Pakistan receiving alot more F-16s than ordered: AFM

[khanz]

only recieved 2 so far in 6 years ??? jeez thats pathetic israel gets 4 brand new that too block 52 every month !!!!
pak should say no thx to U.S and start saving up for rafale far more capable and the french are much more reliable and really desperate to sell also pak will have an advantage with sole user status.

 

[fatman17]

only recieved 2 so far in 6 years ??? jeez thats pathetic israel gets 4 brand new that too block 52 every month !!!!
pak should say no thx to U.S and start saving up for rafale far more capable and the french are much more reliable and really desperate to sell also pak will have an advantage with sole user status.

4 have been delivered which have been reported. these a/c require upgrades so therefore it takes time. if we has the MLU capability, then all 28 a/c can be flown to pakistan w/o any issue.

 

[bd_wonder]

where does it imply we are begging. we are paying for these transfers on the upgrade costs.

"fatman" brother, you see usa also did same with iran after islamic revolution. they took the money never provided the planes (i guess f14s they were). same case with pakistan after nuke testing in 98, usa sanctioned pakistan. now after 2001 september, they changed tactic and sanctions were lifted. they were at 2001 september and now thinking of bombing pakistan.

so i think i misused the word 'begging'. can you provide an appropriate word for this transaction where pakistan is at the mercy of usa's moodswing?

 

[Quwa]

"fatman" brother, you see usa also did same with iran after islamic revolution. they took the money never provided the planes (i guess f14s they were). same case with pakistan after nuke testing in 98, usa sanctioned pakistan. now after 2001 september, they changed tactic and sanctions were lifted. they were at 2001 september and now thinking of bombing pakistan.

so i think i misused the word 'begging'. can you provide an appropriate word for this transaction where pakistan is at the mercy of usa's moodswing?

In terms of military hardware, we're not. For every weapon we ordered from the U.S., there is a Chinese, Turkish or European equivalent in the pipeline. In fact, joint-ventures or cooperative projects with the Chinese are also on the rise in areas where we cannot trust the U.S. on...prime example, JF-17...a fighter that is turning out to be a market rival to MiG-29 and Gripen. We'll be seeing cooperation in naval frigates & corvettes, helicopters, long-range SAMs, radars, avionics, ECM/EW, submarines, 4.5 generation fighters, etc, with the Chinese, Turks and Europeans (non-Americans).

Like most 3rd world countries...Pakistan is at the mercy of American economics. I think this would include Bangladesh and pretty much most of the world...it isn't something to to solely target Pakistan with. Though I hope in 15-20 years this fact would change...I pray our biggest importers would be the Chinese, Middle East, Turkic and CARs by then.

 

[bd_wonder]

mark sien bro, it was in no way meant to malign pakistan. i think that's an area where pakistani people military politicians etc can look into, to diversify away from americans for weaponry and aid.
jf-17 is good but pakistan still wants f16s. and while it's true pakistan is going for cooperation, except for china the cooperation i wont say is perhaps as high on pak's agenda as is donation from usa and being on its good books. exemplified by musharraf himself. but he isn't all that important in bigger scheme of things. almost all pakistanis have a penchant for all things american - hollywood, jobs, military, science you name it. this maybe troublesome as afghanistan and iraq today are fine examples. they were both previously armed by usa.

so is pakistan. pakistan is also being threatend by usa. conclusion to be drawn?

 

[fatman17]

"fatman" brother, you see usa also did same with iran after islamic revolution. they took the money never provided the planes (i guess f14s they were). same case with pakistan after nuke testing in 98, usa sanctioned pakistan. now after 2001 september, they changed tactic and sanctions were lifted. they were at 2001 september and now thinking of bombing pakistan.

so i think i misused the word 'begging'. can you provide an appropriate word for this transaction where pakistan is at the mercy of usa's moodswing?

dear brother,
yes indeed your history is correct however let me add that $ 658 mill was returned to pakistan in the form of credits and in-kind (soya-beans). i dont know the ratio of credits and in kind.
however as my learned colleague Mark Sein has posted pakistan is diversifying wherever possible for its armaments procurement,

 

[bd_wonder]

nice to know that bro. i just hope the best for muslims and that includes pakistanis. in this case best will be to ditch dependence on american aid weaponry etc

 

[fatman17]

nice to know that bro. i just hope the best for muslims and that includes pakistanis. in this case best will be to ditch dependence on american aid weaponry etc

all these things take time - but i can assure u when junior officers who joined the armed forces between 93-01 become senior commanders (generals) they will not forget the US sanctions easily.

 

[blain2]

Folks,

Here is a confirmation of what I said earlier (which was that we have only received 4 F-16s from the US aside from the existing 32 - for a grand total of 36 F-16s in service)


http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_...line.asp?print

Back to Normal
U.S.-Pakistani Arms Pipeline Stays Open

Wade Boese

Deeming Pakistan a vital ally, the Bush administration has ignored U.S. lawmaker calls to halt arms transfers to the Pakistani government following the military regime’s November crackdown on political opponents, the court system, and the media.

On Nov. 3, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule to counter what he described as rising extremism. Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 military coup, was facing a legal challenge to his rule and growing public protests fueled in part by the October return of exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Although condemning Musharraf’s action, the Bush administration has not penalized Pakistan by suspending U.S. aid or arms exports. John Negroponte, deputy secretary of state, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Nov. 7 that the administration was reviewing U.S. aid, including military aid, but had found no statutory requirements mandating a freeze. He added, “[M]uch of our assistance…contributes directly to our national interests and to the counterterrorism mission.”

Since Musharraf aligned Islamabad more closely with Washington’s anti-terrorism agenda after the Sept. 11 attacks, approximately $10 billion in U.S. aid has flowed to Pakistan. In addition, the Bush administration waived some arms sales prohibitions on Pakistan.

The Congressional Research Service, which conducts studies for Congress, reported Nov. 8 that Pakistan last year signed $3.5 billion in U.S. arms contracts, an amount slightly shy of Pakistan’s $3.6 billion in total U.S. arms purchases from October 1949 through September 2001. (The collective amount has not been adjusted for inflation.) That 2006 sum included a contract for 18 new F-16C/D combat aircraft as well as upgrades for 26 older F-16 fighters that the United States is essentially donating to Pakistan. (See ACT, November 2006.)

Some U.S. legislators are backing nonbinding resolutions to restrict military sales and transfers to Pakistan unless Musharraf reverses course and allows “free and fair elections” in January.

Introduced Nov. 8, the Senate measure has seven co-sponsors, including three presidential candidates: Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and William Delahunt (D-Mass.) introduced a similar resolution Nov. 14 in the lower chamber. It is unclear if or when either piece of legislation might be voted on.

Ackerman vehemently argued Nov. 7 against continuing arms transfers to Pakistan. Asserting that Musharraf had “told us to go take a hike,” Ackerman told Negroponte that the United States “should stop delivery of any further F-16s.” The president has the authority to stop any U.S. arms transfer abroad.

A spokesperson for the Pentagon’s office that manages U.S. government arms sales to foreign governments told Arms Control Today Nov. 14 that only four of the older F-16 jets have been delivered, while another 10 are awaiting proper classification for transfer. He described everything as “continuing as normal.” Laurie Quincy, a Lockheed Martin Corp. spokesperson, said in a Nov. 13 Arms Control Today interview that the company had not started production of the 18 new F-16 fighters, which are scheduled for delivery in 2010.

At the panel hearing, Negroponte implied the administration, under current circumstances, would not interfere with either process. He contended that the United States and Pakistan “cannot afford to have the on-again off-again interactions that characterized our relationship in the past.”
Negroponte was referring in part to a 1990 U.S. decision to cancel delivery of 28 F-16s to Pakistan due to its clandestine development of nuclear weapons. President Bill Clinton agreed eight years later to pay Pakistan $326.9 million and deliver another $140 million in goods to reimburse Pakistan for its advance payment on the nondelivered planes.

 

[IceCold]

So why hasnt the production of the 18new F-16s started? Are they waiting for a result on that legislation. Its clear that Bush administration does not seem to halt the delivery of the aircraft but by 2008 democratics most probally be the next rulling party. What if they put sactions on pakistan for what so ever reason which is very likely. In anycase lockhead will not be able to deliver these jets in time i.e by 2010. It just keeps getting annoying.

 

[blain2]

Its FIFO production (first order in, first order out). There are other orders on the line at the DFW facility.

Pakistan has also thrown a pickle at the LM officials asking them to think about APG-80 deployment on our blk-52 F-16s thus the delay may work to Pakistan's advantage.

 

[IceCold]

Pakistan has also thrown a pickle at the LM officials asking them to think about APG-80 deployment on our blk-52 F-16s thus the delay may work to Pakistan's advantage.

Well if i'm not mistaken APG-80 is an AESA radar. If that happens to kia he kahna. But that would require alot of strings to be pulled within, otherwise congress wouldnt allow it.

 

[blain2]

Has nothing to do with the Congress. Its a question of technical feasibility. Supposedly, LM is looking into the option.

 

[khanz]

This should be the last time pak should buy american deliverance too slow and always give the the run around.
PAF should start diversifying and looking at european stuff too.

 

[ejaz007]

This most likely shall be the last order. I think PAF has already invested a lot in JF-17 and they shall be the main stay of PAF. Other fighters such as F-16, some Mirages and J-10 shall be there to supplement them.