was compelled to sign the purchase agreement with CATIC on March 18, 2009, at a final price of $10 billion.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11858
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya_V » 17 May 2012 11:58

and that $10 Billion is for only 150 planes

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby koti » 17 May 2012 13:06

Four PAF Pilots Die in an accident
RIP.
I wan not sure what this meant though.
Another police official, Hayatullah, who uses only one name, confirmed the casualties.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10025
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby sum » 17 May 2012 13:57

Another police official, Hayatullah, who uses only one name

:rotfl: :rotfl:
Benis material stuff!!

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Nick_S » 18 May 2012 09:17

100 bhages up.

Time for new thread.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests