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.
Naidu
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Aug 2001 11:31
Location: New Joisey, USA

Postby Naidu » 04 Apr 2008 02:36

Isn't it a bit fishy that this little birdie is in generic manufacturer's colors and not in PAF trim? It looks like what you'd take to an airshow, not something that is ready to be operationalized.

What are these Pakis up to?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 04 Apr 2008 07:10

Their procurement procedures are very quick compared to Indian's, I think that is possible for them because decision making is highly centralized, oversight is non-existent, strategy has single focus and options to choose from are limited.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 04 Apr 2008 10:53

Naidu wrote:Isn't it a bit fishy that this little birdie is in generic manufacturer's colors and not in PAF trim? It looks like what you'd take to an airshow, not something that is ready to be operationalized.

What are these Pakis up to?


Spoken like a true BRFite.

However, the fact of the matter is exactly as what Katare has stated it to be: the Indian Procurement system is screwed up.

It has been eight years since the Phalcon deal, and we still wait for the first aircraft. The Erieye deal was supposed to have been a response to the Phalcon deal, and yet it is we who are now facing a game of catch up with the PAF. :evil:

And yeah, the response to the above statement will include stuff along the lines of "The Phalcon deal needed more work..." and so forth, but with deal after deal for the Indian Armed forces failing to generate results, and more investigations into procurements than actual deliveries, that assessment does not hold water.

FYI: the PLAAF has recently activated a IOC Squadron of six KJ-2000s.

We are in for some interesting times...

Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

New toy: Is it for the PAF?

Postby Abhibhushan » 04 Apr 2008 11:05

Reference the picture above posted by Don.

I find that apart from the CAS, all other members of the team seem to be wearing Army badges of rank. Amongst them three are wearing a flying badge of one type and another three of a different type. Three of the officers also seem to be paratroopers. The flying badge on the chest of the CAS is different from the other badges. Are these officers from the Army Aviation Corps? Will the AEW task be taken over by Army Avition? Interesting thoughts.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 04 Apr 2008 11:11

Delivery is in 2009 while phalcon will be delivered in late 2008

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 04 Apr 2008 11:13

phalcon will be delivered in late 2008


we hope...

CPrakash
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 04 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Mahboobnagar

Re: New toy: Is it for the PAF?

Postby CPrakash » 04 Apr 2008 11:27

Abhibhushan wrote:Reference the picture above posted by Don.

I find that apart from the CAS, all other members of the team seem to be wearing Army badges of rank. Amongst them three are wearing a flying badge of one type and another three of a different type. Three of the officers also seem to be paratroopers. The flying badge on the chest of the CAS is different from the other badges. Are these officers from the Army Aviation Corps? Will the AEW task be taken over by Army Avition? Interesting thoughts.


I remember the PAF had swtiched their ranks from the RAF style (like us) to the Army Style. I dont know the flying badges part of it.

Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Postby Don » 04 Apr 2008 13:10

Katare wrote:Their procurement procedures are very quick compared to Indian's, I think that is possible for them because decision making is highly centralized, oversight is non-existent, strategy has single focus and options to choose from are limited.


Its not entirely Indian procurement procedure. The Russkies are playing up to their reputation again.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/syste ... _1_n.shtml
India prepares for significant delay on Phalcon programme

21 November 2007

India's USD1.5 billion contract to mount Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)-made Phalcon airborne early warning radars on three Ilyushin IL-76 A-50 heavy transport aircraft has been significantly delayed, official sources said.

Defence officials conceded that a delay in the delivery of the first Phalcon airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform to the Indian Air Force (IAF) by nearly a year to September 2008 was another example of Russia's growing list of delays in supplying military equipment to India.

Consequently, the induction of the remaining two AEW&C aircraft to the IAF in September 2008 and March 2009, in accordance with the three-year-old agreement with the IAI, has now been deferred to April 2009 and August 2010 respectively.

An IAF spokesman in New Delhi declined to comment on the delays.

Official sources said the delay was due to Russia's inability to upgrade the three IL-76s in time, a programme that includes strengthening their airframes and equipping them with more powerful engines.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Postby Igorr » 04 Apr 2008 13:30

Don wrote:Official sources said the delay was due to Russia's inability to upgrade the three IL-76s in time, a programme that includes strengthening their airframes and equipping them with more powerful engines.
Interesting, but very strange, bcz in 1999-2000 I personally saw many times one Il-76 with radome near Bney-Brak (Israel) waiting for radar installation. At least one plane then was ready for delivery, but US have opposited for transfer to China. Whether they changed its spec, I dont know.

Even more strange, that they whote here, the first Indian A-50 was already transferred to Israel: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0 ... startid=17

satya
BRFite
Posts: 717
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

TSPA's declining inventory levels ?

Postby satya » 04 Apr 2008 17:43

http://nightwatch.afcea.org/NightWatch_20080403.htm

Quoting in full:

[quote]The president’s office announced that Musharraf will travel to China on 10 April. The Chief of the Naval Staff has been in Beijing since Monday and met Defense Minister Liang Guanglie.



The Swiss government on Thursday reauthorized arms exports to Pakistan, saying it saw “positiveâ€

Naidu
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Aug 2001 11:31
Location: New Joisey, USA

Postby Naidu » 04 Apr 2008 20:46

Katare wrote:Their procurement procedures are very quick compared to Indian's, I think that is possible for them because decision making is highly centralized, oversight is non-existent, strategy has single focus and options to choose from are limited.


I wasn't comparing their procurement process to IAF's. Just that it was strange to be taking delivery of their new plane in non-PAF colors.

Is the aircraft really ready for delivery or was the PAF chief in Sweden to make sure that his "investment" is not canceled prematurely by the new Gilly government in Isloo? Was he there to create facts on the ground, ie, taking delivery of at least one aircraft and making a payment, so that the new govt has no chance to interfere?

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby arun » 05 Apr 2008 09:31

Presumably this refers to launch on April 7, 2008 as the keel was reportedly laid on July 25, 2007 (LINK)..

Starkly brings home the lethargy of India’s naval shipbuilding programme :oops: :

China to build frigates for Pakistan

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Postby Jaeger » 05 Apr 2008 14:39

I wouldn't be too worried abt the surface fleet... BTW, here's an old TFT article:

Dr Ayesha Siddiqa

The pn lacks clarity in planning and tends to go for equipment mainly because it is being offered without considering the strategic significance of the acquisition or its long-term impact on the growth of the service



HE RECENT STATEMENT BY NAVAL Chief, Admiral Shahid Karimullah, pointing to the need to revise the country’s maritime policies is a cry in the dark. He is of course right in trying to draw the attention of military planners to the geopolitical and structural changes in the region. But his cry is unlikely to make much difference due to Army’s predominant control of military-strategic planning. The generals, with their land-oriented approach, have never understood maritime issues nor would they appreciate the significance of a strong naval defense. This is a predicament the Pakistan Navy has always encountered through the fifty years of the country’s existence. Pakistan has had a navy but it has still to find a role for it, primarily because of the absence of a comprehensive military strategy and a joint services planning culture.

Within the existing military security culture of the country the conflict in Kashmir is of prime importance for policymakers. This entails, according to the generals, strengthening the ground forces. They have never appreciated the fact that with a strong naval force the adversary could easily outmaneuver the Pakistan Army. For the time being, the Indian Navy might not be in a position to do so due to its strategic and operational planning inefficiencies, but the fact remains that the more New Delhi concentrates on strengthening its navy, the tougher it would get even for the Pakistan Army.

Reminiscing from 1971, Pakistan would have been in a better position to defend itself had it not let loose its army on East Pakistan’s population and invested in a stronger naval defense that was the only way of keeping the two wings better connected.

In his statement, the naval chief tried to draw the generals’ attention towards developments such as the potential significance of the Gwadar port. While the new port would end Pakistan’s predicament of the constant fear of the single-port and naval base at Karachi being blockaded by India, this development also entails certain serious future challenges for which Islamabad has to plan now. For sure, the Gwadar port’s development, especially with assistance from China and the access this would provide to Beijing’s sea traffic, has drawn New Delhi’s attention. In a recent statement, the Indian naval chief alluded to the foothold the Gawadar port would give to the Chinese. Such development, in his view, would add to the existing problem for India of Chinese influence in Burma. Hence, he stressed the need to add to India’s aircraft carrier fleet.

The intention is to buy a larger Admiral Gorshkov class carrier from Moscow. Such technological acquisitions would fall in line with current Indian plans to extend its naval outreach in the Indian Ocean. Within the past couple of years, the Indian Navy (IN) has conducted exercises in the South China Sea, and joint exercises with a number of navies, including US, Russian and French navies. Important naval powers do recognise a role for the IN, especially since it is the only navy with some significant size and is clearly making efforts to develop a blue-water capability. Such capability would help counter the Chinese naval strength. Thus, foreign navies see IN’s growth as investment in the future.

The Indian naval chief might have been trying to convince his leadership to attend to the Indian Navy’s needs; a service that does not enjoy the same significance in India as the other two services, but the fact remains that the entry of China into this part of the Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea) would result in greater pressure on Indian planners. Of course, this should be no reason for Pakistan to abandon its cooperation with Beijing, but it does need to review the emerging threats that would require a more proactive approach towards national and military-strategic planning for the future.

Such planning would demand clarity in thinking and systematic planning at both the strategic and operational levels, especially when it comes to capital investment by the government. For instance, Islamabad will have to think carefully about its overall maritime policy and attend to the issues of solving the problem of an undefined maritime boundary. Unfortunately, the issue of maritime boundary is linked with the Sir Creek dispute that, in turn, has always been held hostage to the Kashmir issue. The other essential matter is to invest in maritime and naval technology. Presently, Pakistan’s merchant navy’s state is as poor as that of its navy

However, this second option reminds one of the problems the government has traditionally had with naval acquisitions. The Pakistan Navy is reputed for mismanaging its procurement and wasting money, particularly in kickbacks. One would not really blame the military establishment for such views because the PN was given sufficient space for modernization during the entire 1990s when it was the only service that signed three deals, which was more than what the other two services had asked for during that period.

Part of the problem is that the PN lacks clarity in planning and tends to go for equipment mainly because it is being offered without considering the strategic significance of the acquisition or its long-term impact on the growth of the service. For instance, the British Type-21 frigates were procured despite the fact that planners at the Naval Headquarters (NHQ) were divided on the decision. The core incentive behind that acquisition was the kickbacks and the apprehension that this was the only opportunity to obtain some equipment.

Sadly enough, the PN is about to make a similar mistake through the acquisition of the F-22P frigate from China which has been allowed by Islamabad under a transfer-of-technology arrangement. Notwithstanding the observation that the deal has not been debated by parliament, one wonders if the PN has carefully thought about what would these ships add to its overall capacity. It is worth noting that the deal, which would cost Pakistan about US $ 600 million, is problematic due to the technology under consideration. As reported in reputable international publications, the Thai Navy, on which the ships were thrust, had to dock its F-22s on arrival to improve on poor shipbuilding standards and enhance the vessels’ damage control capability. Reports indicate that technological problems were also pointed out by several PN sources that were ignored by the top management for fear that any delays from the Pakistani side would result in cancellation of the government’s approval.

Since the negotiations for this ship have been going on for more than ten years, there are also rumors of kickbacks that might explain the reasons for the PN not considering other sources offering better technology at comparable prices. Reportedly, the initial cost of acquisition would not include the cost of de-gaussing, missiles, helicopters, ammunition and tactical software that would be provided through a separate contract. A similar practice was also followed in the Agosta deal where certain critical parts were bought through a separate contract.

Equally problematic is the TOT deal that would, in fact, increase the cost without any meaningful dividends for the service. Like the French minehunters and submarines, two of the three ships would be constructed at the Karachi Shipyards and Engineering Works (KSEW). The idea is to develop a capability that could be used later to construct frigates for sale. Such a concept ignores three facts. First, by the time the PN would be finished with the construction of its fourth ship around 2014/15, the technology would be too old for it to attract any buyer. Second, given Pakistan’s past experience with TOT potential buyers would be discouraged from procuring ships from Pakistan that has limited technological capacity to make such ships. Third, myriad management problems at KSEW would prevent the venture from being cost-effective. The mismanagement of the organization is of the nature and its financial liabilities of the scale that it would require about Rs 700 million to make it functional.

Clearly, the cost factor is not a priority with military managers that believe in strengthening military security at all costs. However, this is the time for the political and military leadership to carefully review alternatives and devise a strategy. Making a service happy by getting ‘toys for the boys’ is an approach Pakistan can ill-afford at this juncture. Perhaps, it would be feasible to bring the issue before parliament for discussion.


now i would be REALLY worried if they decided to reduce surface fleet to patrol boats & auxilaries, while stocking up on 12-15 subs. Not likely, but then again i am SDRE onlee, unable to combrehend baki tactical djinni-ass onlee....

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Postby ranganathan » 05 Apr 2008 15:21

THe F-22P's might be a crappy frigate but it was started around the same time as P-28's. So hows the progress on the P-28's.

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Postby soutikghosh » 08 Apr 2008 03:32


ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Postby ranganathan » 08 Apr 2008 06:25

IT looks nothing like what the pakis were crowing about. Its not even stealthy or modern. Somehow I get the feeling that the greek elli purchase would have given them superior ships. But the PAF and PN are always scrapping at the bottom of the barrel.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 08 Apr 2008 07:02

Unkil donated 6 AN/TPS-77 radars to TISP to combat 'drug traffickers'. :evil:

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 08 Apr 2008 07:20

Hmm. Old news. Pakistan is the terrorist incubator .. more than Iraq.

[quote]The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 8, 2008
Fears of Iraq Becoming a Terrorist Incubator Seem Overblown, French Say
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS — After the Paris police smashed a cell suspected of sending insurgents to Iraq early in 2005, French authorities predicted a new and dangerous threat: young Muslims lured to the Iraqi battlefields who would return, radicalized, to use their newfound battlefield skills in terrorist acts inside France.

Dominique de Villepin, then the interior minister, singled out the cell in a speech two months later as proof of a risk that Iraqi-trained jihadists would “come back to France, armed with their experience, to carry out attacks.â€

satya
BRFite
Posts: 717
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Postby satya » 11 Apr 2008 18:53

Will Pukees be allowed to have SLBM or SLCM option?

looking for opinion.

TIA

derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Postby derkonig » 11 Apr 2008 19:25

satya wrote:Will Pukees be allowed to have SLBM or SLCM option?

looking for opinion.

TIA


depends if empelol hu can spare a few from his junkyards err... PLAN bases

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Postby ranganathan » 11 Apr 2008 19:36

Too risky for the chinks. Unkil can get access to them if he wants.

satya
BRFite
Posts: 717
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Postby satya » 11 Apr 2008 20:20

Too risky for the chinks. Unkil can get access to them if he wants

Will Unkil allow a crazy TSPian ( judging by tht article written by rtd. commodore of TSPN) on sea voyage with crown jewels ?
I think tht's the main issue. If crown jewels are wht Unkil & co. after then its the rubicon for TSPians to have them on sub or even in sea.

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Postby soutikghosh » 11 Apr 2008 23:37


soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Postby soutikghosh » 11 Apr 2008 23:38


SShah
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 11:25
Location: California

Postby SShah » 12 Apr 2008 04:18

soutikghosh wrote:First Pakistani Saab AEW&C
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... p?t=132125


Just shoot 'um down with BVRs as soon as they are noticed withing the range from inside the LOC. :twisted:

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

Postby shiv » 12 Apr 2008 07:00

Just a little reminder folks.

I admit that most Indians cannot avoid looking at a procurement that Pakistan has done and then compare with a similar item that India has procured or wants to procure and then complain about delays and Indian inefficiency. Ironically Pakistanis do exactly the same comparison and boast of Pakistani efficiency.

But I believe some important detail is being lost when these comparisons are made. Indian procurement has always been based on a deep civilizational fear of getting screwed by the seller nation - all of whom have screwed India time and time again. India has typically tried to dovetail and match its purchases to its industrial manufacturing capacity so as to be able to source components from India. This ability has gradually improved over decades - but has lagged behind the advanced tech that we have no option but buy.

Pakistani procurement policy has been that of a rentier state and they will pay for and buy what is readily available or sell themselves to get something as aid. That makes them an instant threat. But that threat does not translate into a deep and longstanding ability to fight a war to defeat and take India down which used to be their main aim. Pakistani belief was that a short sharp raid by well armed Ghazis and Ghoris would send India running and therefore Pakistani purchases and armament were not based on any indigenous ability to maintain or rebuild.

For this reason the sanctions of war gave them more grief - or at least their grief and shortages started far earlier than India and put them on the mat sooner when India did not capitulate to Ghazis as anticipated.

The truth is that if Pakistan must match its purchases to its industrial capacity - its purchase will seem as dysfunctional as that of India. If Pakistan starts doing that India will have to worry because in a few decades - Pakistan will be really strong. But the trade off is that they will become really weak in the short to medium term if they did not do quickie off the shelf purchases of all systems.

I blame myself for failing to archive an article about how acute equipment shortages had become for the Pakistan armed forces in 1965 and how a Chankian move in some foreign nation made it worse for them. The same fate befell Pakland in 1971.Despite being screwed by the US once wrt to F-16s - Pakistan once again goes ahead and does a deal with the same US for more of same, knowing fully well that they have to depend on US promises. This is something India has not done except when put on the mat by geopolitical games.

Indian psyche is different. We buy things for which we can conceivably make parts in India. And when sanctions are put in place we make parts. It is a different matter that our armed forces people are Indians just like BR forum members. All of us - armed forces or BR forum members are contemptuous and derisive of all things Indian. That reflects in different ways. On the forum we claim that Pakistan is more efficient. Our brothers in the armed forces refuse to fly aircraft in which the brake pads have been replaced by Indian manufactured brake pads at a time when a supplier nation is doing chootiyapanti with us.

I sometimes wonder if we too would be a much happier nation if we merely spent a bomb and made wild off the shelf imports like Pakistan with no eye on Indian industry and long term independence. Our import hungry armed forces would be happy to get best of brochure and forum members would be happy to see best of Discovery channel.

I will put a short video clip on YouTube of what Indian Air Force base repair depots are making as import substitutions to beat sanctions - and this is not HAL or DRDO.

Pakistani arms procurement policy, as far as I can tell has remained ad hoc to an extent - but they are learning. Still - they have wasted so many years in not building up a decent industrial capability that they are now forced to import and depend on spares. India is in similar boat - but not the same boat. Indian industrial capability is far higher - and all arms purchases are designed to suit that capability - component for component. Recall that a lack of brake pads or tyres or a rubber O-ring or special lubricant can ground an aircraft - and if you can make the damn thing at home you are in a better situation. Any hi-tech arms equipment will have at least a thousand critical parts that may kill it and sanctioning even ONE may make your billion dollar purchase useless. It pays to check every single item to see where you can get screwed. That forms part of the basis for Indian delays. If a bribe makes an Indian entity pass an item that can screw us later, a delay now is better than tears during war.

As a rhetorical question - which do you think would make more sense? An AWACS with the Il-76 that India has flown and maintained for decades with electronics that India can play with and which blends in and matches the other electronics on the ground and in the air in India, or a shiny new Erieye with unfamilar electronics and an airframe and spares that we have no indigenous capacity in which failure or non-supply of one little component can lead to grounding of the a/c?

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 12 Apr 2008 20:16

Pak Navy to acquire more airborne warning aircraft

12 Apr 2008, 1922 hrs IST,PTI

KARACHI: The Pakistan Navy on Saturday inducted a Fokker aircraft and two Alouette helicopters and announced plans to strengthen its aviation wing with the acquisition of more surveillance and airborne warning aircraft.

The Fokker aircraft was acquired from state-run Pakistan International Airlines, which had grounded its Fokker fleet in 2000 while the two "marinised" Alouettes were acquired from a private firm in Britain, said a statement from the Inter-Services Public Relations.

The aircraft were inducted into the Navy during a ceremony held at the Pakistan Naval Aviation Base PNS Mehran that was attended by Naval chief Admiral Muhammad Afzal Tahir.

The Pakistan Navy has inked a contract with the British private firm for acquisition of six Alouette helicopters, which will operate form ships and can be employed in multiple roles. The remaining four helicopters will arrive in Pakistan by the last quarter of this year.

The Navy has modified its Fokker aircraft with state-of-the-art sensors and weapons for use in maritime operations. The Navy's contract with the PIA also included two additional Fokkers for spares and transfer of associated maintenance facilities.

Admiral Tahir said the Navy's aviation wing will almost be doubled with the induction of more P3C Orion surveillance aircraft, Alouette helicopters and force multiplier airborne early warning aircraft.

He said "another significant project of acquiring fixed and rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles" will add to the Navy's surveillance capability.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 12 Apr 2008 21:35

^^^ Regarding the VTOL UAV, a poster claimed on DT that APID-55 UAV, manufactured by CYBAERO crashed of the coast of Karachi on April 4, 2008. It was taking off from PNS Babur.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 12 Apr 2008 22:32

shiv wrote:Just a little reminder folks.

I will put a short video clip on YouTube of what Indian Air Force base repair depots are making as import substitutions to beat sanctions - and this is not HAL or DRDO.


These are the survival action of a country which is trying to survive

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Postby soutikghosh » 13 Apr 2008 01:53

Guys, read this
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-a ... -78-a.html

Is it true PAF is going to get IL-78 refuellers from Ukrain by the year end.

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

Postby shiv » 13 Apr 2008 06:35

soutikghosh wrote:Guys, read this
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-a ... -78-a.html

Is it true PAF is going to get IL-78 refuellers from Ukrain by the year end.


soutikghosh - you are breaking two fundamental rules of BRF whih I am asking you to abide by:

1) Giving links to Paki fora and increasing their hit count from BRF
2) Cross posting some uncorroborated Paki forum member's views as "news"

Please desist.

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Postby soutikghosh » 13 Apr 2008 10:16

shiv wrote:
soutikghosh wrote:Guys, read this
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-a ... -78-a.html

Is it true PAF is going to get IL-78 refuellers from Ukrain by the year end.


soutikghosh - you are breaking two fundamental rules of BRF whih I am asking you to abide by:

1) Giving links to Paki fora and increasing their hit count from BRF
2) Cross posting some uncorroborated Paki forum member's views as "news"

Please desist.


Ok , I will adhere to the rules next time. Sorry, will not happen again.

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Postby soutikghosh » 13 Apr 2008 21:06


gogna
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 19:02
Contact:

Postby gogna » 16 Apr 2008 17:22

arun wrote:Presumably this refers to launch on April 7, 2008 as the keel was reportedly laid on July 25, 2007 (LINK)..

Starkly brings home the lethargy of India’s naval shipbuilding programme :oops: :

China to build frigates for Pakistan


comparing our shipbuilding against chinese is like comparing india's against pakistan's, their is no comparison

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 17 Apr 2008 19:44


shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6838
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Postby shyamd » 17 Apr 2008 20:20

Vick wrote:MBDA Confirms Air Defense System Sale to Pakistan
The Spada 2000, produced by the Italian-controlled part of the firm, MBDA Italia, and used by Italy and Spain, includes a 60-kilometer-range radar and two firing sections, each containing two missile launchers with six Aspide 2000 missiles each. The missiles have an intercept range of more than 20 kilometers.


shyamd wrote:Sidelined in India, French defence companies are increasingly putting their money on Pakistan.

The European missile house MBDA is presently negotiating several major contracts with Pakistan. One involves the supply of the Aspide anti-aircraft missile and its launching systems to protect Pakistani airports and another the MICA air-to-air missile to equip the Chinese-Pakistani JF 17 fighter.

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

Postby shiv » 17 Apr 2008 20:33



Off topic - but one of the most powerful reasons to develop great in house industry and a powerful economy is precisely because European powers have played this game of arming one or the other and making money from both while they fight since at least the 1850s.

Entities that arm Pakistan need to be punished sometime down the line.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Postby ranganathan » 17 Apr 2008 20:46

Brahmos to algeria or such nation would be a good start.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 18 Apr 2008 17:26

PAF aircraft crashes in Dijkot



PAF aircraft crashes in Dijkot


FAISALABAD, April 17: A PAF aircraft crashed near Dijkot on Samundri Road, some 20km from here, on Thursday.

Reports said the F-7 aircraft crashed in wheat fields near Chak 251-RB in Dijkot police precincts.

Rescuers and police rushed to the spot and cordoned off the area. The pilot safely landed in the adjoining village.

The PAF officials were busy ascertaining the cause of the incident till the filing of the report. — Staff Correspondent

SShah
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 11:25
Location: California

Postby SShah » 19 Apr 2008 06:01

shiv wrote:


Off topic - but one of the most powerful reasons to develop great in house industry and a powerful economy is precisely because European powers have played this game of arming one or the other and making money from both while they fight since at least the 1850s.

Entities that arm Pakistan need to be punished sometime down the line.

Absolutely agreed! The most recent SAAB/Ericsson deal with PAF just baffles me, in what world our coward politicians, "foreign policy advisors" and strategic relation think tank live in? Ericsson as whole business has survived only because of a huge revenue that it is generating from Indian market! How dare Unkil or EU sale anything to Pukies? In the most recent past, same Unkil and EU has refrained from selling anything to Taiwan without China’s approval. Any mere mention of support to Taiwan by unkil or EU has been dealt with fearsome warnings and angriest objections from China.

At the same time China is doing everything possible to arm pukies and we can't even remain nutural with Tibetians and deminostrators who oppose Olympic in Beijing!! It's about the time we start selling Aakash and Bhrahmos to Taiwan, and reject investments and business to anyone who does business with the land of epic center of terrorism. Shame on us…


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests