I think you’ll find that you are a little bit behind on body armour technology. The latest generation is surprisingly compact and is based on modular principles, usually a vest into which you place armour plates. The more plates in the vest the greater the level of protection (with the drawbacks being greater bulk and weight). So why doesn’t everyone use this sort of armour? Simple - its nothing to do with mobility and everything to do with cost. The latest body armour start from around £10,000 for basic level protection (shrapnel/9mm). To equip even a small Army of around 50,000 front line troops would cost in excess of £50bn. Hence why the British Army can only afford to issue Interceptor style body armour to a handful of front line Infantry units. You ask any soldier if they would prefer going into combat with or without Interceptor and I can tell you what the answer will be in 10/10 cases. With.
Bulletproof vests is first an most foremost a misnomer, particularly against rifle calibre ammunication. Whilst kevlar vests protect against pistol-calibre bullet (from a distance), they offer relatively little protection from 7.62mm bullet such as those fired by the AK-47. If anything, vests make such bullets do more damage, since they simply make the bullet enter the body at a lower velocity, and thus tumble through and tear tissue apart. A high velocity bullet will pass through the body without tumbling around.
Only the USA has access to the kind of advance body armour that can stop AK-47 bullets - and even then, it has severe supply problems.
Kevlar vests add weight to soldiers (they are not lightweight at all). More weight to carry around means they get tired faster. They also do a damn fine job of trapping heat. Tired, hot soldiers are less effective in combat. And making your soldiers tired and hot to protect them a bit better against pistols and shrapnel simply leaves them more vulnerable to rifle gunfire.
Same deal with the helmets, except soldiers can choose to wear them or not. Issuing them is one thing, but making sure they wear them is something else. In hot climates, helmets are uncomfortable. If you see World War 2 photos of soldiers in the North African campaign, even in combat both German and Allied soldiers would wear caps instead of helmets because of the heat.
Same deal with the Pakistan Army. Some soldiers simply prefer not wear helmets, if the climate is hot and the danger of attack is not imminent. You gave the example in your photo, where most paramilitaries preferred the more comfortable berets when there is no immediate danger present. Other preferred to keep their helmets on.
Take a look at this recent photo of a Pakistani corporal in the Congo in UN service (the UN provides blue helmets to its peacekeepers). You can see that this corporal, patrolling the site of a recent rebel attack, still is not wearing his UN issued helmet, preferring a beret. His comrade in the APC in the back chooses to wear the helmet.
Now take a look at these paramilitaries, patrolling Miran Shah, in immediate danger of a close-quarters firefight (weapons are at the ready). You’ll note that they have their helmets on (danger is immediate).
The UN picture you posted, the soldier is wearing some sort of bullet proof vest. Why does the army bother providing him and other regular army troops these vests?
Anyway vests or not, what about armored vehicles to protect against landmines? Landmine deaths and injuries are mounting.
How many vests and APCs can be bought for the price of one F-16?
That looks llike combat webbing to me, rather than body armour (combat webbing is a vest worn outside the uniform with pouches and hook-on points for ammunition and equipment).
The problem with armoured vehicles is speed. A pickup truck can cover more distance per day, or complete a patrol in shorter time, than an armoured vehicle can.
And if you encounter a landmine, an armoured troop carrier wouldn't really help. The landmines that we're encountering and killing our troops are anti-tank landmines that can cut through an armoured troop carrier as easily as through a pickup - they were designed to hit main battle tanks.
The vast majority of Pakistani casualties have come during firefights, or during artillery strikes on paramilitary posts.
52-55 F-16 C/D's Block 50/52+ (new ones from the U.S)
90-110 F-16 A/B's + MLU (can be acquired from Belgium & Turkey also)
^^This is what the PAF is aiming for.
The Gripens are ruled out. They are, in terms of capability, similar to the F-16's (w/ the exception of the superior datalink system on the Gripens), and expensive. If PAF opts for Gripens, the costs will not be covered by the U.S.
Other then the main airframe, what important component of an F-16 **Block 52 **is old technology? The avionics are new, the engine is new, the electronics are new. The weapons systems are new. What else do you need?
PAF is not an agressive air force. Its main objective is: minimum deterrence. And, these aircrafts fulfill what is required by PAF, in the region.
F-16s offered (not yet sold) by boeing are in competition with others such as Russian Migs, French Mirage 2005's (although, I believe France has pulled out of this offer). So, you cannot say U.S will give them to India, just like that.
Now the game of politics also comes in the equations when deciding between the (Russian) Migs & (American) F-16s, considering Russia needs those defence sales for its economy. Even if this may not turn out to be such a big issue, you have to look at the purchase of F-16s (a brand new platform which the Indians have never operated before), by India, with a militaristic & strategic view. The logistics, training, infrastructure for F-16s, will be a nightmare for India. Maintenance will be a big problem. For every different platform you have, you need a seperate infrastructure + assembly lines (if assembled in India), for each platform. This alone can cost tons of money. Most Air Forces try to keep the types of platforms minimal. As for India, they operate too many types already. Acquiring another platform will only cause more troubles. And, I really don't think that India can buy 126 Block70 F-16s and pay for all the logistics + infrastructure for under $7 billion.
Secondly, Pakistan knows the F-16s inside out. Pak has been operating them for a long time, and has experience on them. Pak knows its weakpoints and powerpoints. So, strategically, it would be pretty dumb if India bought the F-16s.
It would be much more beneficial for India, if IAF bought the Mig-29's or Mirage 2005's.
Conclusion: India will most likely, not buy F-16s.