U.S. to sell F-16s to Pakistan

[whag00]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior U.S. officials say a deal to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan was approved and the United States will compete for contracts to provide Pakistan's nuclear rival India with the same jets.

President Bush called Indian Prime Minister Monmohan Singh to tell him the decision to go ahead with the sale to Pakistan, the officials announced on Friday.

India has balked at the sale.

India and Pakistan have been at odds for decades over the region of Kashmir.

The United States had banned weapons sales to both India and Pakistan in the 1990s because each had tested nuclear weapons.

One official said that the United States has had to adapt to the reality that both countries have a nuclear capability.

"The U.S. has to live in the world that exists, not the world we wish" exists, the official said. He added that the United States is trying to create a "positive force" and defuse tensions in a potentially dangerous region.

U.S. officials said the sale to Pakistan is the result of the deepening relationship with that country.

The improved relations, they said, came about because of President Pervez Musharraf 's actions since the September 11, 2001, attacks -- assisting with the hunt for Osama bin Laden, cooperating with the investigation into the weapons network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and agreeing to elections in 2007.
Last year, the Bush administration declared Pakistan a non-NATO ally and this year, the United States started a five-year aid package to Pakistan worth $3 billion.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/jet.sale/index.html

[whag00]

On Sept. 20, 2001 President Bush said:
"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans."

I know that F-16’s aren’t the greatest planes out there (too light to carry the bomb) but isn’t just a tad hypocritical of Bush to sell planes to Pakistan especially since they are harboring and supporting terrorists? And why are we supporting a dictatorship (Pakistan) versus a democratic society (India)? Has Musharraf
really been that good of an ally to us?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by whag00
On Sept. 20, 2001 President Bush said:
"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans."

I know that F-16’s aren’t the greatest planes out there (too light to carry the bomb) but isn’t just a tad hypocritical of Bush to sell planes to Pakistan especially since they are harboring and supporting terrorists? And why are we supporting a dictatorship (Pakistan) versus a democratic society (India)? Has Musharraf
really been that good of an ally to us?

they're not harboring or supporting terrorists...are they?? my understanding is they're working as hard as anyone to root that crap out.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by MadMax
they're not harboring or supporting terrorists...are they?? my understanding is they're working as hard as anyone to root that crap out.
I suspect that Pakistan is a week away from being a mullah run country.

Bill Hicks would say that we have to arm our enimies to make the fight fair.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by whag00
"The U.S. has to live in the world that exists, not the world we wish" exists, the official said. He added that the United States is trying to create a "positive force" and defuse tensions in a potentially dangerous region.

Is it that or is that there is a profit to be made? And we wonder why the rest of the world hates America.

[111chase111]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Is it that or is that there is a profit to be made? And we wonder why the rest of the world hates America.

Pakastan has done a lot of what President Bush has asked and much of what was asked was not very popular among Pakistani people. I'm sure the Pakistan government is asking for payback.

This is why politics is so crappy. This is not a perfect world and sometimes you have to compromise in order to get things you want. Everyone on this board has compromised something in order to make someone else happy or get something they wanted or even just to get someone off their back.

If you were in office I bet you would find plenty of situations where what you wanted to do was impossible without some sort of compromise. And as soon as you compromise, your enemies will attack you like no tomorrow.

Regarding "why the rest of the world hates America" that is simply not true and saying things like that makes you come across as either ignorant or hateful yourself. If we sell planes to Pakistan it makes India mad. If we don't sell planes to Pakistan it makes Pakistan mad. No matter what you do you are going to piss someone off.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by whag00
And why are we supporting a dictatorship (Pakistan) versus a democratic society (India)? Has Musharraf
really been that good of an ally to us?

The article said we are also trying to sell the planes to India. In other words, we are not supporting one against the other, we are supporting both.

[krosfyah]

Originally posted by 111chase111
Pakastan has done a lot of what President Bush has asked and much of what was asked was not very popular among Pakistani people. I'm sure the Pakistan government is asking for payback.

This is why politics is so crappy. This is not a perfect world and sometimes you have to compromise in order to get things you want. ...

Excellent points. Politics do suck.

But if you stand up and say we won't compromise with terrorists and then sell fighter jets to a country where many beleive Bin Laden may be hiding out and that same country is running an unsactioned nuclear program...then you leave yourself a tad bit open to criticism.

Originally posted by 111chase111
Regarding "why the rest of the world hates America" that is simply not true and saying things like that makes you come across as either ignorant or hateful yourself. ...

Let me clarify that. People don't generally "hate" Americans. But they do generally "hate" American policy. So I'm sorry if you got offended by the usage of the word hate but that's the truth.

It's the hypocrisy, or perceived hypocrisy, that people dislike. W has made many many very strong and holier-than-thou unwavering prolomations in his 2 terms. As a result, he's angered a lot of people. So he leaves himself open to such resultful sentiments.

I'm sorry you are offended but poll after poll shows American popularity is relatively low overseas. Heck, W's most recent poll taken of Americans has him at the lowest popularity of his presidency. So I think you characterized me unfairly by saying I am ignorant and hateful.

[VinceCarter]

I suspect that Pakistan is a week away from being a mullah run country.


i don't know how informed you are about Pakistan...but it is not a week away from mullah country..... silly post.... Pakistan is a country that is surviving on loans... the country is deeply in debt with the world Bank .... and it does not make an income to support the loans.... that is the reason why they kiss the U.S's a$$...they got their loan as soon as they let the U.S attack Afghan from their country.......plus if they did'nt they would have been attacked as a terrorist country.... a two edged sword.....

and yes the country is a military run government.... there is no democracy in this country... they friggin have a prime minister and a president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.:rolleyes: ... with the president being a militant who chooses if the prime minister is "good" or "bad" ... he calls for an election and places that fool in his place.... the U.S if anything needs to get rid of this guy and bring "freedom" to the people:p


but no instead they sell F-16 to these idiots... the whole government is corrupt and the money that they got from the loan is going to people within the government ties.... instead of building a nation...they sooner or later are gonna run out of cash again and need another loan.... and if they are not in the U.S's good books then no loan.... so i guess you get my point....


eventually things will get ugly in that country... so it is obvious that the U.S is boosting its economy... they will be selling to India next... another Billion dollar sale.... 1/3 of the aviation accounts come from the GOVERNMENT... so yes this is a business with people with big money and power influencing these sales.... though it does not go well with the fight against terror.:D

[VinceCarter]

when i say things will get ugly in Pakistan i don't mean Mullah's will take over... just this militant prez of theirs will countinue to run the country no matter what cause he is exactly the control that the U.S wants... but he is no good for that country when it comes to democracy. that country is a mess.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by VinceCarter
when i say things will get ugly in Pakistan i don't mean Mullah's will take over
My comment was obviously tongue in cheek. My understanding is that the majority of the Pakinstani citizens sympathize with the Taliban (extreme Islamic fundies) more so than with the US. The political leadership in Pakistan appears to not have the support of the people, especially in backing the US causes in the region.

BTW, presidents proir to W refused to sell F-16s to Pakistan since they thought the country unstable. Maybe we could sell F-16 parts later to an unstable Pakistan to fund clandestine, nondemocratic movements in other countries. Bring it on.

[lpbman]

lil info
we're selling India Patriot missles (PAC-2) with the intention of preventing Pakistan's Ghauri and Hataf missiles from penetrating its air space
India has a new medium range (17 mi) Akash SAM
not to mention the 4 other missiles India's Defense R&D program is working on

This decidedly tips the balance of power in the direction of India, and Musharraf was irritated by the move if you'll excuse the understatement

Also, if we didn't sell Pakistan F-16's they'd be buying Mig 29's
I consider the F-16 superior even though it's likely it will not have the most advanced avionics currently available for the Falcon

F-16's fly by wire control system and agility make the pilot better, as a well trained pilot almost flys it by thought
This is a huge advantage in a single seat fighter b/c in most engagements the pilot can easily be overwhelmed by all of the tasks he is asked to perform.
according to the Luftwaffe which flies both the F-4 Phantom and the Mig 29, the F-4 has a superior radar, so mixed formations is the norm. This is somewhat compensated for by it's advanced IR tracking system. The Mig 29 also has a much shorter range than the F-16.


This is all to say, we're selling both sides advanced weapon systems. Dollar for dollar you can't beat the F-16 but it's not going to outclass the Indian Air Force. It just keeps the balance of power close while keeping Musharraf happy.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by lpbman
lil info
we're selling India Patriot missles (PAC-2) with the intention of preventing Pakistan's Ghauri and Hataf missiles from penetrating its air space
India has a new medium range (17 mi) Akash SAM
not to mention the 4 other missiles India's Defense R&D program is working on

This decidedly tips the balance of power in the direction of India, and Musharraf was irritated by the move if you'll excuse the understatement

Also, if we didn't sell Pakistan F-16's they'd be buying Mig 29's
I consider the F-16 superior even though it's likely it will not have the most advanced avionics currently available for the Falcon

F-16's fly by wire control system and agility make the pilot better, as a well trained pilot almost flys it by thought
This is a huge advantage in a single seat fighter b/c in most engagements the pilot can easily be overwhelmed by all of the tasks he is asked to perform.
according to the Luftwaffe which flies both the F-4 Phantom and the Mig 29, the F-4 has a superior radar, so mixed formations is the norm. This is somewhat compensated for by it's advanced IR tracking system. The Mig 29 also has a much shorter range than the F-16.


This is all to say, we're selling both sides advanced weapon systems. Dollar for dollar you can't beat the F-16 but it's not going to outclass the Indian Air Force. It just keeps the balance of power close while keeping Musharraf happy. except that the patriot missles hardly ever intercept their target.

[lpbman]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
except that the patriot missles hardly ever intercept their target.
you are very wrong

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by lpbman
you are very wrong Well the patriot missle system being labeled almost a total failure leads me to believe I am not wrong.

George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol

- Patriot Redux: MIT Scientists Say Missile a Near-Total Failure In his letter "In Defense of the Patriot Missile," (Aug. 25) Raytheon Senior Vice President C. Dale Reis builds an argument based in part on misleading and false claims about two reports by the US General Accounting Office (GAO) about Patriot's performance in the Gulf war. Mr. Reis makes the misleading claim that the first GAO study did "not contradict the US army's findings" regarding Patriot's success rate. In fact, the GAO found that the Army's data was inadequate to determine the effectiveness, either success or failure, of Patriot's Gulf war performance. The letter's other statement regarding the second GAO study is simply untrue. It assertes that this GAO study concluded that commercial television video could not be used to reliably determine Patriot's intercept success in the war. In fact, this GAO study reached no conclusions about the use of videos to assess Patriot's performance. It simply listed arguments made by critics, most of whom were associated with either Raytheon or the US Army, claiming that video evidence could not be used to assess the performance of Patriot. In the words of Henry Hinton Jr., then GAO's director for Army Issues, the report "merely stated their views" and "did not say whether we [the GAO] agreed or disagreed with their views." Moreover, a report by a panel appointed by the American Physical Society to investigate the validity of using the video data subsequently rejected the arguments listed in the GAO report as either incorrect or irrelevant. We have conducted a detailed assessment of Patriot's performance in the Gulf war, using news media videotapes of Patriot-Scud engagements. This analysis unambiguously shows that Patriot's success rate in destroying Scud warheads was very low, and most likely was zero. In contrast to the Army's assessment, which relies on classified data that was judged unreliable and inadequate by GAO and other congressional investigators, our analysis, based on publicly available date, has been published in a refereed journal and is entirely open to the public. Despite the intense scrutiny it has been subjected to, no substantive valid criticism of this analysis has yet been made. Mr. Reis further argues that high-ranking Israelis, such as the Gen. Avihu Ben-Nun, the officer in charge of Israel's Air Defense Forces at the time, have "rebutted" Reuven Pedatzur's congressional testimony that Patriot failed to hit a single Scud warhead. In fact, Mr. Pedatzur testified that Patriot failed to hit a single scud warhead, but acknowledged that it may have knocked some missiles off course - causing Scuds to land in one area of a city rather than another. The Boston Globe published a front-page story based in part on the Globe's own interviews with Ben-Nun, that completely agreed with Pedatzur's testimony. Here is General Ben-Nun's ringing "rebuttal" to the Globe and Pedatzur presented in writing at the same congressional hearing: "The Boston Globe asked me for some numbers and I didn't provide any numbers. I didn't deny that some people in certain criteria believe that only 1-3 missiles were destroyed. At the same time, I told them that there were many more successful intercepts that hit the coming Al -Hussein but didn't destroy the warhead. Mr. Pedatzur came to see me after the Boston Globe article was published. He didn't get from me any numbers or data only restating the importance of agreed criteria before any further discussions." The Globe then reported the letter and concluded by stating that the Globe stands by its earlier story. If Ben-Nun's statement seems vague, other high-ranking Israelis have been clear. Moshe Arens, Israel's minister of defense during the war, was videotaped in an interview with Pedatzur in September 1993 that was later reported in The New York Times. When Pedatzur asked Arens how many Scuds Patriot intercepted, the defense minister replied that the number was "minuscule." Pedatzur then read to Arens the conclusion from a still-classified Israeli report - "There is no evidence of even a single successful intercept of an Al-Hussein by Patriot. There is, however, circumstantial evidence for one possible intercept." Arens responded, "It sounds correct." In another videotaped interview by Pedatzur, Gen. Dan Shomron, chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force during the war, similarly stated, "To the best of my recollection, only one Scud missile exploded in the air as a consequence of a Patriot explosion." Even though the Gulf war ended over six years ago, the issue of Patriot's effectiveness in the war is not moot. It remains our only experience with ballistic missile defense, and must necessarily influence subsequent thinking and decisions on missile defense. One perspective is that of the Army (with which Raytheon agrees) that Patriot was over 60 percent effective - leading to the conclusion that the problem is well in hand. Our analysis leads to a dramatically different conclusion: Patriot was a total or near-total failure during the war, and following the war the Army and Raytheon sought to cover up this failure, even while the Army sought funding, and Raytheon lobbied Congress, to upgrade the system.
George N. Lewis, Cambridge, Mass.

Associate Director, Security Studies Program and Theodore A. Postol, Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1997/09/08/opin/letters.1.html


Here is another article showing that while initially the army claimed it had 80% and 50% success rate and was later scaled down, even the scaled down numbers were inaccurate.

This is one time congress actually followed up and looked at what the money was spent on, and they discovered that the patriot missles weren't successful very much of the time.

During the Gulf War, the Patriot was assigned to shoot down incoming Iraqi Scud or Al-Hussein Missiles launched at Israel and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Army which was in charge of the Patriots claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were scaled back to 70 and 40 percent. (See Frontline, WGBH Educational Foundation: "The Gulf War" and "Gulf War-A comprehensive guide to people, places and weapons" by Boyne, Walter Colonel U.S.A.F. (Ret), Signet 1991) (Part of the reason the success rate was 30% higher in Saudi Arabia than is Israel is that in Saudi Arabia the Patriots merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations.The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. Furthermore, the Patriot's success rate in Israel was examined by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) who did not have a political reason to play up the Patriots success rate and even had reasons to downplay the Patriot's success rate. The IDF counted any Scud that exploded on the ground (regardless of whether or not it was diverted) as a failure for the Patriot. Meanwhile the U.S. Army who had many reasons to support a high success rate for the Patriots, examined the performance of the Patriots in Saudi Arabia.)

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
Reuven Pedatzur (an Israeli military affairs analyst for the daily Ha'aretz and a Reserve IAF pilot) also testified before the committee. Pedatzur conducted his own independent research (independent of the Israeli military). Pedatzur pointed out the problem that the Al-Hussein missiles would often break up when reentering the atmosphere "stretching the target" and making the Scuds actual warhead a much more difficult target to identify for the Patriot's computer.

"The data analysis also showed that when the Al-Hussein's disintegration began, the Patriot's radar would pick up a stretching of the target and briefly lose lock-on. Lock-on was required within two to three tenths of a second, but by then the radar was locked on to the tail end of the warhead or the back part of the missile." (Reuvan Pedatzur in Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

So while there were claims that the patriot system was a success they were later found to be inaccurate.

[111chase111]

Originally posted by krosfyah
Excellent points. Politics do suck.

But if you stand up and say we won't compromise with terrorists and then sell fighter jets to a country where many beleive Bin Laden may be hiding out and that same country is running an unsactioned nuclear program...then you leave yourself a tad bit open to criticism.

Hey! I've got an idea! Let's let the country that hasn't ever been hypocritical run the U.N. Any takers.... Any?

[VinceCarter]

No Worries

Pakinstani citizens sympathize with the Taliban (extreme Islamic fundies) more so than with the US.


Again i dont understand where you get your info...but there is a difference in hating the U.S and supporting the "Mullahs".... it does have to be one with the other... i don't know how you make the connection.... there are loads of non-muslim citizens in other countries who hate the U.S.... that does not mean they are mullah supporters.... just because Pakistan is a Muslim country does not mean they support the mullahs.....

if you have ever been there recently they are actually adopting a very "western" outlook to their everyday lifestyle.... i went there with some pakistani friends last summer.... its nothing like how the media has perceived it to be... it is bad in the poor areas... the uneducated people are usually supportive of the mullahs.... in the middle and upper class (educated) there is no support for the mullah's.... however hating on the U.S is another point all together.....so i don't see how you point makes sense.

[lpbman]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Well the patriot missle system being labeled almost a total failure leads me to believe I am not wrong.



Here is another article showing that while initially the army claimed it had 80% and 50% success rate and was later scaled down, even the scaled down numbers were inaccurate.

This is one time congress actually followed up and looked at what the money was spent on, and they discovered that the patriot missles weren't successful very much of the time.


So while there were claims that the patriot system was a success they were later found to be inaccurate.

The Gulf war was the first time the Patriots were used widely in combat, they were asked to do something the targeting algorithms weren't designed for.This is akin to taking a new 4wd Porsche off the showroom floor and driving the Paris Dakar rally.
I don't dispute they failed to intercept the Scuds, but 3 billion dollars and a decade of upgrades to said targeting algorhythems and radar controls can make more than a little difference. Tou don't mention that 14 cruise missiles were fired in the new gulf war. 5 were not fired upon b/c they were not deemed threats while the other 9 were intercepted. 7 of those by the upgraded Pac-2 missiles that will be going to India. Further, you ignore the traditional mission of the Patriot, which is to intercept aircraft where it has no equal.


The presence of the Patriots was credited with keeping Israel out of the war after it was barraged with 39 Scuds in 1991. Whether they hit the Scuds or not, they were successful in their mission.


Also, do you think that Isreal, having seen the Patriots in action would deploy them knowing they don't work when it's their asses on the line? The work done to upgrade the Patriot by the U.S. and Isreal led to the development of the Arrow, which is designed to intercept at higher altitudes and is complementary to the Patriot.

BTW modified Porshes won the Paris Dakar rally in 86

[mulletman]

Originally posted by MadMax
they're not harboring or supporting terrorists...are they?? my understanding is they're working as hard as anyone to root that crap out.

what about all those terrorists they're arming, funding, training, and sending to kashmir?

[mleahy999]

Originally posted by lpbman
Dollar for dollar you can't beat the F-16 but it's not going to outclass the Indian Air Force.
Doesn't the Indian Air Force have the highest accident rate in the world? They lose 20 planes a year and usually kill a bunch of people on the ground. Bhutan would probably give them a run for their money.

[gifford1967]

Here's a crazy idea- Why doesn't the U.S. work on reducing global weapons proliferation. I know this is hopelessly naive, but it just seems to me that global security and stability might be enhanced if there were fewer, rather than more weapons floating around- particularly in areas where tensions are already running high.

[PhiSlammaJamma]

The U.S. would not do something that was not in the interest of self preservation. Profit may be a result, but not likely a motive. Supplying a Terrorist nation with f-16 is unlikely. More like, supplying a country with f-16 so that they root out terror is the more likely the scenario. But whatever the reason for the decision, I think it would be safe to assume that it is in the interest of the United States.

[mulletman]

Originally posted by mleahy999
Bhutan would probably give them a run for their money.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-23-us-skies_x.htm

The success of the Indian air force against American fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air Force general said Wednesday.

"We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were," said Gen. Hal Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.

[mleahy999]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Here's a crazy idea- Why doesn't the U.S. work on reducing global weapons proliferation. I know this is hopelessly naive, but it just seems to me that global security and stability might be enhanced if there were fewer, rather than more weapons floating around- particularly in areas where tensions are already running high.

The US is the world's leader in weapons sales. We sold more than the world combined. In an ideal world, we should all export more aid, not misery.

[mleahy999]

Originally posted by mulletman
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-23-us-skies_x.htm

The success of the Indian air force against American fighter planes in a recent exercise suggests other countries may soon be able to threaten U.S. military dominance of the skies, a top Air Force general said Wednesday.

"We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were," said Gen. Hal Hornburg, the chief of Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings.


I'm sure the Indian airforce is great when they're not crashing.

[mulletman]

Originally posted by mleahy999
I'm sure the Indian airforce is great when they're not crashing.

^and thats why theyre looking to replace their ageing fleet with F-16s and possibly F-18s

[wizardball]

[QUOTE]Posted By:mleahy999
[The US is the world's leader in weapons sales. We sold more than the world combined. In an ideal world, we should all export more aid, not misery./QUOTE]



well said.

[MFW2310]

Corrections: the US sold F-16's to Pakistan long ago. They later cancelled the deal after the Pakistani nuclear tests and which caused the ensuing sanctions. But guess what, the US never bothered to give the money back. Now if they sell it again they'll simply be double charging. I think that's a very profitable deal indeed. If I'm an investor and the US government is your typical run of the mill corporation, I'd definitely be investing in them.

Some posters here feel they have a moral superioity without getting deep down acquinted with the subject. If you sell something, don't bother giving what is sold, at least give the freakin' money back. I'm sure Pakistan has starving children to feed.

[whag00]

Originally posted by MFW2310
Corrections: the US sold F-16's to Pakistan long ago. They later cancelled the deal after the Pakistani nuclear tests and which caused the ensuing sanctions. But guess what, the US never bothered to give the money back. Now if they sell it again they'll simply be double charging. I think that's a very profitable deal indeed. If I'm an investor and the US government is your typical run of the mill corporation, I'd definitely be investing in them.

Some posters here feel they have a moral superioity without getting deep down acquinted with the subject. If you sell something, don't bother giving what is sold, at least give the freakin' money back. I'm sure Pakistan has starving children to feed.

You don't by any chance have a link do you?

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by whag00
You don't by any chance have a link do you?

Well, you could go to the Pakistani military fans' website (www.pakistanidefence.com off the top of my head) and check. Plenty of links, proofs and others.

I remember walking into a discussion by one of my Pakistani friends, who was arguing just on that subject not too long ago. The gist of it was whether or not for them to keep trying to get the F-16, precisely the US screwed them before and might do it again. Needless to say, it was an odd experience for me.

[whag00]

Originally posted by MFW2310
The gist of it was whether or not for them to keep trying to get the F-16, precisely the US screwed them before and might do it again. Needless to say, it was an odd experience for me.

Couldn't find a specific link but if this is true and Pakistan pays twice that's on them not on the U.S.

[MFW2310]

Originally posted by whag00
Couldn't find a specific link but if this is true and Pakistan pays twice that's on them not on the U.S.

How so? If I sell you a car, takes your money, then don't bother giving you the car, what would you do? I don't think I'd blame anybody if you comes in and trashes my dealership.

[pippendagimp]

Musharraf can have F-16's but Chavez shouldn't have AK47's :confused:

[mulletman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue2.html

Fuell for South Asia's Arms Race

The United States has far better ways to reward Pakistan for its helpful but selective pressure on Al Qaeda and the Taliban than President Bush's decision last week to break with 15 years of policy and sell Pakistan high-performance fighters whose only plausible use is to threaten India. Balancing those sales by offering New Delhi the chance to purchase, and perhaps build, similar planes doesn't lessen the damage of the Pakistan sale. It compounds it. The worst thing for these two nuclear powers, which have fought three wars against each other since 1947, is to encourage them to engage in a new, American-fueled arms race.

The United States does have a compelling strategic interest in helping Pakistan. But the right kind of help does not consist of selling Pakistan's armed forces, led by the country's military dictator, President Pervez Musharraf, prestigious, expensive and dangerous weapons systems. Decades of swollen military budgets have virtually bankrupted Pakistan, leaving its government unable to afford adequate spending on education and job-creating economic modernization. Instead, its leaders have fed the Pakistani people a diet of belligerent nationalism and projects like nuclear weapons that are designed to enhance a sense of prestige.

In this environment, civilian democracy has never struck deep roots, military takeovers have been common, and recruitment for a variety of groups preaching armed Islamist jihad has thrived. General Musharraf likes to advertise his occasional attacks on the most terrifying symptoms of this syndrome. He is far less willing to strike at its sources by pushing Pakistan toward development and democracy and far too eager to drain its resources on supersonic attack jets.

In reviewing the new Pakistan arms sale policy, which overturns a 15-year-old ban imposed over concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons activity, Congress should think hard about the messages the United States wants to send to future proliferators. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons of its own after refusing to sign international nonproliferation treaties. Worse, it has spread nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya and who knows what other countries, through the rogue network that was run by its top government nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan. When Dr. Khan's activities became public a little over a year ago, he was pardoned by Pakistan's government, which conveniently avoided embarrassing revelations about any help he might have received from allies in the Pakistani military.

Advocates of these military sales will argue, as they always do, that if the United States did not sell Pakistan and India advanced fighter jets, other countries would. That is probably true, but it is not a justification for fueling an arms race.

[mulletman]

another view point

http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=13702772

F-16 sale: The economics behind it

Washington: The Bush administration's decision to sell the F-16 jet planes to Pakistan has as much to do with economic reasons as it perhaps pertained to politics, security and American strategic calculations in South Asia and the Asia Pacific.

The Bethesda-based Lockheed that makes the multi role combat plane had made no bones of the fact that it was looking for more orders if its plant in Fort Worth, which employs about 5,000 workers, is not to suffer further shutdowns. The Dallas, Texas plant had an estimated 5,800 workers in January 2004 but this January this was down to 5,000 and by next January was scheduled to be down to 4,000 according to Tom Jurkowsky, Spokesman of Lockheed Martin as quoted in The Washington Post.

In announcing the decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan and in the process reversing a 15-year ban on the sale the Bush administration also made it known that it had no specific number of units that would be delivered to Pakistan. One figure had that number to 24 but administration officials made it known that there was no limit. Further it was clarified that what was heading the way of Pakistan were not those old versions sitting on a tarmac in Tuscon, Arizona that were originally intended for delivery some years ago.

What is being pointed out is that the Fort Worth plant delivered its last of its F-16s to the US Air Force last month but that the plant is still building planes for Israel, Chile, the UAE and Poland. According to The Post, Lockheed has back orders for about 200 fighters with the last one coming off the production line in 2008.

Lockheed has thus far supplied the F-16s to some 24 countries with a price tag of between $30 million and $40 million per copy. This, of course, it is being pointed out, will vary depending upon the kind of upgrades that are requested and allowed. At times the spares and other support equipment could add up to 150 per cent more of the original price tag.

In the context of the F-16 sales to Pakistan, it is pointed out that Lockheed has a bigger issue or opportunity on its hands - the ability to bid and be able to supply another 100 or more of the F-16 jets if India opted to go in this direction. And the Bush administration has also made the point that the F-16 is not the last word on the subject when it came to sophisticated multi role fighter jets. And other companies in the jet fighters business like Boeing will stand to benefit.

"That's not just F-16s. It could be F-18s," remarked a senior administration official stressing that while it was up to India to decide from which country it wanted the jets, Washington has decided that the US will compete and is allowed to compete for that sale.

[Supermac34]

My cousin works for one of the AF groups that sells these planes to other countries and then trains them on the maintenence.

Like he told me...the US strips out every bit of technology, every bit of advanced weaponry, and every bit of advanced navigation or defense systems, to were the buying country only gets a shell of what the plane was in US hands.

They basically get the engine, and body of the plane...it can fly, not do much else...its up to the buying country to install its own technology. Plus, they pay us double what we originally bought the planes for when we sell used ones. That is what we tend to do...we sell our old ones, and we get the new ones.

He's personally seen other countries install mechanical bomb devices in some of these jets, where the pilot has to look through a scope with a crosshair like some old WWII plane. These planes are not really much a threat to anyone and if we had to go up against them, they wouldn't last 1 minute.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by Supermac34
My cousin works for one of the AF groups that sells these planes to other countries and then trains them on the maintenence.

Like he told me...the US strips out every bit of technology, every bit of advanced weaponry, and every bit of advanced navigation or defense systems, to were the buying country only gets a shell of what the plane was in US hands.

They basically get the engine, and body of the plane...it can fly, not do much else...its up to the buying country to install its own technology. Plus, they pay us double what we originally bought the planes for when we sell used ones. That is what we tend to do...we sell our old ones, and we get the new ones.

He's personally seen other countries install mechanical bomb devices in some of these jets, where the pilot has to look through a scope with a crosshair like some old WWII plane. These planes are not really much a threat to anyone and if we had to go up against them, they wouldn't last 1 minute.

If this is true, why would anyone want to buy these F-16s? They could buy much better planes made by Russians, Chinese, Euros.

[111chase111]

Originally posted by pirc1
If this is true, why would anyone want to buy these F-16s? They could buy much better planes made by Russians, Chinese, Euros.

You don't think Russia, China or France aren't doing the same thing? Plus, the F16 as just a plane is pretty amazing.

[No Worries]

Nothing like an arms race to boost the economy of the good ol' USA!!!

Well, except for devaluing the dollars that is.

Thank god those tax cuts ar working so well.

Four more years!!!