Quantcast
Pakistan will not get subsidies for F-16 purchase
October 17, 2017
1 of 18 F-16C/D Block-52+ belonging to the No. 5 squadron operating from Shahbaz Air Base.

Pakistan will not get subsidies for F-16 purchase

 

Although Congress has permitted to let the proposed sale of eight F-16C/D Block-52+ to pass, it has decided to block Foreign Military Financing (FMF). Pakistan’s F-16 sale will not be subsidized.

John Kirby, spokesman of the U.S. State Department, said, “Given congressional objectives, we have told the Pakistanis that they should put forward national funds for that purpose.”

Although it was not said in response to this latest round of news, Syed Tariq Fatemi, special assistant on foreign affairs to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, said Congress’ refusal to release FMF support betrayed “a lack of sufficient appreciation for Pakistan’s whole-hearted efforts it was undertaking jointly with the U.S. administration, in countering the threat posed by terrorism.”

Comment and Analysis

Without diving into too many geo-political specifics, it is evident that the F-16 is an untenable acquisition for Pakistan. It was already a troubling thought to part with $270-350 million U.S. for a restricted fighter. The idea of putting aside $700 million U.S. is absolutely unacceptable.

This is not simply an issue of declining goodwill on the part of the U.S., but spending almost a billion U.S. dollars on just eight aircraft when there is an entire mainstay fighter program in need of that funding is simply irrational. With that funding, Pakistan could explore a wide range of options to strengthen the JF-17, especially the forthcoming JF-17 Block-III, which will need considerable funding in order to support the acquisition of active electronically-scanned array radars and other equipment.

That said, the F-16 is still a key U.S. foreign policy instrument within Pakistan. FMF was proposed by the White House, and such policies do not occur for the sake of occurring. Although it does not look good for the deal, the issue may not be over just yet.

  • shehryar mughal

    shouldnt PAF get J-10s instead?? much cheaper and from a very reliable source..

  • jigsaww

    I think Pakistan needs to embrace the idea as a whole that relationship with US is not working. It’s just not working and it won’t. F-16 is one piece in the puzzle. Expect major setbacks in coming months and years on different levels. The reason is simple. American ambitions and aims in the region have changed. That is the writing on the wall since 911. They need to create, arm, and ready an anti-China entity which only happens to be Hindustan. If Hindustan moves closer to US (and they are), they won’t do it without seeking guarantees on ceasing of US support for Pakistan on every level, and largely a breakdown of relations to good extent. Pakistan and China also have US concerned over extended strategic partnership over CPEC and Gwadar. There’s too many opponents involved.

    Just keep the faint alliance diplomatically alive with US. It won’t be Pakistan but US that has now and will in future cut down on relations, so let it be. Carry on with CPEC, disinfect RAW from Pakistan, Bring in China into Afghan game, Extend partnership with Russia to CPEC and more, engage Iran and turkey more, and buy your defenses from elsewhere.

    One door closes, many others open. It’s just the way. The key is to knowing which door is yours to take.

    • Abdul Rashid

      Amen!

    • middleway1

      You got it right!

  • Ashi Sidhu

    #indiandiplomacystrikes
    pak struggling to pay 700million$ i wonder what will happen to t 14 armata ,s 400 ,su 35 ,j 31
    btw pak must stop purchasing f 16 bcoz even if u give full money US wont give block 60 due to fear of tech profileration to china

    • rtnguy

      With the recent economic crisis in China, I doubt Chinese will subsidize JF 17 as well. If pakistan cannot pay mere 700 million USD how will it spend billions needed to buy Su 35, J10 etc. Chinese agreed to subsidize 2 blocks of JF 17 on condition that pakistanis will focus on successfully exporting it to other 3rd world countries but even those exports ar enot materializing. And that is not because of India but russia which has in response to JF 17 reduced the price of Mig 29 to rock bottom to undercut any JF17 sales. JF17 is a poor cousin of Mig 29 with 1 engine.

      • jigsaww

        Lol. Here comes the wet dreamer.

    • jigsaww

      First off, this is not diplomacy. It’s whining and negative lobbying. Second off, It’s not hindustani policy that struck because if it was for hindustani lobbying, that called for abandoning the entire deal, at which hindustan not only failed but also was told to sit quiet.

      I’ve explained what has happened. It’s US whose objectives have changed. In the process of pulling away from Pakistan, it needs to find a new ally to embrace anti-china posture, and who else could it be if not hindustan, considering the hatred hindustan has for both china and pakistan?

      It’s US that is making hindustanis feel privileged by throwing a bone or two. Enjoy it.
      For Pakistan the way forward is clear and this was always known. It’s just that Pakistan has not been and will not be the one to cut down relations, US will.
      Let that happen. It’s American choice.

      Pakistan’s, China’s and Russia’s policies are on one page for where future is heading.
      America’s, Hindustan’s, and Israel’s policies are one on one page.

      • MT

        Russia don’t give damn about pak which has nothing to offer.
        forgot recent putin cancellation of pak trip & arrest of Pakistani businessman.

        Unlike Usa; Russia isn’t going to subsidise weapons for pak .

        in 21st century; russia fears rise of chins.
        Both russia & india have more commonalities on changing world scenarios.
        pak is nothing for world if u ignore pakistani pawns being which wre used to extort money from world power

        without taliban pak is insignificant to world economy and geopolitcs.

        but pak have over used their card exposing their true nature to world

        • Shershahsuri

          Pakistan has an important Geo-strategic position. It was and it will be important to the world. it is the gateway to the central Asia. It lies on the corridor of Persian Gulf. CPEC is the best example. Even if Afghanistan and central Asian countries want to promote their trade and economy they have to look towards Pakistan. Why cant India bolster economic ties with Afghanistan and central Asian countries?

          • MT

            gateway to central Asia via afghanistan which is hub of pak sponsored jihadi

            y don’t u calculate price of sea transport & compare it with road and rail

            on an avg sea transport is cheaper than rail freight by 6-7 times & cheaper via road by 14-15 times

            its cheaper to transport freight from uae to Beijing via 6000km sea lines than transport from gwadar to Western China.

            u guys r overestimating economic feasibility of CPEC but the only value cpec provide is security which is still debatable via balochistan if compared with indo usa china navel blockade of cheeni containers near strait of malacca

          • Zill e Hussnain

            well to disappoint you here again, let me tell you that i have a Master Degree in Strategic Management and Theoretical Economics, they way i see your comments about CPEC are only based on hatred which has blinded you, where did you come from about the idea that sea transport is cheaper 6-7 times with rail and 14-15 times with road ? If that had been the case thn entire europe would have transferred their entire tread to the sea on the contrary they are shifting more and more on road and air, let me tell you how the cost of transportation works in the modern world, for instance, if there is a drug that is required in China but is produced in america, that drug needs constant temperature of 4 degree C, if it is to be shipped by the sea, it will take between some what 30-45 days to reach from the East cost of america to the Beijing, now you can add on several different risks along with the cost of sea freight, cost of refrigerating, time etc but on the other hand it will only take 2 days for that drug to reach China, can you compare the difference of 2 days with up to 45 days ? One needs to remember that those massive freight ships are heavy and very slow, they need constant refueling and the cost of people working upon it along with the time they take only makes them viable in the modern world for the raw material or heavy goods, via CPEC, it will take only 10-12 days for the goods to reach China as compare to 45-60 days right now through sea, it will reduce the time of production of various manufacturing in China down to three times which in return will increase the profits, decrease the cost, lower the risks and develop their under developed Eastern provinces

          • MT

            europe has strong rail connectivity & they r barely 2000 km apart with planer terrain unlike cpec corridor

          • Zill e Hussnain

            I have lived in Europe for several years so my knowledge does not come from Susu swamy, the North of Europe is Norway an south is Greece which are 1000’s of km a part (not 2000), well when it is against ur logic thn u make the distance between Gawadar and China’s border 2000 km but when it is in your benefit thn you make the distance between an entire continent mare 2000 km ? ? England is an island so definitely they will most be using sea but again you consciously ignored the part where I discussed about the lengths of time it takes by sea, it is clear that you are blinded by hate and you can produce all kinds of stories to support it but again it will never changes the ground reality

          • MT

            In the article Government cash revives ferry plan, which appeared in the Taranaki Daily News on 6 May
            2009, it was reported that the Port of Taranaki’s business development manager, Jon Hacon, had said
            ‘statistics from the United States showed that for every dollar it cost to carry a tonne of freight a kilometre
            by sea, it cost $4 by rail and $10 by road. In Europe, the equivalent ratio was $1, $3 and $6’. Therefore
            there was an expectation that there would be a significant price difference between the three transport
            modes investigated, with the maritime mode costing the least, followed by rail, then followed by road.

          • Zill e Hussnain

            And common sense as well as modern economic model shows that it takes several times more time and risks through sea as compared to roads and railways which in return provide a better output which is impossible otherwise

          • MT

            sea transport is dirty cheap. Oil,LNG container charge much more than coal,FMCG goods;wheat/rice/grains.

            But its still cheap for india to import crude from Saudi to Mumbai which is around 2500km than transport oil to kathmandu from petroleum refineries located near nepal border which is barely 400km far from refinery

            Sea transport is the safest & reliable with accident as less than 10000times compared to trucks

          • rtnguy

            Lol which world do u live in. Sea transport is cheapest followed by rail followed by road. China can easily get what it wants by sea. If someone tries to block it , it will be war. In war CPEC will go up in smoke anyways. In fact forget about CPEC, a war with china will be a world war so there is no question of normal trade. CPEC is primarily a military corridor for which pak mil has been suitably paid.

          • MT

            ‘statistics from the United States showed that for every dollar it cost to carry a tonne of freight a kilometre
            by sea, it cost $4 by rail and $10 by road. In Europe, the equivalent ratio was $1, $3 and $6’.

          • Saad Tahir

            If CPEC is so unimportant then why are you Indians sending raw agents to sabotage it ? I say that you ask your terrorist government about the real situation

          • MT

            That person kidnapped from iran was used to create mystical raw sabotage.

            india not bothered by cpec as long as cheen psk admit that corridor passes through gilgit ballistan which are integral part of jammu kashmir

        • bla bla

          Stop spreading the rumor you Fool MT USA already sanctioned the Russia company so there is no possibility of North south gas pipeline to invest in Pakistan ofcourse then there is no reason that Putin comes to Pakistan for photo session

          • MT

            I heard about that.

            Cut off of usa aid ll cripple pakistan as it ll force raheel sharif to buy weapon which were earlier doled out free from usa tax payers money while pak was as usual supporting puppy taliban to keep extortion running

          • bla bla

            Man what is your problem ?
            Go and live your life if some one is failing or going to death its none of your business . Live & let other people live .
            @saqrkh
            Why dont you block people like @MT ?
            As far as I understand the forum is to share knowledge & information about defense equipment & technology this person @MT has a mental problem he is sick do me a favor please block @MT it is annoying and i am fed up of reading all the shit comments & propaganda lies and so on
            I will request all the member please ask the admin to block @MT and make a rule if anyone talks like @MT should be blocked for ever so that @MT cannot come back with another email or ID
            I will appreciate it

          • jigsaww

            I second you. They’re only abusing and cursing here.

            A hindustani will NOT behave until made to behave. It’s their national behaviour. Can’t expect any ethics at any level.

            It’s best to ban them but it’s up to Bilal.

      • Ashi Sidhu

        Pakistan can’t pay 700million$
        India is billions of dollar per year market for russia
        Pakistan only relevance in world is that it is the place where bin laden was found
        Btw this is the 5th year of Osama raid in Pakistan
        how r u lamenting the loss of ur biggest asset?

        • Zill e Hussnain

          Pakistan can easily afford paying 700 million for F-16s but the question here is against what ? 700 million just for 8 air crafts ? that is roughly 90 million for each which is not viable, Pakistanis are not stupid to burn billions like India for failed project of tejas or just 36 jets from france

  • Ameen to this, we ought to invest these 700 million dollars in JF-17 Block-III.

  • Finally, its time the PAF invests that 700 million USD into JF-17 Block III.

  • Shershahsuri

    Both the US and Pakistan govt are wrong on F-16 deal. Pakistani F-16s are different from those of Israel and USAF. PAF F-16s dont have AIM-9x, JSOW, anti-radiation and anti-ship missiles. So I wonder why congress blocked funds for such impotent crafts for Pakistan. I also wonder why had Pakistan accepted them despite so many shortcomings? Anyway, good opportunity to try hand in our own free platform, JF-17.

  • Abdullah Aman

    J-10 is also a light weight fighter Just like JF-17 it is bigger because of that it can carry more flue for long rang fight that is the one of the reason china selected J10 and J10 A can carry 6,000 kg and JF-17 block II can carry 5500 Kg of Useful load if J-10B is in medium class fighter just like F-16 then sure buy it if not then it is not worth have 2 light weight fighters

  • Abdullah Aman

    Pakistan should spend that money on 3 options JF-17 block III or next generation fighter or on heavy fighter like SU-35 do not buy more F-16’s

    • If PAF doesn’t spend that money on Block-III, then they should go for SU-35.

  • WARRIOR

    Hope we don’t decide to buy these jets from national funds

  • MT

    Finally some pakistani realise that they have fooled usa for last 2decades with help of puppy taliban to extort large size of def & civilian aid without yielding anything in return on afghan taliban terrorist who still continue to enjoy patronage of pak army.
    Usa administration esp Republican who have been seeing pak duplicity in war against terrorism have caught the bull by horn.

    Pakistan’s have procured most of its weapons for free from usa as both usa & pak wanted to weaken india during cold war
    But last 2decades free doles from usa to pak have frustrated india as those aid help pak to continue following its old policy of using proxy as its state policy while indian rising defend expenditure were punctured with free doled out weapons to pak.
    what world wants is a stable pakistan which shouldn’t b allowed to use state sponsored terrorism .

    In order to force pak to change policy; world needs to make pak purchase its weapons from tax payers money.
    Pak ll never alter its policy until its penalised economically for continual use of afghan taliban,haqanni,lashkar toieba,jaish muhammad

    • Abdullah Aman

      if pakistan able to give support to afghan Taliban where US, NATO and also many other countries forces are there last but not least India is also there as well and you still not able to stop that then shame on you

      Jaish-e-Mohammed is also banned in pakistan all there people and supporter are arrested and being trialed

      Lashkar-e-Taiba is also banned in pakistan but Jamaat-ud-Dawa does work but most it’s role is relief work in different parts of pakistan and India did not give any solid prof that
      Jamaat-ud-Dawa is involved in any sort of terrorism

      if you have any prof please share not you words and news artistic but actual prof

  • MT

    just an advice to pakistani Experts with variable Masters PHD degree in advanced studies from bilayat/abroad
    ‘statistics from the United States showed that for every dollar it cost to carry a tonne of freight a kilometre
    by sea, it cost $4 by rail and $10 by road. In Europe, the equivalent ratio was $1, $3 and $6’. Therefore
    there was an expectation that there would be a significant price difference between the three transport
    modes investigated, with the maritime mode costing the least, followed by rail, then followed by road.
    The ratio is worse in subcontinent where there r other taxes on trucks & roads r clogged.

    so for the same reason road ;rail are not that costly (6 to 3 times) as there r no taxes on vehicles permit transport while roads are in better condition across EU

    in case of pak china cpec, cost of roads transport shall be as high as12-15 constrained by mountain terrain,drastic weather conditions

    • MT

      sea transport is dirty cheap. Oil,LNG container charge much more than coal,FMCG goods;wheat/rice/grains.

      But its still cheap for india to import crude from Saudi to Mumbai which is around 2500km than transport oil to kathmandu from petroleum refineries located near nepal border which is barely 400km far from refinery

      Sea transport is the safest & reliable with accident as less than 10000times compared to trucks

      india nepal border was blocked & nepal had to pay 30% more price to import oil via tibet as distance of indian port to nepal is 2-3 times less than distance of nepal from chinese ports.

  • MT

    Mr Sartaj Aziz spoke the other day like other Pakistani leaders – tongue in cheek. The basic fact is that Pakistan itself is the problem. If the Afghanistan question has to be resolved, the beginning will have to be made with Pakistan. It is Pakistan which uses its home-made, home-sponsored terrorists in Afghanistan and India. The rest of the world will have to form a realization that Pakistan has crossed all lines of reasonableness and common sense and goes on arguing about its ‘sacrifices’ in the global war against terror. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan itself is author and user of terror as instrument of its state policies, regardless of whether government in Pakistan is headed by military or civilian leadership. The four-party talks on Afghanistan shall get nowhere because the quartet do not see that Pakistan is the cause of the problem which they are called upon to resolve. Pakistan is even protected and encouraged by its relationship with China which does not give a damn about the future and welfare of Pakistan but hopes to use Pakistan as an instrument of its (Chinese) foreign policy objectives, viz., the OBOR, CPEC, the AIIB which finances projects in Pakistan, the Chinese proposed routes and roads across Central and Western Asia to the European mainland. Pakistan boasts that it is not a colony of USA but Pakistan is already a colony of China in effective terms. All Chinese plans shall bring little benefit to Pakistan except the octroi which it may collect on goods passing on the CPEC both ways. It is important that world powers should see Pakistan in its true colours. Pakistan shall not lift a little finger to resolve the Afghanistan question because it arose in the first place because of Pakistan’s meddlesome actions in Afghanistan in all the recent decades. The Afghan Taliban are Pakistan’s chosen ones whom it would like to see in control in Afghanistan: Pakistan would like to continue to control Afghanistan through the Afghan Taliban.

    • jigsaww

      Hain…Itni saaf English. Full stop bi theek theek lagaey hain. Sentence case bi use kiya hay. Wah.

      Koi speech consultant hire kar liya kiya…?

      • MT

        Who needs whom more now? Pakistan has always needed aid – always expecting a free lunch. The USA does not always need pakistan, it needs it only once in a while There lies a great gap in expectations by pakistan, based on its own perceived importance and its inflated self-worth, its center-of -the-world bias, vs reality.

  • MT

    Washington now realizes that it was wrong. Continued US occupation of Afghanistan is necessitated by Pakistan, not facilitated by it. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif remains helpless in overturning Pakistan’s policy of patronage towards militias in Afghanistan and his civilian government is dogged by charges of corruption. America now sees that Pakistan can’t and won’t help in the withdrawal of US troops, or in the construction of a stable Afghanistan, no matter how harmonious bilateral relationship is.

    Pakistan wants usa forcea to stay in afganistan for time immemorial & afghan taliban to remain strengthened so that pak can extort bill $ aid from usa along with free military weapons in fake war against terror in which pak continue to protect rogue afghan taliban terrorist. .
    In order to force change in pak policies; .usa must sanction pak economically and militarily

Social Media

Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter

Quwa Daily

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement