PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

[Dreamer]

If that is all you gleaned from that perhaps it’s time to wake up from your dreams

And if that is all you gleaned from my post then you didn't understand my post at all.

 

[Oscar]

And if that is all you gleaned from my post then you didn't understand my post at all.

Perhaps then you need to understand how to use words correctly.

Because everyone with general English comprehension will only see some inference to No J-10C instead of the supplier issue with China and the pure lack of funds that drives the purchasing preferences to China.

 

[Bentley777]

Yes! this idea that the world is closed off to dealing with pak is a major misconception.
The F-16V door is always open, the question is, will you pay for it and also will you meet the requirements the US sets out in terms of protecting the tech onboard? They were available during Aman's tenure, available now too, just a matter of who will pay?

Europe is actually a pretty reliable supplier, i dont think we've had any major issues with Europe, especially considering all 3 forces use European vendors for their major strategic projects. The Pak Army has setup a MASSIVE custom electronic warfare network, it is a HUGE project worth billions- whos the prime contractor? A European firm.

The Pak Navy has very likely- i can say with near 100% certainty selected Fincantieri to build its SWATS. This means Fincantieri will also likely build PN's domestic Sub with them. They also had U212NFS on offer to PN, which i suspect we will see in the waters of Karachi in the coming decades. Heck, whatever sub PN chooses next, will carry German Fuel cells, while our current agostas rely almost exclusively on Atlas Elektronik for their sensor suite and weapons.

For the PAF, they're turning to Europe for SAM's now, not to mention the PAF's surv network is like so heavily US/German based, with now some Chinese to replace older units, but PAF deploys TRML and TPS series heavily, again, without too much concern.

The PAF had also seriously evaluated a Typhoon offer, there was a ton of proponents for it too, the issue was funding, i bet if FATF had'nt cucked us, we would have been operating Typhoons and Meteors instead of J-10's, also, in larger numbers since the UK had offered their Tranche 1's to us for free as part of the deal.



What good is no usage restrictions when the aircraft cant be supported? Iran has no usage restrictions, but their fleet is rarely seeing the skies.

I also always find this usage restriction claim a bit funny like we did not scramble F-16s against US assets during OBL raid, or that we did not literally strike and shoot down Indians during SR. Infact, i always ask anyone who makes this claim, if there are restrictions on the use of F-16s against India, who are the 500 AMRAAMs for? The Taliban? Did the US make the largest export amraam agreement at the time for fun to sit on shelves?

If you are referring to a lack of A2G weaponry, then this is a fault of our own. The yanks are concerned about us turning F-16s into nuke slingers, which is a valid concern considering all the whispers and murmurs that came out. I remember the Americans starting to worry that we were modifying Harpoons into cruise missiles for deep strike/nuke delivery. Like, lets take accountability where its due.


This is effectively impossible, we have no industrial base and import literally everything down to the last screw from China.


Europe. The Typhoon.

But lets make the case here, again, do i fault the US for wanting to be careful with leakage of sensitive data? No. Pakistani opsec/cybersec is NONEXISTENT. Literally the J-10 contract got leaked. I have my hands on a leak from the Pak side exposing MBDA contractors in country, their passports, hotels, even heck, the details of their parents and the contracts too. Can we be trusted lol is the question. Some members on this forum with their experience in the industry had made it pretty clear, Pak/PAC/PAF is a data breach waiting to happen. I bet you there are SO many moles infesting the forces already its insane.

What do we have to integrate anyway- either REK or Raad. Raad is not even on the J-10, i doubt any exporter will want us to use their jets for nuke delivery. SOW/REK can be integrated with nothing from the OEM. The Turks, the Philippinos etc all use Pylon adapters controlled by iPads which release the weapons when needed. Happy days.

But also, what weapons have we integrated, im yet to see J-10s carry anything other than the PL combo. MAYBE pak pressured REK integration because we used to get shaken down on the FT series.


Answered above, we cant even integrate our own weapons into JF-17 without OEM support. We dont have the source codes etc. Infact, JamD has shared the story countless times here, where we tried to integrate a local payload and the mission computers locked up. We cant do anything without Chinese assistance or consent.


This is flawed. All we can do is assemble with some mild fabrication.
You say it yourself, we can negotiate for the ASSEMBLY line- so all of the inputs still need to come from China. All we can do is final assembly, its a different matter if you're telling me we will fabricate the TRM's and antennas ourselves, setup composite shops, bring engine manufacturing in house, use domestic steel, build every nut and bolt in house. But no, we wont. In the best case scenario, lets pretend China said yeah here u go heres the assembly line...we're still having to call up mr Xi asking him to send us a shipment of screws because someone misplaced them. We're wholly dependant and that creates avenues for exploitation, but beyond this, we just cannot do anything ourselves. Future sustainment will be such a HUGE headache once China starts dwindling down on J-10 use, remember, for us a J-10 buy is long term, for them, its their lowest tier fighter, that will probably be the first to go when it does, meaning we will become reliant on cannibalised airframes to sustain, like India is with Mirages, or how we were with our own. Nobody likes buying aircraft the designing country doesn't use, it creates a sense of security. The PAF always picked the same cfg's as the USAF for its F-16s. The UAEAF refused to buy F-16XL's and killed off the program unless the US committed into buying a set number too.



Europe Europe Europe.

Industrially, Europe is stuck. They can produce amazing kit and all, but they find themselves not being able to buy enough due to their smaller forces. Guys like us are goldmines, we will buy tons, bring them jobs and keep their industry alive, its in their strategic interests. The UK was desperate for someone to buy Typhoons from them.


Its simple, our wars will NEVER last more than 2-3 weeks, if the US sees Pak getting steamrolled, its not going to let that happen, we have seen the way the US operates with Ukraine, it is not in Americas interest to let Pak fall, which is why it has not let that happen.

My suggestions are simple, diversify, keep the US fleet there, JF-17 fleet there, and look to Europe, especially via the EFT, considering the countries are planning on using it to 2060 and it has like 2-3 upgrade progs in dev already. J-10s have happened now, and it is what it is.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79R00890A000700060006-8.pdf

Published 1956- Pakistan, an Ally with Liabilities.

Our position on the global stage was our own fault.

Its all shifting dynamics, from what i understood, it is only now we have managed to get a backbone. I had made a joke that it is always better to keep a nashai hooked by dripfeeding your stock to him, to which i was told "yes, but now the nashai knows how to deal with it properly"...and now we see a JF-17 where PAF is trying to move away from China and more toward the Turks...

Bro i will must say your suggestion is very rational and holds lot of weight.

 

[Bentley777]

It is. Arsalank is just trying to explain why buying J10c (and shooting down rafales) was a wrong decision.......

No the crux was diversifying your fleet equipment so you won't get bottleneck with one supplier as a pressurizing tactic.

 

[Tariq Habib Afridi]

Yes! this idea that the world is closed off to dealing with pak is a major misconception.
The F-16V door is always open, the question is, will you pay for it and also will you meet the requirements the US sets out in terms of protecting the tech onboard? They were available during Aman's tenure, available now too, just a matter of who will pay?

Europe is actually a pretty reliable supplier, i dont think we've had any major issues with Europe, especially considering all 3 forces use European vendors for their major strategic projects. The Pak Army has setup a MASSIVE custom electronic warfare network, it is a HUGE project worth billions- whos the prime contractor? A European firm.

The Pak Navy has very likely- i can say with near 100% certainty selected Fincantieri to build its SWATS. This means Fincantieri will also likely build PN's domestic Sub with them. They also had U212NFS on offer to PN, which i suspect we will see in the waters of Karachi in the coming decades. Heck, whatever sub PN chooses next, will carry German Fuel cells, while our current agostas rely almost exclusively on Atlas Elektronik for their sensor suite and weapons.

For the PAF, they're turning to Europe for SAM's now, not to mention the PAF's surv network is like so heavily US/German based, with now some Chinese to replace older units, but PAF deploys TRML and TPS series heavily, again, without too much concern.

The PAF had also seriously evaluated a Typhoon offer, there was a ton of proponents for it too, the issue was funding, i bet if FATF had'nt cucked us, we would have been operating Typhoons and Meteors instead of J-10's, also, in larger numbers since the UK had offered their Tranche 1's to us for free as part of the deal.



What good is no usage restrictions when the aircraft cant be supported? Iran has no usage restrictions, but their fleet is rarely seeing the skies.

I also always find this usage restriction claim a bit funny like we did not scramble F-16s against US assets during OBL raid, or that we did not literally strike and shoot down Indians during SR. Infact, i always ask anyone who makes this claim, if there are restrictions on the use of F-16s against India, who are the 500 AMRAAMs for? The Taliban? Did the US make the largest export amraam agreement at the time for fun to sit on shelves?

If you are referring to a lack of A2G weaponry, then this is a fault of our own. The yanks are concerned about us turning F-16s into nuke slingers, which is a valid concern considering all the whispers and murmurs that came out. I remember the Americans starting to worry that we were modifying Harpoons into cruise missiles for deep strike/nuke delivery. Like, lets take accountability where its due.


This is effectively impossible, we have no industrial base and import literally everything down to the last screw from China.


Europe. The Typhoon.

But lets make the case here, again, do i fault the US for wanting to be careful with leakage of sensitive data? No. Pakistani opsec/cybersec is NONEXISTENT. Literally the J-10 contract got leaked. I have my hands on a leak from the Pak side exposing MBDA contractors in country, their passports, hotels, even heck, the details of their parents and the contracts too. Can we be trusted lol is the question. Some members on this forum with their experience in the industry had made it pretty clear, Pak/PAC/PAF is a data breach waiting to happen. I bet you there are SO many moles infesting the forces already its insane.

What do we have to integrate anyway- either REK or Raad. Raad is not even on the J-10, i doubt any exporter will want us to use their jets for nuke delivery. SOW/REK can be integrated with nothing from the OEM. The Turks, the Philippinos etc all use Pylon adapters controlled by iPads which release the weapons when needed. Happy days.

But also, what weapons have we integrated, im yet to see J-10s carry anything other than the PL combo. MAYBE pak pressured REK integration because we used to get shaken down on the FT series.


Answered above, we cant even integrate our own weapons into JF-17 without OEM support. We dont have the source codes etc. Infact, JamD has shared the story countless times here, where we tried to integrate a local payload and the mission computers locked up. We cant do anything without Chinese assistance or consent.


This is flawed. All we can do is assemble with some mild fabrication.
You say it yourself, we can negotiate for the ASSEMBLY line- so all of the inputs still need to come from China. All we can do is final assembly, its a different matter if you're telling me we will fabricate the TRM's and antennas ourselves, setup composite shops, bring engine manufacturing in house, use domestic steel, build every nut and bolt in house. But no, we wont. In the best case scenario, lets pretend China said yeah here u go heres the assembly line...we're still having to call up mr Xi asking him to send us a shipment of screws because someone misplaced them. We're wholly dependant and that creates avenues for exploitation, but beyond this, we just cannot do anything ourselves. Future sustainment will be such a HUGE headache once China starts dwindling down on J-10 use, remember, for us a J-10 buy is long term, for them, its their lowest tier fighter, that will probably be the first to go when it does, meaning we will become reliant on cannibalised airframes to sustain, like India is with Mirages, or how we were with our own. Nobody likes buying aircraft the designing country doesn't use, it creates a sense of security. The PAF always picked the same cfg's as the USAF for its F-16s. The UAEAF refused to buy F-16XL's and killed off the program unless the US committed into buying a set number too.



Europe Europe Europe.

Industrially, Europe is stuck. They can produce amazing kit and all, but they find themselves not being able to buy enough due to their smaller forces. Guys like us are goldmines, we will buy tons, bring them jobs and keep their industry alive, its in their strategic interests. The UK was desperate for someone to buy Typhoons from them.


Its simple, our wars will NEVER last more than 2-3 weeks, if the US sees Pak getting steamrolled, its not going to let that happen, we have seen the way the US operates with Ukraine, it is not in Americas interest to let Pak fall, which is why it has not let that happen.

My suggestions are simple, diversify, keep the US fleet there, JF-17 fleet there, and look to Europe, especially via the EFT, considering the countries are planning on using it to 2060 and it has like 2-3 upgrade progs in dev already. J-10s have happened now, and it is what it is.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79R00890A000700060006-8.pdf

Published 1956- Pakistan, an Ally with Liabilities.

Our position on the global stage was our own fault.

Its all shifting dynamics, from what i understood, it is only now we have managed to get a backbone. I had made a joke that it is always better to keep a nashai hooked by dripfeeding your stock to him, to which i was told "yes, but now the nashai knows how to deal with it properly"...and now we see a JF-17 where PAF is trying to move away from China and more toward the Turks...

Your concerns are valid and i am convinced we must diversiy. But i still have two concerns. One we dont have money otherwise typhoon is not a bad option. Second if we procure from europe then integrating them all using TDL will be an issue? What are your take on that second issue? Can we overcome these issue which will arise with diversification?

 

[ghazi52]

 

[fameen]

Perhaps then you need to understand how to use words correctly.

Because everyone with general English comprehension will only see some inference to No J-10C instead of the supplier issue with China and the pure lack of funds that drives the purchasing preferences to China.

I'm afraid not, Oscar. Why do you suppose we bought the F-6 when we did? It wasn't for lack of funds. It was because we were sanctioned. Later, in 1972 or 73, we wanted to buy a 100 odd Saab 105s (check up on that). They weren't available. In 1976, we ordered 110 Vought A-7s. They were sanctioned. The PAF also reviewed and wanted to buy the Saab J.37 Viggen in the 70s... it wasn't available. And, of course, as most know in the 1990s we were sanctioned for the follow-on order for the F-16s and they kept our very precious foreign exchange. The J-10/PL-15 combination has a longer "stick" than Eurofighter/Meteor. Why would we want to pay more for a less effective product which will, anyway, be sanctioned the moment we need it? If not by the UK then certainly by Germany.

As for this "diversification" argument, isn't that exactly what the Indians thought they were doing? They have a 10 different (very expensive) platforms that can't communicate with each other. The PAF made them look like a second rate air arm which they absolutely are not. We have network integration and they don't. And thanks to Chinese weapons... we have a longer "stick" than anything they have. They have our back. The Americans don't. If there was any doubt, Qatar's fate, which pays $15 billion every year to the US buying top of the line weapons... all of which went dark when the Israelis showed up, should tell you something. We've just seen a live demonstration of the value of American weapons, if you really need them, and American security guarantees.

 

[Oscar]

I'm afraid not, Oscar. Why do you suppose we bought the F-6 when we did? It wasn't for lack of funds. It was because we were sanctioned. Later, in 1972 or 73, we wanted to buy a 100 odd Saab 105s (check up on that). They weren't available. In 1976, we ordered 110 Vought A-7s. They were sanctioned. The PAF also reviewed and wanted to buy the Saab J.37 Viggen in the 70s... it wasn't available. And, of course, as most know in the 1990s we were sanctioned for the follow-on order for the F-16s and they kept our very precious foreign exchange. The J-10/PL-15 combination has a longer "stick" than Eurofighter/Meteor. Why would we want to pay more for a less effective product which will, anyway, be sanctioned the moment we need it? If not by the UK then certainly by Germany.

As for this "diversification" argument, isn't that exactly what the Indians thought they were doing? They have a 10 different (very expensive) platforms that can't communicate with each other. The PAF made them look like a second rate air arm which they absolutely are not. We have network integration and they don't. And thanks to Chinese weapons... we have a longer "stick" than anything they have. They have our back. The Americans don't. If there was any doubt, Qatar's fate, which pays $15 billion every year to the US buying top of the line weapons... all of which went dark when the Israelis showed up, should tell you something. We've just seen a live demonstration of the value of American weapons, if you really need them, and American security guarantees.

This entire argument assumes geopolitics are stationary.

Did you forget that when you bought the F-6 you also bought Mirages?
Or is that fleet not factored into your argument?
Not only did you buy mirages but you bought the Giraffe radar as well.

you bought the Saab supporter, then you bought additional TPS-43 system.

Please look up SIPRI for delivery dates on systems.

In addition, the A-7 sanction argument was due to nuclear activities but then you bought the F-16 as soon as a more favorable government came into office.

More often than not your purchases being declined had less to do with access and more to do with being declined lines of credit and loans to purchase.

The Eurofighter was available but once again you wanted financing which no one wants to give you. The same goes for the Rafale in early 2000s.

Please read the PAF own history from 1988 to 1998. The only aircraft which were truly “denied” to you were the Su-27 due to Indian lobby in Russia

Finally, the argument on longer stick with PL-15 vs Meteor ignores a key aspect. Having multiple weapons means you can exploit the effectiveness of each system. Both the PL-15 and meteor fly very different profiles and rely on different mechanisms to ensure kills.

Having the meteor would also deny the IAF “exclusivity” on the weapon type while also allowing potential replacements of the older F-16s with a more potent system.

The J-10C was purchased on loans, as was JF-17 and every other Chinese procurement. That is the true attraction of all Chinese weapons systems for Pakistan.

 

[Pak-Warrior]

Yes! this idea that the world is closed off to dealing with pak is a major misconception.
The F-16V door is always open, the question is, will you pay for it and also will you meet the requirements the US sets out in terms of protecting the tech onboard? They were available during Aman's tenure, available now too, just a matter of who will pay?

Europe is actually a pretty reliable supplier, i dont think we've had any major issues with Europe, especially considering all 3 forces use European vendors for their major strategic projects. The Pak Army has setup a MASSIVE custom electronic warfare network, it is a HUGE project worth billions- whos the prime contractor? A European firm.

The Pak Navy has very likely- i can say with near 100% certainty selected Fincantieri to build its SWATS. This means Fincantieri will also likely build PN's domestic Sub with them. They also had U212NFS on offer to PN, which i suspect we will see in the waters of Karachi in the coming decades. Heck, whatever sub PN chooses next, will carry German Fuel cells, while our current agostas rely almost exclusively on Atlas Elektronik for their sensor suite and weapons.

For the PAF, they're turning to Europe for SAM's now, not to mention the PAF's surv network is like so heavily US/German based, with now some Chinese to replace older units, but PAF deploys TRML and TPS series heavily, again, without too much concern.

The PAF had also seriously evaluated a Typhoon offer, there was a ton of proponents for it too, the issue was funding, i bet if FATF had'nt cucked us, we would have been operating Typhoons and Meteors instead of J-10's, also, in larger numbers since the UK had offered their Tranche 1's to us for free as part of the deal.



What good is no usage restrictions when the aircraft cant be supported? Iran has no usage restrictions, but their fleet is rarely seeing the skies.

I also always find this usage restriction claim a bit funny like we did not scramble F-16s against US assets during OBL raid, or that we did not literally strike and shoot down Indians during SR. Infact, i always ask anyone who makes this claim, if there are restrictions on the use of F-16s against India, who are the 500 AMRAAMs for? The Taliban? Did the US make the largest export amraam agreement at the time for fun to sit on shelves?

If you are referring to a lack of A2G weaponry, then this is a fault of our own. The yanks are concerned about us turning F-16s into nuke slingers, which is a valid concern considering all the whispers and murmurs that came out. I remember the Americans starting to worry that we were modifying Harpoons into cruise missiles for deep strike/nuke delivery. Like, lets take accountability where its due.


This is effectively impossible, we have no industrial base and import literally everything down to the last screw from China.


Europe. The Typhoon.

But lets make the case here, again, do i fault the US for wanting to be careful with leakage of sensitive data? No. Pakistani opsec/cybersec is NONEXISTENT. Literally the J-10 contract got leaked. I have my hands on a leak from the Pak side exposing MBDA contractors in country, their passports, hotels, even heck, the details of their parents and the contracts too. Can we be trusted lol is the question. Some members on this forum with their experience in the industry had made it pretty clear, Pak/PAC/PAF is a data breach waiting to happen. I bet you there are SO many moles infesting the forces already its insane.

What do we have to integrate anyway- either REK or Raad. Raad is not even on the J-10, i doubt any exporter will want us to use their jets for nuke delivery. SOW/REK can be integrated with nothing from the OEM. The Turks, the Philippinos etc all use Pylon adapters controlled by iPads which release the weapons when needed. Happy days.

But also, what weapons have we integrated, im yet to see J-10s carry anything other than the PL combo. MAYBE pak pressured REK integration because we used to get shaken down on the FT series.


Answered above, we cant even integrate our own weapons into JF-17 without OEM support. We dont have the source codes etc. Infact, JamD has shared the story countless times here, where we tried to integrate a local payload and the mission computers locked up. We cant do anything without Chinese assistance or consent.


This is flawed. All we can do is assemble with some mild fabrication.
You say it yourself, we can negotiate for the ASSEMBLY line- so all of the inputs still need to come from China. All we can do is final assembly, its a different matter if you're telling me we will fabricate the TRM's and antennas ourselves, setup composite shops, bring engine manufacturing in house, use domestic steel, build every nut and bolt in house. But no, we wont. In the best case scenario, lets pretend China said yeah here u go heres the assembly line...we're still having to call up mr Xi asking him to send us a shipment of screws because someone misplaced them. We're wholly dependant and that creates avenues for exploitation, but beyond this, we just cannot do anything ourselves. Future sustainment will be such a HUGE headache once China starts dwindling down on J-10 use, remember, for us a J-10 buy is long term, for them, its their lowest tier fighter, that will probably be the first to go when it does, meaning we will become reliant on cannibalised airframes to sustain, like India is with Mirages, or how we were with our own. Nobody likes buying aircraft the designing country doesn't use, it creates a sense of security. The PAF always picked the same cfg's as the USAF for its F-16s. The UAEAF refused to buy F-16XL's and killed off the program unless the US committed into buying a set number too.



Europe Europe Europe.

Industrially, Europe is stuck. They can produce amazing kit and all, but they find themselves not being able to buy enough due to their smaller forces. Guys like us are goldmines, we will buy tons, bring them jobs and keep their industry alive, its in their strategic interests. The UK was desperate for someone to buy Typhoons from them.


Its simple, our wars will NEVER last more than 2-3 weeks, if the US sees Pak getting steamrolled, its not going to let that happen, we have seen the way the US operates with Ukraine, it is not in Americas interest to let Pak fall, which is why it has not let that happen.

My suggestions are simple, diversify, keep the US fleet there, JF-17 fleet there, and look to Europe, especially via the EFT, considering the countries are planning on using it to 2060 and it has like 2-3 upgrade progs in dev already. J-10s have happened now, and it is what it is.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79R00890A000700060006-8.pdf

Published 1956- Pakistan, an Ally with Liabilities.

Our position on the global stage was our own fault.

Its all shifting dynamics, from what i understood, it is only now we have managed to get a backbone. I had made a joke that it is always better to keep a nashai hooked by dripfeeding your stock to him, to which i was told "yes, but now the nashai knows how to deal with it properly"...and now we see a JF-17 where PAF is trying to move away from China and more toward the Turks...

Its a massive post. I agree to most points. Especially that we have to diversify. Not as much that it becomes an overhead. But dependence on a single vendor is not good either.

China as a vendor has many benefits too. One is their giant industrial base and production capacity. If ever we are in need of urgent supplies, we know China can produce those for most systems. Secondly, Chinese technology is really progressing at a rapid pace. The best europe has developed so far is EFT a 4.5 gen fighter where china is offering a 5th gen export fighter rn and itself doing flight tests of 6th gen platforms. I see the tech gap bw China and EU increasing for China's favor in coming decades.

Then China with massive production / massive man-power can produce stuff at lower unit costs then lets say Germany OR UK. Plus we get easy installment / loans that Europe may not offer.

Lastly, Placing sanctions is something that only Western countries has done so far. Even Germany blocked engines for Submarines destined to us. I remember I read somewhere even Saab had declined to sell Gripens in early 2000s.

Sweden won't sell Gripen fighter planes to Pak

'There is no question of selling them weapons or anything directly related to weapons,' Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds said after her talks with visiting Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in Stockholm on Tuesday.

www.rediff.com

China has remained a trusted and timely supplier over the decades.

Nevertheless, Italy seems to be a good supplier in Europe. They don't mess around with geopolitics like Germany or the UK. Especially if that SWAT deal go through then it will be great!

 

[gamaji]

I'm afraid not, Oscar. Why do you suppose we bought the F-6 when we did? It wasn't for lack of funds. It was because we were sanctioned. Later, in 1972 or 73, we wanted to buy a 100 odd Saab 105s (check up on that). They weren't available. In 1976, we ordered 110 Vought A-7s. They were sanctioned. The PAF also reviewed and wanted to buy the Saab J.37 Viggen in the 70s... it wasn't available. And, of course, as most know in the 1990s we were sanctioned for the follow-on order for the F-16s and they kept our very precious foreign exchange. The J-10/PL-15 combination has a longer "stick" than Eurofighter/Meteor. Why would we want to pay more for a less effective product which will, anyway, be sanctioned the moment we need it? If not by the UK then certainly by Germany.

As for this "diversification" argument, isn't that exactly what the Indians thought they were doing? They have a 10 different (very expensive) platforms that can't communicate with each other. The PAF made them look like a second rate air arm which they absolutely are not. We have network integration and they don't. And thanks to Chinese weapons... we have a longer "stick" than anything they have. They have our back. The Americans don't. If there was any doubt, Qatar's fate, which pays $15 billion every year to the US buying top of the line weapons... all of which went dark when the Israelis showed up, should tell you something. We've just seen a live demonstration of the value of American weapons, if you really need them, and American security guarantees.

Yes. Also, Pakistan is visibly trying to stand on its own feet with Chinese help. That doesn't mean Pakistan is not getting stuff from west at all. But the fact is that only China provided Pakistan with the strategic weapons and technology when others either refused, placed Pakistan under sanctions (USSR, Europe, and US) or were incapable of offering tangible stuff (Turkiye).

With Chinese help, Pakistan is not only in possession of high tech weapon system but also making many of them in house. And we must appreciate our Chinese iron brothers.

People who always keep crying of difficulties in getting stuff from China are basically those who are mentally intimidated by the west. Issues are always there while inducting new weapon systems. The additional issues with Chinese systems are due to the language barrier. Admittedly, our Chines friends mostly offer the documentation that is very cryptic and poorly translated. Frustrating at times it may be but in the overall picture, it's not a make or kill issue.

 

[rafale]

This entire argument assumes geopolitics are stationary.

Did you forget that when you bought the F-6 you also bought Mirages?
Or is that fleet not factored into your argument?
Not only did you buy mirages but you bought the Giraffe radar as well.

you bought the Saab supporter, then you bought additional TPS-43 system.

Please look up SIPRI for delivery dates on systems.

In addition, the A-7 sanction argument was due to nuclear activities but then you bought the F-16 as soon as a more favorable government came into office.

More often than not your purchases being declined had less to do with access and more to do with being declined lines of credit and loans to purchase.

The Eurofighter was available but once again you wanted financing which no one wants to give you. The same goes for the Rafale in early 2000s.

Please read the PAF own history from 1988 to 1998. The only aircraft which were truly “denied” to you were the Su-27 due to Indian lobby in Russia

Finally, the argument on longer stick with PL-15 vs Meteor ignores a key aspect. Having multiple weapons means you can exploit the effectiveness of each system. Both the PL-15 and meteor fly very different profiles and rely on different mechanisms to ensure kills.

Having the meteor would also deny the IAF “exclusivity” on the weapon type while also allowing potential replacements of the older F-16s with a more potent system.

The J-10C was purchased on loans, as was JF-17 and every other Chinese procurement. That is the true attraction of all Chinese weapons systems for Pakistan.

Your post is valid, but if financing is needed, it can be arranged via EXIMP banks, both in Europe and USA.

Boeing 777s were financed via USA EXIMP banks back in the day even though Airbus offered A330s to Musharraf government and financing on much better terms.....but because Musharraf wanted to be in US Lap, they went with 777s which turned out to be not effective for PIA anyway.

Recently, USA based financers are providing financing/loans for Reko Diq......even though for a very long time no USA based financer provided loans to Pakistani projects...and Barrick is not a USA company....it was always Chinese, Japanese, or ADB.

European defense industry is desperate to survive and they would rather sell weapons on financing than let their potential sales and production lines slow down. Manufacturing and traditional defense companies are under a lot of stress now as European defense budgets are no where near USA ones.

For USA, it would always be sanction prone, so you have to balance that. PAF must go for F-16V upgrades if it is available and make finances available. Defense procurement is alway long term, and what might sound like 2 billion USD upfront is basically you buying insurance against a very vile and fascist neighbor. Procure enough spares and ammunition to keep the fleet worthy even if sanctioned for the next decade. That is the fastest way to get a Meteor comparable fighter squadrons in numbers quickly and keeping your existing infrastructure worthy.

There is something strange that has been happening in the Forex market....SBP is buy any excess dollars from the open market as there are very little available in the open market for common buyer. This tells two things, one that rupee is over valued actually at 285/USD and there is excess supply from remittances and subdued import bills. The other that SBP needs dollars for something else other than usual loan payments. Which points to one thing that SBP is building cash USD reserves for defense purchases.

 

[Yasser76]

View attachment 146326

Is this a Chinese air base?

 

[Michael]

The J-10C was purchased on loans, as was JF-17 and every other Chinese procurement. That is the true attraction of all Chinese weapons systems for Pakistan.

Diversified procurement is a common strategic security measure. China also employs this approach in many areas.
For example:
China is the world's largest importer of crude oil. We import large quantities of crude oil from all over the world. Here is a table showing China's top five crude oil sources in 2024:

Rank​	Country/Region​	Import Volume (million barrels)​	Share (%)​	Import Value (USD billion)​	Average Price (USD/barrel)​
1​	Russia	79,200	19.6%	62.43	77.75
2​	Saudi Arabia	57,400	14.0%	47.86	84.24
3​	Malaysia (Iran)	51,300	12.5%	38.30	75.48
4​	Iraq	46,600	12.0%	36.99	81.70
5​	Oman	29,700	7.5%	24.71	83.17

From this table, we can see that the lowest price is from Malaysia (Iran), followed by Russia, and the highest price is from Saudi Arabia.
Logically, we should increase our Russian crude oil imports (due to the reasonable price, low transportation costs, and strong strategic relationship). However, in reality, we have always controlled our Russian crude oil imports to a certain proportion to avoid over-dependence.

In the field of military arms trade, many countries also adopt diversified procurement to balance international politics. This is a very normal phenomenon.

However, as technology continues to advance, technologically powerful nations, seeking to further expand their influence, are increasingly using technological means to enhance their exclusivity. These measures are gradually rendering the approach of technologically disadvantaged nations mitigating risk through diversified procurement ineffective. This phenomenon is present in both the military and civilian sectors.
For example:
In the smartphone sector, Apple phones are highly exclusive. Android phones appear open, but in reality, they conceal deep-seated exclusiveness.
Different electricity standards, automobile emissions standards, and other measures implemented by countries around the world are all designed to protect national interests and strengthen exclusivity. Competition among large technology companies also employs these tactics.

The same is true in the military field.
The NATO standards, led by the United States, and the Soviet/Russian standards we are familiar with are two completely different weapon systems. Through hard work, China has also gradually established a completely independent weapon system.
While there are common communication channels between these three systems, to truly unleash the full effectiveness of a particular weapon system, it must be adapted to the corresponding support system. If you use NATO-standard AEW&C to support Russian fighter jets, many of the fighter jets' capabilities will be unusable. Only when you use Russian AEW&C to command Russian fighter jets can they achieve their full effectiveness. This logic applies globally.

Early weapons weren't highly system-dependent. For example, we purchased American assault rifles but used domestically produced ammunition instead of genuine American ammunition. This resulted in a loss of accuracy and increased barrel wear, yet we were still able to operate them normally. Furthermore, when we used these weapons, it was difficult for the producing countries to control us.
During the China-Vietnamese War, many of the weapons used by Vietnam were weapons provided by China during the Vietnam War. Using Chinese-made weapons against Chinese was a deeply embarrassing situation for us.

However, modern high-end weapon systems are becoming increasingly intelligent. Starting with the 4.5th-generation fighter jet, fighter aircraft have become increasingly reliant on powerful system support, leading to systemic warfare. Within this systemic warfare concept, various weapons and equipment constantly exchange information, and command centers utilize powerful computer analysis capabilities to make various decisions. However, systemic warfare is highly exclusive. This means that all weapons and equipment within the system must comply with its rules. These rules will not be made available to any country outside the system, and the core technology involved is strictly confidential.

India and the wealthy Middle Eastern countries have shown us all the advantages and disadvantages of diversified sourcing.
I believe Pakistan absolutely needs to diversify its procurement. However, Pakistan needs to carefully consider the pros and cons. Which weapon systems can be diversified? Which weapon systems cannot? This is the key point.

 

[ghazi52]

Is this a Chinese air base?

Yes.

 

[m52k85]

View attachment 146326

What happened to the guy in the centre? He should have been the OC of no.15 but apparantely its someone else now.