Lockheed to supply 18 F-16s to Pakistan

[Atreides 144]

Who decide's which country need's what or why ? Blue water navy, That is India's right, if they want a navy with nuclear sub's with nuke's, great, that "RIGHT" is not for just the big power's .Period.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Atreides

[column5 62]

Who decide's which country need's what or why ? Blue water navy, That is India's right, if they want a navy with nuclear sub's with nuke's, great, that "RIGHT" is not for just the big power's .Period.

 

Didn't say they didn't have the right. Questioning why they would want to invest in it.

 

Edit: Now, with China as an emerging threat...I can see where they might want a strong submarine and ASW force, but surface ships will be very vulnerable.

Edited January 3, 2008 by column5

[Atreides 144]

Out of all the countries out there (read non western) I would probably worry the least about the Indian's as they're not a threat to the west, China, I can even see them being a considerable issue inlight of the sabre rattling they've done in the past over Taiwan and probably not take it as just mere sabre rattling, and then there's Iran, personally I don't trust the Iranian leadership and their military as far as I could throw them, with regard's to their nuke weapon program status, those centrifuge's can be started whenever the power's that be want, and this is a country whose leader has time and time again stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet, guess what majority of the U.S.A's key "ally" Pakistan, it's people do agree with that, when India decided to further strenghten it's relationship with Israel, in Pakistan the nutjob's burned Indian, Israeli and American flag's.

 

All that I'm trying to say that in term's of moderation, responsibility, and restraint India is the most reliable country militarily speaking in that region, heck did you know that during the Kargil war, Pakistan had their nuke's assembled and good to go if need be, the status of the India nuke's disassembled, India does not have a first strike nuclear policy, so if they're strenghtening their military , it's really nothing to be concerned about, India is doing that because of Pakistan and also largely due to the fact that the PLA Navy has a very large naval base in Myanmar (Burma) and that serve's now as a major concern for India, if you take a look at the map given the small distance of Myanmar to India, you will understand why India's need's a strong blue water navy, China isn't exactly a good friend of India.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Atreides

[+Dave 2,318]

Who decide's which country need's what or why ? Blue water navy, That is India's right, if they want a navy with nuclear sub's with nuke's, great, that "RIGHT" is not for just the big power's .Period.

 

I agree India is a much more stable government. But countries should intervene in those seeking nuclear weapons when thier government is unstable. Period, because the first time some unstable government uses a nuke the first thing the world of going to ask."why didnt someone intervene?" So yes it is for the "big power's" (and I know you are pointing at the US, I am not stupid.) to have a say. I mean seriously, you really want and unstable country to have nukes just because it is "thier right"? You are kidding right?

[Atreides 144]

No, USAF, certain countrie's do not have the right to have nuke's, India is NOT an iresponsible, unstable, power hungry country. Like I said they do not even have first strike as their nuclear policy. Did anywhere in my post's I indicate Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria or their ilk have my support ? NO ! But, India IS different, it does not have an anti-western attitude and itself is a victim of terrorist attack's, more Indian's have been killed by terrorist attack's than all during 9/11 so think again if you think a country that with a Hindu majority, that IS strong, is not hated by radical Islamist's, I'm not speaking FOR any and every country having the right to have nuke's, maybe I should have worded my initial post differently, but as my previous post indiacate's it was support for India and not some radical country.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Atreides

[column5 62]

All that I'm trying to say that in term's of moderation, responsibility, and restraint India is the most reliable country militarily speaking in that region

 

No doubt about it. If we never agree on anything else, at least we can remember this moment fondly.

 

One thing...and I'm just going off on a tangent here...should we be more concerned about what a country's population thinks of us (the USA) or what the position of their government is towards us and the degree of cooperation they offer. It's an open question--I don't propose an answer--but if we say that Pakistan is a bad ally because a mojority of its people are anit-Israel and anti-American, would we not have to apply the same rule to some European countries? Interesting to consider! :tomato2:

[+Dave 2,318]

No, USAF, certain countrie's do not have the right to have nuke's, India is NOT an iresponsible, unstable, power hungry country. Like I said they do not even have first strike as their nuclear policy. Did anywhere in my post's I indicate Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria or their ilk have my support ? NO ! But, India IS different, it does not have an anti-western attitude and itself is a victim of terrorist attack's, more Indian's have been killed by terrorist attack's than all during 9/11 so think again if you think a country that with a Hindu majority, that IS strong, is not hated by radical Islamist's, I'm not speaking FOR any and every country having the right to have nuke's, maybe I should have worded my initial post differently, but as my previous post indiacate's it was support for India and not some radical country.

 

I agreed with you about India, but the rest of your post seemed to be pointed at everyone else so I turn responded for everyone else. One country doesnt have it worse that any other when terrorism is involved. Does the numbers of people killed matter in terrorists attacks, make the attacks anymore worse? Or is it the idea of terrorism that is the greater of 2 evils? One killed, or 2000 killed doesn't matter, its terrorism that is the problem, that leads to those numbers. Dont gt me wrong the any person's dying is terrible but it sll started some where. Make sense?

[+Dave 2,318]

But anyway, 18 Vipers are not a big deal. I am sure some of those are going to replace stocks lost to attrition and are spare parts.

[Atreides 144]

Understood. As you said in reference to the Viper post, that the number of F-16's isn't significant, I believe that it's the number of additional airframe's capable of delivering nuclear weapon's that is a concern to the Indian government and just good ole political posturing and voicing their political blah blah blah.

[+ghostrider883 526]

Why does India need a blue water navy? 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?

 

When India became independent in 1947 and when the erstwhile Royal Indian Navy split into Indian & Pakistani Navies, the ships and equipment were split. Indian Navy getting a large part of the resources. The British at that time saw India as a stratergic partner and wanted to help in building a strong Indian Armed Forces(Right uptil 1962 alomst all of major Indian defence acquistions were of British origin - Hunters, Vampires, Canberras, Frigates, Destroyers). The British Admirality suggested that the Indian Navy have two fleets (Western Fleet - for the west coast & Eastern Fleet - for the western coast) .Each fleet was to have a carrier, destroyers, frigates, submarines,Minesweepers. The British were willing to fulfill India's requirements but sadly India's financial position was not good and India could only acquire one carrier with an air wing of Sea Hawks and Bruguet Alizes. Even in the Indian Navy, there were people who were against the idea of acquiring aircraft carriers.

The Navy had enjoyed spectacular success through carrier launched strikes by Sea Hawks and Alizes in the 1971 war. Sea Harriers replaced Sea Hawks. WHen HMS Hermes became available for sale and was offered to India, the Navy gladly took it.

If you ever get a come across the books, "Transition to Truimph : History of I.N. 1947-75" & "Transition to Eminence : History of the I.N 1975-90", read it. You will understand why India needs a strong Navy.

So why does the Navy need a blue water Navy? Didn't the world notice how the Indian Navy responded during the Dec. 26 Tsunami. The Indian Navy ships were among the first to reach affected areas with help relief material(this inspite of the fact that India's south eastern coast was badly hit by the Tsunami as well. Why did the US agree to sell the USS Trenton( INS Jalashwa) to the Indian Navy? Having a kid brother who serves in the Merchant Navy, I am glad that Indian Navy ships regularly patrol and escort Indian ships through the troubled Malacca straits . The Indian Navy has a stratergic role to play in the region to prevent terrorism and piracy. Some time back, the Navy held its largets war games with the US( the US brought two a/c carriers), Australian, Singaporean and Japanese Navies. Besides the Chinese great is always there.

 

 

Arent you buying ex-Russian heavy bombers?

Nope, the deal to buy 3 Tu-22M3 bombers for the Navy was cancelled. Instead the Navy floated global tenders for replacment of the Tu-142 fleet. Contenders are P-8, A319 , IL-38SD and Dassault Falcon 900. But one thing is for sure the Navy is certianly getting 1 Akula lass SSBN(or is it a SSN?) on lease for 10 years( just like the Soviet Charlie class nuclear submarine that the Navy acquired in the late-80s)

 

But why doesnt India seek closer ties with the US?

India wants closer ties with the US. Hence the Indo-US nuclear deal. The sale of USS Trenton is a sign of improvment in relations. US offering F-16s and F-18s for sale to India is significant as well. In fact, teh first batch of I.N pilots who would fly MiG-29Ks off the INS Vikramaditya recently returned from the US after competing training on USN T-45s

Edited January 4, 2008 by ghostrider883

[column5 62]

Understood. As you said in reference to the Viper post, that the number of F-16's isn't significant, I believe that it's the number of additional airframe's capable of delivering nuclear weapon's that is a concern to the Indian government and just good ole political posturing and voicing their political blah blah blah.

 

Do we know what the Pakis possess in terms of nuclear weapons--that is, what types? Are they artillery shells, warheads for missiles, or air-droppable bombs? Or are they interchangeable. Don't know much about nuclear warheads really.

[+Dave 2,318]

Do we know what the Pakis possess in terms of nuclear weapons--that is, what types? Are they artillery shells, warheads for missiles, or air-droppable bombs? Or are they interchangeable. Don't know much about nuclear warheads really.

 

I can say for a fact that their Vipers are not capable of carrying nukes.

[+ghostrider883 526]

I can say for a fact that their Vipers are not capable of carrying nukes.

 

Dave,

Acc. to my copy of "Fiza'ya : Psyche of the PAF", the PAF were able to modify their F-16s to cary nuclear bombs in the early 90s.

[+Dave 2,318]

Dave,

Acc. to my copy of "Fiza'ya : Psyche of the PAF", the PAF were able to modify their F-16s to cary nuclear bombs in the early 90s.

 

It is very incorrect, they are not wired for nuclear delivery.

[+ghostrider883 526]

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.

 

Exactly. That's why I feel India & Israel are natural partners having a common enemy. This, inspite of the fact that India has a sizeable Muslim population.

[Atreides 144]

It is very incorrect, they are not wired for nuclear delivery.

 

 

So you're 100% sure that the nuke's could never, ever with inhouse innovation's be wired for nuclear delivery, including the F-16's, ever ?

Edited January 4, 2008 by Atreides

[Atreides 144]

Exactly. That's why I feel India & Israel are natural partners having a common enemy. This, inspite of the fact that India has a sizeable Muslim population.

 

Considering India's population size you would be better off saying a Hindu maority (900 million+or -) country with a large muslim population, some might mistake it for being otherwise.

[+Dave 2,318]

So you're 100% sure that the nuke's could never, ever with inhouse innovation's be wired for nuclear delivery, including the F-16's, ever ?

 

Didnt say that, I said they are not wired. ie not currently

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Didnt say that, I said they are not wired. ie not currently

 

Yeah, they do have the capability to carry tactical nukes, but I hate to admit it but Dave's rig... he's not wrong. Just kidding dude! There was a Regional Capability Assessment publication from the MoD here from around 2002/3 that looked into the capability of regional (Asia/Pacific) militaries and their ability to project their respective nuclear reach and I remember reading that the PAF has the capacity to modify their vipers to carry tac nukes, but (officially anyways) they're not supposed to have any configured in such a way. But who's going to know? The Mirage IIIs they used to operate supposedly had a similar capacity but I don't recall reading if they actually did do so. I just remember there being something of a kafuffle amongst the government here about it after we sold our retired Mirage IIIOs to them.

[column5 62]

Is it safe to assume that the "wiring" referred to is actually a fail-safe system, and that configuring an aircraft to drop a nuke is not something that can be done with parts bought at Radio Shack?

[+Dave 2,318]

Is it safe to assume that the "wiring" referred to is actually a fail-safe system, and that configuring an aircraft to drop a nuke is not something that can be done with parts bought at Radio Shack?

 

 

Exactily, it is a whole system they do not have in place to arm and launch or drop a them causing them to explode like in firey ball of hell. Sure they can load them up and drop them but with no big boom boom. I wish I could go into details but I could be getting into hot water just for saying this much.

[column5 62]

Exactily, it is a whole system they do not have in place to arm and launch or drop a them causing them to explode like in firey ball of hell. Sure they can load them up and drop them but with no big boom boom. I wish I could go into details but I could be getting into hot water just for saying this much.

 

 

Rgr that. Say no more. Glad for the reassurance!

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Rgr that. Say no more. Glad for the reassurance!

 

I figured it would be the hard point, FCS and other relative avionic systems. Aren't even the tac nukes quite heavy in comparison the regular stores carried? Also, again it's off topic, but are nuclear capable aircraft fitted with radometers or whatever they're called to monitor local radiation? I expect bombers and heavier aircraft are but what about tactical aircraft?

[+Dave 2,318]

I figured it would be the hard point, FCS and other relative avionic systems. Aren't even the tac nukes quite heavy in comparison the regular stores carried? Also, again it's off topic, but are nuclear capable aircraft fitted with radometers or whatever they're called to monitor local radiation? I expect bombers and heavier aircraft are but what about tactical aircraft?

 

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.

[Mannie 21]

Refering to what Dave said.

Exactily, it is a whole system they do not have in place to arm and launch or drop a them causing them to explode like in firey ball of hell.

Is it totaly impossible that with the aid of lets say Iran or China the proper wiring can be carried out on those F-16's?

And one more question.

Why the US have to dump relations with Pakistan While upgrading relations with India?

Don't the US keep good relations with both Saudi Arabia and Israel at the same time?

(and selling both states F-15's)