Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is free to use the F-16s to defend Pakistan against any adversary

[The Eagle]

Pakistan May NOT Have Violated F-16 Deal in Clash With India, US Media Says
© AP Photo/ Shakil Adil



ASIA & PACIFIC
16:17 06.03.2019(updated 17:33 06.03.2019)Get short URL
Topic:
Conflict Between India, Pakistan Escalates Over Exchange of Airstrikes in Kashmir (77)
245
Pakistan's alleged “misuse" of the F-16 has attracted global attention over the past week, leading to the scrutiny of US arms shipments to Pakistan over the past decade under the pretext of helping Islamabad in its fight against terror groups.

New Delhi (Sputnik) — New York Times journalist Maria Abi-Habib on Wednesday, quoting American sources, revealed that contrary to India's insistence, Washington considers Pakistan not to have violated its F-16 purchase agreement when its jets got in an dogfight with Indian warplanes which led to the reported downing of an Indian MiG-21.

READ MORE: Afghan Issue to Guide US Response to Pakistan's Alleged F-16 Debacle — Analyst

"US officials are pushing back hard on India's interpretation of their F-16 sale agreement with Pakistan. Sources say if India had entered Pakistan airspace for a second day, and Pakistan used the jet defensively, the contract wasn't violated. But, if Pakistan used an F-16 to attack India first, the deal was violated," Maria Abi-Habib, a New York Times journalist tweeted.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1103132506600157184

Citing weapons experts and officials, NYT journalist Abi-Habib also questioned the Indian Air Force's (IAF) claim that an AIM-120 missile's remnant, that was displayed by New Delhi, was 'proof' of Pakistan's use of an F-16 in the counter-strike that followed the Balakot bombing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1103132518142873602

On Tuesday, the US State Department had acknowledged that it was following the report on the alleged misuse of the F-16 in air clashes between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours very closely.

"We've seen those reports and we're following that issue very closely. I can't confirm anything, but as a matter of policy, we don't publicly comment on the contents of bilateral agreements that we have in this regard involving US defence technologies nor the communications that we have with other countries about that," Robert Palladino, deputy spokesperson of the US Department of State said during a media briefing.


Meanwhile, former vice chief of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) Shahid Latif told a local newspaper that there is no condition attached to the country's purchase of F-16 fighters from the US that stipulates they cannot be used against India.

"Pakistan can use the F-16 jets for its defence against any country, including India," former air marshal Shahid Latif said in reply to a query on whether the deal condition barred the use of the F-16 in 'offensive' operations. The News International said Latif wondered, "If Pakistan was bound not to use these F-16s against India, then why would the country have purchased it?" He said, "We did not need a toy".

READ MORE: India Reveals How its Su-30 'Defeated' F-16's Missile in Dogfight With Pakistan

Even as Pakistan continued to insist that the fighter jets used in the aerial clash with India were not F-16s, the Indian Air Force on Tuesday revealed a detailed account about the dogfight seeking to establish that it was a F-16 which the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) tasked with targeting an Indian military installation.

"During combat, use of F-16 by PAF and multiple launches of AMRAAM were conclusively observed. Prompt and correct tactical action by Su-30 aircraft, in response to AMRAAM launch, defeated the missile. Parts of the missile fell in area East of Rajouri in J&K, injuring a civilian on the ground," a statement by the Indian Air Force read.

India's Ministry of External Affairs has claimed that one PAF F-16 fighter aircraft was shot down by an IAF MiG 21 Bison.

 

[CodeforFood]

Just saw this news at Dawn. It seems that the US journalists and defense representatives are not convinced of the Indian narrative in regards to strikes at Balakot and later use of F-16s

Here is the link;

https://www.dawn.com/news/1467971/f...indian-narrative-on-f-16-usage-balakot-strike

Note: Please let me know if there is a thread for this already. I did not see one.

 

[mshan44]

USA refuses to take position on f 16 . Another slap to indians



https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1468087?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Trailer23]

Kindly watch the first 30sec of video below.

Once you're done listening to the b.s. (above), direct your attention to ACM (Retd.) Shahid Latif...

Timecodes:
02:15 to 06:30 - Talking about the use of F-16 for Defense. He also mentions the 'End-User Agreement'
16:30 to 18:30 - Talks about Modi dreaming if India had the Rafales, the out would have been different & the Annual Budget of India in comparison to Pakistan.

 

[HAIDER]

WASHINGTON: The United States, while providing F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad, not only acknowledged the aircraft’s “deterrence value” to Pakistan in a future conflict with India but also noted that it could prevent a nuclear clash between the two neighbours.

Both points are specifically mentioned in a message the then US ambassador in Islamabad Anne Patterson sent to the State Department on April 24, 2008.

Also read: Foreign journalists find holes in Indian narrative on F-16 usage, Balakot strike

“An enhanced F-16 programme also has deterrence value by giving Pakistan time and space to employ a conventional, rather than nuclear, reaction in the event of a future conflict with India,” she wrote.

The quote is from a 20-paragraph communique that Ambassador Patterson sent to Washington in April 2008 and was disclosed by WikiLeaks.

The package she was referring to included 500 AIM-120-C5 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), which India claims Pakistan used against the Indian Air Force in last week’s combats over Kashmir.

On March 18, 2009, Ambassador Patterson sent another long message to Washington, which deals with Pakistan’s requests for more F-16s and India’s objections to the proposed sale.

“If our goal is to press the Army to change strategy and redeploy forces from the Indian border, punishing the Air Force by cancelling this sale will not help us,” wrote the ambassador while responding to India’s request to cancel the sale.

“It will emphasise that we favour maintaining Indian superiority at Pakistan’s expense and feed anti-Americanism throughout the military.”

In the same message she also explained why she believed the F-16s could avert a nuclear conflict in South Asia.

“To overcome overwhelming Indian military superiority, Pakistan developed both its nuclear/missile programme and its air power. F-16 aircraft, armed with AMRAAMS, essentially buy time to delay Pakistan considering the nuclear option in a conflict with India.” she wrote.

“Given India’s overwhelming military superiority, this would only be a few days, but these days would allow critical time to mediate and prevent nuclear conflict.”

Ambassador Patterson reminded policy makers in Washington that in 2008 India already enjoyed “an almost 2-1 advantage” over Pakistan in advanced multi-purpose fighters, when New Delhi had 736 aircraft while Pakistan had 370 only.

“Pakistan’s shortfalls in training and tactics multiply India’s edge,” she added.

Ambassador Patterson noted that Pakistan was also buying/jointly producing 150 JF-17 fighters from China, but it is unclear how they will pay for them.

“India plans to acquire 126 multi-purpose fighters (F-18 or equivalent) that will give (New Delhi) significant new technologies and further expand its air superiority over Pakistan,” she wrote.

Ambassador Patterson explained the new aircraft and 500 AMRAAM missiles would give Pakistan beyond visual range capability, but Pakistan will acquire the ability to employ this capability with either the new buy or MLU aircraft.

She argued that cancelling the proposed buy would only delay the process by 18 months while successful employment of this capability by the PAF would take 2-3 years and a significant revision of doctrine and tactics.

“The Indian Air Force already routinely trains on existing beyond visual range tactics. (If) we do deny Pakistan requests for arms sales that could upset the regional balance of power.”

In a scene-setter for the former army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s Feb 19, 2009, visit to Washington, the US Embassy in Islamabad informed Washington that he would raise the issue in his meetings with US officials.

“We are responding to Pakistan Air Force requests for Close Air Support training to improve the precision of F-16s they are using in Fata,” the embassy wrote.

Published in Dawn, March 8th, 2019

 

[maximuswarrior]

We will the use the F-16 in whatever role we desire. That includes nuclear option.

 

[khansaheeb]

Anne Patterson's analysis was spot on, a conventionally powerful Pakistan dampened the hostilities pretty quickly and the nuclear threshold was never close.

 

[Enigma SIG]

“Pakistan’s shortfalls in training and tactics multiply India’s edge,” she added.

Hilarious. The events of the past few weeks have made it clear that it is the best advantage that we have.

 

[Riz]

These freaking 40 years old F-16 are still beasts of south asia... Now its confirmed that indians will never every try to use new Rafael against them as well..

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

Who the frack Anne Patterson thinks she is? Some kind of former diplomat?

 

[Dubious]

Anwar Iqbal
Updated March 08, 2019

A US Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon flies a mission in the skies near Iraq. ─ Wikimedia Commons

WASHINGTON: The United States, while providing F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad, not only acknowledged the aircraft’s “deterrence value” to Pakistan in a future conflict with India but also noted that it could prevent a nuclear clash between the two neighbours.

Both points are specifically mentioned in a message the then US ambassador in Islamabad Anne Patterson sent to the State Department on April 24, 2008.

“An enhanced F-16 programme also has deterrence value by giving Pakistan time and space to employ a conventional, rather than nuclear, reaction in the event of a future conflict with India,” she wrote.

The quote is from a 20-paragraph communique that Ambassador Patterson sent to Washington in April 2008 and was disclosed by WikiLeaks.

The package she was referring to included 500 AIM-120-C5 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), which India claims Pakistan used against the Indian Air Force in last week’s combats over Kashmir.

On March 18, 2009, Ambassador Patterson sent another long message to Washington, which deals with Pakistan’s requests for more F-16s and India’s objections to the proposed sale.

“If our goal is to press the Army to change strategy and redeploy forces from the Indian border, punishing the Air Force by cancelling this sale will not help us,” wrote the ambassador while responding to India’s request to cancel the sale.

“It will emphasise that we favour maintaining Indian superiority at Pakistan’s expense and feed anti-Americanism throughout the military.”

In the same message she also explained why she believed the F-16s could avert a nuclear conflict in South Asia.

“To overcome overwhelming Indian military superiority, Pakistan developed both its nuclear/missile programme and its air power. F-16 aircraft, armed with AMRAAMS, essentially buy time to delay Pakistan considering the nuclear option in a conflict with India.” she wrote.

“Given India’s overwhelming military superiority, this would only be a few days, but these days would allow critical time to mediate and prevent nuclear conflict.”

Ambassador Patterson reminded policy makers in Washington that in 2008 India already enjoyed “an almost 2-1 advantage” over Pakistan in advanced multi-purpose fighters, when New Delhi had 736 aircraft while Pakistan had 370 only.

“Pakistan’s shortfalls in training and tactics multiply India’s edge,” she added.

Ambassador Patterson noted that Pakistan was also buying/jointly producing 150 JF-17 fighters from China, but it is unclear how they will pay for them.

“India plans to acquire 126 multi-purpose fighters (F-18 or equivalent) that will give (New Delhi) significant new technologies and further expand its air superiority over Pakistan,” she wrote.

Ambassador Patterson explained the new aircraft and 500 AMRAAM missiles would give Pakistan beyond visual range capability, but Pakistan will acquire the ability to employ this capability with either the new buy or MLU aircraft.

She argued that cancelling the proposed buy would only delay the process by 18 months while successful employment of this capability by the PAF would take 2-3 years and a significant revision of doctrine and tactics.

“The Indian Air Force already routinely trains on existing beyond visual range tactics. (If) we do deny Pakistan requests for arms sales that could upset the regional balance of power.”

In a scene-setter for the former army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s Feb 19, 2009, visit to Washington, the US Embassy in Islamabad informed Washington that he would raise the issue in his meetings with US officials.

“We are responding to Pakistan Air Force requests for Close Air Support training to improve the precision of F-16s they are using in Fata,” the embassy wrote.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1468323

 

[PakSword]

Looking at how Pakistan played in the current crisis, world will start getting nervous about Indian nuclear program rather than Pakistan..

We Pakistanis should also stop using the 'N' word whenever a conflict occurs with India.. When our forces are so capable, who needs nukes, man!?

 

[El Sidd]

who needs nukes, man!?

I do

 

[PakSword]

I do

Germany already has nukes..

 

[El Sidd]

Germany already has nukes..

Atomic power plants are scheduled to be phased out by 2030 in Deutschland.