[ads11]

I was about to say - a lot of this nomenclature that's become the norm now with these generations is very much a semantic circumstance, one that's come to be, more for the purposes of dressing up existing products for new brochures. The Russians are absolutely the most guilty of this because well, they're still really struggling to get a clean sheet design up and running (Su-47), the bulk of their RuAF fleet is all the remnants of the latter days of the Soviet Union, often reheated, ie modernised, for more use today. Case in point, the pride of their fleet, the re-engined Tu-160's (Blackjack or White Swan)

I don't think it's healthy at all to start clamouring for India to get up to speed on this race to mythical 6th gen capabilities. Instead what India should work towards is checking off the major features/constituent components that make a bleeding edge 21st century platform:
-getting a domestic engine working (that alone would be the veritable Everest considering the much better funded Chinese are still struggling and Russians with all their knowhow have been left behind as well)

1. -weapons suite (as the recent spate of tests of various domestic missiles has proven India seems to be albeit for this brief instant, showing the urgency needed towards getting these certified)
2. -sensor fusion (I think the low observability card of 5th gen is the sexy feature that captures the imagination but folks tend to miss that the greatest asset of something like the F-35 is the unparalleled battlespace picture it affords commanders across all levels and platforms through it's mix of sensors - that's clearly where the future lies and you can see from the way in that everyone has pivoted that they recognise this to be true, especially as air defence zones become bristlier and bristlier through the predominance of A2/AD thinking for the foreseeable future)
3. -composites and shaping (these are the bits that go towards making the very skin and shape of your platform LO and for sure it's necessary in light of the above comment about A2/AD; so hopefully on the scale of a HALE UAV, ie a drone, seems the most feasible approach for India to cut its teeth)

Anyway, coming back to the original point - I'd be impressed if the US Did field a sudden 6th gen platform within the decade without there being even an acknowledgement of any production contracts. The caveat always remains that there is the possibility this programme could be buried in a black budget somewhere but for this decade I think the USAF's priority is to first get the B-21 Raider programme totally up to speed. As the US pivots to square up against China across the Pacific it's paramount for them to have a new long range LO strategic bomber platform. The fact it took them the better part of a decade to get the JSF programme running smoothly, and the continuing shambles that is the Pegasus tanker programme, I think they'll have their hands full getting the B-21 right.

[V.Narayan]

Govt to ok 114 fighter jet deal for IAF; budget Rs 114,000 crores {~16 billion}

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...086902415.html

Excerpts....

The IAF has already issued the Request for Information for the tender and would be soon moving a proposal for getting the Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) before the Defence Ministry for the multi-billion dollar project which would enable it to acquire 4.5 plus generation aircraft in large numbers to match the capabilities of the omni role Rafale fighters 36 of which have started getting inducted from last year.

The Request for Information (RFI) has been responded to by several global players including fighter jet manufacturers from the US, France, Russia and Sweden.

While the Americans are offering from the F-15 Strike Eagle, F-18 Super Hornet and an F-16 variant by the name of F-21, the Russians are likely to offer the MiG-35 and a Sukhoi fighter. Sweden's Saab is looking to pitch in with its Gripen fighter aircraft which it says is far more advanced than the one which was offered in 2007 to the Indian Air Force. France would be participating in the tender with the Rafale fighter jets.

deja vu 2006 again. I only hope this time they apply their minds thoroughly to give clarity to the contenders regarding license production in India, OEM warranty of stuff made by HAL , selection of partners. The varying interpretations on the last two is where the slip ups occurred last time. The same contenders are in the fray albeit with more updated avionics - Hornet, F-16 re-christened F-21, MiG-35, Gripen, Rafale. Don't know about Typhoon. I hope keeping in mind need for standardization on training, logistics, maintenance and political reliability we go with the Rafale and do not select another aircraft that will over strain our already over burdened diversity in the fleet.

On a different note it is time the MoD's Secretary Defence came from the IFS and we stopped the stranglehold of the IAS on our Armed forces.

[ads11]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it incredible the ability of our bureaucracy to come up with yet another 3 letter acronym? AoN is the latest one I've heard in the ever expanding library of such acronyms, all of which to me, signal our peerless ability to win a scrabble game when it comes to terminology that signal prevarication and dithering.

I know the latest hat in the ring is the clearance for the F-15 in its latest EX avatar for India but I don't think that's a realistic candidate for our needs.
See also: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...lly-make-sense

Speaking to The War Zone last summer, Prat Kumar, Boeing’s Vice President and Program Manager for the F-15 also seemed to express doubts that the jet was exactly right for India, remarking that he was not sure if it was “in the sweet spot” for the requirement. Perhaps, Boeing felt that its F/A-18E/F was a more likely solution for the IAF, especially if the same type were to be selected by the Indian Navy too. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Boeing will drop one of either the Super Hornet or the F-15EX as the Indian requirement develops.

I think out of those candidates, we can discount the MiG-35 - it's been a turkey on the export market for Russia, with no real sales. The Typhoon was too expensive first time round and there's nothing to change that now, so that's out the question again. Really it comes down to how hard the bargaining will go with Rafale to double down on the order (in all likelihood at least one more 36 jet tranche in a similar direct govt-to-govt deal eventually); how hard the Americans press their hand (here really I can only see the Super Hornet being the most realistic offering, Boeing has had some considerably success of late in the Indian market so there's strong established networks already), and finally the domestic route where after yet more um-ing and ah-ing, the constantly over the horizon domestic prospects are chosen (be it a twin engine Tejas variant or not).

Bit of a shame for the Gripen really. SAAB's shown they're willing to do technology transfer if the Brazil deal is anything to go by:

Swedish aviation firm Saab has started building parts for its new Gripen E fighter jet in South America. Saab Aeronáutica Montagens (SAM), the firm's first aerostructures plant outside of Sweden, has started production of key sections of the new fighter.

Tail units and front fuselages of the single-seat Gripen E are the first components to enter into production at SAM, which is located in São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil. Subsequently, speed brakes as well as wing box and front fuselage sections for the two-seat F model will also be made here. These will then be delivered to the final assembly facilities at the Embraer plant in Gavião Peixoto, São Paulo, Brazil, as well as to Linköping, Sweden.

Saab is renowned for its technology sharing and strong local industrial participation. Brazilian companies are involved with design and development of hardware and software for the new fighter. As the launch customer for the two-seat Gripen F, Brazil is engaged in a 50-50 split development between Saab in Sweden and the local GDDN.

Sadly though I don't think the marketing might of SAAB is hefty enough to win them the day versus the combined lobbying power of the French or US efforts if solely considering foreign vendors.

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by Tucker48

Fox news talks about first test fight of 6th gen aircraft. That means in less than a decade, USAF will be inducting 6th Gen aircrafts, even before Indian Air Force inducts 5th Gen aircrafts.
Unless, our leaders and decision making body don't think out of box and come up with a strategy for a shortcut or a totally different approach to warfare in the skies, I don't see Indian Air force a dominating force even in the long term.

The F35 is proof of Lockheed lobbying prowess. Even in the last day at the office, Trump signed an agreement to sell F35s to uae.

This is the world's most expensive defence project, besieged by issues, troubles, delays and will end up costing U.S taxpayers more than a Trillion dollars.

Now Lockheed wants more money, so 6th generation or whatever is next.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by shortbread

The F35 is proof of Lockheed lobbying prowess. Even in the last day at the office, Trump signed an agreement to sell F35s to uae.

This is the world's most expensive defence project, besieged by issues, troubles, delays and will end up costing U.S taxpayers more than a Trillion dollars.

Now Lockheed wants more money, so 6th generation or whatever is next.

I don't think there's any doubt about the strength of the lobbying effort for the F-35, given the way its construction is so spread out over numerous US states, and more crucially voting districts, at the end of the day the USAF, Pentagon and Congress are always reticent to cut funding that could go towards the F-35 instead of other more favourable scapegoats (see the constant urge by USAF brass to kill off the A-10). And sure, the JSF programme spent the better part of a decade being continuously late to milestones and deadlines and over budget but they've turned a corner in the last 5 years. You have to give credit where it's due. Now that they're achieving real economies of scale and getting stuck in on the production orders, unit costs have gone Way down (the F-35A is practically on par if not cheaper than a lot of the more mature '4+ gen' offerings). And there's no denying the capabilities the F-35 offers when it comes to its sensor fusion - nothing really comes close. It didn't even take long after the Israeli's got their hands on their Adir variant, for the F-35 to start building up a combat record too. The IAF used their Adirs with impunity inside Syrian airspace.

The Emiratis have been hankering for the F-35 for years now. A large part of the motivation for the Abraham Accords on the UAE side was very much to start opening the door towards getting access to US weapons systems they would previously not have had a look in for. While Trump might've signed off his approval for the UAE to explore the F-35, Congress is another matter and it would take a far more concerted lobbying effort on the part of the Emiratis to overcome the pro-Israel camp there than it does to convince Donald for anything really. The key question that remains is the fact that there is this unwritten rule that the US must ensure that Israel has a qualitative military edge (QME) over their regional adversaries.

Obviously how you define this qualitative edge is subjective but to the lay person it's pretty easy to see the Israeli's have quite the upper hand being the only regional power with access to the F-35 and all that it entails. Quite hard to see how it works if the UAE also gets access though its the lack of immediate consternation by Israel that surprised me initially

Ahead of the UAE F-35 announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Benny Gantz issued a joint statement suggesting that Israel would not necessarily stand in the way of such a deal.

REF: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...et-of-50-f-35s

It seems Bibi is willing to go quite far with the realpolitik as far as containing Iran goes, especially since we know he took a clandestine flight to Neom in Saudi to drop in on a Pence MBS meeting last year. In terms of Arab F-35s (to generalise), I think that'll get parked for now. Lockheed not only have their order books full but they have strong chances of gaining orders from countries within NATO orbit that'll have much smoother Congressional clearance (eg. Greece).

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by ads11

The Emiratis have been hankering for the F-35 for years now. A large part of the motivation for the Abraham Accords on the UAE side was very much to start opening the door towards getting access to US weapons systems they would previously not have had a look in for. While Trump might've signed off his approval for the UAE to explore the F-35, Congress is another matter and it would take a far more concerted lobbying effort on the part of the Emiratis to overcome the pro-Israel camp there than it does to convince Donald for anything really. The key question that remains is the fact that there is this unwritten rule that the US must ensure that Israel has a qualitative military edge (QME) over their regional adversaries.

Obviously how you define this qualitative edge is subjective but to the lay person it's pretty easy to see the Israeli's have quite the upper hand being the only regional power with access to the F-35 and all that it entails. Quite hard to see how it works if the UAE also gets access though its the lack of immediate consternation by Israel that surprised me initially

REF: [ now. Lockheed not only have their order books full but they have strong chances of gaining orders from countries within NATO orbit that'll have much smoother Congressional clearance (eg. Greece).

A big challenge with middle East defence forces getting access to Americas best, is that a lot of ex/retired men from other defence forces make up their personnel. Eg retired pakistani air force pilots serving in various gulf air forces.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by shortbread

A big challenge with middle East defence forces getting access to Americas best, is that a lot of ex/retired men from other defence forces make up their personnel. Eg retired pakistani air force pilots serving in various gulf air forces.

If you're willing to devote time to a long read then I highly recommend this:
https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

I know it's quite a tangent to the current thread but to answer your point, the above article is probably one of the best thought pieces that cover the usual stereotypes that exist over the effectiveness of Arab armed forces. One thing anyone without a staggering bias would admit is the PAF is a thoroughly professional force with a far greater reputation than any of the Arab air forces. Those seconded PAF personnel are probably head and shoulders above their counterparts and provide the real steel when push comes to shove. Arab air forces hardly have a sterling record (as the article points out as well). Even now we see the RSAF, for all its shiny toys and nearly 3 years of constant operations against a ragtag bunch of Houthis, have achieved sod all in Yemen, except for fomenting a horrific humanitarian crises and essentially a southern front for Iranian proxies to target the kingdom (*slow clap*).

But I think you do raise an excellent point. Suppose the UAE acquired a small F-35 fleet, I have no doubt that the seconded PAF personnel will be able to get rather a close look and I doubt that's something the Pentagon would like at all considering the working relationship the Pakistanis have with the Chinese in the aerospace domain, particularly something like the J-31 which a considerable portion of the aviation community believe to be not only the fruit of the extensive state sanctioned industrial espionage and plagiarism of the JSF but also the cheaper export oriented cousin to the big brother J-20 in PLAAF service. What's to say those PAF personnel don't pass on whatever they've seen about the F-35 to their PLAAF colleagues during a joint exercise? And that's a scenario that doesn't bode well for the USA or any of its allies, including India. Strange times though we live in, I would like to think that especially with there being a return to adults in the White House, it's easier said than done that the F-35 gets an Arab roundel on it.

Anyway, I've not seen yet anywhere with good, and by that I mean comprehensive coverage of Aero India 2021, so anyone with any links to share would be much appreciated.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by shortbread

A big challenge with middle East defence forces getting access to Americas best, is that a lot of ex/retired men from other defence forces make up their personnel. Eg retired pakistani air force pilots serving in various gulf air forces.

The influence of the PAF on the gulf air forces is a lot less than it used to be. The gulf air forces have almost completely moved to using local pilots though I'm not sure how a country like Qatar can fill all its spanking new F15s, Rafales and Eurofighters given its minuscule local population.

While the Pakistanis are historically very close to the Gulf (I once saw some uniformed Pakistani army personnel in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs building in Riyadh about 5-6 years back). The Pakistanis and the gulf states don't see eye-to-eye anymore due to a rupture in the Middle East between the Saudi led faction and the Turkey-led faction. Pakistan of course chose poorly which it led to a temporary (and arbitrary) ban on UAE visas to the Pakistanis while the Saudis forced Pakistan to repay their debts. This coincided with the Gulf monarchs moving visibly close to India, the latest of which was displayed when the UAE Air Force A330 MRTTs took care of the Rafale delivery flight for the IAF and is expected to take care of the next delivery as well. Of course, the gulf monarchs are the largest customers of drones from China, so geopolitics is complicated.

As long as the Gulf monarchs don't get too impoverished, I'm sure many (if not all) of them will have orders for F35s by 2030 to replace their F16s and legacy F15s. Uncle Sam isn't done with the Middle East yet.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The influence of the PAF on the gulf air forces is a lot less than it used to be. The gulf air forces have almost completely moved to using local pilots though I'm not sure how a country like Qatar can fill all its spanking new F15s, Rafales and Eurofighters given its minuscule local population.

While the Pakistanis are historically very close to the Gulf (I once saw some uniformed Pakistani army personnel in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs building in Riyadh about 5-6 years back). The Pakistanis and the gulf states don't see eye-to-eye anymore due to a rupture in the Middle East between the Saudi led faction and the Turkey-led faction. Pakistan of course chose poorly which it led to a temporary (and arbitrary) ban on UAE visas to the Pakistanis while the Saudis forced Pakistan to repay their debts. This coincided with the Gulf monarchs moving visibly close to India, the latest of which was displayed when the UAE Air Force A330 MRTTs took care of the Rafale delivery flight for the IAF and is expected to take care of the next delivery as well. Of course, the gulf monarchs are the largest customers of drones from China, so geopolitics is complicated.

As long as the Gulf monarchs don't get too impoverished, I'm sure many (if not all) of them will have orders for F35s by 2030 to replace their F16s and legacy F15s. Uncle Sam isn't done with the Middle East yet.

I think it was the Pakistani refusal to get involved in 2015 with MBS's ill conceived and poorly thought out Yemen intervention that really upset the cart. AFAIK, Pakistani forces have previously always had some small degree of involvement in Arab coalition military action, so for them to step back here was deeply infuriating to the impulsive young prince. And in Pakistan's defence, can you blame them? The yes men in the Saudi MoD might've wafted smoke up MBS's thobe regarding how Yemen would be a walk in the park but Pakistani military leadership clearly saw the impending s***show that was about to happen, and wisely opted out.

On the Turkey orbit, I can't recall but Pakistan didn't take a position regarding the Qatar embargo did they? I can imagine that being another source of friction for MBS and the Emiratis.

It's a curious situation if you think about it. For the past 3 decades there's been the assumption that there exists a tacit understanding that the advent of Pakistani nuclear capability would act as the nuclear guarantor for the Kingdom at the very least, if not the Arab world. Some have gone so far as to say that this extends as far as Pakistani warheads being forward deployed to Saudi if needed. But the Iranian nuclear programme and the threat of a Tehrani nuke has clearly kicked off jockeying in the Gulf over nuclear capability. I mean how else would you justify the fact that the Saudi's need nuclear powerplants for their domestic electricity needs or the Emiratis for that matter. It seems since the de-facto ascension of MBS to the throne, the Arab kingdoms are far more decisive in securing their own objectives with or without the blessing of Washington. The only way I can see these Kingdoms getting access to the JSF programme is if the decision made in Washington is to compromise and let them have the latter with the understanding that it ensures the Gulf doesn't go nuclear. But I find that hard to believe because like I said, MBS has shown himself to kowtow far less to the US than his predecessors so what's to stop him trying to eat his cake and have it too?

And where would that place Pakistan, right? Acting as the nuclear guarantor for the Gulf states undoubtedly contributed to their defence budget bottom line to an extent, but with those same kingdom's deciding on their own nuclear umbrella makes Pakistani assistance less important to them, which cuts off Pakistani leadership of vital influence in the Gulf, and by that I don't just mean monetarily. So viewed through that lens you can see why Pakistani leadership might've realised that they are left with no choice but to commit themselves further to the orbit of the PLA.

Mod note: Really gone off track here with this side discussion, feel free to park it in another thread if need be.

[vikasshu]

Originally Posted by ads11

If you're willing to devote time to a long read then I highly recommend this:
https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Even now we see the RSAF, for all its shiny toys and nearly 3 years of constant operations against a ragtag bunch of Houthis, have achieved sod all in Yemen, except for fomenting a horrific humanitarian crises and essentially a southern front for Iranian proxies to target the kingdom (*slow clap*). appreciated.

Dear ads11,
With all due respect, certain counters on your point around RSAF's performance in Yemen.

1) How do you rate US Air force when Taliban is still kicking (as in 2021) the ball in Afghanistan even post such a long deployment there.
2) How you'll view Soviet air-force who also could not deter Mujahedeen in 1980s?
3) Or Russian air force in Chechnya.
4) Or lets go back in history a bit and think about Vietnam war. I believe on paper USAF was much much stronger than Vietnamese air force and Vietcong of that time. But US miserably lost.
5) Or Lebanon war of 2006 and IDF.

I think in an asymmetric conflict, Guerillas have much more benefit. I have seen multiple videos of Yemen conflict and I found that terrain gives lot of advantage to Houthi rebels for a great ambush... hillock, mountainous terrain, isolated posts etc. The best of Apaches and F 15 Eagles can't kill them. There is always danger of collateral damage as well in these low intensity conflicts. Plus I think it is a low espirit de corps issue as well for their forces who do not want to fight in that terrain.

I think to retain your gains from Air power in asymmetric war, you also need good/competent ground/infantry forces to support you. And in case of Saudis, they are completely not trained for this type of war. Contrary to this if you see RuAF intervention in Syria, I think they worked in good synergy with Asad's ground forces and won back lot of area.

One more thing - I find Houthis to be a good force and not some ragtag force. They have very good backing from Iran plus there was desertion in Yemenis army who joined Houthis.

Lets come to professionalism of PAF.

• An air force which does not accepts its martyrs or losses. I am referring to Abhinandan episode. Or for that matter see Shahid Sikander's F 16 loss in 80s.
• A professional air-force firing 5 missiles that are considered best in the world with no kill.
• A professional air force that runs away without dropping its payload properly and wasting its standoff ammunition. It was mentioned that for this attack they had collected best of their best.
• An air-force which could not detect enemy air-crafts (twice) when they entered way beyond their borders in last few years - Abbotabad and Balakot. In first case, it is possible they were silently collaborating.

Yes they must have some great pilots and great aircrafts (later version vipers and EW aircraft) but calling the whole organization professional, I seriously doubt.

Regards
Vikas

[ads11]

Originally Posted by vikasshu

Dear ads11,
With all due respect, certain counters on your point around RSAF's performance in Yemen.
..
Vikas

Ah, lots to unpack. Here goes..

You're right, the Yemen conflict is entirely asymmetric and the Houthis while ragtag are far more of an effective fighting force than the Saudi coalition gave them credit. But that's the point I was making, the Saudi's completely misread the ground realities of the whole intervention there, instead they've fomented a security situation on their southern border where now the Quds Force doesn't even need to be that clandestine in getting kit across to the Yemenis from which to strike into the heart of the Kingdom. It was both hubris and delusion on their part and they've paid the price for it.

When the Americans went in there, the primary goal was to eradicate Al Qaeda. From what I recall there wasn't as concerted an incentive to eradicate the Taliban, rather than drive them from power for harbouring the former. The reason the Taliban are still kicking is because they're not just a militant organisation but rather a socio-political one in the context of Afghanistan. And no amount of boots on the ground are going to effect change in that regard, neither will air strikes.

Regarding the Russians, Vietnam etc, sure, airpower didn't exactly achieve any of the goals that were set out for them. But I think it's a false equivalence. The point I was making was about the general efficacy and record of Arab air forces and I don't think anyone would argue that said record is far from sterling. The Israeli's have routinely outperformed their often superior neighbouring air forces going back to the early days of Israel. Then you had Saddam's well equipped Iraqi air force ultimately folding in the face of the allied air effort in Gulf War 1 especially and to a lesser extent Gulf War 2. Which brings me back rather nicely to the Yemen intervention and guerrilla warfare. For the latter the goal is simply to win indirectly, and by that I mean keep raising the cost for the opposition beyond what they're willing to pay in terms of men and materiel. And in all successful air power campaigns there are successful goals - for the RSAF in Yemen it was to open a path for the ground invasion but instead the air campaign has now become synonymous with human rights violations. That's an own goal is there ever was one. In Gulf War 1 & 2 you saw allied air execute their primary goal of neutralising Iraqi air defences to create a more permissive environment for the ground forces. In Vietnam the Americans miscalculated in thinking air power alone would drive the North Vietnamese into submission but all it did drive them was underground, quite literally. And in Syria, the RuAF worked well with Asad's forces because they had clear goals - disrupt rebel forces whatever the cost but under the pretence of combating ISIL, and the RuAF obliged, targeting anything to do with rebel forces - including hospitals. It was unethical but it worked because Asad is as secure as he's ever been in the last decade.

What I agree entirely on is that air power alone isn't going to win conflicts and that the Saudi ground component at the end of the day is a paper tiger. Their regular forces have next to no esprit de corps, agreed, and the competent troops and units go towards the royal guard, which goes to show where the ultimate priority lies in the Kingdom.

Finally, I'm loathe to use those recent examples regarding the PAF because for me at least its impossible to have that discussion without it becoming clouded with controversy based upon nationalist positions and jingoism in my eyes. The debate there stops being critical and morphs into a mess I'd rather avoid. Whenever I've referred to the PAF as being a professional force its been on the basis that for the most part, both on the IAF side and the general consensus, it is considered so by peers. Unlike in the case of the RSAF for example, I think I'm not pushing the boat out by giving the PAF the benefit of the doubt by calling them professional.

Without boring the others on here any further, I'm happy to take the discussion off thread if you wish to continue.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

I think it was the Pakistani refusal to get involved in 2015 with MBS's ill conceived and poorly thought out Yemen intervention that really upset the cart. AFAIK, Pakistani forces have previously always had some small degree of involvement in Arab coalition military action, so for them to step back here was deeply infuriating to the impulsive young prince. And in Pakistan's defence, can you blame them? The yes men in the Saudi MoD might've wafted smoke up MBS's thobe regarding how Yemen would be a walk in the park but Pakistani military leadership clearly saw the impending s***show that was about to happen, and wisely opted out.

On the Turkey orbit, I can't recall but Pakistan didn't take a position regarding the Qatar embargo did they? I can imagine that being another source of friction for MBS and the Emiratis.

It's a curious situation if you think about it. For the past 3 decades there's been the assumption that there exists a tacit understanding that the advent of Pakistani nuclear capability would act as the nuclear guarantor for the Kingdom at the very least, if not the Arab world. Some have gone so far as to say that this extends as far as Pakistani warheads being forward deployed to Saudi if needed. But the Iranian nuclear programme and the threat of a Tehrani nuke has clearly kicked off jockeying in the Gulf over nuclear capability. I mean how else would you justify the fact that the Saudi's need nuclear powerplants for their domestic electricity needs or the Emiratis for that matter. It seems since the de-facto ascension of MBS to the throne, the Arab kingdoms are far more decisive in securing their own objectives with or without the blessing of Washington. The only way I can see these Kingdoms getting access to the JSF programme is if the decision made in Washington is to compromise and let them have the latter with the understanding that it ensures the Gulf doesn't go nuclear. But I find that hard to believe because like I said, MBS has shown himself to kowtow far less to the US than his predecessors so what's to stop him trying to eat his cake and have it too?

And where would that place Pakistan, right? Acting as the nuclear guarantor for the Gulf states undoubtedly contributed to their defence budget bottom line to an extent, but with those same kingdom's deciding on their own nuclear umbrella makes Pakistani assistance less important to them, which cuts off Pakistani leadership of vital influence in the Gulf, and by that I don't just mean monetarily. So viewed through that lens you can see why Pakistani leadership might've realised that they are left with no choice but to commit themselves further to the orbit of the PLA.

Mod note: Really gone off track here with this side discussion, feel free to park it in another thread if need be.

The Pakistani refusal to join the (suicidal) coalition in Yemen was indeed the start of the disagreement but it went into overdrive when Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia decided to start an alternative forum for Islamic countries which directly competes with the Saudi dominated OIC (Pakistan eventually backed off under Saudi pressure). Things got worse when the Pakistan FM gave some nasty comments on the gulf states normalising ties with Israel, comments which didn’t go down well with the gulf monarchs leading to a collapse in relations. The Pakistani army chief had to travel to Saudi and UAE to heal tensions. This rift widened under the Trump administration though it is healing now given how the Biden administration doesn’t have the hand-off and isolationist approach of the previous admin and also because Iran is still a common threat! This explains the hasty resolution to the Qatar conflict and de-escalation between Saudi and Turkey!

It’s a open secret that the Saudis funded the Pakistani nuclear program to bring themselves under the nuclear umbrella of Pakistan. But Pakistan won’t choose sides, they need to cooperate with Iran for oil, dealing with minorities like Balochs and their common love for China. The geopolitics in the Middle East is complicated at the best of times! Pakistani seems to be the loser in the end, with the west leaving Afghanistan, China remains its only true-ally!

Coming back to fighter jets, it’s difficult to explain how entrenched US military in the gulf! There are more US troops and fighter jets in the gulf than anytime since the Americans left Iraq. Just adding up all the US forces in the gulf would be bigger than all the gulf counties put together. While there is a sense that the Americans want to withdraw, they just can’t! The gulf states just can’t defend themselves, so I don’t see the Americans abandoning this region anytime soon!

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The Pakistani refusal to join the (suicidal) coalition in Yemen was indeed the start of the disagreement but it went into overdrive when Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia decided to start an alternative forum for Islamic countries which directly competes with the Saudi dominated OIC (Pakistan eventually backed off under Saudi pressure)... While there is a sense that the Americans want to withdraw, they just can’t! The gulf states just can’t defend themselves, so I don’t see the Americans abandoning this region anytime soon!

I wasn't aware of this alternate forum but I can totally imagine Erdogan spearheading such a venture given his aspirations towards being an Ottoman sultan reincarnate.. Equally I can imagine that riling up both MBS and Bin Zayed up the wrong way, given their mutual distaste for Erdogan.

My housemate grew up in the Gulf so we always debate the ME. He was telling me how in the run up to the US elections how vitriolic the coverage was regarding anyone but Trump, and this coverage was basically by everyone but Al Jazeera (ie, the Qataris). But as soon as the final result became apparent, the prompt about face from those same talking heads is testament to the fact that ultimately the powers that be in those kingdoms are beholden to the US and its security umbrella. Take immediately post the Khashoggi assassination. At that point of time MBS had mostly centralised control in the Kingdom with his power grab, severely weakening other formerly powerful branches of the Al Saud family. But faced with the vicious (and totally justified) international backlash, including from Trump, we started to hear rumours of discontent from senior royals - so much so there was talk that they'd leverage the position to mount a counter move against MBS, in light of his jeopardising the most important international relationship for the kingdom. That's pretty much the last time we've heard talk of a serious threat to MBS's position in Saudi. So yeah, I totally get what you mean - call it what you will, symbiotic or parasitic, the US just cannot make a clean break with the ME just as much as those same kingdoms can't afford to do the same.

[vikasshu]

Originally Posted by ads11

Ah, lots to unpack. Here goes..

Without boring the others on here any further, I'm happy to take the discussion off thread if you wish to continue.

Thanks for your long response. I raised only two concerns in my post.

1. We can not comment on RSAF only basis their performance in Yemen. To muster my point, I cited multiple examples of best air-powers and how they performed in similar scenarios. I have lot of respect for IAF but in 2006 war with Hezbollah, IDF casualties were very high, Wikipedia says around 120 or more, which I feel high losses.

2. My second point was around PAF's professionalism. I doubt them and think they have great PR power and know how to play with optics.

Rest no arguments about middle eastern air forces and back to main topic

Thanks & Regards

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by vikasshu

Thanks for your long response. I raised only two concerns in my post.

1. We can not comment on RSAF only basis their performance in Yemen. To muster my point, I cited multiple examples of best air-powers and how they performed in similar scenarios. I have lot of respect for IAF but in 2006 war with Hezbollah, IDF casualties were very high, Wikipedia says around 120 or more, which I feel high losses.

2. My second point was around PAF's professionalism. I doubt them and think they have great PR power and know how to play with optics.

Rest no arguments about middle eastern air forces and back to main topic

Thanks & Regards

Let me try to explain both points.

1) I agree with you, the war in Yemen is hardly a reflection of the effectiveness of the Saudi military. My dad worked in Yemen 23 years back (Infact, I was 2 years old at that time and with my parents in Yemen) and he explained how it is a very mountainous country, so even the Americans would've struggled there. However, it is a common consensus including within the gulf countries themselves that the Gulf militaries, in general, are not an effective fighting forces, this is because of multiple factors - a) The leadership is mostly chosen for the royalty towards the monarch, not for merit. b) Significant corruption (eg. walkie talkies bought for the cost of S Classes). c) The militaries are just a means to provide guaranteed government jobs regardless of their mental and physical ability. d) Accounts from allies who train with these militaries. All this corroborated by people I know (I cannot elaborate on this). Perhaps this video will be able to explain better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOUTu30SYsI

2) Regarding the Pakistanis, it's again about consensus including from the Indians. The Indian military sees the Pakistanis as on par with themselves in terms of training. The Pakistanis however are overconfident and see themselves as having superior training but inferior equipment (that overconfidence is why they lose everytime). This is again confirmed by the western allies as well. I would go ahead and say that the Pakistanis are better trained than the PLAAF. Infact, at one point, the Pakistanis who were then trained by the Americans did share their training with the Chinese. Think about it, the Pakistanis retaliated for the Balakot airstrikes using a significant force of F16s and old mirages (as old as our Mig-21s), no other countries would've dared to enter Indian air space like this, not even the Chinese.

I promise this is my last post on gulf militaries