The U.S. Department of Defense is attempting to sell eight F-16s to Pakistan in a deal disputed by U.S. lawmakers as well as India:
On Friday evening, the United States decided to push ahead with the sale and delivery of eight U.S.-made F-16 Block-52 fighters to Pakistan in a deal valued at $699 million. The U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified U.S. lawmakers about the deal. The DSCA's approval comes days after Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed concern to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that the Obama administration should withhold such a deal due to concerns that Pakistan was insufficiently targeting militant groups hostile to the United States, specifically the Haqqani Network*. U.S. legislators have a 30 day period to review and potentially block the sale. Corker's hold on the funding could end the deal unless Pakistan manages to find an alternate way to finance the purchase.
"We support the proposed sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan, which we view as the right platform to in support of Pakistan's counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations," a DSCA official told Defense News . In addition to eight F-16 Block 52 fighters, the deal will include increased performance engines, advanced radars, electronic warfare equipment, and spare and repair parts. In its official notice, the DSCA noted that the "proposed sale contributes to U.S. foreign policy objectives and national security goals by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner in South Asia." Between 2002 and 2014, the United States sold $5.4 billion in defense equipment to Pakistan.
[...] Progress on this deal has thrust the U.S.-Pakistan relationship back into the limelight, highlighting concerns of Pakistan's complicated status as a U.S. ally. Additionally, the deal has drawn concern and criticism from the Indian government, which is increasingly partnering with the United States itself on defense cooperation. [...] New Delhi's concern is that the F-16 aircraft will be diverted away from counter-terrorism purposes and toward striking India in any future skirmish between the two countries. The DSCA, in its notification to Congress, assess that "The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region."
*The Haqqani network were the militants holding Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl captive. The group has close ties to Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:25AM
We're so desparate for money, that we sell advanced weaponry to backward tribals? We are willing to support a government hostile to India? I thought we LIKED India? Pakistan is already a danger to the world. They have nuclear weapons, yet half of their country is held by the Taliban.
This is so screwed up. Our government doesn't care about stability, or security. Witness the instability in Iraq, which we caused.
A lot of people in Washington seriously need their heads examined. They are completely out of touch with reality.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:28AM
You ain't figured out how this scam works yet? 1.- Sell advanced planes to potential enemies, 2.- The regime changes and they turn on you, 3.- Defense industry says "they have advanced tech so you need our super duper black hole of money suckage new planes!" lather rinse repeat.
Hell they been playing this little con game on the American people for half a century and they STILL ain't caught on, they sure as hell aren't stopping now LOL.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:31AM
All wars are Banker's Wars [topdocumentaryfilms.com]
( Film runs about 45 minutes. If you, like me, are searching for what is really behind all this crap, this made more sense to me than most. )
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:54AM
obligatory extended material. [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:41AM
I have been watching your link... I need to find some way to download this and keep it.
The link you posted is the most informative I have seen yet. Its long, but there is a lot of good stuff here.
So far, its been in near perfect alignment with what I have understood how we have got into the financial mess the whole world is finding itself in.
About three and a half hours of it. But to me, a helluva lot more informative and important than another movie.
If more people would take the trouble to understand just how this works, we could do something about it.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @01:07PM
youtube-dl is your friend
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:30PM
http://www.cys-audiovideodownloader.com/ [cys-audiovideodownloader.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:23PM
Already seen it, but I think the "military industrial complex two step" is a little less "subtle" for lack of a better word and they have been doing it since the end of WWII. Hell if they didn't sell advanced tech to enemies, how would they force the American people to pay for new shitty planes and tanks and missiles at crazy mark up? After all if they didn't let everything from Stingers to F16s end up in enemy hands all the USA would be facing is Soviet era shit that an F15 from 1985 could dominate, we can't have that now can we?
This is one thing we frankly should give the soviets credit for as they were NEVER that fucking stupid. If you look at the tanks and planes they sold places like Iran? They were all of them, down to the last, the "M" series export models...know what the "M" stood for? Monkey Models, as in "we don't trust these shit flinging monkeys with anything good" so they stripped everything state of the art and replaced it with obsolete tech. For just one example the T72M didn't have a guidance computer, didn't have ATGM launch capability, and had the state of the art night vision replaced with the one from the T55, which was 20 years out of date. The Soviets never had to worry about their own weapons being used against them because what they sold was cheap knock offs of the real thing.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:39AM
"We" don't like India because they buy Russian and French weapons. "We" like countries with horrible human rights records and who also sponsor terrorism, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, because they buy American. Get it now?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:00AM
Agree, we should be selling F-16s to India. We should never have allowed the formation of Pakistan into two sections on either side of India.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @04:35AM
> We should never have allowed the formation of Pakistan into two sections on either side of India.
Yeah, because meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, especially democracies, has been such a great success.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:07PM
We should never have allowed the formation of Pakistan into two sections on either side of India.
Yeah, because meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, especially democracies, has been such a great success.
Four things to observe here. First, the country in question was England which made those decisions. Second, by definition spinning off a colony is no longer an internal affair. Third, the resulting conflict whereby Bangladesh became an independent country consumed several hundred thousand to several million lives including genocide at the hands of the Pakistanis. And fourth, Pakistan ended up not being a democracy.
Sure, it might not have been a success by whatever measure you use, but we don't have to meet those standards in order to do better than what actually occurred.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:03AM
When we granted independence to India, we did not see fit to create Pakistan and Bangladesh as separate countries. The border to which you allude did not yet exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:59AM
We hasten to add that we value the membership of all three in our Commonwealth.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:27PM
"We" as in the United States are not the ones desperate for money, and are not the ones that would be benefiting from this deal.
The executives and stockholders of Lockheed Martin are the ones that are desperate for money and will be profiting.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:37AM
Personally, I think we should be selling to India rather than Pakistan.
We've been played for fools by Pakistan, and as soon as we crashed a helicopter taking out Bin Laden they spirited the parts off to China.
They certainly don't need Block 52 aircraft with improved performance engines, advanced radars, electronic warfare equipment to defend themselves against war lords hiding in the hills.
Afghanistan is a land locked country, and that is ALL you need to know when asking why we are selling advanced jets to Pakistan.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:49AM
the better option is to sell to neither, but if one really has to choose between either of them I'd still say PK is more acceptable, the majority of Indians are filthy bastards who shit in the streets.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:49AM
That's an angle I hadn't thought of - how likely is it that China will end up with at least one of those aircraft? For the right price, the Pakistanis will stage a crash right on the border, so that the benevolent Chinese can "rescue" the heroic Pakistani crew. But, most likely, China probably already has everything they could want from those aircraft. They wander through our "secure" networks freely, it seems.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:53AM
Cheap smartphones, toys and next warplanes ;).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:04AM
They are going to need those F16s in a few years, when the US figures out that Osama bin you-know-who was not the only terrorist in Pakistan.
They just hope that war can wait until every F16 and A10 has been replaced with F35s. By then, 8 F16s are going to be a huge advantage.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:59AM
It's well known and well tolerated. Just don't talk about Afghanistan/Pakistan!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:02AM
Selling to both would avoid the appearance of favoritism. Another thing to consider is that it would be more profitable.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:55PM
Afghanistan is a land locked country, and that is ALL you need to know when asking why we are selling advanced jets to Pakistan.
Um...no. Apparently you need to connect the dots for this slow puppy.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:55PM
Um...no. Apparently you need to connect the dots for this slow puppy.
Guess what country (map) [google.com] you need overflight permission to fly to Afghanistan.
Guess what their demands might be to look the other way and not shoot down our military planes flying into or out of Afghanistan.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday February 16 2016, @03:01AM
Millions & Billions... just chump [trump?] change...
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dltaylor on Tuesday February 16 2016, @05:35AM
If you want an aircraft for counter-insurgency and ground support, get A-10s (hell, get a fresh batch of A-1E Skyraiders). If the Air Farce hadn't (treasonably, IMO) pissed away billions on the F-35, there could be an A-10 with with the very few tweaks it needs doing the job that everyone except the career money-sinks at the Pentagon (both civilian and military) would like to have in the field.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:07AM
On the other hand, if you want an aircraft for shooting down F35s in a few years, when the US runs out of wars, the F16 is a great choice.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Geezer on Tuesday February 16 2016, @12:47PM
Given the current capabilities of the F-35, a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny with a slingshot-equipped observer would suffice.
(Score: 5, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday February 16 2016, @01:12PM
Better idea: Sell pakistan F35's. If we ever get into a hot war with them, they will be so broke from buying them they they can even fuel them. Even if they manage to get a few into the air, the F16's can just shoot them down. I think I just solved out F35 problem!
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday February 16 2016, @01:24PM
The F35 is nothing more than a multi billion dollar welfare program. It needs to be scrapped, I don't care how much money was pissed away on it.
Like you said, the A10 is a beast of an aircraft. Pretty much a flying tank that kills actual tanks with a 30mm gattling gun that fires depleted uranium ammunition and carries a shit load of bombs. Talk to any airman and they will sing them praise. And according to Wikipedia, they cost just 18.8 million each. A steal if you ask me. Modernization? Why the hell not? I'm sure it could be done for a fraction of the cost for the F35 military-industrial-complex welfare program. Maybe even make them autonomous with remote human intervention. Either way, they get the job done.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:48PM
Isn't basically the entire rest of the developed world except the U.S., Russia, and China still using upgraded F-15s/F-16s/F-18s?
So I guess I don't really see what the big deal is.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:53PM
The most capable fighter in PAF service from 1983 to 2007 has been the F-16 Fighting Falcon. 40 of the F-16A/B Block 15 models were delivered from 1983 to 1987. Deliveries of another 28 F-16A/B were stopped after the 1990 arms embargo imposed on Pakistan under the Pressler amendment but 14 of these were later delivered during 2005-2008.
[...]
In 2006, 12 F-16C and 6 F-16D Block 52+ were ordered with a further 18 aircraft optional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force#Combat_aircraft [wikipedia.org]
So it's a more advanced version of something they've already been flying for decades? Ooh boy.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @06:00PM
Block 15: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#F-16A.2FB_Block_15 [wikipedia.org]
Block52+: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#F-16C.2FD_Block_50.2F52_Plus [wikipedia.org]
Based on reading the links above, and the information on the block releases between them, there are major differences between the F-16A/B Block 15 and the F-16C/D Block 52+. The block 15 aircraft stopped production in 1996, the Block 50/52+ aircraft started production in 1991, so there is significant overlap.
The current model is the F-16E/F Block 60, with a block 61 requested by the UAE with a promise to buy 30 more of them.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:11PM
Pakistan is getting the Chinese Chengdu FC-20 and may be getting the Russian Sukhoi Su-35. This is horrible. The FC-20 is like an F-16. The Su-35 is almost generation 5: supercruise, supermaneuverability w/ thrust vectoring, and half-stealth.
If we sell, then at least China and Russia don't get as much leverage over Pakistan and don't gain the extra economy of scale for aircraft production. That would go to us.
The most legitimate plane for the alleged purpose would be our Textron AirLand Scorpion. Those are dirt cheap ground-attack planes that were purpose-designed to deal with stuff like the Taliban, Lord's Resistance Army, FARC, Boko Haram, and similar. Pakistan won't go for it because stopping the Taliban isn't the true mission.