Lockheed to supply 18 F-16s to Pakistan

[+ghostrider883 526]

LM to supply new F-16s to Pakistan

 

Pentagon on Monday awarded Lockheed Martin a $498.2 million contract to supply 12 F-16C Block 52 and six F-16D Block 52 fighter aircraft to Pakistan.

 

Utter madness I say, specially after the recent events in Pakistan.

[sparkomatic 7]

really? what are 12 F-16's going to do? Especially, given your location, against the Indian AF? Maybe 120 I would take notice...

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

really? what are 12 F-16's going to do? Especially, given your location, against the Indian AF? Maybe 120 I would take notice...

 

Well... they do have those other 35 (plus the other 26 they supposedly have). Either way, it doesn't seem particularly wise thing to do. Kinda like selling F-14s to the Shah, for example...

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

Selling F-14's to the Shah (well, taking a good look at the F-14 history, it wouldn't have existed for anybody if it weren't for the Shah's interest and support) was a mistake, but F-16s are wide-spread around the world, don't think they hold any secrets anymore (plus, the F-16 is an OLD aircraft). If it were F-15s of course it would be something else, but F-16s are lightweight fighters...

[JediMaster 451]

I'm sure the avionics/radar are downgraded compared to what the US Blk52s have anyway.

 

Besides, in today's era an enemy fighter is far less worrisome than some other things...like maybe nukes?

[column5 63]

really? what are 12 F-16's going to do? Especially, given your location, against the Indian AF? Maybe 120 I would take notice...

 

Agreed.

[column5 63]

Selling F-14's to the Shah (well, taking a good look at the F-14 history, it wouldn't have existed for anybody if it weren't for the Shah's interest and support) was a mistake, but F-16s are wide-spread around the world, don't think they hold any secrets anymore (plus, the F-16 is an OLD aircraft). If it were F-15s of course it would be something else, but F-16s are lightweight fighters...

 

It only became a mistake when we decided to pursue policies that pulled the rug out from under him and his government.

[Mannie 21]

After the murder of Benazir Butu Pakistan is closer then ever before to becoming a second Iran.

(Don't count on Musharaf too much.)

The American gov't insists on making the same mistake over and over again.

Jesus H. christ. Why do thay have to sell Pakistan F-16's

Who is threataning Pakie's air space and\or sovereignty? India?

[column5 63]

After the murder of Benazir Butu Pakistan is closer then ever before to becoming a second Iran.

(Don't count on Musharaf too much.)

The American gov't insists on making the same mistake over and over again.

Jesus H. christ. Why do thay have to sell Pakistan F-16's

Who is threataning Pakie's air space and\or sovereignty? India?

 

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, becasue I am not understanding this point of view.

 

The facts as I see them:

 

We need to maintain Musharraf in power at least unitl another, better option becomes available. You do realize that Bhutto was running for the Pakistani Parliament, and not the Presidency, right? In other words, she was not running against Musharraf directly so it was not an either/or proposition. Failure to support Musharraf right now would be the equivalent of our failure to properly back the Shah during the Carter administration, so I guess I am saying that I agree with you that we need to prevent Pakistan falling to the islamofascists, but in order to do that we have to strongly back Musharraf right now, and work behind the scenes to help bring about real elections at a future date.

 

I don't like Pakistan or Musharraf any more than you do, I'm just suggesting that we be very pragmatic at this critical time.

[Nesher 628]

They need fighters.. i don't think it matters what is the origin of them

if the american didn't sell them, the russians would

at least they earned a buck ^_^

Edited January 2, 2008 by Nesher

[column5 63]

They need fighters.. i don't think it matters what is the origin of them

if the american didn't sell them, the russians would

at least they earned a buck ^_^

 

Agreed...on top of everything else it would be bad for them to fall into the Russian sphere of influence.

[Viggen 643]

Agreed...on top of everything else it would be bad for them to fall into the Russian sphere of influence.

 

 

More then they already have with the Chinese?

[+ghostrider883 526]

really? what are 12 F-16's going to do? Especially, given your location, against the Indian AF? Maybe 120 I would take notice...

 

Yeah, a couple of Nuclear bomb armed F-16s equipped with latest jammer pods piloted by Jehadi Paki pilots entering Indian airspace would do no harm, or would it?

Its only a matter of time before someone gets Musharaff. Already there are elements in the Paki armed forces who are againt killing their own "brothers" in supposed "anti-terror operations". How may times have they used F-16s in anti-terror ops? They are only using PAA Cobra helicopters.

[+ghostrider883 526]

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, becasue I am not understanding this point of view.

 

The facts as I see them:

 

We need to maintain Musharraf in power at least unitl another, better option becomes available. You do realize that Bhutto was running for the Pakistani Parliament, and not the Presidency, right? In other words, she was not running against Musharraf directly so it was not an either/or proposition. Failure to support Musharraf right now would be the equivalent of our failure to properly back the Shah during the Carter administration, so I guess I am saying that I agree with you that we need to prevent Pakistan falling to the islamofascists, but in order to do that we have to strongly back Musharraf right now, and work behind the scenes to help bring about real elections at a future date.

 

I don't like Pakistan or Musharraf any more than you do, I'm just suggesting that we be very pragmatic at this critical time.

Events leading upto Indo-Pak wars

1965: US supplied M-48s, M-24s, guns, F-104s, B-57s, F-86s, Destroyers & frigates for the Navy to Pakistan to supposedly fight communism. WHom were they used to fight against? WHo attacked first?

1971: US brokered a deal to supply ex-Luftwaffe Sabre Mk.6s to Pakistan via Germany. Brig. Gen. Chuck Yaeger was an advisor to the PAF when the 71 war happened. He was mighty pissed when IAF Hunters destroyed his aircraft during an air raid.

 

A War almost broke out in 1986(after US supplied F-16 & AH-1s to Pakistan). Everyone remembers Pakistan's misadventure in KArgil that was Musharraf's brain child.

[column5 63]

Events leading upto Indo-Pak wars

1965: US supplied M-48s, M-24s, guns, F-104s, B-57s, F-86s, Destroyers & frigates for the Navy to Pakistan to supposedly fight communism. WHom were they used to fight against? WHo attacked first?

1971: US brokered a deal to supply ex-Luftwaffe Sabre Mk.6s to Pakistan via Germany. Brig. Gen. Chuck Yaeger was an advisor to the PAF when the 71 war happened. He was mighty pissed when IAF Hunters destroyed his aircraft during an air raid.

 

A War almost broke out in 1986(after US supplied F-16 & AH-1s to Pakistan). Everyone remembers Pakistan's misadventure in KArgil that was Musharraf's brain child.

 

You are saying that our arms-sales to Pakistan were causal?

 

I don't want to argue the point with you because the events hit much closer to home for you than me, but I think two things add some persepective to what you have said. First, US-Indian relations have not always been as good as they are now. I believe they were very strained throughout the 1960s and 70s, though it isn't a subject I know a lot about. Second, during the Cold War, anyone who professed to be an anti-communist was going to receive support from us, regardless. It was the defining event for decades, and overshadowed everything else. I understand and respect your point of view on the matter, though.

 

So I would argue that we (US and India) could do a lot worse than Musharraf, even though we would both prefer a legitimately elected government, non-aggressive and with strong anti-terror policies. If we keep Pakistan from going fascist, which right now means holding our noses and backing Musharraf, we are a lot more likely to get a better government in the future. IMO, of course.

[+ghostrider883 526]

You are saying that our arms-sales to Pakistan were causal?

 

I don't want to argue the point with you because the events hit much closer to home for you than me, but I think two things add some persepective to what you have said. First, US-Indian relations have not always been as good as they are now. I believe they were very strained throughout the 1960s and 70s, though it isn't a subject I know a lot about. Second, during the Cold War, anyone who professed to be an anti-communist was going to receive support from us, regardless. It was the defining event for decades, and overshadowed everything else. I understand and respect your point of view on the matter, though.

 

So I would argue that we (US and India) could do a lot worse than Musharraf, even though we would both prefer a legitimately elected government, non-aggressive and with strong anti-terror policies. If we keep Pakistan from going fascist, which right now means holding our noses and backing Musharraf, we are a lot more likely to get a better government in the future. IMO, of course.

 

No, that's not what I meant. What I mean is that Pakistan acquired weapons from the US under the pretext of fighting communism and terror and always used them against India.They got the US to believe in their lies.Just prior to the 1965 war, when Pakistan launched attacks on Indian post in deserts around Rann of Kutch using M-48s and M-24s, when India protested with the US vehemently, the US said it can't be and asked for proof as thye got assurances from the Pakistanis that these weaposn wuld not be used against India. It was only photos brought back by a bullet-riddled IAF PR Vampire showing Paki tanks in Indian territory that US imposed sanctions against Pakistan.

 

Eventhough I understand the anti-communist policies of the US but from our point of view, it just seems that US keeps on making the same mistakes by supplying weapons to Pakistan because it would eventually spill Indian blood.

 

Remember Pakistani dictators whom US backed? Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq? To the US, they all seemed modern, western and peace loving, but they were responsible for the major Indo-Pak wars that happened or could have happened. Musharaff is next.

 

Half the time of Pakistan's existence, they have been under military rule, whose officers swear to extract revenge from India for the humilitation their country recieved at hands of India.(Don't believe me? You must watch teh passing out parade of officers from their academies). They know they can't win a conventional war against India, so they resort to a proxy war, as in Kashmir. Or if these really go wrong in Pakistan, they will not hesitate to lob a few nuclear armed missiles at Indian cities.

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

Ghostrider, for the US to sell Pakistan conventional weapons is one thing, but as for the nuclear arsenal, I bet the US already has some sort of plan to get hold of those and get them out of the country or neutralise them in some way or the other before any radical islamic nuthead gets anywhere near them...

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Remember Pakistani dictators whom US backed? Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq? To the US, they all seemed modern, western and peace loving, but they were responsible for the major Indo-Pak wars that happened or could have happened. Musharaff is next.

 

Don't forget Nawaz Sharif, the former PM who effectively gave the go ahead for the Pakistani Army to start the Kagril dust up with India and turned a blind eye to the Pakistani-Kashmiri separatists. A war that resulted in something like 4000 Pakistani casualties. And he's the other Horse to back since Benazir Bhutto's death??

 

Anyways, I digress. What I meant by the Iran reference was the investing in another country with expensive, advanced (relatively) military harware, only for it to potentially fall into the hands of the intended recipient's enemies... just like in Iran. But isn't this all a bit of a moot point? Isn't this deal just a revised version of the original plan to sell F-16A/Bs to the PAF, the one that was interrupted by the nuclear (not nyu-kyiller ) which resulted in them being transferred to the Navy as F-16N aggressors? Or is this a separate deal entirely?

 

Oh, and Tx3rn, I'd be STUNNED if there was a plausible plan in place to secure the 100 or however many Pakistani nukes that had the co-operation of the Pakistani authorities!! It didn't happen in the former CIS, but then again, that region is comparatively stable compared to South Asia...

[JediMaster 451]

The Pakis are already in the midst of getting the FC-1 from China. I think it's the FC-1. Maybe it's the FC-17? I can't remember any of the current Chinese planes other than the J-10 and J-11!

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

The Pakis are already in the midst of getting the FC-1 from China. I think it's the FC-1. Maybe it's the FC-17? I can't remember any of the current Chinese planes other than the J-10 and J-11!

 

Weren't they buying (or at least 90% sure they are) approx 100+ J-10s along the FC-17 (you were right Jedi )... ? The capabilities are supposed to be equivalent to the blk 50 F-16s, and yes I know it's China, but they've surprised us all recently! I figure it'd just make the F-16 purchase kind superfluous.

[column5 63]

You are saying that our arms-sales to Pakistan were causal?

 

I don't want to argue the point with you because the events hit much closer to home for you than me, but I think two things add some persepective to what you have said. First, US-Indian relations have not always been as good as they are now. I believe they were very strained throughout the 1960s and 70s, though it isn't a subject I know a lot about. Second, during the Cold War, anyone who professed to be an anti-communist was going to receive support from us, regardless. It was the defining event for decades, and overshadowed everything else. I understand and respect your point of view on the matter, though.

 

So I would argue that we (US and India) could do a lot worse than Musharraf, even though we would both prefer a legitimately elected government, non-aggressive and with strong anti-terror policies. If we keep Pakistan from going fascist, which right now means holding our noses and backing Musharraf, we are a lot more likely to get a better government in the future. IMO, of course.

 

 

Very interesting--I need to read more on the subject. It sounds like the Pakistanis scapegoat India for everything the same way Middle Eastern islamonfascist states scapegoat Israel and the US. Still, I don't know how we could detach ourselves from Pakistan without causing it to fall like Iran. A serious problem.

[sparkomatic 7]

Agreed...and as I said earlier, what is India so enraged? Arent you buying ex-Russian heavy bombers? You have nukes also, so why do you have them? Why does India need a blue water navy? Why does India get so worried about 30 year old fighters? You have hundreds and from nearly as many sources.

 

Cant really compare selling F-14 to an ally, then by the glory of hindsight say it was bad...ask Chamberlain about Czechoslovakia now, dude.

 

We make the same mistakes? Right. Because, as already mentioned, look at our options. Hey, I know you dont like Pakistan. But why doesnt India seek closer ties with the US?

[Mannie 21]

Very interesting--I need to read more on the subject. It sounds like the Pakistanis scapegoat India for everything the same way Middle Eastern islamonfascist states scapegoat Israel and the US. Still, I don't know how we could detach ourselves from Pakistan without causing it to fall like Iran. A serious problem.

 

You are starting to get the picture.

I think Ghostrider here just saved me the need to reply.

He took the words right out of my mouth.

 

True. The U.S is in a big delema and I would not want to be in your place though.

If Pakistan falles into the wrong hands, We are ALL in a deeper $hit then we are already in.

 

 

Sparkomatic.

But why doesnt India seek closer ties with the US?

I'm not sure this is true, and any way, I think it all comes down to one thing in the end. OIL

Had the US suported India, it could have had a much stable base in the region, one that does not collapse every other day.

Think about it.

Edited January 3, 2008 by MannieB.

[Atreides 144]

Why does India need a blue water navy?

 

The same reason America, Israel and any other country might, to defend itself against foreign threat's !

[column5 63]

The same reason America, Israel and any other country might, to defend itself against foreign threat's !

 

Blue water navy implies operations outside of a country's territorial waters. For example why would India need to operate in the Carribbean? No strategic interest there afaik.