Lockheed to supply 18 F-16s to Pakistan

[+ghostrider883 526]

No most TAC nukes are no heavier than conventional bombs. I have not heard about any tactical aircraft carrying radometers in a real world mission profile. Maybe for some test missions they did when they were actually cooking them off. But I havent found any evidence saying they have.

 

 

Good to know the facts from the horse's mouth :yes: .I know they were not "wired" for dropping nuclear bombs when the airframes were delivered. The book states Pakistanis were able to modify the F-16 locally for dropping nuclear bombs.

but Dave, wouldn't it possible to fool the a/c failsafe system, so to say, make the system think that the nuke bomb is just another dumb bomb. when the pilot drops the bomb, the nuke arms itself when it leaves the hardpoint? I , of course don't really know how these things work. Just asking.

I have read India's aerial nuke delivery platform is the Mirage 2000. Jaguars & MiG-27s were rejected for the role because of thier poor performance at high altitudes.

Edited January 4, 2008 by ghostrider883

[JediMaster 451]

I think part of the misconception is in the way nukes are made. There is no way the F-16s sold to Pakistan could drop US made nukes. We have multiple failsafes and such and specialized equipment needed for proper operation.

 

However, the way a nuclear bomb works is really quite simple. It's all about having the proper materials and the correct manner of construction in making one work, which is why there used to be so much testing. Theory only takes it so far. Anyway, I don't think it would be any more difficult for the Pakis to wire their plane to drop nukes they made themselves than it was to make the nukes in the first place, honestly. After all, it's not like air dropped or missile-launched nukes are all that exist. They made nuclear artillery shells! How complex an arming system could they have needed?

 

So, while on the one hand India has a point that these planes COULD be used for that, in reality ANY plane Pakistan has could just as easily be wired for their bombs, including the planes they're getting from China. Besides, I don't think the US has really ever done much with carrying nukes on F-16s. We have so many other delivery systems for them that are more appropriate I don't think it's necessary to spend the extra time and money on it.

Would the planes survive an attack? Most likely not, but if you're going to be using nukes like that my guess is they won't care if their planes and pilots return or not.

[+ghostrider883 526]

Presidential hopeful wants review of F-16 deal

“The recently passed Defense Appropriations bill bars any assistance to Pakistan for weapons sales that are not for counter-terrorism purposes. The primary purpose of F-16s is to balance India, not to combat the Taliban or Al Qaeda. If the sale involves no US assistance, it is technically legal but fundamentally misguided,” Mr Biden claimed.

 

Top senator hits US sale of F-16s to Pakistan

"How can the White House even think of green-lighting such a sale at such an incredibly sensitive time?" he said, referring to the political turmoil in Pakistan in the wake of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, who hoped to become prime minister.

 

"This is the time we should be putting the pressure on the government and military to fully investigate the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and to hold free and fair elections -- not let them off the hook," Biden said.

[column5 63]

Presidential hopeful wants review of F-16 deal

Top senator hits US sale of F-16s to Pakistan

 

Biden is absolutely wrong. He would follow in Carter's footsteps and Pakistan would become another Iran.

[+Typhoid 231]

Pakistan could probably figure out how to load their OWN nukes onto any aircraft and make them go boom.

 

They could not make our nukes (which are not there anyway) work on a US delivered aircraft unless we wanted them to and provided the custodial units and "other stuff" that would go with that. Our stuff is secure.

 

but the real question would be - why would they want to use F-16's for nuke delivery when they have an operational SRBM with nuke capabilty? They wouldn't and don't. The whole issue is really a smoke screen to hurt Pakistan, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Its just local US political games.

 

The F-16's provide an air defense and strike capability to off-set Indian AF capability and leave them both sufficiently secure to maintain their armed peace. Derailing the arm's sales to Pakistan does nothing to further the cause of peace, prosecuting the war against Islamofascism or supporting a US ally.

[sparkomatic 7]

good point earlier made in that they have nukes, but what KIND of nukes? It is not easy to cram the arming system into something the F-16 can haul around. But nukes anyway, what kind of option is that? none really, the US is the ONLY country to have employed nukes. I would personally be MUCH more concerned about their chem/bio abilities instead.

 

But, if you are really worried, buy some of our PATRIOTS ! We will gladly sell them to you and they will stop an F-16, no doubt.

[+ghostrider883 526]

But nukes anyway, what kind of option is that?

 

An option that the Pakis won't hesitate to use once the Indian Army knocks at the gates of Lahore, fire a few arty shells at Lahore and say "Hello, we are here"( like the Army did in the 1965 War).The Pakis have stated publicly that they will not hesitate to use nukes if they are in a difficult situation.They do realise that in a conventional war, they will not be able to withstand a full fledged Indian onslaught for more than a week or two. India has a declared no-first use of nuclear weapons policy. That's why the Navy is being equipped to have secondary nuclear strike capability. Warships are being equipped "Dhanush" SRBMs, Navy is looking at Submarine lauched missiles as well.

Edited January 5, 2008 by ghostrider883

[+ghostrider883 526]

The F-16's provide an air defense and strike capability to off-set Indian AF capability and leave them both sufficiently secure to maintain their armed peace. Derailing the arm's sales to Pakistan does nothing to further the cause of peace, prosecuting the war against Islamofascism or supporting a US ally.

 

History is a witness to the fact that American weapons rather than being a detterent to war, have in fact given the guts to Pakistan to further escalate the conflict.

[column5 63]

History is a witness to the fact that American weapons rather than being a detterent to war, have in fact given the guts to Pakistan to further escalate the conflict.

 

I won't argue that point, but really, the IAF has overwhelming superiority in number of combat aircraft, correct? Just a wild guess but I'd estimate at least 4 to 1, maybe greater? Add to that numeric and qualitative superiority in ground and naval forces. Actually if I was a paranoid, irrational, xenophobic Paki I would probably feel threatened.

[sparkomatic 7]

"An option that the Pakis won't hesitate to use once the Indian Army knocks at the gates of Lahore"...and now why would you be doing that?

[Atreides 144]

Hhmmm....

[+ghostrider883 526]

"An option that the Pakis won't hesitate to use once the Indian Army knocks at the gates of Lahore"...and now why would you be doing that?

 

That point was a reference to the 1965 War. In a fitting reply to Pakistani aggression in the 1965 war, the Indian Army advanced so near to Lahore that it was able to bring Lahore under its artillery range.

What I meant was that in a future conflict if this happens, the Pakistanis will not hesitate to use nukes knowing that one of their main cities is under threat from the Indians.

[+ghostrider883 526]

I won't argue that point, but really, the IAF has overwhelming superiority in number of combat aircraft, correct? Just a wild guess but I'd estimate at least 4 to 1, maybe greater? Add to that numeric and qualitative superiority in ground and naval forces.

 

True . There's no way Pakistan can hurt India in a conventional war. Its their tendency to provoke India into war and brand us as aggressors that is worrying. But no. of combat ready squadrons have fallen to 26 from 39 with the retirement of MiG-21s & 23s. Compared to Pakistan, India has more land area which has to be defended by the Air Force.

[sparkomatic 7]

more land area? that does not mean necessarily that your defenses are spread further, it is about strategic points/focus, not land mass. doubtful the pakis can assault you from any axis, really

[Atreides 144]

But the Pak force's continue to try and catch the Indian's napping so as to inflict damage and it's alway's backfire's regardless of what state of the art American equipment they have, they still get their asses whooped, I would imagine that's it's rather annonying to have to beat someone in four war's and to have the Pak force's still think that they can win. Just give up attacking your neighbour, I say.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Atreides

[+Dave 2,322]

But the Pak force's continue to try and catch the Indian's napping so as to inflict damage and it's alway's backfire's regardless of what state of the art American equipment they have, they still get their asses whooped, I would imagine that's it's rather annonying to have to beat someone in four war's and to have the Pak force's still think that they can win. Just give up attacking your neighbour, I say.

 

You couldn't be more right.

[sparkomatic 7]

I mean all of this is over cashmere, right? Now those sweaters are nice, but come on, just wait and your nice Aunt will give you one for free...

[Atreides 144]

I mean all of this is over cashmere, right? Now those sweaters are nice, but come on, just wait and your nice Aunt will give you one for free...

 

Actually all of this over a piece of paper that was signed by a prince of a particular faith that Pakistan did not approve of...that's the real reason (considering the tense political or rather religious stand-off between the two countrie's).

Edited January 6, 2008 by Atreides

[sparkomatic 7]

ah, that makes sense then

[+ghostrider883 526]

Actually all of this over a piece of paper that was signed by a prince of a particular faith that Pakistan did not approve of...that's the real reason (considering the tense political or rather religious stand-off between the two countrie's).

 

The signing of that paper itself has a long history behind it.

[DJ_Viper 0]

You know, it has been many years that I've been visiting different forums. Unfortunately, same old stuff about India and Pak. Sometimes, thinking from a common sense perspective, it doesn't make sense. Pak has the capability to hit india and same goes for the Indians. These weapons (Goddamn why were they created on the first place?), exist and they are a threat to either side. Given Pak circumstances, it seems fragile and based on the media, it sounds like a concern that they might fell into the wrong hands.... BUT, in past 10 years, even before the detonation of these bombs, seems that every time Pakist got even 50 assault rifles from anyone, there is an intense propaganda and complaints from the Indian side. My personal view: India has hundreds of fighters better then Pak. India is about to issue another tender of 126, 4 to 5th generation aircrafts. Blue water navy is in works and anti missile system and indigenous fighter aircraft programs. Unfortunately, almost millions of people don't have shelter or proper three meals per day. What's going on there? As much love and respect I have for the Indians and for India... I think they need to start acting mature. Now, I don't love Pak either but it makes sense. Due to the size of Pak, the lack of any depth and a total lack of conventional weapons match, their national security requires to deter a threat to the country thus by using whatever force they have available. No one buys weapons to put them in safe forever, they have a purpose and usually defensive (seems the case). If my neighbor was getting bigger and better guns right next door and I had a family, regardless of how peace loving of a person I am, I would still get something and keep it in case I need to use it.

A similar policy comparing to Pak is in place for the Israelis and the same threat has been used many times to maintain a safe distance with Arabs. So, the bottom line is, if you do not attack them, I don't think there will be ever a chance for you to worry about the nukes or the 18 F 16's that can NEVER be modified to carry NW's. I think feeding poor people in both the countries is a much bigger issue then spending billions in arms but that's just me with some humanity. For a Tsunami like situation... what I got from you is that such issues are causing India to look for a blue water navy...let's see, to save say 50,000 people in Indonesia or wherever, you are ok to deny millions of your own people, proper food and shelter and basic medication?

 

Also, the 18 F 16's, that are being damned by the indian community on any forums that exist concerning military topics, are being provided with very tough restrictions. They CAN NOT even fly out of Pak until an authorization has been provided by the Pentagon. Plus, their armament and avionics will be inspected by the U.S AF folks every 6 months. So, it is not a huge threat to India. Specially when the ratio is about to go 6:1 (IAF 6, Pak 1) and out of this '6', majority of the aircraft are 4.5 to 5th Gen. Much better then any F 16.

 

Now Pak, I think that we need to maintain course with Musharraf, CNN would not show it and neither would Fox :), but the majority of the Paki people sides with Bhuttos party and PML. Both of them are modern and open minded (we've all seen Bhutto). We can not abandon a country of 160 million people and the only nuclear armed Islamic country on this planet. We should NOT let the 2 or 3 million hard liners run Pak either. We need to help Paki people to become self sufficient in democracy so that issues like these will not happen in the future. While Talibanism is a scare, it can be countered and controlled, democracy has a lot of power. If this time, the U.S backs off of its promises with Pak (did that twice before), it will be very bad for the Pak and its people. The US needs to make friends with the people of Pak and by letting the majority to have a real, clean election, we are putting a seed in the ground. As Bush says, we need to side with Paki people. 10 years from now, once democracy prevails and initiates its root there, this country might become a model which will help us in achieving our foreign policy goals through sheer influence on other countries and this way, we will not need to be on the front taking the heat being bad guys. America is a welcoming and fun and loving country and we can restore that image by helping the people (not the individuals in power). The missing word after the word muslim from the phase 'nuclear armed muslim nation' is 'Democratic'. Add that and you will have another turkey as liberal as you would hope. I could see India and Pak doing trade for billions of dollars (they are already doing it), so this hate and complaining on 18 jets needs to stop. Every country has a right to buy weapons for their self defense, the number is 18 not, 800 (+ 40 old ones?), :)

I wrote too much but I wish I can write more about the situation and explain to everyone as to what is going on. Seems like everyone knows a bit but not the entire picture.

Edited January 9, 2008 by DJ_Viper

[DJ_Viper 0]

Oh and the paper. Yes, there have been many resolutions passed by the U.N in 1960 (similar to the ones passed for the Iraqi regime in 1990 to leave Kuwait). Unfortunately, India is a bigger country and no one enforced those (look at archives at un.com). The piece of paper that was an issue was (as usual, issues are created when the will of the people is violated). The muslim population was 91% then (in 1948), and they had elected to be affiliated with Pak due to the cultural and religious significance but the Maharaja was a hindu and to keep this between the family, he invited Indians to take over and thus the issue of Kashmir !!!! Will of people must be respected everywhere (as we see in the beloved U.S). People love watching American movies and love the music and MTV, why can't they learn American democratic process where people hold the untimate power? I can't understand that!

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Sorted DJ. In the future, if you've accidentally double posted or something (it's pretty common) just flag down one of the mods and specify which one you want tanked and we'll get rid of it for you. I'm pretty sure you can't delete your own posts, but then again, I could be wrong... :yes:

[+ghostrider883 526]

So, the bottom line is, if you do not attack them, I don't think there will be ever a chance for you to worry about the nukes or the 18 F 16's that can NEVER be modified to carry NW's.

 

1947 : Whose forces went on a killing, looting, raping spree in Kashmir?

1965 : Who crossed the LOC and whose fighters caused downing of the defending IAF Vampires on the first day?

1971: Which side made pre-emptive strikes on almost all major Indian airfields?

1987(almost): Whose forces built up near the border first?

1999 : Who occupied the Kargil heights & returned badly mutliated bodies of Indian soldiers?

2002(almost): Who masterminded the attack on Indian parliament, the very symobol of our democracy?

 

Who is training terrorists at training camps and sending them across the border to kill Indians and running a proxy war? The man who was freed in exchange for the passengers of the Indian Airlines Flight IC-814, today roams free in Pakistan and freely gives inflammatory, anti-Indian speeches. Its been always a part of paKistan's policy to hurt India and "bleed Indian through a thousand cuts". You think if a solution to Kashmir problem was found, that they would keep quiet? See the support to the insurgency that the Pakis gave in Indian Punjab in the 1980s?

Makes sense?

How many times has an Indian General rasied a military coup in India? 0.

How many times a Paki General raised a coup in Pakistan?

 

I think feeding poor people in both the countries is a much bigger issue then spending billions in arms but that's just me with some humanity. For a Tsunami like situation... what I got from you is that such issues are causing India to look for a blue water navy...let's see, to save say 50,000 people in Indonesia or wherever, you are ok to deny millions of your own people, proper food and shelter and basic medication?

 

Agreed. But things are improving and will keep on improving in the future. Its not like the old days where western world had an impression of my country to be full of homeless, poor people.

During the Tsunami, the Navy & Air Force had sufficent resouces to take care of the areas hit by the Tsunami, that's why it released some of its ships to help other countries. (Not because it wanted to deny its own people food & shelter)In case you didn't know, the Air Force base in the A& N islands was badly hit by the Tsunami. The Air Force lost may personnel and their famlies. Yet crews of some Mi-8s based at Car Nicobar base ,instead of helping their own families, got airborne immediately and were flying missions to help stranded people. Interviews of such heroic aircrews were shown on the TV. It was touching to see.

 

Also, the 18 F 16's, that are being damned by the indian community on any forums that exist concerning military topics, are being provided with very tough restrictions. They CAN NOT even fly out of Pak until an authorization has been provided by the Pentagon. Plus, their armament and avionics will be inspected by the U.S AF folks every 6 months.

 

What if a fundamentalist, taliban loving (taliban are the illegitimate child of paki govt & ISI) anti-US govt comes to power? US will still haev access to those F-16s?

 

Now Pak, I think that we need to maintain course with Musharraf, CNN would not show it and neither would Fox :), but the majority of the Paki people sides with Bhuttos party and PML. Both of them are modern and open minded (we've all seen Bhutto).

 

Let me tell you, Bhutto was not a saint nor is Nawaz Sharif.

 

We can not abandon a country of 160 million people and the only nuclear armed Islamic country on this planet. We should NOT let the 2 or 3 million hard liners run Pak either. We need to help Paki people to become self sufficient in democracy so that issues like these will not happen in the future. While Talibanism is a scare, it can be countered and controlled, democracy has a lot of power.

Read what the new cleric in the famed "Lal Masjid" had to say? I would have liked to quote the wholw thing, but some of his comments were like : "Democracy is for fools. The vote cast by a person does not make a sense, since even a unpious man can win ."

 

Now how can you argue with a man like that? Let me see if I can find the whole report.

 

 

As Bush says, we need to side with Paki people. 10 years from now, once democracy prevails and initiates its root there, this country might become a model which will help us in achieving our foreign policy goals through sheer influence on other countries and this way, we will not need to be on the front taking the heat being bad guys. America is a welcoming and fun and loving country and we can restore that image by helping the people (not the individuals in power). The missing word after the word muslim from the phase 'nuclear armed muslim nation' is 'Democratic'. Add that and you will have another turkey as liberal as you would hope. I could see India and Pak doing trade for billions of dollars (they are already doing it), so this hate and complaining on 18 jets needs to stop. Every country has a right to buy weapons for their self defense, the number is 18 not, 800 (+ 40 old ones?), :)

I wrote too much but I wish I can write more about the situation and explain to everyone as to what is going on. Seems like everyone knows a bit but not the entire picture.

Tell me, for how many years of Pakistsan's existence have they been under "true" democratic rule? This, inspite of all the help that the US was giving. Sheeesh!!!!!!!

 

Its very east to blame India for all troubles in the sub-continent, but one needs to look at the mischiefs that the Pakis play and then pretend to be like saints.

Edited January 9, 2008 by ghostrider883

[+ghostrider883 526]

The muslim population was 91% then (in 1948), and they had elected to be affiliated with Pak due to the cultural and religious significance but the Maharaja was a hindu and to keep this between the family, he invited Indians to take over and thus the issue of Kashmir !!!!

 

The Maharaja wanted Kashmir to be independent and was not willing to join either Pakistan or India. It was only when Pakis occupied half of Kashmir, he requested the Indian govt for help. If the Mahraja wanted to join the Indian Union, he would have requested for Indian forces much before half of his state was lost to the Pakis. Hell, When the first Indian C-47s landed at Srinagar airfield, it was in danger of being over run by Paki forces. Read about the heroics of Major Somnath Sharma, 4th Btn, Kumaon Regt., Indian Army.

"The enemy are only 50 yards from us. We are heavily outnumbered. We are under devastating fire. I shall not withdraw an inch but will fight to our last man and our last round."

Edited January 9, 2008 by ghostrider883