Why America is Selling Taxpayer Subsidized F-16s to its Enemy

[Sheikh Rauf]

Now indian propoganda starts again with crocodiles tears in eyes that Pakistan is its enemy why american have to pay Pakistans so much why not india instead of Pak...
Then argue starts from indian side then Pakistani will jump into this game..
Later the result is that world will know the truth indian will cry again and us will be selling what Pak ask for..
Behind shining india there is dark face of true india.. which they reveal itself time to time

 

[barbarosa]

If India pay 70 Million Dollars to US in free then US should not sale 8 F16 to Pakistan, because it is the sources of their income. How will they manage their country with out the sallying of their defense products.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Western powers rarely use any foreign equipment from emerging countries.

I am yet to see NATO organizations using equipment outside of NATO countries itself (including Japan and South Korea which are non-NATO major US allies).

Brazil and Colombia face some serious border insurgencies by left-leaning militants and drug trafficking mafia (some of the most notorious in the world). They have had considerable success in using A-29s.

Just because NATO uses equipment where it is not needed doesn't mean that it is top notch in itself. Barring the big 6 (US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain) the rest just use these countries' equipment.

NATO countries are entirely capable of developing and deploying platforms similar to the A-29 in the necessary numbers, and they have the financial resources to do so yet they choose not to, because the higher tech platforms offer far more tactical and operational flexibility and technological superiority.

For a developing country like Pakistan that does not possess the resources to provide 24/7 CAP/CAS over the entire conflict zone, platforms such as the F-16's are even more critical given the significantly shorter duration between requests for CAS and the platform arriving to provide CAS.

Furthermore, introducing new and unique platforms such as the A-29 would drive additional logistical, infrastructure, training and maintenance costs for no benefits (over platforms such as the F-16) when it comes to COIN CAS requirements. Continued investment in a limited number of multi-role fighter jet platforms (Pakistan is focusing on 3 main types in the long run - JF-17, F-16 and the TBD 4.5/5 Gen fighter platform) supports both conventional military defence needs AND COIN requirements and in the long run is the most cost effective and feasible solution.

 

[Gauss]

There appears to be an understanding between China and usa to keep Pakistan out of Indian sphere of influence. I will predict that usa and china will continue to beef up pakistan vis a vis india for some time to come even if it remains weak socio-economically.

 

[Tshering22]

NATO countries are entirely capable of developing and deploying platforms similar to the A-29 in the necessary numbers, and they have the financial resources to do so yet they choose not to, because the higher tech platforms offer far more tactical and operational flexibility and technological superiority.

For a developing country like Pakistan that does not possess the resources to provide 24/7 CAP/CAS over the entire conflict zone, platforms such as the F-16's are even more critical given the significantly shorter duration between requests for CAS and the platform arriving to provide CAS.

Furthermore, introducing new and unique platforms such as the A-29 would drive additional logistical, infrastructure, training and maintenance costs for no benefits (over platforms such as the F-16) when it comes to COIN CAS requirements. Continued investment in a limited number of multi-role fighter jet platforms (Pakistan is focusing on 3 main types in the long run - JF-17, F-16 and the TBD 4.5/5 Gen fighter platform) supports both conventional military defence needs AND COIN requirements and in the long run is the most cost effective and feasible solution.

Maybe your priorities are different in terms of getting a full-fledged jet. But dozens of reports will hard evidence state that COIN operations are best served.

Well it is your choice. The OPEX of F-16 or JF-17 for CAS would be far higher.

NATO's problems and your/our problems are different.

But let's take that on another thread to discuss.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Maybe your priorities are different in terms of getting a full-fledged jet. But dozens of reports will hard evidence state that COIN operations are best served.

What specific parameters were analyzed to arrive at the conclusion that the A-29 was significantly better for COIN operations than the F-16?

Well it is your choice. The OPEX of F-16 or JF-17 for CAS would be far higher.

The operating cost delta *between the A-29 and F-16) would be more than offset by the additional infrastructural, logistical and training expenses that a new air-craft type like the A-29 would drive.

 

[Quwa]

The A-29 et. al are good CAS platforms in low-AAW threat conditions. For example, the flight costs are a fraction of that of a full-fledged fighter, yet you're still able to deliver 1000 kg+ in guided and unguided munitions. I think even the PAF understands this, but because it isn't required to give around the clock blanket COIN air coverage, it has decided to go the fighter route. Its main focus is still India. The U.S is agreeing to sell and give the F-16s because the F-16s are its foreign policy tools to maintain influence in Pakistan. Cut the F-16s, then you risk losing Pakistan, which could mean making a frenemy into a real enemy.

Regarding the A-29 specifically, the PAF might one day replace its T-37s with Super Tucano-type aircraft, such as the Hürkuş. The Hürkuş-C could be used as a COIN and light CAS platform in the same way as the A-29 is.