F-16 Block 15MLU/50/52 Fighter

[Quwa]

Not relating to this current purchase but when Turkey receives F-35, would they consider selling their F-16s to Pakistan you think?

Only if one of these two occur;
1) U.S - Pakistan relations good/satisfactory
2) Turk-U.S relations go down the drain

 

[Averroes]

if Turk - US relations go down the drain, then there's no F-35 and they won't ever sell the planes.

I think US - Pak relations might get better, because their plans haven't turned out the way they wanted it, so they're going to need Pakistan.

But if the relations are good and permitted by us, wud Turkey being a good ally actually consider selling them?

 

[Quwa]

if Turk - US relations go down the drain, then there's no F-35 and they won't ever sell the planes.

hmm...I was wrong on this one; on the other hand, if Turkey ever found a replacement they would sell the F-16s if Pakistan wanted to buy them (and if U.S relations were sour with Pakistan).

 

[Neo]

unday, September 03, 2006javascript:; http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2006\09\03\story_3-9-2006_pg7_39

LAHORE: The government’s decision to buy, repair and upgrade 96 F-16 aircrafts on “shameful” conditions was tantamount to making Pakistan an American colony, said Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal President Qazi Hussain Ahmad on Saturday.

In a strong-worded statement on Saturday, Qazi said that under the deal, Islamabad would buy 36 new, 26 used and 34 upgraded F-16s for $5.1 billion to be paid in advance. He said that Islamabad had to fulfill certain conditions, including the presence of US personnel at the Pakistani airbase for daily checking of the aircraft, two-man rule for access to F-16 equipment, monitoring flights and operations, bar to carry nuclear warheads and prior approval of the US government for operation against a third nation.

The MMA leader said all these conditions were prejudicial to the national interest. He said all Pakistani airbases would come under the control of US air force.

He said that US Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs John Helen had categorically stated that this deal would prevent China from building a strategic military-to-military relationship with Pakistan. “This will convert Pakistan from a sovereign and independent country to an American colony,” he said.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\09\03\story_3-9-2006_pg7_39

 

[Neo]

He said that Islamabad had to fulfill certain conditions, including the presence of US personnel at the Pakistani airbase for daily checking of the aircraft, two-man rule for access to F-16 equipment, monitoring flights and operations, bar to carry nuclear warheads and prior approval of the US government for operation against a third nation.

Can someone confirm this? :what1:

 

[Averroes]

Goodness, this is deplorable. Have we sunk this low?

Israel has been responsible for selling classified US military equipment to China despite restriction, yet do you ever hear them complaining or monitoring them despite the fact that all their oppressions occur with US weapons?

 

[Quwa]

MMA has taken this way too out of proportion; the actual conditions themselves aren't as harsh as they're depicted by MMA.

In a strong-worded statement on Saturday, Qazi said that under the deal, Islamabad would buy 36 new, 26 used and 34 upgraded F-16s for $5.1 billion to be paid in advance.

5.1bn USD paid in advance? Pakistan does not have this money - and in order to do that, it would have to be paid by external funds. Only one country could possibly do this for Pakistan - the U.S; if its U.S funds, then whats the problem? Otherwise - the PAF Air Chief said the 5.1bn USD will be paid over 10-15 years after the deal is signed.

He said that Islamabad had to fulfill certain conditions, including the presence of US personnel at the Pakistani airbase for daily checking of the aircraft, two-man rule for access to F-16 equipment, monitoring flights and operations, bar to carry nuclear warheads and prior approval of the US government for operation against a third nation

Daily checking? No such thing - its routine semi-annual checking; and it was done by the U.S during the mid 1980s when the PAF got its original F-16s. As for the 'two man rule' and 'monitoring flights and operations' - that was not mentioned in the conditions. The third nation rule would at best apply to international excersizes; if Pakistan went to war, the U.S would embargo it regardless of how the F-16s are used.

The MMA leader said all these conditions were prejudicial to the national interest. He said all Pakistani airbases would come under the control of US air force.

He said that US Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs John Helen had categorically stated that this deal would prevent China from building a strategic military-to-military relationship with Pakistan. “This will convert Pakistan from a sovereign and independent country to an American colony,” he said.

The MMA leader was not there at the negotiations, he knows squat about the PAF. If anything, it is his statement which is prejudged and baseless; does he have adequate proof about USAF having control over Pakistani air bases - or rather most of his statements?

BTW you cannot convert a politically emotional country into your puppet by selling it weapons. You could convert it by giving it 25-30bn USD in aid within a decade, and continue providing 1-2bn USD every year - in the case of Egypt. And if these F-16s are being bought by the U.S - whats the problem?

 

[Neo]

MMA has taken this way too out of proportion; the actual conditions themselves aren't as harsh as they're depicted by MMA.

Damn, I hate incompetant opposition! :hrr:

5.1bn USD paid in advance? Pakistan does not have this money - and in order to do that, it would have to be paid by external funds. Only one country could possibly do this for Pakistan - the U.S; if its U.S funds, then whats the problem? Otherwise - the PAF Air Chief said the 5.1bn USD will be paid over 10-15 years after the deal is signed.

Indeed, he also stated before that the purchase will not be funded by 'new loans' but from the defence budget and USaid.

Daily checking? No such thing - its routine semi-annual checking; and it was done by the U.S during the mid 1980s when the PAF got its original F-16s. As for the 'two man rule' and 'monitoring flights and operations' - that was not mentioned in the conditions. The third nation rule would at best apply to international excersizes; if Pakistan went to war, the U.S would embargo it regardless of how the F-16s are used.

This is my major concern, the F-16's would survive a short conflict but on the longer run we'll be out of spares as history proves that US embargo is likely.
Imho the deal should have included spares supply from a third country like Turkey at all times.

The MMA leader was not there at the negotiations, he knows squat about the PAF. If anything, it is his statement which is prejudged and baseless; does he have adequate proof about USAF having control over Pakistani air bases - or rather most of his statements?

Agreed!

BTW you cannot convert a politically emotional country into your puppet by selling it weapons. You could convert it by giving it 25-30bn USD in aid within a decade, and continue providing 1-2bn USD every year - in the case of Egypt. And if these F-16s are being bought by the U.S - whats the problem?

Well said Mark!

 

[KashifAsrar]

This is interesting news indeed !!

Islamabad would buy 36 new, 26 used and 34 upgraded F-16s for $5.1 billion to be paid in advance. He said that Islamabad had to fulfill certain conditions, including the presence of US personnel at the Pakistani airbase for daily checking of the aircraft, two-man rule for access to F-16 equipment, monitoring flights and operations, bar to carry nuclear warheads and prior approval of the US government for operation against a third nation.

This is really sinking to knees !! MUSH is really a dictator AMERICANS should be proud of !!
Pakistan on a low esteem here. Very Low Indeed !!
Kashif

 

[Quwa]

This is interesting news indeed !!



This is really sinking to knees !! MUSH is really a dictator AMERICANS should be proud of !!
Pakistan on a low esteem here. Very Low Indeed !!
Kashif

You've sunk even lower by not reading the responses to the article. Maybe you should study world politics a bit - you'll realize that most governments in the world are types of dictatorships. The Arab Gulf and Egypt are examples - while Turkey is manipulated by their military.

Neo;

It is well established that Pakistan will be embargoed by the U.S and Western World; and a war would financially be too costly - even if no one embargoed Pakistan. Best way is to create a conventional threshold and avoid war; but of course keep complete soveriegnty.

 

[glyn]

It is well established that Pakistan will be embargoed by the U.S and Western World; and a war would financially be too costly - even if no one embargoed Pakistan. Best way is to create a conventional threshold and avoid war; but of course keep complete soveriegnty.

Well said! Some forum members seem to me to be 'gung ho' and rather bloodthirsty. It was an early American President who said "There never was a bad peace, and there never is a good war". Yes, I know, what a pity the present incumbent never studied history, tell me about it! If you want my two-pennyworth (lots won't) I think it would be better to have just "sufficient" military hardware to defend oneself. I think some of what I've read on this forum about nuclear weapons and their possible usage is lunacy. Goodbye world, or at least civilisation as we know it once these get slung around. A good neighbour policy is essential for all states with shared borders. Space research and the like might be highly regarded, but they are frightningly expensive, and if I may say, quite un-necessary for Pakistan. I'm sure you can think of better ways that money can be spent on internal developments, because I certainly can. I would welcome more sentiments like those expressed by Mark Sien

 

[Quwa]

War is the last thing anyone would want - especially between two regional powers; the decade long Iran - Iraq war turned two first world nations into third world piggy banks. A long-term war would require billions of dollars to simply destroy stuff and kill off lives; what exactly is the benefit in that? Besides, a war would be the very - VERY last thing Pakistan would want; even a conventional war will drag it down with an economic depression and social upheaval.

A military should be a working ceremonial outfit to ensure a country's independance - and NOT be an aggressor for war. You have a strong economy and you want it the world to recognize it, have a strong military. You have interests that you want to guard - have a military. If you're building a military for the prime sake of world domination - then you'll face horrible consequences.

However one must note; political bullying and aspirations of domination are also not good. Certain countries must have a strong military to ensure a larger rival does not exploit any weakenesses. If one side pulled the trigger - then its a bloodbath; sometimes peace requires two powerful or two weak sides.

There is a difference between a military for world domination and military for protecting interests and keeping regionally on par. Thus far I think Pakistan is spending on a military to keep on par - and in my honest opinion, it has very little money to spend.

 

[Neo]

Sir Glyn,

Pakistan doesn't want to fight his neighbors and we have a 'keeping minimum deterrance' doctrine which is based around our modest nuclear arsenal.

Therefor Mark's statement "A military should be a working ceremonial outfit to ensure a country's independance - and NOT be an aggressor for war." applies!

 

[glyn]

Sir Glyn implies a knighthood, young Neo, and (inexplicably) I have never been knighted.
Benighted, more like!

 

[Neo]

Sir,

The country or actually the region I'm from its quite normal to address senior people as 'Sir' ou of respect.
Seniority btw isn't always about the age.
In your case its about knowledge and life experience.