What's new

Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

.
Ur brainless,

Reply with responsibilitiy and logicaly

Well bold part in your reply simply suggest how responsibly and logically you reply....I know it is fun to preach but not following it and that too in the same post kind of don't help....

Sometimes people do make genuine mistakes and learn from SMC and other members of how to correct them....Secondly AID or no AID the message was "no matter what weapons will be used and consequences will be tackled later on"
 
.
deckingraj,

No need to get offended as most of Indians remain under constant impression that what ever Pakistan gets from US, it has to be always in the form of PEANUTS and AID and I have seen so many posters doing the same on this forum too.

A steady head never hurts....

Regards
 
.
! five refurbished SH-2I Super Seasprite maritime helicopters granted under EDA ($67 million);

EDA not accepted!
 
.
! five refurbished SH-2I Super Seasprite maritime helicopters granted under EDA ($67 million);

EDA not accepted!

Thx GOD that EDA not accepted otherwise we would have another junk yard man look at these helicopters they are ugly looking



almost 60 year old
 
.
Well i have not heard on any restrictions on India.....The only restrictions are on sharing it with others or reverse copying...Though Mastan Khan has explained it beautifully but $10 Billion(and more) have lot of power....Not to forget these block 52 are part of US Aid to Pakistan....So hard cash vs Aid and no surprise parameters are different....but in the end if there is any conflict then these birds will fly to defeat the enemy...Post war scenarios will not hinder operations during war....

Dear,

I beg to differ. The EUM restrictions on INS Jalashwa have made many in India quite furious with its acquisition. The EUM states that it cannot be used for offensive purposes. Its an amphibious attack ship for God's sake. For further reference, read this
http://www.hindustantimes.com/CPM-fires-at-Centre-with-CAG-ammo-on-INS-Jalashwa/Article1-282462.aspx

Same kind of EUM exist for P8I, and C130J acquisition. Please don't force me to re-post the links i have already posted earlier in the thread. Go back a couple of pages and read them ... carefully, so it does not elude you.

Btw, i am pretty sure INS Jalashwa was not US aid.

Regards,
Sapper
 
.
Dear,

I beg to differ. The EUM restrictions on INS Jalashwa have made many in India quite furious with its acquisition. The EUM states that it cannot be used for offensive purposes. Its an amphibious attack ship for God's sake. For further reference, read this
CPM fires at Centre with CAG ammo on INS Jalashwa...- Hindustan Times

Same kind of EUM exist for P8I, and C130J acquisition. Please don't force me to re-post the links i have already posted earlier in the thread. Go back a couple of pages and read them ... carefully, so it does not elude you.

Btw, i am pretty sure INS Jalashwa was not US aid.

Regards,
Sapper


Hi Sapper....Regarding the AID part i have already stated that i stand corrected....Though thanks for the informed post however in India politics works in a very different fashion...Opposition is quite strong and keep the govt on its toes....There was hell lot of hue and cry over End User Agreement that was done with US and hell lot of discussion/talk shows/aticles and finally statement in Parliament by our defence minister who clearly states what was signed as far as end user agreement is concerned....I am sure you already know but just in case would like to say that EUA is a general term....however terms and conditions vary from country to country....In the EUA that we have signed let me highlight few bullet points

- It is India who will decide where US engineers can monitor the said equipments...
- The place not necessarily be a military establishment...
- India cannot reverse engineer it nor can modify it without US approval...
- India cannot sell it to any third country without US approval...

In case you have more information then please let me know...I would love to read about it....Now let me dwell more into AID part...You got additional F-16's due to your role in WOT...I confused it with AID however it was friendly gesture from US for your role....Now the problem is that you have a dependency on US and we don't and thus the clauses will vary....I think people just picked my AID part and ignored that i was refering to power of billions of $$$$...There is a reason why atleast on paper it has been conveyed to pakistan unequivocally that these weapons cannot be used against India.... I hope i clarified to your satisfaction.....

P.S : I think i have highjacked the thread so will refrain from talking more about it....please so share if you have more information about India's EUA and i will PM you my thoughts on it...
 
.
Hi Sapper....Regarding the AID part i have already stated that i stand corrected....Though thanks for the informed post however in India politics works in a very different fashion...Opposition is quite strong and keep the govt on its toes....There was hell lot of hue and cry over End User Agreement that was done with US and hell lot of discussion/talk shows/aticles and finally statement in Parliament by our defence minister who clearly states what was signed as far as end user agreement is concerned....I am sure you already know but just in case would like to say that EUA is a general term....however terms and conditions vary from country to country....In the EUA that we have signed let me highlight few bullet points

- It is India who will decide where US engineers can monitor the said equipments...
- The place not necessarily be a military establishment...
- India cannot reverse engineer it nor can modify it without US approval...
- India cannot sell it to any third country without US approval...

In case you have more information then please let me know...I would love to read about it....Now let me dwell more into AID part...You got additional F-16's due to your role in WOT...I confused it with AID however it was friendly gesture from US for your role....Now the problem is that you have a dependency on US and we don't and thus the clauses will vary....I think people just picked my AID part and ignored that i was refering to power of billions of $$$$...There is a reason why atleast on paper it has been conveyed to pakistan unequivocally that these weapons cannot be used against India.... I hope i clarified to your satisfaction.....

P.S : I think i have highjacked the thread so will refrain from talking more about it....please so share if you have more information about India's EUA and i will PM you my thoughts on it...

Dear,

It would have really helped if you had sent links for the source of your mentioned points. I have already sent 3 links to support my claim. If you have a source for complete EUM document for any of India's recent acquisition from US, it will really help.

Regards,
Sapper
 
.
Hi Sapper....Regarding the AID part i have already stated that i stand corrected....Though thanks for the informed post however in India politics works in a very different fashion...Opposition is quite strong and keep the govt on its toes....There was hell lot of hue and cry over End User Agreement that was done with US and hell lot of discussion/talk shows/aticles and finally statement in Parliament by our defence minister who clearly states what was signed as far as end user agreement is concerned....I am sure you already know but just in case would like to say that EUA is a general term....however terms and conditions vary from country to country....In the EUA that we have signed let me highlight few bullet points

- It is India who will decide where US engineers can monitor the said equipments...
- The place not necessarily be a military establishment...
- India cannot reverse engineer it nor can modify it without US approval...
- India cannot sell it to any third country without US approval...

In case you have more information then please let me know...I would love to read about it....Now let me dwell more into AID part...You got additional F-16's due to your role in WOT...I confused it with AID however it was friendly gesture from US for your role....Now the problem is that you have a dependency on US and we don't and thus the clauses will vary....I think people just picked my AID part and ignored that i was refering to power of billions of $$$$...There is a reason why atleast on paper it has been conveyed to pakistan unequivocally that these weapons cannot be used against India.... I hope i clarified to your satisfaction.....

P.S : I think i have highjacked the thread so will refrain from talking more about it....please so share if you have more information about India's EUA and i will PM you my thoughts on it...

IF you are under the impression that the EUA for Pakistan is ANY different then you are sorely mistaken, If you look at the AcTual Objections raised by the Americans; such as mounting nukes on the F-16's, or the hype about modified harpoons they violate the same clauses that you have stated.
The whole hulla baloo about the F-16's not being used for India is a congressional politik and has nothing to do with the Actual EUA which states the same as above.
Case in point, when Pakistan sold its T-37B's from 70's it asked for congressional permission to do so. And Yes Pakistan has violated its EUA on the F-16's more than once.
The worry in congress has less to do with the 18 aircraft being used against India then with those aircraft being equipped with nukes and then used since its a fair chance that with all that EW equipment most will get through.
If the actual debate in congress was about the jets then they would have raised objections immediately about the jets at the moment the LOI was issued. The details of the purchases made by Pakistan go to every house and senate member and especially that Ackerman fellow. So unless they are really stupid they would have brought the house down there and then since it would be very clear that the Taliban don't possess anything in term of SAMs dangerous enough to warrant the very very advanced EW suite that comes with our jets.:)
 
.
IF you are under the impression that the EUA for Pakistan is ANY different then you are sorely mistaken,
I don't think i am wrong however would love to get corrected....The arms that we have got has no binding(even on paper) of where to use them and against whom...In other words if we use these against China or Pakistan in any war scenario then there is no legal reason for putting arms embargo on India...where as on paper the same can be put on our pakistani counterparts...Do you agree or not???


If you look at the AcTual Objections raised by the Americans; such as mounting nukes on the F-16's, or the hype about modified harpoons they violate the same clauses that you have stated.
Yes because that was an alleged violation...Eye-brows were raised on it and were categorically denied by Pak...However i am not getting the point...Do you want them to raise an objection on something which has not happened(i.e. Used against India) or are you telling me that Pak can break EUM?? because i am in agreement with both...Moreover as of not US needs Pak in WOT so standards will vary....


The whole hulla baloo about the F-16's not being used for India is a congressional politik and has nothing to do with the Actual EUA which states the same as above.
Case in point, when Pakistan sold its T-37B's from 70's it asked for congressional permission to do so. And Yes Pakistan has violated its EUA on the F-16's more than once.
The worry in congress has less to do with the 18 aircraft being used against India then with those aircraft being equipped with nukes and then used since its a fair chance that with all that EW equipment most will get through.
If the actual debate in congress was about the jets then they would have raised objections immediately about the jets at the moment the LOI was issued. The details of the purchases made by Pakistan go to every house and senate member and especially that Ackerman fellow. So unless they are really stupid they would have brought the house down there and then since it would be very clear that the Taliban don't possess anything in term of SAMs dangerous enough to warrant the very very advanced EW suite that comes with our jets.:)

Oh...COmon Sapper...from post#1 i am saying that in case of war weapons will be used and consequences will be dealt later...Who is arguing that you have not broken EUA in the past??? Who is arguing that you don't need F-16 block 52 with Sidewinder Arms for TTP??? However just to satisfy indians it has been unequivocally said that you cannot use these against India...Do you see the difference???

As far as nukes is concerned then you have enough missiles in your possession that can deliver nukes to all parts of India...If this was the concern then you are right about stupidness of congressmen...However you and I both know that they are not....I am not sure if you missed it but Obama right from election days was very categorically saying that all the help that US has given to Pakistan is being used in preparing war against India and hence strategy needs to be changed...Kerry Lugar bill is a direct outcome of that mindset so honestly i am not sure what are we debating here....

Let me repeat i have no doubt in my mind that Pak will use whatever they get from US against India in case of war...How much US will do against it depends on the geo-politics of that time...However one thing is clear US is far more tough then what it was in 70's(when US-India relations were down the hill)
 
.
i thimk its 10000000000000000000000000th time we clear to our indian friends f-16 deal is not AID AID AID lol next week some more guys join and strt aid bla bla bla
 
Last edited:
. .
I don't think i am wrong however would love to get corrected....The arms that we have got has no binding(even on paper) of where to use them and against whom...In other words if we use these against China or Pakistan in any war scenario then there is no legal reason for putting arms embargo on India...where as on paper the same can be put on our pakistani counterparts...Do you agree or not???



Yes because that was an alleged violation...Eye-brows were raised on it and were categorically denied by Pak...However i am not getting the point...Do you want them to raise an objection on something which has not happened(i.e. Used against India) or are you telling me that Pak can break EUM?? because i am in agreement with both...Moreover as of not US needs Pak in WOT so standards will vary....




Oh...COmon Sapper...from post#1 i am saying that in case of war weapons will be used and consequences will be dealt later...Who is arguing that you have not broken EUA in the past??? Who is arguing that you don't need F-16 block 52 with Sidewinder Arms for TTP??? However just to satisfy indians it has been unequivocally said that you cannot use these against India...Do you see the difference???

As far as nukes is concerned then you have enough missiles in your possession that can deliver nukes to all parts of India...If this was the concern then you are right about stupidness of congressmen...However you and I both know that they are not....I am not sure if you missed it but Obama right from election days was very categorically saying that all the help that US has given to Pakistan is being used in preparing war against India and hence strategy needs to be changed...Kerry Lugar bill is a direct outcome of that mindset so honestly i am not sure what are we debating here....

Let me repeat i have no doubt in my mind that Pak will use whatever they get from US against India in case of war...How much US will do against it depends on the geo-politics of that time...However one thing is clear US is far more tough then what it was in 70's(when US-India relations were down the hill)

No difference, the EUA is the same, the verbal diarrhea isn't.
The F-16's will be used, the EUA is the same and all the bickering in the world wont change the fact that 18 of them and 500 Amraams are about to come in Pakistan the coming few months. And unless Obama is blown up by a Pakistani we will still get them. If its satisfaction you Indians want id recommend reading the following while listening to rolling stones "I cant get no satisfaction".



My neighbor can get the police to issue a warning to me on screwing his wife. They police can tell me that when I buy condoms they aren't going to be for my neighbors wife. And that I can do all the sluts in the world except my neighbors wife. They can take it from me in writing on paper. But ill damn make sure that when I buy the condoms they aren't full of holes. And when I am finally screwing my neighbors wife using those condoms the police cant do jack about it otherwise ill make the woman pregnant.
Hence;the police know Ive used condoms before and screwed my neighbors wife, They tell the neighbor it wont be allowed to happen but they sell me the condoms anyway with terms of use printed on the back and I make sure there are no holes. The neighbor still doesn't like me having condoms, he knows ill screw his wife and his wife alone and squeals to the police about it. But I paid for the condoms, the guy in the store will get fired if he doesn't sell them now since he bought them from the dealer anyway and they are only my size. SO...I get the condoms, I tell the police Ill only use em if a ho mounts me forcefully and in return he can issue me a warning on the back of the condom pack that says I don't do otherwise. And he assures the neighbor that I wont be allowed to use those condoms on his wife and everything is quiet, till I do the neighbors wife using those condoms since it wud be a damn shame if she got pregnant.
The neighbor will shoot me but he will have a bastard kid in his house.


back to the F-16's. Any news on the DRFM's..getting or not getting it???
 
.
Oh...COmon Sapper...from post#1 i am saying that in case of war weapons will be used and consequences will be dealt later...Who is arguing that you have not broken EUA in the past??? Who is arguing that you don't need F-16 block 52 with Sidewinder Arms for TTP??? However just to satisfy indians it has been unequivocally said that you cannot use these against India...Do you see the difference???

Dear,

Please ... You are using my name while replying to Santro. Please take care next time.

Again, If you have anything to "prove" your point i.e. Indian EUMA for P8-I, INS Jalashwa (USS Trenton), C130 etc, please send us the link.

Also, please keep in mind that the EUMA for Pakistani F16 is exactly the same for F16A/B and Harpoons supplied during our hush hush time with USA during 1980's. The only difference is that our media never got to know about this, so there was no hue and cry.

These are standard EUM agreements for all US FMS (foreign military sales), and exist for all sales regardless of the intended customer, like Singapore, Turkey, Israel, Denmark etc. The reason is that US policies and decisions are very documented and open to legal reviews, and they want their ***** covered if and when one of their allies turned their own manufactured weapons against them.

They want to be able to satisfy their congressmen and voters that they intended weapons sales were to be used for defense only and not to fight USA or any of its allies. Its more or less a legal footprint that you add at the bottom of a warranty card, to cover your *** when the **** hits the fan. And, btw, i totally agree with them for their precautions. They have a very just justice system, and selling arms without any restrictions would be very dangerous for any congressmen and decision maker.

Moreover, the decision to exercise the clauses of EUMA depend on political situation, so yes, Indian pressure could lead USA to exercise their right to check inventory status and look for any violations, just as it was done in Harpoon's hoax.

Once again, I urge you to provide us links to EUM agreements between India and USA. "I don't think i am wrong" is not a strong defense stance.

Regards,
Sapper
 
.
back to the F-16's. Any news on the DRFM's..getting or not getting it???

if we r getting 500 amrams (largest single order), then whats a few DRFMs between friends - u bet we will get them.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom