Will the Pakis get the Sparrow to work on their F-16As?

"James Hart" wrote in message
...

The proper way to respond to a joke is to ignore it or make another
joke. A lengthy explanation of the differences between a donkey cart
and an F-14 misses the point.

Hobo,
I have answered with a joke, but you haven't got it. :-)

On a purely logical level, it seems odd that the Iranians should be
able to do so much reverse-engineering with the Phoenix, but the
Pakis can't do anything with the Sparrow.
and they built the
"Islamic Bomb" before the Iranians did.

You can't mix the Pakistanis with the Iranians, nor ignore few simple facts.

Iran was imposed a brutal, bloody, long and destructive war in the 1980s,
which was paralyzing the development while simultaneously being used by the
new regime to establish itself in power. The threats were different, and the
regime needed time to consolidate and find out what is in its interest.
The - sometimes unbelieveable - naivety of the Mullahs in Tehran (I know
this sounds strange, but too many of their decisions cannot be described as
anything else but pure naivety) - combined with greed, ignorance, and
arrogance - has further prolonged the war and was also preventing the
development of the country for more than ten years. Once the war was over,
and Khomeyni away, they could start coming back to their senses.

Now, due to the successful Pakistani propaganda, the West believed (and,
obviously, largely still believes) since 1965 that the PAF is a high-tech,
top-trained air force, that is smashing the far superior "Soviet-influenced"
Indian Air Force at any given opportunity. "No wonder" if these then have a
high-tech industry. Neither of this, however, was a case: Pakistan has never
got a whole factory capable of producing such stuff like F-5 aircraft,
AGM-65 Maverick missiles and GBU-8 guided bombs, UAVs, rocket motors etc.
from the USA - like Iran did, and that already in the late 1970s. What
Pakistan has got was help from China, F-6 fighters and a refurbishment works
for these in Kamra, just for example. They have also not got over 600
top-of-the-line combat, transport and support aircraft from the USA in the
1970s and 1980s: only 40 F-16s and 20 AH-s.

The Pakistan then saw itself faced with different threats than Iran, and its
priorities were different: India has got the "bomb" already in 1974. In 1979
the USSR invaded Afghanistan, which is considered in Islamabad as its own
backyard, a place they want in order to ensure their "strategic depth" in
the case of a war with India. So, for most of the 1980s they were busy
developing their own bomb, while also organizing and running the war against
the Soviets in Afghanistan. Both tasks were - more or less - financed by
Arab oil-money. The last was, of course, also to a large degree financed by
the USA. In order to finance the development of their bomb the Pakistani
governments have forced their people into massive sacrifices: the economy is
stagnating since decades, and then they have also lost the US support. The
last not only because of their development efforts, but also because already
the Reagan admin has recognized the fundamental islamic tendences of the
then Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq (don't forget that Pakistan was the
first "Islamic Republic" ever recognized internationally: Iran became this
only in 1979, while Pakistan is an IR already since 1948). Tendences that
were later to lead to the Pakistani establishment, organization, and running
the Taliban, and supporting them even with the units of their own regular
military. In strategic sence, this was not important for Islamabad any mo
what counted for them was to have the "means of response on the Indian
nuclear threat", as well as to spread their influence in Afghanistan.

On the other side, the Chinese were interested in Pakistan getting its bomb,
because Indians are also their "sworn" enemies. They were, however, not able
to supply any kind of other high-tech for most of the 1980s and 1990s: you
can see this already from the type of combat aircraft they were
simultaneously supplying to the PAF: F-7s, which are actually further
developed copies of the MiG-21F-13.

So, Iran has got the technological and technical basis for what it was doing
already during the war with Iraq, and even more so for what it is doing
today. The situation developed so far that they are not only having a very
strong defence sector, capable of supplying high-tech based on the US
know-how from the 1980s, but also a pretty powerful IT-industry. Something
that is actually non-existing in Pakistan.

Back to Sparrow: Pakistan was trying - and pretty hard - to get some AIM-7s
in several different places. Theoretically, their F-16s are capable of using
it, or would be with only a minimum of modifications. Between 1991 and 1993
there was a period of relatively friendly cooperation between Iran and
Pakistan, during which the PAF-pilots were even permitted to test-fly
exIraqi Soviet-supplied aircraft in Iran, such like Su-25s and MiG-23s,
while in turn helping Iranians get their exIraqi Mirage F.1EQs into gear,
and the Iranians also selling them their surplus F-16-support equipment,
they have got before the type was to enter service in Iran, in early 1979
(i.e. before the revolution). They were asking the Iranians to sell them
some of their AIM-7s, but the Iranians were turning all such requests down.
This cooperation, however, was suddenly stopped when differences between
Tehran and Islamabad regarding the situation in Afghanistan became apparent.

Search for the Sparrows elsewhere produced no results either: such countries
like Turky, Saudi Arabia and Egypt couldn't supply any for different
reasons. In the end, Pakistan came away with empty hands. They have,
however - very recently - solved their "BVR-problem" by other means.

There are about 4x as many
Pakis and they have greater access to the West

This is, sadly, a wrong picture launched into the Western public by the
Pakistani establishment. Yes, there are three times (not four) more
Pakistanis than Iranians. But, no: a vast majority of the Pakistanis have
nothing in common with the West, nor any access to it. Quite on the
contrary, there is a widespread support for the al-Qaida and the "Islamic
cause" even within the Pakistani establishment (i.e. the "pro-Western" part
of the Pakistani society). The fact that they have permitted the USA to use
their airspace to operate in Afghanistan has nothing to do with any kind of
a wish to support the US fight against Taliban, but with a sole wish to
survive. Pakistan is, namely, the No.1 exporter of terrorism: it has
created, supported and actually run the Taliban and their regime in
Afghanistan right from the start (it has - or is still doing - also exported
terrorism to India, the Philippines etc.). It was an immense sacrifice of
their regime to give up this support: it almost costed them their power and
lifes. However, they had to "join" the US, as the alternative was a war with
the USA and an almost certain anihilliation of the Pakistani nuclear
capabilities, and thus a very insecure future for the whole country. I'd say
that the existence of Pakistan as a country was at stake in
September/October 2001, and consequently one must actually congratulate
Musharaf for what he has done. The Pakistan is today - officially - a US
ally, but inofficially it can continue doing what it was doing the last 20
years: export terror into India and elsewhere, and continue supporting the
struggle of Islamic extremists against the USA inside Afghanistan (and even
inside Pakistan). Best of all: it can now do this under while under the US
aegis.

Anyway, just to give you one nice example about the Pakistani involvement in
Afghanistan in the 1990s: when the US started attacking Taliban there were
still whole units of the regular Pakistani Army in Afghanistan, involved in
organizing and running the Taliban, but also in fighting the "United
Front/Northern Coallition" forces, which pulled back into their last
strongholds, in north-eastern Afghanistan. When the US attacked there and
simultaneously started cooperating with the UF/NC, the PAF transports had to
ad-hoc fly out all of the regular Pakistani personnel, and as much equipment
as possible. The USN reported tracking at least 30 such flights within a
single day. Now, given that at the time the US had nothing like a permanent
control of the Afghani airspace, while the PAF has only something like 20
large transports (including 11 C-130s) one must wonder how many more flights
went unnoticed?

In turn, without the Pakistani support, and with several of the most
important Afghani warlords being bribed by the US, the - otherwise chaotic -
Taliban collapsed "surprisingly fast" while trying to do something they had
absolutely no clue about: fight a modern war.


James,

Back in 82 the Argentinians were doing things with Exocet that most people
didn't think could be done, no reason to beleive others couldn't do
similar
when the motivation is there.

Back in 1982 the Argentinians were doing nothing special with their Exocets.
The situation was so that they have got five rounds early in 1982, and that
the Aerospatiale has sent a technical-support team to Argentina too. When
the Falklands War broke out, somebody "forgot" to re-call this team back.
So, the French have - on one side - supplied all the possible infos about
their Exocets to the British, while simultaneously their own people were
there in Argentina still giving advices to the CANA (Arg. Naval Aviation).
But, neither this team nor the Argentinians have changed anything on their
Excocets, nor have tried to establish production of this weapon at home, or
something similar.

The problem was, however, that the Exocet/Super Etendard threat was
initially not taken seriously enough. Namely, the British failed to notice
the capability of the Argentinians to refuel their Etendards in the air
(from US-supplied KC-130H tankers). Once this threat was realized steps were
taken to decrease it as much as possible. Of course, the attack against HMS
Sheffield was a considerable blow to the British, but nevertheless, the
overall "success" of the Exocet in that war was overblown: the weapon proved
technically unreliable, and problematic to use. Out of five air-launched
Argentinian Exocets only one hit the intended target (HMS Sheffield). Two
have missed, one was possibly shot down, while the fourth was decoyed and
then hit the Atlantic Converyor by pure mistake or malfunction - after
exiting the chaff cloud without detonation. Equally, out of two
ground-fired, only one hit.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

Tom Cooper wrote:
Back in 82 the Argentinians were doing things with Exocet that most
people didn't think could be done, no reason to beleive others
couldn't do similar when the motivation is there.

Back in 1982 the Argentinians were doing nothing special with their
Exocets.

I though they were converting air launched to ground launched (or was it
vice versa) as they couldn't get enough of what they wanted?

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

"James Hart" wrote in message
...
Tom Cooper wrote:
Back in 82 the Argentinians were doing things with Exocet that most
people didn't think could be done, no reason to beleive others
couldn't do similar when the motivation is there.

Back in 1982 the Argentinians were doing nothing special with their
Exocets.

I though they were converting air launched to ground launched (or was it
vice versa) as they couldn't get enough of what they wanted?


Not to my knowledge , they did create a lashup that allowed
some ship launched Exocets to be fired from a land based trailer
however.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

Not to my knowledge , they did create a lashup that allowed
some ship launched Exocets to be fired from a land based trailer
however.

They used a WWII-vintage German Siemens generator to power the truck-mounted
Exocets, plus some pretty primitive make-shift control station, coupled with
an artillery radar, for aligning the nav and attack system. That's all: no
high-tech, only improvisation.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585