Pakistan Air Force | News & Discussions

[Yasser76]

Would you just shut up ????

Where have you seen me making any claim or passing any statement as fact ???

It was me who questioned the quoted figure in the article and said the authenticity is 50/50 you were free the take that article as gospel truth it was your right which you exercise.

I too have the same right to to accept or reject any article and I exercised my right, so why are you so upset and forcing me to accept that article???? This is not your right to force me or anyone to accept that PAF is operating 24 C-130

While the figure quoted in Article is proven wrong not just by Quwa but also the independent and reliable Database so rather to force me for anything correct your own behavior.

This is my last post for you on this topic.

@Waz ... My posts and his posts are on this thread for everyone to read and decide, please take note and intervene as I don't want to involve in unnecessary debate on an article from shady source.

You seem to have a poor way with words and communication, it is a shame you need to behave like this on a forum. This is not the way adults communicate.

You proclaimed you knew better and it was proven you did not, 22 planes or 24, the point it the fleet was much larger.

Rather then engage in a debate you now seem angry and upset, that is a shame.

 

[Yasser76]

You cant surrender without giving him a cookie. Sorry

Your posts will always reveal the quality of the person you are Hussain.

 

[Hussain]

Your posts will always reveal the quality of the person you are Hussain.

I'm sorry if I offended you, it was just a joke.

I'm a diabetic, maybe you'll understand why I have sweet cravings.

Once again, Heartfelt apologies. Did not mean to offend you.

 

[HRK]

You seem to have a poor way with words and communication, it is a shame you need to behave like this on a forum. This is not the way adults communicate.

You proclaimed you knew better and it was proven you did not, 22 planes or 24, the point it the fleet was much larger.

Rather then engage in a debate you now seem angry and upset, that is a shame.

Yes a shameful behavior by you by accusing me for all sort of accusations which I never commit .....


Where have you seen me claiming anything .... ???

Please quote my claim for everyone to see and decide can you do this ???

You seems someone who acts on the basis of assumptions rather on reality and accuse other of your action. Please act sensibly and behave like a mature person.

And in the last I never claim any figure for the fleet of C-130 it was you and the article which is claiming a certain number (24) for the fleet of C-130 and after that in every post you are retracting the quoted number so the rather to shift the burden of proving your quoted figure right you are asking me to prove myself right while I made no claim .... Is it logical behavior???

Such a childish attitude of arguing for sake of argument.

For the sake of record I am stating again My stance from the beginning is that

- Source of the article is not completely reliable

- Quoted number (24) for the fleet of C-130 was wrong
( You are hellbent to make me accept this figure so prove it right don't retract form your initial claim by adopting the line of argument that 21 or 24 no big difference. it is you who have to prove it right as you are the one who is owing that claim number not me)

 

[Ak01]

Enough gents, it’s unneeded, we’re all adults, we make errors, we move on, no need to get at each other for it and derail a thread. Move on amicably, thanks guys.

 

[Yasser76]

I'm sorry if I offended you, it was just a joke.

I'm a diabetic, maybe you'll understand why I have sweet cravings.

Once again, Heartfelt apologies. Did not mean to offend you.

Apologies accepted, I am not a diabetic or did not know you were so unsure how I would have been expected to understand the joke.

 

[Hussain]

Apologies accepted, I am not a diabetic or did not know you were so unsure how I would have been expected to understand the joke.

Cookies are the bane of my existence

 

[Yasser76]

Enough gents, it’s unneeded, we’re all adults, we make errors, we move on, no need to get at each other for it and derail a thread. Move on amicably, thanks guys.

Will do, apologies, have put him on ignore now.

 

[Quwa]

Just hoping...

Embraer announced an undisclosed country bought 2 C-390s. The C-390 could be a solid replacement to the IL-78 in the AAR role.

ACM Babur don't fail us now! @arslank01 @JamD @Oscar @Yasser76

Media Center - Embraer

Embraer's Media Center: News, insights, and press releases on commercial aviation, defense & security, executive jets, and more. Filter by category and date.

embraer.com

 

[Ali_Baba]

Just hoping...

Embraer announced an undisclosed country bought 2 C-390s. The C-390 could be a solid replacement to the IL-78 in the AAR role.

ACM Babur don't fail us now! @arslank01 @JamD @Oscar @Yasser76

Media Center - Embraer

Embraer's Media Center: News, insights, and press releases on commercial aviation, defense & security, executive jets, and more. Filter by category and date.

embraer.com

interesting - i never viewed it as a C130 replacement before : https://www.flightglobal.com/defenc...fleet-with-five-embraer-c-390s/149043.article

 

[Yasser76]

Just hoping...

Embraer announced an undisclosed country bought 2 C-390s. The C-390 could be a solid replacement to the IL-78 in the AAR role.

ACM Babur don't fail us now! @arslank01 @JamD @Oscar @Yasser76

Media Center - Embraer

Embraer's Media Center: News, insights, and press releases on commercial aviation, defense & security, executive jets, and more. Filter by category and date.

embraer.com

Yeah, also the CN-235s we are retring. Anything but these unreliable and fuel thirsty IL-78s...

 

[Ak01]

Just hoping...

Embraer announced an undisclosed country bought 2 C-390s. The C-390 could be a solid replacement to the IL-78 in the AAR role.

ACM Babur don't fail us now! @arslank01 @JamD @Oscar @Yasser76

Media Center - Embraer

Embraer's Media Center: News, insights, and press releases on commercial aviation, defense & security, executive jets, and more. Filter by category and date.

embraer.com

I wish- i had always wanted this, but...

India has a tender for 80 transporters- The c130j is not currently leading the pack, rather, the C390 is sadly.

 

[Ak01]

Yeah, also the CN-235s we are retring. Anything but these unreliable and fuel thirsty IL-78s...

I mean, just because a platform has life, does not mean that life should be used.

The reality is, platforms should really only be in service so long as their needed. There is only 4 of these aircraft in use by us, perhaps they're simply just not needed, perhaps, there is issues with the operation of them, who knows. If anything, the AF retiring platforms can also be a good sign in the sense that they're looking at things from a long term perspective- i.e lifecycle costs. This is something a lot of poorer forces dont place a huge emphasis on.

OTOH- IL76 are invaluable, there is nothing as rugged, as large, as versatile and capable available to us. They were bought because we couldnt get MRTT's. The 76 is a great aircraft.

 

[Quwa]

The IL-78 would always play that heavy-lift transport role. However, it is possible to do a lot better in terms of AAR by leveraging an airliner, which is designed to be fuel efficient and, generally, has lower operating costs (due to widespread availability of spare parts, maintenance support, etc).

The C-390 was a 'good from both worlds' type solution that has airliner engines, but also tactical lifter qualities. Currently, it's not an option for the PAF (hopefully the IAF goes for something else and change that outcome).

I think the space to watch is for potential PAF dealings with Airbus DS, Leonardo, and/or Paramount Group. Like the Sea Sultan LRMPA, we could potentially see a scenario where the PAF gets some other vendors to design and build an A330-based MRTT.

 

[Yasser76]

I mean, just because a platform has life, does not mean that life should be used.

The reality is, platforms should really only be in service so long as their needed. There is only 4 of these aircraft in use by us, perhaps they're simply just not needed, perhaps, there is issues with the operation of them, who knows. If anything, the AF retiring platforms can also be a good sign in the sense that they're looking at things from a long term perspective- i.e lifecycle costs. This is something a lot of poorer forces dont place a huge emphasis on.

OTOH- IL76 are invaluable, there is nothing as rugged, as large, as versatile and capable available to us. They were bought because we couldnt get MRTT's. The 76 is a great aircraft.

Yeah, I think thats often what is missed when we discuss aircraft types and numbers. the manpower, fuel, time, money and maintenence spent on them. All of this drains resources that could be better spent on new equipment and manpower enabking us to better utilise what we have.

For example I would rather have 2 pilots per J-10C during war then 1 per J-10C and 1 per F-7PG.

How many hours are we spending on maintence on the ground for a IL76? If that manpower could free up more maintainers for the extra C-130s we have that may be better?

Just an example and thankfully one thing the PAF is not short or, or ever has been, is highly capable trained manpower, but as you point out, just because we can have something, does not mean we should have it.

Case in point is F-7. Many of these were only 20 years old and had decent Grifo radars but we retired them and decided to keep 50 year old Mirages, as it was worth the punch a single RAAD or H-4 SOM a Mirage could deliver then a F-7 with just 4 short ranged sidewinders.

In may cases we do not have a choice due to western sanctions I guess, but when we do worth going all out and dumping stuff that gives us no incremental benefit like CN-235 and maybe IL-76 in future