since forever ive been hearing that Pakiostan made partial payments to the US for F-16 fighter jets back in the 80s, but somethign along the way went wrong and they held back the consignment. it’s almost been 20 yrs and they havent been deliovered. what actually happend? what repelled america? why don’t they let us have them? we made payments, why then do they refuse? it’s not as if the f-16s are some nuclear missiles or smthng that US would(absurdly) consider unsafe in pakistan’s hands. and it’s not as if only those few planes would propell pakistan to the position of worlds best air force (or would it?).
pakistan has been asking them continuosl;y and even after Gen Musharraf came to power he has beeb asking them and now that pakistan is once again at good terms with the US Musharraf has asked the US several times, but they dont budge…what in the world is wrong with them…? I mean theyd let us have cobras, but not the jets. They’s let us buy depreciated ones from belgium, but won’t let us have the new ones we made partial payment for and probabaly signed an ‘agreement’ with them.
any comments and thoughts ppl?
I thought the US recently paid / agreed to refund?
no, the talks have been going on, but no conclusions...
The F-16s were withheld because of the Pressler Ammendment, which basically prohibited the US from supplying military aid to Pakistan unless the President could testify before Congress that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons. This was great for the Americans because it meant that as long as they needed us, the president could go before Congress and lie, but the second they were done with us they could cut us off completely.
The issue of those F-16s that we paid for but never receieved is closed, because the US refunded that payment in the form of soya beans. Not ideal, but its all they were willing to do. As for those F-16s, they have all been assigned to USAF or USN aggressor squadrons. If we receive any F-16s from the US now, they are likley to be ex-USAF aircraft that are in storage (NOT the F-16s we paid for in the 80s, or new build F-16s).
Perhaps a little more detail;
The Pressler Amendment was triggered when a Pakistani agent was caught red handed trying to buy high speed switches, which are dually used for medical equipment and nuclear triggers from an American supplier. The US knew of Pakistan's nuclear ambitions, and many say that the CIA had actually penetrated the program. The Reagan administration had been content to look the other way while we were cooperatively working with Zia and the ISI on Afghanistan. The attempted purchase of the switches was so obvious that the Reagan administration could not plausibly deny knowledge of Pakistans nuclear program, and the Pressler amendment had to be put in force.
The f-16 issue is two-fold. first, the planes are fully capable of delivering an atomic bomb, and were frequently equipped to do so during the Cold War in Europe. Even if they were not so equipped upon delivery they could be easily modified to deliver a nuclear weapon. Second, there is an uneasy balance between the Pakistani and Indian Air Forces. The Indian Air Force is flying ancient Russian MIGs which periodically bury their pilots in a cloud of dirt. The US has delayed the Indian purchase of an AWACS-like system from Israel that would give a distinct advantage to the Indian Air Force. Thus there is sort of a mutual incompetence to both sides, somewhat reducing threats and tensions.
With a peaceful resolution to Kashmir, there would be no reason not to sell advanced equipment to either side.... Face it, ya'all have fought three wars lately...
^ Fact is Indians will soon be getting AWACS from Israel… and their old MiG’s are old news. IAF has new planes too. And all Pakistan got from US was inedible grain of wheat. 
Fact is US used up our money to fund murders by Israel and US should be ashamed to rob a poor country like Pakistan for pittiance. Its like you stop at a stop sign and steal the pennies from the bum sitting there asking for food. 
ps. Alright, wrong analogy.. but you get the idea 
...sooner or later when the US comes after Pakistan...they wouldnt want their asses whooped with their own technology....now would they? :p
Soya Bean? Must be heck of a lot of Soya to pay for 40 F-16s. I wonder where it all went, I know we dont use it in Pakistan.
^ Now why the heck would US want to come after pakistan, this frontline state in the war on terrorism? Why, Mr.Armitage went out of the way to state the relationship is quite strong!
thanks guys for the info and comments. especially RaMo and ohioguy.
but all else aside, if nuclear capabilty is all that bothers the americans, then dont they realize that Pakistan already has the bomb and can fire it through its missiles that are nucleaur capable. besides i think the mirages and f7pgs are also nucleur capable...
and if the f16s that we get are going to be depreciated machines, then whats the use? why dont we kick a new deal with the US during the current high tide to give us some more modern planes, perhaps the F14, F22, F117 and how about an aircraft carrier...? but they just won't let us be that strong would they...?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Haris Zuberi: *
and if the f16s that we get are going to be depreciated machines, then whats the use? why dont we kick a new deal with the US during the current high tide to give us some more modern planes, perhaps the F14, F22, F117 and how about an aircraft carrier...? but they just won't let us be that strong would they...?
[/QUOTE]
The USA has a policy of not exporting its advanced aircraft such as the F-22 and F-117 to anyone. Introducing the F-14 into service would bring little benefit over the F-16 (both design are from roughly the same era), plus Pakistan already has the expensive support infrastructure for the F-16 in place.
The F-16 itself is still a very capable fighter, and is physically still capable of meeting Pakistan's hi-tech fighter requirement. All that is required is for modern avionics and electronics to be installed within the old airframe.. The F-16, with upgraded avionics, still forms a large portion of the fighter force of many western nations, such as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and even the USA and Israel.
It's still a very good, very modern aircraft and represents excellent value for money. The F-16 is the logical choice for the PAF's hi-tech fighter requirement due to the fact that the PAF already has extensive experience in operating the F-16 and more importantly, already has the very costly support infrastructure (such as training and overhaul facilities) for the F-16 in implementation.
Introducing any other plane, from any other country, into service as the hi-tech fighter will be immensely more expensive.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
It's still a very good, very modern aircraft and represents excellent value for money. The F-16 is the logical choice for the PAF's hi-tech fighter requirement due to the fact that the PAF already has extensive experience in operating the F-16 and more importantly, already has the very costly support infrastructure (such as training and overhaul facilities) for the F-16 in implementation.
Introducing any other plane, from any other country, into service as the hi-tech fighter will be immensely more expensive.
[/QUOTE]
By definition these used F-16s can not be the high tech fighter for the PAF. The reason the PAF needs a high tech fighter is to counter the IAFs purchase of the Su-30MKI. The used f-16s are nowhere close to matching the Su-30MKI. They have no bvr capability (americans are unlikley to release the AMRAAM to us), no glass cockpit, no HMS, no IRST system, no thrust vectoring. They are essentially late 70s fighters (where the Flankers have technology that is nearly 2 decades newer) but they will be extremely useful in the strike role. I believe the PAF will look to these used f-16s to form the backbone of it's strike elemant (possibly replacing some of the upgraded Mirage III/V fighters), but that it will keep looking for a high tech "silver bullet" to counter the IAF's Flankers. The most likely choices for the PAF's high tech fighter are the Mirage 2000-5/9, the Rafale (if it can secure the funds), or if all other options fail, then it will probably go for the J-10.
I know some people (first hand) that got major kick backs on the first F-16 deal between US and Pakistan.
They and their next 10 generations dont really have to work . Thats how much money they made. I wonder if all that kickback/embezzlement etc etc...whatever it was caused this deal to go sour.
Pakistan was given a choice by America, either get the F-16s and forget the nukes or go for the nukes and forget the F-16s. The Pakistanis, correctly went for the nukes. Though the program to acquire nuke tech was kept quiet for as long as possible so that more F-16s could be supplied. Anyway, that is old news now. The F-16s destined for Pakistan were kept in storage for sometime and now they have been inducted by USAF/USN for usage in “Aggressor Squadrons”. Instead, Soya Oil has been supplied to Pakistan. Now, why is USA not inclined to send the F-16s over to Pakistan? The reason seems to be the fact that the nukes have tremendous potential for damage and and even a single nuke could cause great carnage. US Gov does not want to have it’s hands dirty if any war occurs and the F-16s get involved in them. The deal is thus not a purely commercial, but a political one as well and that is where the roadblock lies.
Ohioguy, perhaps you would like to update your knowledge on the tripartite deal which has been signed recently, 10th of October to be more precise. The delay was because India wanted to mount the Phalcon Phased Array Radar on a Russian IL-76 airframe whereas Israel wanted to have the Boeing 707s airframe. As this news item indicates, the issues have been resolved.
India on Friday concluded a major defence deal with Israel and Russia for manufacture of Phalcon, an airborne early warning and control system (AWACS), for the Indian Air Force.
The deal to mount Israeli-made Phalcon surveillance radars on Russian IL-76 planes ** was signed by Defence Secretary Ajay Prasad, Maj Gen Yasi Ben Hanan (retd) for Israel Denisov Alexander of Rosoboron Export for Russia. **
The simple fact is, you don’t want us to have those planes, fine…Give us the money back…Greedy sycophants are leeching money from Pakistan…
I know it on good authority that the US government charges those planes to be parked where they are…
And the Pressler amendment now includes a clause where America won’t sell parts for PAF’s already existing F-16s…
How greedy can you get to think Pakis are such fools…We may forgive but certainly shall not forget…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RaMo: *
By definition these used F-16s can not be the high tech fighter for the PAF. The reason the PAF needs a high tech fighter is to counter the IAFs purchase of the Su-30MKI. The used f-16s are nowhere close to matching the Su-30MKI. They have no bvr capability (americans are unlikley to release the AMRAAM to us), no glass cockpit, no HMS, no IRST system, no thrust vectoring. They are essentially late 70s fighters (where the Flankers have technology that is nearly 2 decades newer) but they will be extremely useful in the strike role. I believe the PAF will look to these used f-16s to form the backbone of it's strike elemant (possibly replacing some of the upgraded Mirage III/V fighters), but that it will keep looking for a high tech "silver bullet" to counter the IAF's Flankers. The most likely choices for the PAF's high tech fighter are the Mirage 2000-5/9, the Rafale (if it can secure the funds), or if all other options fail, then it will probably go for the J-10.
[/QUOTE]
-> Pakistan already has resources available to overhaul the F-16 engine and logistic support. If Pakistan can get these cheap fighters from Europe then they can be upgraded (MLU to bock50).
-> Most of these 2nd hand F-16s will be coming from Belgium (28) and another 30+ from Norway & Denmark. MLU will include glass cockpit, HMS, IRST system, ECM.
-> Because of the size of F-16, it doesn't need thrust vectoring.
->These 2nd F-16s will replace old hog A-5c (pretty much trash).
-> Pakistan is in the process of negotiating for BVRAAM from USA, T-Dark from South Africa, and SD-10 from China are also on the list.
-> Future high tech requirement: J-10 with ToT or 3 sqd of Mirage2000-5/9
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by earthquake: *
-> Pakistan already has resources available to overhaul the F-16 engine and logistic support. If Pakistan can get these cheap fighters from Europe then they can be upgraded (MLU to bock50).
[/QUOTE]
There is no guarantee that the second hand planes will be upgraded to (full) MLU standard.
[QUOTE]
-> Most of these 2nd hand F-16s will be coming from Belgium (28) and another 30+ from Norway & Denmark. MLU will include glass cockpit, HMS, IRST system, ECM.
[/QUOTE]
MLU doesn't incorporate a full glass cockpit, just 2 colour MFDs. Flight data is still presented to the pilot in analogue form with the MFDs only being used as the interface to the weapons and sensors. MLU originally planned for a HMS but this was postponed and no MLU f-16 currently has a HMS, only the interface for a HMD. The MLU upgrade never incorporated an IRST system. The only F-16s to have an IRST system are the Block 60 plane for the UAE, but these are new build.
[QUOTE]
-> Because of the size of F-16, it doesn't need thrust vectoring.
[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't be saying that if you have seen what the Su-30 can do with with thrust vectored nozzles ;)
[QUOTE]
->These 2nd F-16s will replace old hog A-5c (pretty much trash).
[/QUOTE]
I think rather than replace the A-5s directly, these 2nd hand F-16s would replace the ROSE Mirages in the deep strike role, in turn freeing the Mirages to perform CAS missions (which are currently tasked to the A-5s)
[QUOTE]
-> Pakistan is in the process of negotiating for BVRAAM from USA, T-Dark from South Africa, and SD-10 from China are also on the list.
[/QUOTE]
The chances of getting the AMRAAM are slim to none at best. Neither the R-darter (T-darter is just a proposed development of the R-darter which is in service today) or SD-10 have been integrated onto the F-16 which means the PAF would have to bear the cost of doing the necessary work. The R-darter would probably be easier to integrate seeing as it is closely related to the Rafael Derby which has been pictured on Israeli F-16s. However, it is important to note that despite having their own indeginous BVR missiles, the Israelis still prefer the AMRAAM which says everything you need to know about the R-Darter/Derby. The SD-10 is much more promising but would require a some work to integrate onto the F-16.
[QUOTE]
-> Future high tech requirement: J-10 with ToT or 3 sqd of Mirage2000-5/9
[/QUOTE]
The problem with both the J-10 and Mirage 2000 is, they are both 3rd Generation fighters, while what the PAF desperately needs is a 4th Generation fighter.
Pegasus,
Yes, I have been following the Phalcon sale. It is far more important to the balance of air power than f-16's, or anything short of a stealth aircraft. (And frankly I would bet that Israel has those too, and we will only know about it when reactors in Iran go poof).
That pretty much leaves Pakistan with a major problem. With operable Phalcon's you can have any plane you want, and the IAF will always know where to come and greet you. Not good. To maintain the balance of power the PAF needs a comparable platform, and they sure are not going to buy it from Israel. Europe really has nothing comparable, and while Russian airframes are fine, I would not buy thier electronics. Japan can probably produce a good platform, but for the most part Pakistan will have to go to the US for comparable capabilities. Given the strength of the Indian Navy, the need for all kinds of intelligence aircraft is growing.
I would suggest first that the US will be tracking the course of Democracy n Pakistan. If Musharrafs' promises do not appear, all bets are probably off anyway. Simlarly the prospect of sophisticated weaponry falling into the hands of a hardline regime ala Iran is also a deep concern. Offfensive capabilities such as the f-16 (which is still a frontline aircraft when updated. F15 Eagles would be even better. ) will be a clear second place to defensively oriented aircraft such as AWACS.
The sale of the Israeli Arrow would be even more destabilizing, and would give India a clear advantage in missle technology. I think what people are looking at is to maintain a healthy balance of power, so that there is never a moment when either side believes that an attack is advantageous. Welcome to regional mutually assured destruction.
Lastly, there is a clear message to Musharraf. Make the choice between North Korea and the US as your supplier. Not both. Continued cooperation with NK will stall everything.
whats so imp about glass cockpits? and what were cockpits made of until now?
can anyone please let me know what the abbvs. IRST, ECM, HMS, MLU, BVRAAM, MFD, AMRAAM stand for...?
thanks.
IRST - Infra-red Search & Track system - this allows a fighter to detect other aircraft passively (using IR) without giving away its position (when you turn on your radar everyone else knows exactly where you are)
ECM - Electronic Counter Measures - Normally used to jam enemy radars and radar-homing missiles
HMS - Helmet Mounted Sight - Presents flight information to the pilot on his helmet so he can see this information wherever he looks (not just in the 12 o'clock position). When combined with the latest generation of missiles, they also let a pilot target enemy aircraft that are not in front of him.
MLU - Mid Life upgrade - Program to upgrade the early Nato block 15 F-16s to the latest block 50 standard
BVRAAM - Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile
AMRAAM - Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile - This is the primay American BVRAAM missile. However, they are extremely careful about who they export it to (unlike Sidewinder which they'll give to pretty much anyone).
MFD - Multi Function Display - This is the core component of a glass cockpit (glass cockpit being one where the MFDs are the primary man machine interface and any analogue dials are there as backups). It is basically an LCD screen. The advantage of a glass cockpit is it present information to the pilot in a more easy to use way, meaning he can spend less time with his head down reading instruments, and more time with his head up looking for the enemy. In combat any ergonomic advantage you have that lets you keep your head up looking out of the cockpit for longer, makes a difference.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
That pretty much leaves Pakistan with a major problem. With operable Phalcon's you can have any plane you want, and the IAF will always know where to come and greet you. Not good. To maintain the balance of power the PAF needs a comparable platform, and they sure are not going to buy it from Israel. Europe really has nothing comparable, and while Russian airframes are fine, I would not buy thier electronics. Japan can probably produce a good platform, but for the most part Pakistan will have to go to the US for comparable capabilities.
The sale of the Israeli Arrow would be even more destabilizing, and would give India a clear advantage in missle technology. I think what people are looking at is to maintain a healthy balance of power, so that there is never a moment when either side believes that an attack is advantageous. Welcome to regional mutually assured destruction.
[/QUOTE]
I agree the Russian AWACS platform are a non-starter since they have to send their radar information back to a ground station for processing. That leaves them highly susceptible to jamming. The Japanese option is unlikely, not least because their platform (while arguably the best in the world) is also the most expensive in the world. However Saab has a very useful AWACS platform in the Erieye. While not as capable as the Phalcon, 6-10 Emb-145 jets with the Erieye radars would counter the Phalcons pretty well. They're not even that expensive as Greece paid just over $500 million for 4 planes (although our requirement would be greater).
As for the Arrow sale, I'm not sure that will have as big an effect in the region as the Phalcon sale. Arrow has been tested primarily against relativly short range ballistic missiles like Scud. The small number of Arrow systems being purchased means they are supposed to protect Indian cities, but these would be targeted by much longer range missiles (like Ghuari) which have a higher ballistic path. I'm not sure how effective Arrow would be against these type of missiles. AFAIK it hasn't been tested against anything bigger than a Scud ( as that is the primary threat in the Middle East). In addition, if we were to ever develop MIRV warheads then they would instantly negate the Arrow system. Even just adding ECM would increase the likelyhood of the missile hitting its target.