raj76
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 835
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
US-Pakistan Joint Statement Angers India
- Thread starter RiazHaq
- Start date
Pakistan Air Force has sent a follow-on foreign military sale contract to Lockheed Martin to produce and upgrade Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods (ATP) for its F-16 fleet.
The contract includes the upgrade of Pakistan’s existing 22 Sniper ATPs as well as the production of 15 new Sniper ATPs.
Read: F-35 fighter loses dogfight to 1970s F-16 jet
Delivery will begin late in 2015 to satisfy Pakistan’s urgent operational needs. Upgrades will also begin in late 2015 and they will increase compatibility with the aircraft and enable enhanced features.
“Sniper ATP has supported the Pakistan Air Force’s mission since 2010,” said Rich Lovette, Sniper international programme director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “Additional Sniper ATPs and upgrades will give the Pakistan Air Force a more robust precision targetting capability to support the nation’s security requirements.”
Read: Air Force: Pakistan, Turkey sign MoU for training pilots
Sniper ATP enables pilots to have high-resolution imagery for precision targetting, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. It also detects, identifies, automatically tracks and laser designates small tactical targets at long ranges. Apart from that, it also enables the use of all laser and GPS-guided weapons against various fixed and moving targets.
Further, Sniper ATP can be operated on multiple platforms, including US Air Force and multi-national F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, B-1 and B-52 aircraft.
Lockheed Martin to upgrade Pakistan's F-16 fleet - The Express Tribune
The contract includes the upgrade of Pakistan’s existing 22 Sniper ATPs as well as the production of 15 new Sniper ATPs.
Read: F-35 fighter loses dogfight to 1970s F-16 jet
Delivery will begin late in 2015 to satisfy Pakistan’s urgent operational needs. Upgrades will also begin in late 2015 and they will increase compatibility with the aircraft and enable enhanced features.
“Sniper ATP has supported the Pakistan Air Force’s mission since 2010,” said Rich Lovette, Sniper international programme director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “Additional Sniper ATPs and upgrades will give the Pakistan Air Force a more robust precision targetting capability to support the nation’s security requirements.”
Read: Air Force: Pakistan, Turkey sign MoU for training pilots
Sniper ATP enables pilots to have high-resolution imagery for precision targetting, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. It also detects, identifies, automatically tracks and laser designates small tactical targets at long ranges. Apart from that, it also enables the use of all laser and GPS-guided weapons against various fixed and moving targets.
Further, Sniper ATP can be operated on multiple platforms, including US Air Force and multi-national F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, B-1 and B-52 aircraft.
Lockheed Martin to upgrade Pakistan's F-16 fleet - The Express Tribune
MadDog
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,920
- Reaction score
- 5
LMAO, buddy you are too naive in your analysis. Putin is contemplating to deploy forces on Tajik/Afghan border as Kunduz is a province right at Tajkistan's border and Taliban presence in increasing in border areas in the North. Ghani has also requested gunships from Russia for counter insurgency ops, signalling an increasing Russian involvement. If US leaves completely, Russia will fill the vaccum, it would be already present of Afghanistan's border. That was precisely the main reason of increasing stay of 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan. US is still interested there to contain China and Russia
Pandora
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,651
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
If we were to get a 1 megawatt for every time Indians are butt hurt then we might as well be exporting Electricity by now.
US-Pakistan bonhomie leaves India at a loss - The Hindu
I guess even their own media has now taken a UTURN on the issue and are now whining about how much they lost in this diplomatic battle.
US-Pakistan bonhomie leaves India at a loss - The Hindu
I guess even their own media has now taken a UTURN on the issue and are now whining about how much they lost in this diplomatic battle.
Last edited:
Hulk
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 7,582
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
I think Indian and Pakistani live is different universe while living on same planet. They both have different versions of same event.LOL..Joint statement actually angered LeT against which Shariff promised to take action.
Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) slams Pakistan PM for promising action against it - Oneindia
Riaz Haq makes Pakistani feel better then US.
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
Well trolls like you can't recall which a/c's were on offer for mmrca, can you?
that doesn't even make any sense, try harder next time. :0
Hiptullha
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 4,706
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
India should stop the Dehati-aurat style menstrual whining and moaning after hearing this news and understand that India has better relations with the US than Pakistan. Also, learn to accept that you aren't the only country which can have cordial relations with other countries.
farhan_9909
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 8,989
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Indians are poor people and jealousy is natural to them.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
It is all words thus far, the real proof will lie in what actually happens in terms of any changes in US policies.
cloud4000
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 4,862
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Lockheed Martin has offered the F-16 to India, including TOT and agreement to build them in India if they buy a certain amount. I believe the Rafale deal was structured this way when the order was for 100+ airframes.
India has already bought, or will buy, C-17s, C-130s, P-8s, and AH-64 Apaches. So not getting F-16s is not exactly a big deal.
Forget what RiazHaq is saying. It was never about US picking India or Pakistan, but primacy over who over the other. As this joint statement reflects, let's just keep things where they are.
India should just be happy Pakistan didn't get a civilian nuke deal from US. The sale of F-16s it can live with.
batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
No I may let you keep it , or save for next round of clap over a cup of tea made by your tea maker , murderer PM moodi ?there is no counter arguement for stupidity u win my friendtake this trophy home
Give to him , he is the running world champion of that categories? Lolz
We never wanted a nuclear deal with any one its just a fake wish , a diplomatic move nothing else , & same as you we have got offers from Russia for SU-35s which we may ink next month ?
Yes you are right somehow , uncle Sam's position has been in the fall , so he can't afford both of India & Pakistan going against him at any level , they just want both of us connected to him in certain ways ?
But as you know Americans have a bad habit to grab the lands , as we offered him Kashmir from our side , it may plan something dramaticly for that , to get out of the blood sucking lands of Afghanistan ?
I'm sure this time , the bull will hit the target ?
Mr , @RiazHaq has very unique vision , of Pakistan , & many of his analysis are rawly true .
Is that what you think , your best shot ?lolzz
Sad story from PAKFA to LCA right?
none of them get inducted in IAF ?
& When it will be ?
no one knows in whole of India even moodi ?lolzz
Declassified US documents reveal #India planned attack on #Pakistan nuclear facilities at #Kahuta in 1985. #nukes In fact: Did India plan a covert military attack on a Pakistani nuclear reactor? | The Indian Express …
Last week, the US State department declassified its top-secret documents from 1984-85 which focus on the Pakistani nuclear programme. The CIA analysis, and the talking points for the US Ambassador to Islamabad while handing over President Ronald Reagan’s letter to General Zia-ul Haq, show that the US warned Pakistan about an Indian military attack on the Pakistani nuclear reactor at Kahuta. But the Americans were not alone in anticipating an Indian attack. Prof Rajesh Rajagopalan of JNU recently pointed to The End of the Cold War and the Third World: New Perspectives on Regional Conflict, a book by Sergey Radchenko and Artemy M. Kalinovsky based on the declassified documents of the Eastern Block. Radchenko says that documents in the Hungarian archives show that the Soviets had shared with the Hungarians India’s plans to attack Kahuta. It is not clear though, Rajagopalan says, if the Soviets actually had access to any Indian plans or were only reporting widespread rumours. The rumours were indeed widespread, and The Washington Post had run a front-page story on December 20, 1982 headlined, ‘India said to eye raid on Pakistan’s A-plants’. It said military advisers had proposed an attack to prime minister Indira Gandhi in March 1982 but she had rejected it. In his book, India’s Nuclear Policy —1964-98: A Personal Recollection, K Subrahmanyam recollected that the Indian proposal to Pakistan for non-attack on each other’s nuclear facilities, which he suggested to Rajiv Gandhi, was an outcome of such rumours in the Western media. Although the ‘Agreement on the Non-Attack of Nuclear Facilities between Indian and Pakistan’ was first verbally agreed upon in 1985, it was formally signed in 1988 and ratified in 1991. Since 1992, India and Pakistan have been exchanging the list of their nuclear facilities on January 1 every year. -
But how close was India to attacking Kahuta in the 1980s? The first time India is believed to have considered such an attack is in 1981. The idea obviously originated from the daring Israeli attack of June 7, 1981, that destroyed the under-construction Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Eight F-16s of the Israeli Air Force flew more than 600 miles in the skies of three enemy nations to destroy the target and returned unscathed. In 1996, WPS Sidhu, senior fellow for foreign policy at Brookings India, was the first to state that after the induction of Jaguars, Indian Air Force (IAF) had conducted a brief study in June 1981 on the feasibility of attacking Kahuta. The study concluded that India could “attack and neutralise” Kahuta but feared that such an attack would result in a full-blown war between India and Pakistan. This was besides the concerns that an Indian attack will beget an immediate retaliatory — some say, even pre-emptive
Last week, the US State department declassified its top-secret documents from 1984-85 which focus on the Pakistani nuclear programme. The CIA analysis, and the talking points for the US Ambassador to Islamabad while handing over President Ronald Reagan’s letter to General Zia-ul Haq, show that the US warned Pakistan about an Indian military attack on the Pakistani nuclear reactor at Kahuta. But the Americans were not alone in anticipating an Indian attack. Prof Rajesh Rajagopalan of JNU recently pointed to The End of the Cold War and the Third World: New Perspectives on Regional Conflict, a book by Sergey Radchenko and Artemy M. Kalinovsky based on the declassified documents of the Eastern Block. Radchenko says that documents in the Hungarian archives show that the Soviets had shared with the Hungarians India’s plans to attack Kahuta. It is not clear though, Rajagopalan says, if the Soviets actually had access to any Indian plans or were only reporting widespread rumours. The rumours were indeed widespread, and The Washington Post had run a front-page story on December 20, 1982 headlined, ‘India said to eye raid on Pakistan’s A-plants’. It said military advisers had proposed an attack to prime minister Indira Gandhi in March 1982 but she had rejected it. In his book, India’s Nuclear Policy —1964-98: A Personal Recollection, K Subrahmanyam recollected that the Indian proposal to Pakistan for non-attack on each other’s nuclear facilities, which he suggested to Rajiv Gandhi, was an outcome of such rumours in the Western media. Although the ‘Agreement on the Non-Attack of Nuclear Facilities between Indian and Pakistan’ was first verbally agreed upon in 1985, it was formally signed in 1988 and ratified in 1991. Since 1992, India and Pakistan have been exchanging the list of their nuclear facilities on January 1 every year. -
But how close was India to attacking Kahuta in the 1980s? The first time India is believed to have considered such an attack is in 1981. The idea obviously originated from the daring Israeli attack of June 7, 1981, that destroyed the under-construction Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Eight F-16s of the Israeli Air Force flew more than 600 miles in the skies of three enemy nations to destroy the target and returned unscathed. In 1996, WPS Sidhu, senior fellow for foreign policy at Brookings India, was the first to state that after the induction of Jaguars, Indian Air Force (IAF) had conducted a brief study in June 1981 on the feasibility of attacking Kahuta. The study concluded that India could “attack and neutralise” Kahuta but feared that such an attack would result in a full-blown war between India and Pakistan. This was besides the concerns that an Indian attack will beget an immediate retaliatory — some say, even pre-emptive
The Hindu Op Ed on Nawaz Sharif visit to Washington:
The visit and its stated outcomes undermine an increasingly fashionable strategic theory that an emerging polarisation is giving shape to two axes in South Asia – Pakistan and China on the one side and the U.S. and India on the other. As a U.S. official who briefed the Indian media put it candidly, the U.S. has global intentions that will not allow it to choose between Pakistan and India, or tilt towards either of them. He went on to clarify that relations with Pakistan and India stand on their individual merits. India should not misread the energy and intensity in its relationship with the U.S., demonstrated most recently during the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue and the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Obama last month, as U.S. willingness to jettison Pakistan. Pakistan continues to leverage its strategic location at the frontier of Afghanistan and China, and to a lesser extent, India. The U.S. appears clear that its South Asia policy involves a composite approach involving India, Pakistan and Afghanistan in its search for stability and peace, as well as of the fact that Pakistan is an important partner in the fight against global terrorism. The joint statement and the anticipated decisions – which will possibly include the sale of new F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan and the continuation of the Coalition Support Fund beyond 2016 – make it clear that the U.S. cannot afford to, and will not, overlook Pakistan’s significance as a regional strategic player. It will be unwise and ill-advised for India to assume it would be so.
On Nawaz Sharif's visit to United States and Pakistan-US ties - The Hindu
The visit and its stated outcomes undermine an increasingly fashionable strategic theory that an emerging polarisation is giving shape to two axes in South Asia – Pakistan and China on the one side and the U.S. and India on the other. As a U.S. official who briefed the Indian media put it candidly, the U.S. has global intentions that will not allow it to choose between Pakistan and India, or tilt towards either of them. He went on to clarify that relations with Pakistan and India stand on their individual merits. India should not misread the energy and intensity in its relationship with the U.S., demonstrated most recently during the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue and the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Obama last month, as U.S. willingness to jettison Pakistan. Pakistan continues to leverage its strategic location at the frontier of Afghanistan and China, and to a lesser extent, India. The U.S. appears clear that its South Asia policy involves a composite approach involving India, Pakistan and Afghanistan in its search for stability and peace, as well as of the fact that Pakistan is an important partner in the fight against global terrorism. The joint statement and the anticipated decisions – which will possibly include the sale of new F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan and the continuation of the Coalition Support Fund beyond 2016 – make it clear that the U.S. cannot afford to, and will not, overlook Pakistan’s significance as a regional strategic player. It will be unwise and ill-advised for India to assume it would be so.
On Nawaz Sharif's visit to United States and Pakistan-US ties - The Hindu
Ex Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal on US-Pakistan ties:
Ex Foreign Sec of #India Kanwal Sibal: Why is #America siding with #Pakistan on #Kashmir? Why is America siding with Pakistan on Kashmir? … via @dailyo_
Strategic
Obama and Sharif expressed their "shared interest in strategic stability in South Asia" in their joint statement. This ignores the fact that China's continuing nuclear and missile relationship with Pakistan makes this a triangular China-Pakistan-India affair and not merely an India-Pakistan one. Moreover, India's nuclear programme is under some agreed constraints as part of the India-US nuclear deal, while that of China and Pakistan are not. Why is the US disregarding these realities and equating India and Pakistan?
Obama applauded in the joint statement "Pakistan's role as a key counterterrorism partner". By reiterating "their common resolve to promote peace and stability throughout the region and to counter all forms of extremism and terrorism", Pakistan was made to look good. Worse, Obama made the suppression of extremism and militancy the cooperative responsibility of all South Asian countries, not only that of Pakistan as the source of all these forces. The defining counterterrorism partnership of the 21st century between India and the US is absent from all this.
Credence
Pakistan uses the excuse of Kashmir for its terrorist onslaught against India, which makes it even more necessary not to pander to its Kashmir fixation. But the US is unable to shed its traditional pro-Pakistan slant on Kashmir. Whereas in 2013, during Nawaz Sharif's Washington visit, Obama supported a "sustained dialogue process" for "resolving all outstanding territorial and other disputes through peaceful means", Kashmir was not specifically mentioned. This time, to satisfy Nawaz Sharif who has been determined to internationalise the Kashmir issue, it was. By calling Kashmir a "dispute", the US is preferring the Pakistani term. To top this, the joint statement calls for an "uninterrupted dialogue in support of peaceful resolution of all outstanding disputes", rejecting implicitly the Indian line that dialogue and terror cannot go together.
Most unfortunately, the US has implicitly given credence to Pakistan's outlandish charges against India for supporting terrorism in its territory by emphasising the importance of "working together to address mutual concerns of India and Pakistan regarding terrorism". This equates India and Pakistan on the terrorism issue. Our spokesman has rightly objected to Obama's "support for Pakistan's efforts to secure funding for the Diamer-Bhasha and Dasu dams" in Gilgit-Baltistan, despite calling it "disputed territory".
The US should not legitimise Pakistan's illegal occupation of Azad Kashmir.
It is important that even as we engage the US as much as possible in our own interest, we must not lose sight of the ambiguities of America's strategic policies towards us in our region.
Why is America siding with Pakistan on Kashmir?
Ex Foreign Sec of #India Kanwal Sibal: Why is #America siding with #Pakistan on #Kashmir? Why is America siding with Pakistan on Kashmir? … via @dailyo_
Strategic
Obama and Sharif expressed their "shared interest in strategic stability in South Asia" in their joint statement. This ignores the fact that China's continuing nuclear and missile relationship with Pakistan makes this a triangular China-Pakistan-India affair and not merely an India-Pakistan one. Moreover, India's nuclear programme is under some agreed constraints as part of the India-US nuclear deal, while that of China and Pakistan are not. Why is the US disregarding these realities and equating India and Pakistan?
Obama applauded in the joint statement "Pakistan's role as a key counterterrorism partner". By reiterating "their common resolve to promote peace and stability throughout the region and to counter all forms of extremism and terrorism", Pakistan was made to look good. Worse, Obama made the suppression of extremism and militancy the cooperative responsibility of all South Asian countries, not only that of Pakistan as the source of all these forces. The defining counterterrorism partnership of the 21st century between India and the US is absent from all this.
Credence
Pakistan uses the excuse of Kashmir for its terrorist onslaught against India, which makes it even more necessary not to pander to its Kashmir fixation. But the US is unable to shed its traditional pro-Pakistan slant on Kashmir. Whereas in 2013, during Nawaz Sharif's Washington visit, Obama supported a "sustained dialogue process" for "resolving all outstanding territorial and other disputes through peaceful means", Kashmir was not specifically mentioned. This time, to satisfy Nawaz Sharif who has been determined to internationalise the Kashmir issue, it was. By calling Kashmir a "dispute", the US is preferring the Pakistani term. To top this, the joint statement calls for an "uninterrupted dialogue in support of peaceful resolution of all outstanding disputes", rejecting implicitly the Indian line that dialogue and terror cannot go together.
Most unfortunately, the US has implicitly given credence to Pakistan's outlandish charges against India for supporting terrorism in its territory by emphasising the importance of "working together to address mutual concerns of India and Pakistan regarding terrorism". This equates India and Pakistan on the terrorism issue. Our spokesman has rightly objected to Obama's "support for Pakistan's efforts to secure funding for the Diamer-Bhasha and Dasu dams" in Gilgit-Baltistan, despite calling it "disputed territory".
The US should not legitimise Pakistan's illegal occupation of Azad Kashmir.
It is important that even as we engage the US as much as possible in our own interest, we must not lose sight of the ambiguities of America's strategic policies towards us in our region.
Why is America siding with Pakistan on Kashmir?
University of #California #Davis, #Pakistan launch $17M food,agriculture Center For Advanced Studies at #Faisalabad
UCD, Pakistan launch $17M food, ag partnership …
The launch of a $17 million collaborative project linking UC Davis and Pakistan’s leading agricultural university was celebrated today at UCD, which will receive $10 million of the funds.
The new U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Agriculture and Food Security, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, will make it possible for faculty members and graduate students from both countries to study and do research at each other’s campuses. The project also is designed to update curriculum and technical resources at Pakistan’s University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
Present for today’s ceremonial launch were dignitaries from Pakistan, USAID and UCD.
“UC Davis has been partnering with colleagues in Pakistan since 2009, sharing expertise in agriculture from crop production to post-harvest handling,” said James Hill, associate dean emeritus of International Programs for the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at UCD.
“Establishment of this new center will allow us to build on those efforts, with a renewed emphasis on an exchange of faculty and graduate students,” he said.
During its first year of funding, the center will plan several workshops to assist the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, with technology transfer and entrepreneurship to strengthen its connections to the private sector. UCD also will initiate programs in both research and curriculum development to improve graduate studies.
Hill noted that two other Pakistan-focused projects are already underway through the International Programs office, primarily in the area of horticultural crops and agricultural extension activities.
Agriculture is the largest sector of Pakistan’s economy, providing jobs for half of that country’s labor force. Some of the traditionally important crops in Pakistan are wheat, cotton, rice, sugar cane and maize. In recent years, crops like beans, peas, lentils, onions, potatoes, chilies and tomatoes also have increased in importance, along with fruit crops such as citrus and mangoes.
The newly funded center at UCD is the most recent of several partnerships of the U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies, a $127 million investment from USAID, linking universities in the two countries and using applied research to solve Pakistan’s challenges in energy, water and food security.
The overall program includes construction of laboratories, research facilities and libraries in Pakistan. Other participating U.S. universities include the University of Utah and Arizona State University, focusing on water and energy, respectively.
UCD, Pakistan launch $17M food, ag partnership …
The launch of a $17 million collaborative project linking UC Davis and Pakistan’s leading agricultural university was celebrated today at UCD, which will receive $10 million of the funds.
The new U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Agriculture and Food Security, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, will make it possible for faculty members and graduate students from both countries to study and do research at each other’s campuses. The project also is designed to update curriculum and technical resources at Pakistan’s University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
Present for today’s ceremonial launch were dignitaries from Pakistan, USAID and UCD.
“UC Davis has been partnering with colleagues in Pakistan since 2009, sharing expertise in agriculture from crop production to post-harvest handling,” said James Hill, associate dean emeritus of International Programs for the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at UCD.
“Establishment of this new center will allow us to build on those efforts, with a renewed emphasis on an exchange of faculty and graduate students,” he said.
During its first year of funding, the center will plan several workshops to assist the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, with technology transfer and entrepreneurship to strengthen its connections to the private sector. UCD also will initiate programs in both research and curriculum development to improve graduate studies.
Hill noted that two other Pakistan-focused projects are already underway through the International Programs office, primarily in the area of horticultural crops and agricultural extension activities.
Agriculture is the largest sector of Pakistan’s economy, providing jobs for half of that country’s labor force. Some of the traditionally important crops in Pakistan are wheat, cotton, rice, sugar cane and maize. In recent years, crops like beans, peas, lentils, onions, potatoes, chilies and tomatoes also have increased in importance, along with fruit crops such as citrus and mangoes.
The newly funded center at UCD is the most recent of several partnerships of the U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies, a $127 million investment from USAID, linking universities in the two countries and using applied research to solve Pakistan’s challenges in energy, water and food security.
The overall program includes construction of laboratories, research facilities and libraries in Pakistan. Other participating U.S. universities include the University of Utah and Arizona State University, focusing on water and energy, respectively.
