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.
BharadwajV
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby BharadwajV » 12 Apr 2016 09:01

Four Il-78's purchased from the Ukraine. All were civilian carriers which were later converted, IIRC.
They are Tanker transports ( unlike our Il-78 MKI) with removable fuel tanks.
Only some of their Mirages are equipped with A2A refuelling probes.
Their FSolahs also have A2A refuelling capability but the Midas does not have a Boom so they are incompatible.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Bhaskar_T » 18 Apr 2016 09:22

Thanks Bharadwaj.

On another note, Pakistan inducted another 16 JF-17's, all produced in a year and wants 24 in 2016. The news link below says 3 weeks of joint Pak-China air exercise.

China and Pakistan Air Forces Launch Joint Training Exercise - The joint training exercise was launched this Saturday and is slated to run until April 30.

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-cha ... 999005.htm

By Franz-Stefan Gady for The Diplomat
April 12, 2016

The People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) kicked off a joint training exercise this weekend, Xinhua news agency reports. The military drill, code-named “Shaheen (Eagle)-5” began on April 9 in Pakistan and is scheduled to run for three weeks until April 30.

“China’s Air Force hopes to widen the scope of cooperation and dialogue with all countries and regions,” the Chinese Ministry of Defense statement said in a statement quoted by Reuters. Neither China nor Pakistan offered additional details on where the exercise is being held or how many aircraft and troops –including combat pilots, air defense controllers, and technical ground crew–will be involved in the next three weeks.

Last year’s installment of the military drill, dubbed Shaheen-4, featured fourth-generation fighter jets and bombers as well as airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. The PAF alone participated with three different types of frontline fighter aircraft from different squadrons (likely the JF-17 Thunder, Dassault Mirage III/5, and F7 PG fighter aircraft).

The PLAAF and PAF have held regular drills since March 2011 with the first Shaheen exercise held in Pakistan. The second training exercise took place in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in western China in September 2013, the third was held in Punjab, Pakistan, in May 2014.

Speaking to Reuters, the PAF second-in-command, Air-Vice Marshal Muhammad Ashfaque Arain, said that the PAF heavily relies on its fleet of around 70 U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets in its anti-terrorist operations in Pakistan. Whether any F-16 aircraft will participate in the training exercise is unknown. In February, the United States finally approved a possible of eight additional F-16 Block-52 fighters to Pakistan in a deal valued at $699 million.

This Monday, the PAF also inducted 16 upgraded JF-17 Thunder Block II combat aircraft during a handover ceremony in Kamra, also known as Aviation City, the center of aircraft manufacturing in Pakistan. The JF-17 Thunder combat aircraft has been jointly developed by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (PAC/CAIC) and is meant to replace the PAF’s aging fleet of Dassault Mirage III/5 fighter jets by 2o20.

The chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman, said that Pakistan achieved its goal of producing 16 JF-17 Thunder aircraft in 2015 and intends to up the production to 24 jets in 2016. Pakistan is looking to replace 190 aircraft—primarily Chengdu F-7 and Dassault Mirage III/5 fighter jets—by 2020 presumably with a mixture of F-16 and JF-17 aircraft. Pakistan, however, is also allegedly in talks with Russia over the purchase of Su-35 multi-role fighters.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4602
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Kartik » 19 Apr 2016 01:50

Pakistan Navy inducts new truck mounted anti ship missile named "Zarb"

The Pakistan Navy has recently test-fired a shore-based anti-ship missile (AShM) named “Zarb.” Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) did not offer any specific information, such as range, speed, or payload weight.

Pakistan had issued a navigational warning notice several days in advance of the test. The maximum range allotted for the test was set at 300km, which was compliant with the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), an international legal framework that regulates commercial missile and drone sales on the global arms market.

The Zarb was inducted to enhance Pakistan’s area denial capabilities by equipping its coastal areas with AShM-tipped launch batteries, which in turn could fire AShMs at intruding surface ships up to a maximum range of 300km.

Upon concluding the test, the Navy announced that it had formally inducted the Zarb AShM. With no prior tests registered over the Arabian Sea, and the fact that it is MTCR-compliant, it is likely that the Zarb is an off-the-shelf purchase.

That said, the specific characteristics of the Zarb AShM are unknown. Given the fact that it was tested from a coastal battery, it is plausible to suggest that the Zarb is basically the C-602.

Produced by China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), the C-602 is a heavy AShM capable of delivering a 300kg warhead. A heavier variant (with a 480kg warhead) is also available in the form of the CM-602G.

The idea of Pakistan acquiring the C-602 is not a surprise, but the use of a local name (i.e. Zarb) suggests that the missile is being produced domestically.

Given the added cost of such a technology transfer (i.e. to produce the missile domestically), would it not make more sense for Pakistan to acquire the C-802 instead? At this time, the C-602 can only be used from Pakistan’s coasts, there are no surface warships or aircraft capable of carrying such a heavy munition.

On the other hand, the C-802 is in use with the Pakistan Navy’s Zulfiqar-class (F-22P) frigates, Azmat-class fast attack crafts (FAC), and even the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) JF-17s. Moreover, there is nothing to stop the C-802 from being launched from land either.

The comparatively widespread adoption of the C-802 within the Pakistan Armed Forces makes it a more suitable candidate for local production than the C-602. In any case, this is speculation on our part, it still has not been confirmed whether the Zarb is being locally produced (under license or otherwise).

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_23370 » 19 Apr 2016 01:55

Even if they only paint the chinese missiles they rename them so as to make the foolish mango paki think that its pindigenous product.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Apr 2016 01:57

^Their move to protect Gwadar.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_23370 » 19 Apr 2016 02:01

Won't stop Brahmos and Mig-29k's with Nirbhay.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3399
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya G » 20 Apr 2016 00:29

Bheeshma wrote:Won't stop Brahmos and Mig-29k's with Nirbhay.


But can stop our Saryus, Khukris, koras, veers and kamortas!

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_23370 » 20 Apr 2016 04:22

Why would they go near gwadar? Saryus especially ? The Veer class are too nimble but short ranged.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Yagnasri » 20 Apr 2016 05:33

The next attack on Karachi or other Chipanda port may come from long range missiles of India or from Air attack. Why we need to sent ships closer to Paki shores like last time. No need when we can precisely hit them without any risk to us. With on big port within range to India Pakis have a major strategic weakness. One they can not easily solve with some China owned thing in B'stan. Even that can be hit by Nirbhay or MKIs.

Bihanga
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 12:23

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Bihanga » 20 Apr 2016 14:46

Finally Pak has manage to reduce vulnerability of their surface warships by inducting shore based Anti Ship missiles. However positive identification of civilian cargo ships is key because surface radars tracking given Sea area will be easy targets for Aerial strikes to neautralise this shore based striking capability.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Gagan » 20 Apr 2016 21:50

The pakistanis don't need to spend on their surface navy now.
As it is their potential of indulging in useless nonsense like shelling Dwarka with small bore shells that killed one cow, has gotten very low with India's string of coastal defences in place.

They will continue to spend on subs - the chinese kilo copy, and coastal C-602.
The big question is, how will the pakistanis know where the IN ships are to direct these missiles?
They are unlikely to have anything bigger than a kabooter flying once hostilities break out.

Who is going to give them targeting information hain ji?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Gagan » 20 Apr 2016 21:53

Anyways, these chinese missiles are extremely unlikely to penetrate IN's stealth ships and with Barak 8/3, CIWS shileds

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Yagnasri » 20 Apr 2016 22:04

I do not see our major surface combatants going near Paki coast. Karachi will be closed almost immediately after start of any major hostilities and so does other paki minor and major ports. I do not see any major shipping taking place without any sea or air cover, both of which pakis can not provide.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Khalsa » 21 Apr 2016 00:28

The Southern Ports of our friendly Neighbour will not be targeted by the missiles of our surface combatants.
They will be targeted by the missiles of our submarines.
No point in repeating a strategy that they already know about.

This time around, they will be hit with little or no warning by the submarines who will then fall back to the cover provided by assets off land and the bubble of surface combatants i.e destroyers etc.

What I still have not sussed (guessed) out is what will the carrier do ?
;-)

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Gagan » 21 Apr 2016 04:39

What the Coastal C-602 cheeni battery looks like. Pakis have been assembling these trucks from CKD from Cheenis

Image

kulhari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 21:13

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby kulhari » 21 Apr 2016 06:51

Perhaps these c602s are to prevent amphibious assaults.
IAF/IN carriers will knock these junks as soon as hostilities begin. :rotfl:

Bihanga
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 04 Jul 2010 12:23

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Bihanga » 21 Apr 2016 09:56

Perhaps this batteries would not be meant for Indian Navy, most likely target shall be our Civilian Cargo liners and Oil rigs. Plus this batteries are impossible to hunt because they shall be deployed in huge numbers and are mobile possibily manned by Chinese Naval personnals.

Shipping lanes, Oil refinaries and SEZ would be likely targets in and around Gujarat coast, because Pak ballastic missiles have poor CEP to target including home built Babur and hence unsuitable for selective targetting hence heavy reliance on shore base cruise missile of Chinese origin which is equally proven and cheap.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 992
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby nits » 21 Apr 2016 11:54

Gagan wrote:The pakistanis don't need to spend on their surface navy now.
As it is their potential of indulging in useless nonsense like shelling Dwarka with small bore shells that killed one cow, has gotten very low with India's string of coastal defences in place.

They will continue to spend on subs - the chinese kilo copy, and coastal C-602.
The big question is, how will the pakistanis know where the IN ships are to direct these missiles?
They are unlikely to have anything bigger than a kabooter flying once hostilities break out.

Who is going to give them targeting information hain ji?


Just Speculating - Chinese can give them that info via there Satellites - which may not be precise and realtime but for sure the area for subs to operate and wait for there prey

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3399
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya G » 21 Apr 2016 22:49

Why havent pakis released pictures?

There is something black in the lentils

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3399
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya G » 21 Apr 2016 23:04

Pak marines on the prowl ....

Image

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_23370 » 21 Apr 2016 23:19

No wonder they need the GRP43 unkil is donating...

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Khalsa » 22 Apr 2016 11:33

PAK MARINES Gonna ROT their way to the bottom
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_28756 » 30 Apr 2016 03:32

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36169079 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

US 'drops planned Pakistan F-16 fighter jet subsidy'

By Brajesh Upadhyay
BBC News, Washington


29 April 2016

From the section Asia



A US-made F-16 jet fighterImage copyright AFP
Image caption
The eight F-16s and their equipment would cost Pakistan over $700m

The US will no longer subsidise the sale of eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, a senior state department official has told the BBC.

The decision means that Pakistan will have to pay more than $700m (£480m) - two-and-a-half times the original cost - if it wishes to buy the aircraft.

It comes after Congress refused to approve funding for the deal.

Some US lawmakers had accused Pakistan of not doing enough to fight militants. India also objected to the sale.

However, Pakistan has argued that the jets are needed for anti-terror operations, and so the US should help with funding the purchase.




People close to the deal say it is highly unlikely that Pakistan will be willing to pay the full cost of the fighter jets, so it seems to be off for all practical purposes.

A spokesman for the Pakistan embassy in Washington, Nadeem Hotiana, told the BBC that arms sales were a long process and that he would not comment on the deal's current status.

"F-16s provide precision strike capability to Pakistan's ongoing campaign against militancy," he said.

"Pakistan believes that the threat from terrorist networks requires continued capacity building and both governments continue to work together towards this objective through a range of measures including the sale of these aircraft."


Pakistani soldiers near an air force base in Peshawar 18 September 2015Image copyright Reuters
Image caption
Pakistan is battling several militant groups at its borders

The senior US state department official, who asked to remain anonymous as he was not authorised to speak on the matter, says the Obama administration is still very much in favour of selling the fighter jets to Pakistan as it believes it is in the national interest of the United States.

However, Pakistan would have to bear the full cost of the F-16 fighter jets if it wished to proceed, he said.

The original arrangement had been that Pakistan would pay close to $270m, with the US foreign military financing budget paying for the rest.

However, top US lawmakers have expressed concerns over the US government's decision to sell the jets to Pakistan, saying they could be used against India rather than for combating terrorism.

Speaking on Wednesday, Congressman Matt Salmon said: "India-Pakistan tensions remain elevated, and some question whether the F-16s could ultimately be used against India or other regional powers, rather than the terrorists as Pakistan has asserted."


Related Topics
Pakistan

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

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby arun » 30 Apr 2016 16:09

Chairman of the Subcommittees on Asia and the Pacific, Middle East and North Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US Legislature on the stupidity of selling F16’s to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and of the Mohammadden Terrorist fomenting ways of that country:

Chairman Salmon’s Opening Statement

Opening Statement - Advancing U.S. Interests: Examining the President’s FY 2017 Budget Proposal for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Apr 27, 2016
Chairman Salmon’s Opening Statement
As Prepared for Delivery
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittees on Asia and the Pacific, Middle East and North Africa
“Advancing U.S. Interests: Examining the President’s FY 2017 Budget Proposal for Afghanistan and Pakistan”
Wednesday, April 27, 2016 | 10:00 am

Thank you, Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen for working with me to convene this important joint subcommittee hearing on U.S. foreign assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan. As we all know, Afghanistan and Pakistan make up one of the most complex foreign policy and security challenges we have. Subsequently, they are also one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. But even after the billions of dollars we have spent following the 9/11 attacks, I still have serious concerns about the Administration’s strategy for the region, about the effectiveness and efficiency of our aid programs, and about our partner governments’ alignment with our interests and values.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I will focus my remarks on Pakistan, which presents a number of difficulties for our foreign assistance relationship. Conduct by the Pakistani government raises serious doubts about the country’s trustworthiness as a partner for peace and change in the region and too often they seem to do the bare minimum to keep the money flowing without committing to real change. Today, I look forward to hearing from our Administration witnesses about the value of our programs in the region, and their strategies for meaningful and lasting improvements.

One area of concern in Pakistan is Foreign Military Financing (FMF). FMF has been a contentious topic in Congress recently, especially with the Administration’s recent attempt to subsidize with taxpayer dollars the sale of F-16s to Pakistan—fortunately an effort paused by the Senate. Many Members of Congress, including me, seriously question the judgment and timing of such a sale. Additionally, India-Pakistan tensions remain elevated, and some question whether the F-16s could ultimately be used against India or other regional powers, rather than the terrorists as Pakistan has asserted. I would ask the panel to clarify the underlying purpose and timing of the intended sale and how it is in the best interest of the United States.

Despite giving Pakistan enormous amounts of counterterror assistance over the years—over $25 billion since 9/11—terrorist organizations continue to operate with impunity in Pakistan. Pakistan has used terror as a tool of statecraft, and terrorist proxy groups for the Pakistani military have carried out fatal attacks inside India. The Pakistani Taliban is showing signs of unification; Pakistan argues that this may work to its advantage, but the United States maintains that this is detrimental to regional security efforts. This is just one example of how Pakistan’s priorities and values regarding terrorist groups are seriously misaligned with our own. In another instance of our priorities not aligning, the Pakistanis are still holding Dr. Afridi, who aided the United States in finding and eliminating Bin Laden, on dubious charges. Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply disappointed that we have not been able to find a solution to his imprisonment. I look forward to hearing the panel’s comments on these issues.

USAID has prioritized health and education programs in Pakistan. An example of the challenges that exist was demonstrated last week when the police escorts of health care workers distributing vaccines were killed. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only places in the world with an ongoing polio endemic and, according to Pakistan’s own press, upwards of 45% of Pakistanis are intellectually stunted due to malnutrition. While this number is distressing in and of itself, it also has the potential to add to the region’s instability and should remain a top priority for our aid efforts.

After spending billions in U.S. aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is important to ask: exactly how much leverage has our investment really bought us? Are we undermining our own security interests by supporting a military that props up terrorists? Have we bolstered the wrong leaders, complicating meaningful reform efforts? We have not always focused on this “carrot” approach to aid in Pakistan; in the 90s, we tried the “stick” approach with sanctions, which were largely ineffective at curbing Pakistan’s nuclear programs. But the “stick” approach after 9/11 did work, at least for a time, resulting in the capture of some notorious terrorists. I am concerned that our current strategy lacks resolve and clarity and as a result, taxpayer dollars are not being used in a way that furthers our national security interests and protects our citizens. I look to our panel’s testimony and justification for both the nearly $2 billion in funding this year and the strategy for these relationships going forward.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Austin » 30 Apr 2016 16:15

I am not sure if the stick approach worked after 9/11 because OBL was guest of Pakistan and US never really did any thing to Pakistan when it was caught with pants down.

Pakistan likely gaves terrorist to US that earned some reward or brownie points , without affecting its ability to control these terrorist either in Afghanistan or India

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

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby arun » 30 Apr 2016 16:20

X Posted from the Pakistani Role In Global Terrorism thread.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa Chairman of the Subcommittees on Asia and the Pacific, Middle East and North Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US Legislature on the stupidity of selling F16’s to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and of the Mohammadden Terrorist fomenting ways of that country:

Pakistan is a direct contributor to the Taliban’s success, not only allowing them to use Pakistani territory as a safe haven but providing it support inside Afghanistan’s borders. It makes little sense to continue giving Pakistan billions of dollars if it’s going to continue to work against our interests. We must leverage our aid to Pakistan so that it is a better regional partner with Afghanistan and also helps us root out terrorists within its borders. That includes stopping the sale of F-16s that Pakistan does not need and will probably not use in its supposed fight against terrorism.


Afghanistan’s Security, Stability and Success Are Critical U.S. Interests; Administration Needs to Commit Long-Term, Says Ros-Lehtinen

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

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby arun » 03 May 2016 08:56

Excerpt from US State Department Daily Press Briefing dealing with sale of F16 to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
May 2, 2016 …………………………….

QUESTION: I have another question on Pakistan F-16. A few months ago, Senator Bob Corker had written a letter to Secretary Kerry that he would put on hold U.S. government’s decision to sell eight F-16 to Pakistan. Has Secretary responded to the letter?

MR KIRBY: I wouldn't speak – I won’t speak to the specifics of congressional correspondence.

QUESTION: I understand there’s no change in your position about selling F-16 to Pakistan. But there’s currently – there’s a hold for last several months. How do you want to resolve this situation?

MR KIRBY: I would just say – point you back to what Ambassador Olson said in his April 27 testimony that effective engagement with Pakistan, we believe, is critical to promoting the consolidation of democratic institutions and economic stability, and supporting the government’s counter-terrorism activities and capabilities. As a matter of longstanding principle, the Department of State opposes conditions to the release of appropriated foreign assistance funds. We believe that such conditions limit the President and the Secretary’s ability to conduct foreign policy in the best interest of the United States. So while Congress has approved the sale, key members have made clear that they object to using FMF to support it. Given congressional objections, we have told the Pakistanis that they should put forward national funds for that purpose.

QUESTION: But are you looking for other options? Are there alternatives to give F-16 to Pakistan?

MR KIRBY: I think I’ve answered the question.

QUESTION: Thank you.


And another excerpt on the topic of US funding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan despite the Islamic Republic’s antipathy to the US:

QUESTION: And finally, Mr. Zakaria in his series or documentary is bringing or brought Mr. Imran Khan, who is now leading a major political party leader in Pakistan. And what they are saying is that what he said that Pakistan is the one of the countries really hate the most – hate the U.S. most. Why is that, even though after billions of dollars in aid to the Pakistanis for their development and also for – but still, that society or part of the society hates the U.S.?

MR KIRBY: I don’t think that we certainly don’t believe – I mean, I don’t think – I know we don’t believe that Pakistan hates the United States. Pakistan is a partner here in the effort to go after extremists there in the region. They themselves have said that they’re not going to distinguish or discriminate between terrorist groups, and the Pakistani people themselves have fallen victim to this brutal, violent extremist ideology and the terror tactics behind it.

Nobody has ever alleged that we’ve agreed with Pakistan on every issue, but that we can have candid, frank discussions with Pakistani leaders about these topics speaks, I think, to the maturity of the relationship and to the recognition that it’s an important relationship on both sides.

QUESTION: I think he must have been talking about certain groups inside Pakistan. That’s what really hates the U.S.

MR KIRBY: Well, there’s no question that extremist groups inside Pakistan hate the Pakistani Government, and you’re seeing that play out. But they – yes, do they also hate Westerners? Do they also hate what the United States stands for – some of these extremist groups? Of course, they do, which is why the relationship between the United States and Pakistan is important, and it’s why we need to continue to look for ways to work together to go after these groups where they are.

I’ve got time for just one more. Ma’am, you’ve had your hand up for a while. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.


From here:

US State Dept DPB

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3399
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya G » 05 May 2016 22:40

A clutch of developments on Pak Navy front:

1. Steel Cutting for 600T patrol boat for PMSA.

4 being acquired. Will replace 4 "corvettes" acquired in late 80s from China of which 3 are in service at the moment;

Barqat Class 1062 MSS Nusrat
Barqat Class 1061 MSS Rehmat
Barqat Class 1060 MSS Barqat

Armament looks to be remotely operated, perhaps Aseslan Stop?

Image

Image

Image

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4107
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby sanjaykumar » 05 May 2016 22:51

Whoa, that conglomeration of Pakis and Chinis is too much beauty for these eyes to handle before noon.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3399
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya G » 05 May 2016 23:29

2. Two LCMs delivered to PN by KSEW

To be used by PN Logistics Command :roll:

Image

Somebody give the a guy a shaving blade....

3. Order for 4 submarines placed with KSEW

Superb 3 part series on PN's activities in their new bases

http://www.dawn.com/news/1243076/camp-g ... journalist

http://www.dawn.com/news/1243077/on-boa ... journalist

https://www.dawn.com/news/1243078/insid ... journalist

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

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby arun » 07 May 2016 07:19

X Posting the Washington Post story that first disclosed that the notorious intelligence arm of the Punjabi dominated Military of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate aka ISID aka ISI was suspected to have poisoned the US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Islamabad Station Chief Mark Kelton:


Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Vipul » 07 May 2016 20:46

China, pakistan pushing SriLanka to buy flawed jf-17 jets.

China and Pakistan are wheeling and dealing in a big way to influence the Sri Lankan leadership to buy the highly-flawed JF-17 multi-role fighter jet in a deal which promises at least four million dollars per jet as kickbacks to those who are pushing for this sale.

According to a report in the Sri Lanka-based web site http://www.thesundayleader.lk, a former air force chief and a big business wheeler-dealer are attempting to influence the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) to acquire the multi-role JF-17 'Fierce Dragon' fighter aircraft that has been jointly developed by both China and Pakistan, at a price said to be higher than what is on offer from other international combat aircraft manufacturers.

According to sources, former Air Force Commander Air Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody had visited Pakistan many times to hold discussions with the Pakistani Air Force Chief for purchasing JF-17 aircraft.

The present Air Force Commander Gagan Bulathsinhala too has made a few visits to Pakistan for the same reason. It is also being alleged that Air Marshal Weerakkody, who was later posted to Pakistan as Sri Lanka's High Commissioner, continued to discuss the JF-17 purchase with the Pakistani officials. Recalled to Sri Lanka after the fall of the Rajapaksa regime, Weerakkody is still a frequent visitor to the SLAF headquarters to get this deal through.

The web site quoted an SLAF unnamed source, as saying that the JF-17 will cost the SLAF a staggering USD 29 million, while the same aircraft can be purchased from a reputed Russian manufacturer at a cost ranging between USD 20 and USD 25 million.

The source further alleges that both China and Pakistan are well aware that the JF-17 has no takers in the international air force circuit, but middlemen in these two countries appear determined to promote this aircraft and get a commission of more than USD four million per aircraft.

According to the source, the JF-17 is an indigenous product and a country like Sri Lanka is not in a position to invest such a huge amount on jet fighters whose qualities are largely unknown. On the other hand, the Sri Lankan government has to take into account the security-related concerns of the Indian government, which is also keen to offer the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited-manufactured multi-role Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) 'Tejas' to Colombo.

The source said that there is no doubt that the SLAF is in dire need to purchase combat aircrafts. × The Sunday leader web site has quoted SLAF sources, as saying that the air force had failed to get the required sanction for the purchase of the jet fighters during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, and added that whatever has been purchased so far has been through shady deals with and from disreputable companies.

The SLAF is keen to purchase eight new fighter aircraft and does want to spend time overhauling its existing fleet of planes at a prohibitive cost of about USD three million per aircraft. Reports suggest that with pressure mounting on Sri Lanka, incumbent President Maithripala Sirisena has decided to put off the purchase of the JF-17 fighter aircraft from Pakistan and go for a viable deal with Russia instead.

According to media reports, the Cabinet last week took a decision to put off the purchase of the Sino-Pakistan JF-17 fighter jet aircraft indefinitely to prevent possible India's ill-feelings towards Sri Lanka. Sources said that the present commanders of the three defence services and a representative from Sri Lanka Logistics are currently in Russia to discuss the purchase of the aircraft for the SLAF. However, SLAF spokesman Group Captain Chandima Alwis has said that the air force is carrying out a due diligence study of potential fighter aircraft suppliers in the event the SLAF need to add to their existing fleet.

The Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) presently has a fleet of Israeli Kfirs and Russian-made MiG-27s. (ANI)

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1754
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby wig » 08 May 2016 11:27

arms exports from pakistan
Saudia Arabia is the largest importer of Pakistani arms, and has purchased small and medium conventional weaponry worth millions of USD, the National Assembly Defence Production Committee was informed on Friday.

The committee was being briefed at Parliament House by Lt Gen Omar Mahmood Hayat, chairman Pakistan Ordinance Factories (POF).

“During the current fiscal year, POF has secured export order worth $81 million, and Saudi Arabia remains the biggest importer of arms and ammunition from Pakistan,” said Hayat.

Chairman POF also added that during the last decade, POF has introduced 72 new weaponry products without getting any financing from the government.

Hayat disclosed during the briefing that POF is working on a new assault rifle, to replace the reliable and long-serving G-3.

“Production of LSR sniper rifle has also been started at POF, with a unit cost $6500 compared to the import price of $12,500 per rifle.”

During the briefing, Hayat regretted that domestic security institutions are not placing orders with POF, and instead buy from third-party vendors.

“Only KPK police are procuring uniforms, arms and ammunition from the POF,” he said.

Despite a shortage of resources and trained manpower, POF is producing high quality weapons which are being sold to multiple countries, elaborated the POF chairman.

“POF is now focusing on exports, and a sales marketing and a display office is being established in UAE.”

The committee was also informed that Wah Brass mill is in the final stage of construction, and would be completed by next month.

Wah Brass Mill will be the largest in Asia, with a production capacity of 16 thousand tons, domestic consumption is two thousand tons.
Extra capacity will be exported.


http://www.dawn.com/news/1256712/saudi- ... stani-arms

vishal
BRFite
Posts: 331
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 12:31
Location: BOM/SIN

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby vishal » 11 May 2016 14:48

SSG commander claims 780 SF personnel died in Zarb-e-azb

That's a huge number of SF operators to lose for any country. Does anyone have info on the tempo of the ops these guys were conducting? The Americans were conducting multiple SF raids every night under Gen. McChrystal for an extended period of time. Makes me wonder how much was the SSG doctrine influenced by that.

Excerpt: In that interminable operation conducted over 15,000 square miles of “nonpermissive” tribal area terrain, Masood’s SSG and supporting forces killed more than 3,400 terrorists, destroyed nearly 1,000 safe houses, raided another 16,600 suspected hideaways and netted a treasure trove of ammunition and explosives.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Lalmohan » 11 May 2016 17:01

would the saudis by second grade pak maal for their own soldiers?
isn't it more likely that they are shipping the POF maal to their 'friends' in the desert?

member_29190
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_29190 » 11 May 2016 22:52



Proud of the SSG. Hope more Pakistani SSG heros get this honour to defend the land of Pakistan and have their name in the list.

I am sure PA will keep the the Zarb-e-azb going for another 20 years and crush the neferious plans of RAW to make this Pakistani's Afghanistan..

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9966
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby sum » 12 May 2016 04:46

vishal wrote:SSG commander claims 780 SF personnel died in Zarb-e-azb

That's a huge number of SF operators to lose for any country. Does anyone have info on the tempo of the ops these guys were conducting? The Americans were conducting multiple SF raids every night under Gen. McChrystal for an extended period of time. Makes me wonder how much was the SSG doctrine influenced by that.

Excerpt: In that interminable operation conducted over 15,000 square miles of “nonpermissive” tribal area terrain, Masood’s SSG and supporting forces killed more than 3,400 terrorists, destroyed nearly 1,000 safe houses, raided another 16,600 suspected hideaways and netted a treasure trove of ammunition and explosives.

Does TSP even have 780 SSG in its OrBAT?

780 KIA seems too huge to be true for a SF unless 20-30 were meeting their 72 everyday. Anyways, not complaining if its true since its 780 lesser pests to worry about from crossing the LoC as part of BAT or whatever.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1639
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Sid » 12 May 2016 06:23

That's a BS claim so that they can use it as head count for next begging discussion session with Americans.

These numbers are usually released when some funding bill is about to pass or senator is about to visit them.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby member_27581 » 12 May 2016 12:22

Lalmohan wrote:would the saudis by second grade pak maal for their own soldiers?
isn't it more likely that they are shipping the POF maal to their 'friends' in the desert?


Could also be the AMC for nooklear bums in Baloch land...

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11309
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Aditya_V » 12 May 2016 18:11

Regarding the SSG count, is it possible some of the Shaheed's in LOC and IB operations, Hemraj Head hunting type operations are being passed off as Dard-e -whatever. After better to be dead from TFTA Pathan than to Lowly KAffir's, this way it is more monetarily valuable and H&D wise also better


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests