US Government vs Congress: Sale of F16s to Pakistan

[Zahoor Raja-Jani]

Islamabad: Following the suspension of US funding for the F-16s deal, the State Department acknowledged that Pakistan needs those aircraft for its anti-terrorism activities.
"We believe they’re the right platform to support Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts, and have been a part of the successful pushback, if you will, or in past operations against some of the militant groups that are active in Pakistan,” the department’s deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, said on Saturday.

This rejects a recent claim by some US lawmakers that Pakistan would use the aircraft against India, not the terrorists.

On Friday, another State Department official told Dawn online that senior US lawmakers had refused to provide foreign military financing (FMF) for the eight F-16s Pakistan plans to buy from the US, unless Islamabad takes “some specific actions”.



Without US assistance, Pakistan will have to pay almost $700 million for the aircraft; two-and-a-half times the subsidised cost of $270m.

Tariq Fatemi, the Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, also said that bringing Congress around to the deal was the (President Barack) Obama administration’s job.

“There is a strong opposition to provide subsidised arms to other countries in the US Congress, but the Obama administration’s offer of military aid to Pakistan still stands,” Fatemi said.

“Pakistan has already rendered great services in the war against terror, so its case is strong.”

Fatemi said that the Pakistan Embassy in Washington was also in touch with key US lawmakers on this issue and he was "hopeful" that Pakistan would receive the FMF funding for the aircraft.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world...kistans-counter-terrorism-war-us_1881130.html

 

[Zahoor Raja-Jani]

@Windjammer @Icarus @Khafee @Indus Falcon @Oscar

 

[IceCold]

F-16s are past their due date. If they come under FMF, fine otherwise it would be better to start looking for an alternative. The next government would only be more worse in terms of its policy towards Pakistan. Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Rank]

better to join J31 and Russians!

 

[Djinn]

Oh for the love of aviation! These are just 8 f-16's, DENE HAY TU DO, WARNA SHOVE THEM WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE

 

[PakEye]

[QUOTE="Zahoor Raja-Jani, post: 8277982, member:[/QUOTE]
out of eight F-16 Six are dual seats for night operations / trainers and only two are single seats.

 

[Zahoor Raja-Jani]

For F-16's critics i would like to say that F-16 is the most capable operational air craft in this subcontinent.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

F-16s are past their due date. If they come under FMF, fine otherwise it would be better to start looking for an alternative. The next government would only be more worse in terms of its policy towards Pakistan. Better to be safe than sorry.

Exactly why, if the mission is to bomb Talibans?
You could do that with Vietnam war vintage aircraft with an extra pod.
If You want somthing for a fight with India, then You might be right,
but that confirms the point of view of the Congress.

 

[IceCold]

Exactly why, if the mission is to bomb Talibans?
You could do that with Vietnam war vintage aircraft with an extra pod.
If You want somthing for a fight with India, then You might be right,
but that confirms the point of view of the Congress.

And why would we use a vintage aircraft that lacks precise targeting, nighvision capabilities? Which may result in huge collateral damage. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of maintaining such an old aircraft.

 

[CHACHA"G"]

And that's why we will not give them to Pakistan for Free ,,,,,,,,,,,If they want it they have to buy it a single bird will cost 90m$$$$$$$$
That's the full news lol

 

[Tipu7]

United States have to DO MORE to eradicate terror in region.
And USA must PROVE that it is allay of Pakistan in war on terror.
Empty words don't work, if USA want stability in Afghanistan then It must full fill the requirements of Pakistan.
If Pakistan can fight American war in Afghanistan then Pakistan have right on US tax payer money also ......

 

[Spectre]

United States have to DO MORE to eradicate terror in region.
And USA must PROVE that it is allay of Pakistan in war on terror.
Empty words don't work, if USA want stability in Afghanistan then It must full fill the requirements of Pakistan.
If Pakistan can fight American war in Afghanistan then Pakistan have right on US tax payer money also ......

How is Pakistan fighting American war in Afghanistan? Are there Pakistani troops in Afghanistan battling Taliban? No.. They are infact sheltering Taliban.

For more information read .. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340165/ns/world_news-brave_new_world/t/airlift-evil/

 

[Jaam92]

Pakistan should think about its future, Pakistan is dependent upon F-16s which is really good aircraft but USA is not in mod to deliver it earlier and Indian lobby in Congress are also reason for delay of F-16s. Pakistan should say Good bye to US variants and must welcome Russian Variant.
Chinese variant would easily be our after completing of CPEC so we should move to Su-35 Aircraft

 

[HRK]

How is Pakistan fighting American war in Afghanistan? Are there Pakistani troops in Afghanistan battling Taliban? No.. They are infact sheltering Taliban.

For more information read .. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340165/ns/world_news-brave_new_world/t/airlift-evil/

Qatar doing the same ... ???

http://dohanews.co/tag/taliban/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban-idUSKBN0TD1QL20151124

 

[Spectre]

Qatar doing the same ... ???

http://dohanews.co/tag/taliban/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban-idUSKBN0TD1QL20151124

1. If Qatar dives from a cliff will Pakistan do the same?
2. Qatar is not asking for US financing of it's F-16s, Pakistan is
3. My response was to the quote which claimed Pakistan is fighting American War in Afghanistan hence it deserves aid while infact Pakistan has hampered US efforts by sheltering Taliban from the very beginning like during airlift of evil, Had a Qatari made the same assertion, my reply would have been to him.