Vijay Reddy Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 It's official now. Just saw on Indian channels that President Bush called Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to inform him that his administration will go ahead with the sale of F-16 fighters for Pakistan. There was word on the street that Condi cut a deal with Musharraf to give F-16s in return for using Pakistani facilities against Iran as well as hel in proving Iran's nuclear weapons program. Can't say I'm surprised because there was a sense of inevitablity to all this for months now. Will wait to see if they get the latest version with AMRAAMS and JDAM and what radar. I've a feeling they might go the whole hog.
elytorian Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 Any Information on the block number of the f16? As I understand Pakistan got f16 in the eighties, i think it was block 15 and was never upgraded. What about indias reactons?
Slater Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I think India was considering the F-16, but not seriously. They'd probably rather have the Mirage 2000. Maybe if the US offered India half-price F-16E's
Vijay Reddy Posted March 25, 2005 Author Posted March 25, 2005 I'm certain it will be at least Block 50/52s and the package includes an MLU for their exisitng fleet. The key questions are: 1. How many? 2. What arms are included - JDAMs, AMRAAM,AIM-X? 3. Who's going to pay? The Indian PM informed his disappointment to Bush and warned him that this will have adverse effects for India. Bush apparently also offered co-production of F/A-18s with India if India wants it. It is highly unlikely that India will take up that offer. It is a red herring. I'm also curious to see what India does about US pressure on stopping its multi-billion dollar oil deals with Iran as well as a gas pipeline. Pro-American Indian policymakers will have a hard time from now on since the Leftists are already in the government. Bad deal, bad timing.
Victor Posted March 27, 2005 Posted March 27, 2005 (edited) I'm also curious to see what India does about US pressure on stopping its multi-billion dollar oil deals with Iran as well as a gas pipeline. 158019[/snapback]Would this go via Pakistan or Afghanistan? Edited March 27, 2005 by Victor
crobato Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 Given Pakistan's financial condition, I am thinking this might refer to the proposed Block 25, which is modeled after the Block 20 sold to Taiwan. Basically, an F-16 powered with the PW F-100-220, which has lower thrust than the 29,000lbs thrust engines used in the Block 52plus. The radar is the APG-66v2, which is an upgraded APG-66 that supports AMRAAM, Harpoon, Maverick and uses a mission computer. This radar might be better than earlier version APG-68, but not the latest ones, and is the equivalent of the F-16MLU sold to Europe.
Juan Sosa Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 Given Pakistan's financial condition, I am thinking this might refer to the proposed Block 25, which is modeled after the Block 20 sold to Taiwan. Basically, an F-16 powered with the PW F-100-220, which has lower thrust than the 29,000lbs thrust engines used in the Block 52plus. The radar is the APG-66v2, which is an upgraded APG-66 that supports AMRAAM, Harpoon, Maverick and uses a mission computer. This radar might be better than earlier version APG-68, but not the latest ones, and is the equivalent of the F-16MLU sold to Europe.158901[/snapback] Crobato, Block 25 refers to the first F-16C/D blocks built from the early '80s.
Vijay Reddy Posted March 29, 2005 Author Posted March 29, 2005 This is a matter of American dollars staying home. The billions Pakistan is getting in aid will just be diverted to pay for these weapons. BTW, they will be Block-52s, BTW. That much is confirmed. We'll see if AMRAAMs. JSOWs and JDAMs are included. I say they will probably throw them in and add a few nuclear weapons as well for good measure. Those will be apt rewards for a nuclear proliferator. I hope India doesn't fall for the transparent ploy to offer F/A-18s and a "Block 70" F-16. No point in India subsidizing the F-16 production line. God knows what strings they come with. Better off buying from France or Russia and adding Israeli gizmos as needed.
Cookie Monster Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 (edited) If I was in Indian PM' shoes, I would remind Bush of his own saying, "You are either with us or against us. An friend of my enemy is my enemy." and see what Bush has got to say to that. I would give a STFU cup of tea to the State Department and tell the US weapons manufacturers to kiss my ass and go after the M-2000s and any other French, Russia, or Israeli weapons. India already have built a system & infrastructure to support the M-2000s. The only reason why MoD is dragging its ass is because the babus and politicians smell the blood to make money at the expense of India's security. They should all be lined up and shot. India's weapon procurement no longer makes any sense to me. They flip and flop around. Bastards! Edited March 29, 2005 by Cookie Monster
FormerBlue Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 If I was in Indian PM' shoes, I would remind Bush of his own saying, "You are either with us or against us. An friend of my enemy is my enemy." and see what Bush has got to say to that.158988[/snapback]I'd appreciate it if you can find me a source for that quote. You are using quote marks so you are implying that it is a Bush quote. I think you are wrong. I'd contend that Bush never said what you have in quotes, he said "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" which isn't the same thing. Where you got that "An friend of my enemy is my enemy" from Bush is beyond me. I'd find it very unlikely that F-16s would be sold with Colt M1911 pistols strapped under the wings and cables ran into the cockpit. "We'll see if AMRAAMs. JSOWs and JDAMs are included. I say they will probably throw them in and add a few nuclear weapons as well for good measure." I'd fully expect to see AMRAAMS included. As to the nuclear weapons I believe Pakistan and India already have them. It would be kind of odd to sell F-16s and no weapons to strap on them.
Vijay Reddy Posted March 29, 2005 Author Posted March 29, 2005 I think some countries had bought AMRAAMs under a weird arrangement where they would only get the weapons when "they need it." Anyway, I wish the US gives them the whole kit. Five years from now, you can hear that China has cloned them all. Maybe THEN the Paks can be rewarded with the JSFs. And here I was arguing that India should be sending troops to Iraq. Strategic partnership my ass. This is the same old balance of power, setting one country against the other and making money of the conflict type diplomacy. The funny part was the quote from the State Department that the US will "help India become a great power." What a bunch of hokey. The only good thing since 9/11 was that the Indian public were perhaps more pro-American than even many of America's old allies. Now that too will change, when the Paks launch their next silly adventure boosted by their F-16s and delusions of grandeur. What the US is saying is the no matter what the Pakistanis do, the US will not let them fall below a particular level. Kinda takes the pressure of the Paks to behave responsibly. First the appeasers said, we are only gving them defensive weapons, now it is F-16s, tomorrow its gonna be E-2Cs, maybe some Perry class frigates. Once the barrier is lowered, things will flow. I kinda thought that this was likely to happen should a Democrat win, but was surprised to see Bush play this same old game despite his efforts elsewhere to reshape American policy. Now I can sympathize with the few right leaning leaders in India who supported the Non-Aligned thing which I thought was crap. I also feel that this will finally break the deadlock within the Indian bureaucracy and sideline the young and pro-American elements. I hope this lights a fire up the leaders asses and makes them fast track the plans for a dozen submarines, 126 multirole fighters (from France or Russia), a couple of Akulas loaded with nuclear tipped Klubs, Tu-22 M3s, about a 1000 artillery pieces, MLRS and all the EW and C4I systems. The next time the Paks try a Kargil or a parliament attack, it should be over before Condi or Rummy can reach the region.
Al Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 Vijay - Small consolation but there are some Americans, like myself, who question the soundness of this deal. My guess is that Pakistan's strategic location (i.e, between India & Iran) makes this kind of deal worth it to some in the US administration.
Vijay Reddy Posted March 29, 2005 Author Posted March 29, 2005 To be honest, I understand the reasons behind the deal - keeping jobs here, rewarding Musharraf etc. I suspect a quid-pro-quo with help with Iran as well. We'll see. But the deal would have been so much more palatable if it was announced after the India-Pakistan talks had reached some sort of peace agreement. Musharraf is due in India in 2 weeks for his first visit after the disastrous trip in May 2001. He was very conciliatory for the last few months but the moment the F-16 deal was announced, here is what he said: Resolve Kashmir to avoid another Kargil says Musharraf Denying that he was shy of speaking about Kargil, he said, “I don’t want to enter into a debate about who won and who lost. Neither will your people accept it nor ours and we will end up debating it.” Claiming that India had ‘misquoted’ the casualty figures, which according to him (Musharraf) were “very high”, he said reports in the media spoke of several ‘problems’ faced by Indian Army during the Kargil conflict.Also: Peace can be attained through force, says Aziz Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has said Pakistan to play key role for peace and stability in the region but the peace can be attained through force.
Vijay Reddy Posted March 29, 2005 Author Posted March 29, 2005 Al, Also, it is patently hypocritical of the US to say that the F-16 Blk 52s for Pakistan are to even out the "imbalance" and then turn around and offer 126 Super Hornets to India. Anyway, it now appears that the Paks was 70 to 80 F-16 Blk 52s to go with their existing 32 Blk 15 Vipers with an MLU. That is not a small matter, when we know that the E-2Cs are in the offing as well. Anyway, India just announced a $746 million worth of purchases as well as approval to buy 12 Mirage 2000-5 planes from Qatar which have almost 80-85% of their airframe life intact. I suspect this is a sign that India will go for M2Ks for the 126 plane requirement as well and upgrade the existing 48 M2Ks to that level and have close to 200 Mirage 2000-5s to match up with the 190 Su-30 MKIs. I don't see the P-3C deal going through any more as Defense News says India is looking at the Dassault Falcon 900 for its MPA platform, perhaps with Israeli and Indian electronics. No point antagonizing Russia and France by buying American anymore. There's simply no strategic sense in India buying any big ticket item from American firms. The French and the Russians are more reliable. The Israelis too are reliable to the extent allowed by their ties with the US.
Ken Estes Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 I think that the F-16 block number and AMRAAM [also the defensive EW package] supply will determine the real state of Pak as an 'ally.' Strange, Vijay, that you thought Mr. Bush would be different than any other US politico, especially one who has called Sharon a man of peace and promoted Musharraf [who he could not even name in 2000] as a staunch ally, despite the persistent problems they pose. But you were a Bush man all along were you not? I cannot fathom why Former Blue wants to dicker over a Bush quote. Dubya made many macho statements after 9-11 to the effect that you were either or us or for the terrorists and you had best make your mind up mighty fast, pardner. JSOW/JDAM are a non-issue, because if they are falling on you, a lot of other failures have already happened. This is probably the barest beginning of the many payoffs yet to be made for the "GWOT." We traded staunch allies like those of Old Europe for the new pirates, because we could not wait for old-fashioned diplomacy. Enjoy the ride.
Vijay Reddy Posted March 29, 2005 Author Posted March 29, 2005 http://insider.washingtontimes.com/article...28-103929-6636r In Pakistan last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked President Pervez Musharraf for direct access to Mr. Khan, the country's most popular icon, so the U.S. intelligence community could ask about his nuclear handiwork in Iran. All she obtained was permission to submit a list of questions to Mr. Khan. Anything more could lead to Mr. Musharraf's downfall. :lol: Maybe the Pakistanis will allow the US to videoconference with A.Q.Khan for a few F-22s. I say to the Iranians - Publicly renounce terrorism (while privately funding Hezbollah), announce an policy of "enlightened moderation," identify a scientist, with a name like A.Q.Khomeini and blame all proliferation on him and then test a nuclear weapon. That way they can become the next ally of the US and gain access to Super Hornets to replace their aged Tomcats. Oh the irony
Vijay Reddy Posted March 29, 2005 Author Posted March 29, 2005 I think that the F-16 block number and AMRAAM [also the defensive EW package] supply will determine the real state of Pak as an 'ally.' Agree 100%. They are getting Block-52 which is 100% confirmed by Musharraf. He'd lose face if he gets a lower block after announcing publicly that they are getting Block 52s. PAF chief has been quoted as saying he will ask for AMRAAMs. In 2003, he had asked for the AIM-7. IF and that's a big if - Pakistan gets AMRAAMs, regardless of the version and the EW suite in addition to JDAMs and JSOWs, that sends a clear message - that Pakistan is America's xxxxx and as long as they keep delivering terrorists to Gitmo and helps with the covert stuff on Iran, the US will not let anyone touch Pakistan regardless of Pakistan's behavior with democracy, human rights, nuke peddlineg etc. Strange, Vijay, that you thought Mr. Bush would be different than any other US politico, especially one who has called Sharon a man of peace and promoted Musharraf [who he could not even name in 2000]as a staunch ally, despite the persistent problems they pose. But you were a Bush man all along were you not? Yes, I was and still am a Bush supporter. No US President since Carter would have done too much different on Israel and Bush IS pushing a two state solution, so that's some real change. Now, Pakistan and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia are blind spots and it seems that Bush has agreed to "give them" to the realists. That's just too bad because while India was never going to be a close ally to the US like the UK and also never be a client state, Indian leadership had slowly moved away from Cold War thinking to a position similar to the US on many global issues - ICC, Missile Defense, informal regional alliances and to a great extent on trade (WE just passed a patents law for drugs). That combined with the simple fact that the Indian people really like the US was conducive to close US-India ties for the next few decades. Pakistan was going to be an irritant but the Indian hope was that the US would consult with India (not give it a veto) on matters affecting regional security. Calling the Indian PM 2 hours before releasing F-16s to Pakistan is not consulting India. Unlike the Cold War however, India is not left with one option if the US spurns it. There are many small poles. India can choose to make its peace with China and look to Russia and Iran for energy needs if it feels that American machinations are thereating its interests. This is probably the barest beginning of the many payoffs yet to be made for the "GWOT." ... Enjoy the ride.159111[/snapback] I have the same feeling. Hawkeyes are coming for sure. We'll see what else soon enough.
Cookie Monster Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 (edited) There's a silver lining in the cloud. IAF and IA no longer have to drop everything and go back to the table every single time a US weapons manufacturer announces that their product is right for the Indian needs. After the announcement of F-16 sales to Pakistan, I think many in the MoD establishment will no longer give any consideration to US weapons. It would save considerable time. Furthermore, I really hope that MoD gives the finger to US regarding the Patriot missiles. In my opinion, they do not serve India's needs regarding SRBMs, therefore they are expensive crap, something to be avoided. The Arrow missile is the only one that fits India's needs since it can integrate easily into the Green Pine radar network and have a higher probability of shooting down SRBMs which PAC-3 cannot do that well. This is something that US fully realizes and yet promote PAC-2 which is even far worse than PAC-3. Thus, I would forgo US weapons all entirely and concentrate on *joint* weapon research and development programs with Israel and Russia. They have consistently proven to be reliable weapon suppliers. I have second thoughts about France since they supplied submarines to Pakistan. But at least they are better than US in the respect that they don't provide freebies or give massive loans to buy weapons that US does with Pakistan. The French force Pakistan to pay out of its own pockets. That is good because they will realize what an expensive folly it is and will bite the bullet. With US weapons, they don't have to and can repeat the actions without suffering any real lasting consequences. The only reason I would go along with the French is that we already have a M-2000 system in place and would make the most sense to buy 130 M-2000s to fill the gap in IAF's order of battle and phase out aging Mig-21s and Mig-23s. That way, India can enjoy the fruits of research and development and not be forced to pay out of its nose for such undertakings. Developing joint programs in electronics with Israeli would be ideal because they have similar needs to Indian needs. Developing joint army programs with Russia would be ideal because they have similar needs to Indian needs. The main thing is that India should look for countries who have similar needs to Indian needs and offer to have a joint weapon program to divide the cost, ie, lowering the cost per country while realizing such potential. I am not sure about France because I don't really see France and India sharing common needs except in the department of blue-water naval programs but it seems that IN has already taken care of that by building such a strong relationship with DRDO and Russia (engines and hull designs) and Israel (EW suite and missile suites). Regarding the Iran pipeline, I am fine with it unless it goes through Pakistan. It is an insane idea to have a pipeline run through Pakistan and provide like half of India's energy needs. India would be forever be Pakistan's bitch. I sincerely hope to God that Indian leaders are not that stupid. Indian leaders should not give a damn about US interests since US don't give a damn regarding Indian interests. All that talk about strategic relations with India is BS since they are consorting and aiding the enemy of India. It's like calling US a strategic partner while supplying USSR with weapons and money. Edited March 29, 2005 by Cookie Monster
Cookie Monster Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 FormerBlue, Bush made that first statement in his first address to the nation after 9/11. He specifically said you are either with us or against us. He only added the terrorists to the statement later on. The friend of enemy is an enemy is a quote that is highly popular and in accord with Bush's sentiments when it comes to US enemies. I don't have to mention that quote is highly popular with Tanknetters when it comes to US enemies. So it's fair play for an Indian PM or anyone for that matter to quote those statements back to Bush or an US citizen.
Cookie Monster Posted March 29, 2005 Posted March 29, 2005 I don't understand IAF's procurement policy. Why can't IAF build on the Su-30s squadrons as the backbone of its air dominance policy, gradually replace Mig-21s, Mig-23s with 400 to 600 LCAs. You need to purchase 300 planes of any system otherwise it would not be cost effective. IIRC, studies has proven that 300 is the benchmark of a successful avaition program. So IAF needs to purchase at least 400. I can understand the stop gap program with M-2000s till LCAs come online. When they do, I would replace Mig-29s with Su-30s, Mig-21s & Mig-23s with LCAs, and upgrade the fist 48 M-2000s to the 5-level & move the M-2000s to the strike role shared with Jaquars & Mig-27s. I would designate the MCA program to replace the roles of M-2000s, Jaquars, & Mig-27s. Jaquars, Mig-27s would be gradually replaced with MCA and MCA will finally replace the M-2000s. The way I foresee what the IAF should be in 20 years is SU-30s for air dominance and strategic strike roles, LCAs as the jack of all trade such as CAPs, interceptors, air superiority, limited tactical strikes, and limited ground support missions, and MCAs as the DPSA role, key tactical strikes, attack roles, wild weasel & EW roles, and recon roles. This way, IAF only has 3 types of aircraft and can easily reduce the maintenance hassles that comes with supporting 7 or more different aircrafts. I am surprised at IAF's lack of a tactical or strategic bomber. I seriously think that India should procure a semi-long range bomber with striking distance of Beijing. For AEW and AWACs, Phalcons would be the strategic assets which India would need 15 and DRDO's AEW development program should be the tactical assets which India would need at least 30. Of course, I do not have any aviation experience so feel to take a shot at it.
FormerBlue Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I cannot fathom why Former Blue wants to dicker over a Bush quote. Dubya made many macho statements after 9-11 to the effect that you were either or us or for the terrorists and you had best make your mind up mighty fast, pardner. 159111[/snapback]Perhaps because it isn't a Bush quote? Feel free to provide a source for the quote as Cookie stated it. You Ken, in fairness, are almost directly quoting him. "You're either with us or against us" isn't "you're either with us or you are with the terrorists." It's is an entirely different thing. We can debate the semantics of it but if he had meant the former, he would have said exactly that. I do see a difference. "All It Takes For Evil To Triumph Is For A Few Good Men To Do Nothing" I guess that sums it up. The intent is different.
FormerBlue Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 No point antagonizing Russia and France by buying American anymore. There's simply no strategic sense in India buying any big ticket item from American firms. The French and the Russians are more reliable. The Israelis too are reliable to the extent allowed by their ties with the US.159108[/snapback]Yet you decry power politics?
FormerBlue Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 This is probably the barest beginning of the many payoffs yet to be made for the "GWOT." We traded staunch allies like those of Old Europe for the new pirates, because we could not wait for old-fashioned diplomacy. Enjoy the ride.159111[/snapback]"staunch allies" You should take that one to comedy clubs. One of the nice side-effects of the GWOT is seeing where exactly some countries stand. Based on the last election, you would be in the minority Ken. I'd suspect that most people in the country do not believe in these "staunch allies" of which you speak. We can debate whether you care for Harris or not but this is interesting isn't it? "Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Israel, Germany and Mexico, in that order, are the countries most widely viewed by Americas as our closest allies."http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=110This was 2000 "Britain, Canada, Australia, Israel and Japan Top the List of Countries Seen as Our Closest Allies, According to Harris Poll"http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=4912004 I guess I see those "staunch allies" in the first list but they are curiously absent from the second. Granted Canada is an anomaly in the second list but people are slow to anger. Give them time. It's nice to see that people are realizing that Japan is actually a very interesting country politically.
FormerBlue Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Unlike the Cold War however, India is not left with one option if the US spurns it. There are many small poles. India can choose to make its peace with China and look to Russia and Iran for energy needs if it feels that American machinations are thereating its interests.I have the same feeling. Hawkeyes are coming for sure. We'll see what else soon enough.159148[/snapback]I don't see much change here. India's stance during the cold war wasn't much to write home about. I don't really see where India is a country that the US really needs to spend a lot of time on now. "India can choose to make its peace with China and look to Russia and Iran for energy needs..." I think that would be a good idea. Seriously. What's wrong with it? Peace with China is good. Looking to Russia and Iran for energy needs is logical as they are close. Why wouldn't this be the most desirable position from the US's perspective? Quite frankly, if a couple of F-16s is what it takes to keep Pakistan quiet it's a cheap price to pay. India can continue to expand it's military and really shouldn't be surprised that Pakistan will feel the need to increase its own. Now that I think about it, India is doing the US a favor that way. India buys more weapons, Pakistan wants more, the US gets more influence in Pakistan. Rinse and repeat. Maybe India needs to finally sit down with Pakistan and find peace.
Vijay Reddy Posted March 30, 2005 Author Posted March 30, 2005 Yet you decry power politics? 159203[/snapback] Russia and France are not superpowers and they don't have a history, at least with India, of using weapons sanctions to prove a political point. Israel has been a close ally. France, Russia and Israel gave us critical weapons and spares during Kargil with a very short notice (for a price of course ) But they are not like the US which unfortunately is once again playing the - give weapons to both sides and express shock and outrage when one attacks another. The Soviets did this as well, but Russia of today is not the USSR. If the idea is to redress the "imbalance" and make Pakistan "feel secure" then why offer Super Hornets to India at the same time? The way I see it, Pakistan has a window of time in the 2009-10 timeframe when it can have a short-term, localized edge in terms of offensive weaponry between the time when he gets his weapons and when Indian orders materialize. Sort of like the line change time in hockey. Musharraf wants to take one more shot at being the warrior who got Kashmir for Pakistan. The US policymakers know or don't care about this and want to pay him off as long as he keeps sending heads of bearded thugs to the US. The wild card is that this is not the 1990s - Indian economy is robust. We had a small rise in the defense budget this year because of the leftists. WE can triple it if we want and can procure 10 weapons to every free one that Pakistan gets. It was the overwhelming superiority that forced Musharraf to scaled down the use of terorrism and India will not give up that advantage so easily. But if it is smart, it will spread the wealth around and not end up playing into the hands of the conflict enablers in DC by buying the same weapons being given to Pakistan essentially as payoffs for "other services."
Recommended Posts