Strike!
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Runs
- 8,725
-
Contact the PP Team
‘No India-specific condition attached with F-16 deal’
- Thread starter Strike!
- Start date
Pete Rose
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Runs
- 22,848
- Post of the Week
- 2
This has been known from day 1. The Wikileaks dump has documents highlighting the wide latitude offered to Pakistan on usage of f16’s. They include cables from the us amabassador to Pakistan at the time, as well key documents related to the sale of the planes. I really hope our folks stop wasting their time on Indian websites and twitter handles which are basically pumping out garbage and showering in a few technical words for the purpose of credibility
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,977
- Post of the Week
- 3
The Americans need to be told to suck on this. Everything is fair game in the defence of the country.
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,709
- Post of the Week
- 12
Buying a fighter jet is not like buying a phone. There are several terms and conditions that need to be respected. The U.S. still has control over the technology of our F-16s.
It is in Pakistan’s best long-term interests to not shown any bravado to the U.S. unless and until they can strike a deal with the Russians for the Sukhois.
Jin Chacha
Tape Ball Regular
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2015
- Runs
- 558
Hope this does not signal backtracking on the statement that no F-16s were used in the operation.
emranabbas
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2013
- Runs
- 10,867
US refuses to take position on F-16 issue
WASHINGTON: The US State Department has refused to take a position on New Delhi’s complaint against Pakistan for using F-16s in an air combat with India, saying that it does not offer public comments on bilateral agreements.
“We have seen those reports and we’re following that issue very closely. I can’t confirm anything, but as a matter of policy, we don’t publicly comment on the contents of bilateral agreements... involving US defence technologies,” the department’s deputy spokesman Robert Palladino said.
Know more: Foreign journalists find holes in Indian narrative on F-16 usage, Balakot strike
At a news briefing on Tues*day, Mr Palladino said the US also avoided public discussions on communications with other countries about such issues.
“So we’re taking a look and we’re going to continue to take a look, and I’m going to leave it at that,” he said.
On Wednesday, New York Times journalist Maria Abi-Habib released a set of tweets saying that contrary to India’s insistence, Pakistan may not have violated its F-16 sales agreement with the US even if it used the American-made fighter jets to shoot down Indian aircraft last week.
On Feb 27, Pakistan Air Force announced that it had shot down two Indian aircraft inside Pakistani airspace when they tried to give chase to Pakistani jets.
Indian officials, however, complained that the aircraft used by the PAF to ingress into occupied Kashmir had included an F-16.
New Delhi insisted that Pakistan’s use of F-16 against India meant that Islamabad stood in violation of a sales agreement with the US, which reportedly restricts the fighter jets to be used for anti-terrorism activities alone.
However, Abi-Habib, the NYT’s South Asia correspondent, explained how Pakistan may not have committed a violation of its sales agreement with the US even if it did use F-16s to shoot down Indian jets (which the PAF says never happened). “The US says if Pakistan used an F-16 to shoot down an Indian MiG, it may not have violated sale agreement,” she tweeted.
“They say if India entered Pakistani airspace for a second day, and Pakistan used the jet defensively, the contract wasn’t violated. But, if Pakistan used an F-16 to attack India first, then deal was violated.”
Citing weapons experts and officials, Abi-Habib also put a question mark on the Indian Air Force’s claim that the AIM-120 missile’s remnant that was displayed by New Delhi was ‘proof’ of Pakistan’s use of an F-16 in the counter-strike to the Balakot incident. She also said US officials still do not have sufficient reason to bel*ieve that an F-16 was shot down by India, as claimed by the IAF.
Abi-Habib noted that despite its desire to strengthen its ties with India, the US was not endorsing the Indian version of last week’s events. She described the US reluctance as “very interesting”.
At the State Department briefing, Mr Palladino said the US was still engaged in “high level” but “quiet” diplomacy to reduce tensions between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed neighbours.
“We continue to urge both sides to continue to take steps to de-escalate the situation, and that includes through direct communication. And we believe strongly that further military activity will exacerbate the situation,” he said.
He noted that last week, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo played a direct and “essential role in de-escalating the tensions” when he spoke with leaders in both countries, including Indian Minis*ter of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Pak*istani Foreign Minis*ter Shah Mehmood Qureshi.
www.dawn.com/news/amp/1468087
WASHINGTON: The US State Department has refused to take a position on New Delhi’s complaint against Pakistan for using F-16s in an air combat with India, saying that it does not offer public comments on bilateral agreements.
“We have seen those reports and we’re following that issue very closely. I can’t confirm anything, but as a matter of policy, we don’t publicly comment on the contents of bilateral agreements... involving US defence technologies,” the department’s deputy spokesman Robert Palladino said.
Know more: Foreign journalists find holes in Indian narrative on F-16 usage, Balakot strike
At a news briefing on Tues*day, Mr Palladino said the US also avoided public discussions on communications with other countries about such issues.
“So we’re taking a look and we’re going to continue to take a look, and I’m going to leave it at that,” he said.
On Wednesday, New York Times journalist Maria Abi-Habib released a set of tweets saying that contrary to India’s insistence, Pakistan may not have violated its F-16 sales agreement with the US even if it used the American-made fighter jets to shoot down Indian aircraft last week.
On Feb 27, Pakistan Air Force announced that it had shot down two Indian aircraft inside Pakistani airspace when they tried to give chase to Pakistani jets.
Indian officials, however, complained that the aircraft used by the PAF to ingress into occupied Kashmir had included an F-16.
New Delhi insisted that Pakistan’s use of F-16 against India meant that Islamabad stood in violation of a sales agreement with the US, which reportedly restricts the fighter jets to be used for anti-terrorism activities alone.
However, Abi-Habib, the NYT’s South Asia correspondent, explained how Pakistan may not have committed a violation of its sales agreement with the US even if it did use F-16s to shoot down Indian jets (which the PAF says never happened). “The US says if Pakistan used an F-16 to shoot down an Indian MiG, it may not have violated sale agreement,” she tweeted.
“They say if India entered Pakistani airspace for a second day, and Pakistan used the jet defensively, the contract wasn’t violated. But, if Pakistan used an F-16 to attack India first, then deal was violated.”
Citing weapons experts and officials, Abi-Habib also put a question mark on the Indian Air Force’s claim that the AIM-120 missile’s remnant that was displayed by New Delhi was ‘proof’ of Pakistan’s use of an F-16 in the counter-strike to the Balakot incident. She also said US officials still do not have sufficient reason to bel*ieve that an F-16 was shot down by India, as claimed by the IAF.
Abi-Habib noted that despite its desire to strengthen its ties with India, the US was not endorsing the Indian version of last week’s events. She described the US reluctance as “very interesting”.
At the State Department briefing, Mr Palladino said the US was still engaged in “high level” but “quiet” diplomacy to reduce tensions between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed neighbours.
“We continue to urge both sides to continue to take steps to de-escalate the situation, and that includes through direct communication. And we believe strongly that further military activity will exacerbate the situation,” he said.
He noted that last week, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo played a direct and “essential role in de-escalating the tensions” when he spoke with leaders in both countries, including Indian Minis*ter of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Pak*istani Foreign Minis*ter Shah Mehmood Qureshi.
www.dawn.com/news/amp/1468087
shaaik
First Class Star
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Runs
- 3,984
How does it matter now, what has happened has happened ...
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,977
- Post of the Week
- 3
These are the last things to worry about when the country is under attack from a foreign aggressor.
finalfantasy7
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Runs
- 3,255
Mamoon, just curious, what terms and conditions are generally listed - for Pakistan what you know off.?
You stated US have control over our f-16 technology - how do they do this?
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,709
- Post of the Week
- 12
I am not clear on that. The people that I know in PAF always talk about how the U.S. does not allow technology transfer. However, they do not mention the specifics. It is probably very technical stuff and not something that a non-aviation person can understand.
I was watching a PAF documentary a few years back, and one of the fighter pilots was asked about how JF-17 compares to the F-16. He was quite clear on the latter's superiority, but he also stated that the former is more functional because they have complete control over its technology.
I was once told by a reliable source that if Pakistan were to enter America's airspace, their F-16s will not even work.
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,977
- Post of the Week
- 3
Pakistan has done well on the JF-17's, cost effective and sufficient for our needs.
Savak
Test Captain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 49,977
- Post of the Week
- 3
On a serious note, what was the point of getting these F-16's if you cant use them against India? The Pakistani's should have renegotiated
finalfantasy7
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Runs
- 3,255
How the hell is this possible
finalfantasy7
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2011
- Runs
- 3,255
are you saying the jf-17 are better than the -16 we have?
as the jf-17 came out in 2003
f-16 - came out in 1978?
Even if the jf-17 are better- thats 25 years - and its only slightly better.
Yet pakistani/indians talk about if thr jets are a match to mainly western jets
It is too bad for India if we did use the F 16's to hammer them. The American's or Indians for that matter can't do anything to stop us other then cry like kids. They are in our possession after all so will be used when needed. From what I have read the Americans don't have any problems with it at all. These beauties are obviously causing India a lot of distress. A fighter jet is only as good as the pilot, we know that Indian jets are crashing all over the place coz their pilot's can't fly them it seems.
Last edited:
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,709
- Post of the Week
- 12
Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps they have some sort of mechanism in their exported jets that allows them to remotely disable their functionality when required.
Mamoon
ATG
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Runs
- 105,709
- Post of the Week
- 12
The first model of the F-16 was introduced in 1978, but they have been routinely upgraded. The latest version of the F-16 (Block 70/72) were introduced in 2012. Pakistan's newest F-16s are from block 50/52, and they are considerably superior to JF-17 Block 2. However, the JF-17 Block 3 would probably be able to match it.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,928
WASHINGTON: The United States understood Pakistan’s need to use F-16 fighter jets to defend itself during an Indian intrusion in February this year, shows a document published on Thursday.
The document, obtained by the US News and World Report magazine, however, also shows that Washington was not happy with Islam*abad’s decision to deploy these US-supplied aircraft and missiles to forward positions.
The US State Department raised both points in a letter then-undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Andrea Thomson wrote to Air Chief Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan.
“We understand from you that these aircraft movements were done in support of national defence objectives,” said the letter sent to Islamabad in August, months after the dog-fight in which a Pakistani F-16 brought down an Indian jet in Azad Kashmir.
But “the US government considers the relocation of aircraft to non-US government authorised bases concerning and inconsistent with the F-16 Letter of Offer and Acceptance”, it added.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1522014/document-reveals-official-us-position-on-f-16s
The document, obtained by the US News and World Report magazine, however, also shows that Washington was not happy with Islam*abad’s decision to deploy these US-supplied aircraft and missiles to forward positions.
The US State Department raised both points in a letter then-undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Andrea Thomson wrote to Air Chief Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan.
“We understand from you that these aircraft movements were done in support of national defence objectives,” said the letter sent to Islamabad in August, months after the dog-fight in which a Pakistani F-16 brought down an Indian jet in Azad Kashmir.
But “the US government considers the relocation of aircraft to non-US government authorised bases concerning and inconsistent with the F-16 Letter of Offer and Acceptance”, it added.
Several diplomatic officials and analysts the magazine spoke to noted that the letter did not expressly mention the Indian complaint that using the F-16 to shoot down the Indian fighter jet was a violation of the terms of use for US-supplied weapons.
They argued that acknowledging this in a formal State Department transmission would have triggered procedures to reprimand Islamabad, which the Trump administration wanted to avoid.
The experts also noted that the Trump administration was now attempting to repair its contentious relations with Islamabad, which was once a close US ally in the wars against the Soviets and Islamists.
In March this year, Pakistani officials pointed out that the F-16 contract not only acknowledged the aircraft’s “deterrence value” to Pakistan in a future conflict with India, but also noted that it could prevent a nuclear clash between the two neighbours.
Both points are specifically mentioned in a message the then US ambassador in Islamabad Anne Patterson sent to the State Department on April 24, 2008.
“An enhanced F-16 programme also has deterrence value by giving Pakistan time and space to employ a conventional, rather than nuclear, reaction in the event of a future conflict with India,” wrote Ms Thompson, a military intelligence officer who first entered the administration as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.
They argued that acknowledging this in a formal State Department transmission would have triggered procedures to reprimand Islamabad, which the Trump administration wanted to avoid.
The experts also noted that the Trump administration was now attempting to repair its contentious relations with Islamabad, which was once a close US ally in the wars against the Soviets and Islamists.
In March this year, Pakistani officials pointed out that the F-16 contract not only acknowledged the aircraft’s “deterrence value” to Pakistan in a future conflict with India, but also noted that it could prevent a nuclear clash between the two neighbours.
Both points are specifically mentioned in a message the then US ambassador in Islamabad Anne Patterson sent to the State Department on April 24, 2008.
“An enhanced F-16 programme also has deterrence value by giving Pakistan time and space to employ a conventional, rather than nuclear, reaction in the event of a future conflict with India,” wrote Ms Thompson, a military intelligence officer who first entered the administration as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1522014/document-reveals-official-us-position-on-f-16s
SensiblePakFan
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Runs
- 3,684
The US military industrial complex makes sure that weapons sales are not disturbed.
Captain caveman
First Class Star
- Joined
- May 15, 2019
- Runs
- 3,573
Why would Pakistan buy military aircrafts from a country, if that country insists that the aircrafts can not be used against india?
Who else is Pakistan going to use these aircrafts against?
I understand that the US only allows Pakistan to use the aircrafts in its own airspace for defensive purposes, thats pointless in war, in war you need to attack your enemy in their airspace.
Just plain DUMB!
Buy the craft from another country and if these crafts were given in military aid, reject the offer, obviously the US is getting something in return for these military aircraft, so refuse to cooperate with the US on these matters, unless they change their attitude.
Who else is Pakistan going to use these aircrafts against?
I understand that the US only allows Pakistan to use the aircrafts in its own airspace for defensive purposes, thats pointless in war, in war you need to attack your enemy in their airspace.
Just plain DUMB!
Buy the craft from another country and if these crafts were given in military aid, reject the offer, obviously the US is getting something in return for these military aircraft, so refuse to cooperate with the US on these matters, unless they change their attitude.
Similar threads
