US may be facing its own F-16's in combat against Pakistan

[silver 2039]

US faces the F-16s it supplied Pakistan
WASHINGTON: The United States is suddenly faced with the uncomfortable scenario of confronting the very same weapons and military hardware, including F-16 fighter jets, it has armed [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Pakistan[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] with for decades.

The unsavoury prospect of having to take a crack at the its one-time ally has surfaced most starkly in the skies over the Afghan-Pakistan border this weekend after the Pakistan Air Force deployed its US-supplied F-16s to challenge the violation of its airspace by US drones, and in one case, an airborne assault that landed US Navy Seals inside Pakistani territory.

The turnaround of Pakistan from an ally to a potential enemy has alarmed [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]lawmakers[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR], some of whom are now questioning the continued supply of arms to Islamabad. On Tuesday, a Democrat-controlled House Foreign Relations panel has scheduled a hearing whose snarky title -- ''Defeating al-Qaida's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism'' == betrays the unease over the Bush Administration’s relentless arming of Pakistan. Al-Qaida has no known air force.

Some lawmakers and analysts have long questioned the need for Washington to arm Pakistan with sophisticated fighter jets to counter Al-Qaida’s and Taliban’s diffused militants, many of whom are in Pakistan’s towns and cities and are patronised by Islamabad’s intelligence agencies. ''The panel will look at how the F-16 program fits into the broader US strategy in the fight against terrorism as well as into the overall US relationship with Pakistan,'' a notification from the sub-committee read.

The House sub-committee is lead by Gary Ackerman, a known critic of the administration’s relentless pandering of Pakistan with military supplies. He and other lawmakers have questioned the administration’s recent decisions to provide funding for mid-life upgrades to F-16s, especially after government audits said Pakistan has been using [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]US [/FONT][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]military[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] aid to bulk up its forces against India rather than use it for counterterrorism.

In July, the Bush administration sought to shift $226.5 million in US counterterrorism aid for the F-16 upgrades. Ackerman said the subcommittee will seek witness testimony about the ''complete scope of the F-16 program with Pakistan including the number of planes, updates made to existing planes, proposed armaments, schedule of delivery and source of payment.''

In addition, because Congress has previously provided Pakistan with significant amounts of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for counterterrorism and law enforcement activities against al-Qaida and the Taliban, the subcommittee will seek testimony on how these planes contribute to Pakistan’s efforts in the fight against terrorism and extremism, and how the use of additional FMF to pay for mid-life updates to Pakistan’s existing F-16 [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]fleet[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] enhances those efforts. The subcommittee is also expected to examine what [COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]counterterrorism[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] equipment or programs were foregone as a result of the July 16, 2008, reprogramming request.

Fearful of a Congressional squeeze on further F-16 supplies and upgrades, an unnamed senior Pakistani official in Washington briefed US and Pakistani journalists on Friday on the central role the jets were playing in the war on terror. Pakistan, he said, has flown nearly 100 missions during three weeks in August that produced some 500-550 Taliban casualties. But the PAF needed night-flying capability because the militants were regrouping in the night.

There is a great deal of skepticism about Pakistan using F-16s against militants, and the body count it keeps producing. Several accounts from the region describe friendly, fraternal ties between the Pakistani military and Taliban fighters.

On Sunday, the Pakistani media reported tribal sources as saying a PAF jets were seen patrolling the skies on the country’s western borders with Afghanistan in the afternoon, soon after a US predator was seen flying in the area. ''Neither the CIA-operated Predator nor the Pakistani jet fighter took any offensive action as the two planes didn’t encounter each other,'' a report in the Pakistani newspaper The News, said.

Pakistan’s army chief Pervez Kiyani has vowed to defend the country against US incursions ''at all costs.''

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_faces_the_F-16s_it_supplied_Pakistan/articleshow/3482718.cms

Wow. Pakistan is truly an a great ally of the US in the war on terror. Right? Right?? Right?????

 

[GenMarshall]

Holy crap!! They are going to use our own weapons against us!

 

[Naval Power]

Honestly, if it were to come to that F-16's wouldn't pose too much of a problem for the US military, Pakistan's conventional forces would be destroyed within days. We'd have much bigger worries than antiquated US military planes in the hands of most likely terrible pilots.

 

[MobBoss]

I dont think its the wrong thing to do to hold Pakistan to their word.

If they are going to be serious about defeating the Taliban then do it.

If not, dont be surprised if we decide to take matters into our own hands. History is rife with examples where nations got their butts into a crack for aiding and abetting terrorist to operate from within their borders. Pakistan shouldnt be treated any differently.

 

[Elrohir]

Honestly, I'm not too worried. F-16's are good planes, but the US has F-35's and F-22's to counter them, and pilots with many times the flight time, and much greater experience to pilot them. A war against a conventional army with tanks and planes and helicopters is pretty much what the US military is designed to fight, and they're still pretty good at it. Plus, Pakistan only has 62 F-16's, and more than a third of those are primarily used for training and the like.

Not to mention the fact that planes break down and need repairs and awful lot during a war...and they'd need to get a lot of their spare parts from us.

Let's be clear: fighting Pakistan, including it's air force, wouldn't be fun, and isn't desirable. But if the US wanted to destroy it, they could do so. They'd have some casualties, and lose a few planes, but between advanced Air Force fighters based in Afghanistan, and naval fighters based off of aircraft carriers in the Gulf, air superiority would be established in fairly short order.

 

[Neomega]

Honestly, I'm not too worried. F-16's are good planes, but the US has F-35's and F-22's to counter them, and pilots with many times the flight time, and much greater experience to pilot them. A war against a conventional army with tanks and planes and helicopters is pretty much what the US military is designed to fight, and they're still pretty good at it. Plus, Pakistan only has 62 F-16's, and more than a third of those are primarily used for training and the like.

Not to mention the fact that planes break down and need repairs and awful lot during a war...and they'd need to get a lot of their spare parts from us.

Let's be clear: fighting Pakistan, including it's air force, wouldn't be fun, and isn't desirable. But if the US wanted to destroy it, they could do so. They'd have some casualties, and lose a few planes, but between advanced Air Force fighters based in Afghanistan, and naval fighters based off of aircraft carriers in the Gulf, air superiority would be established in fairly short order.

Defending your own airspace gives you much more latitude in mobility due to less range restrictions, and the ability to deploy SAM's.

 

[silver 2039]

Defending your own airspace gives you much more latitude in mobility due to less range restrictions, and the ability to deploy SAM's.

Yeah but presumably if the US and Pakistan are going to fight India isn't going to sit it out. They'd probably be directly aiding the US.

 

[Elrohir]

Defending your own airspace gives you much more latitude in mobility due to less range restrictions, and the ability to deploy SAM's.

Very true. But those advantages aren't enough to overcome the inescapable US air superiority, when it comes to training and planes. The US has both quality and quantity on its side, if it comes to a fight with the Pakistani Air Force - and playing on the home field won't do all that much to counteract that.

I'm not hoping for a fight, nor do I think it would be good or desirable to do so. I'm just realistic enough to know that if the US military really decided to seize air superiority over Pakistan, they could do so. We'd lose some men, but they'd lose more - that's about the long and short of it.

 

[Labtec600]

They're going to need the parts to keep up maintenance on the planes. The US cuts that off, no problem.

 

[Gogf]

A Times Of India article about the potential for a US-Pakistani war? I'm floored!

Pakistan won't fight a war with us... they're not that stupid. Cross-border operations will continue as the "Afghan surge" takes off, but both the US and Pakistanis will probably work to make them less publicized.

But if push came to shove, I wouldn't be too worried about our F22s and F35s and modernized F16s fighting against their antiquated versions of the F16.

 

[Sims2789]

We aren't going to attack Pakistan. Quit being paranoid. We will be more than happy to subsidize their internal stability since it's supposedly in our interest but we're not going to do anything beyond a few raids in the federally "administered" tribal regions.

 

[silver 2039]

We aren't going to attack Pakistan. Quit being paranoid.

I'm being hopeful not paranoid.

 

[Sims2789]

I'm being hopeful not paranoid.

Okay, quit being hopeful!

The Bush-McCain era will probably come to a close. Then we'll have better things to do than topple foreign governments so that we can give lucrative contracts to cronies. The only way we'd attack Pakistan is if McCain is way down in the polls and Bush thinks that a new war right before the election will help him win, but we'd probably attack Iran if he thinks that.

 

[silver 2039]

The Bush-McCain era will probably come to a close. Then we'll have better things to do than topple foreign governments so that we can give lucrative contracts to cronies.

Obama doesn't like Pakistan either. He keeps making statements about it.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I don't see why the USA is violating Pakistani airspace. Consider the outrage if Pakistan was building bases in Mexico or Canada. If some Americans get shot down they should hopefully learn that messing around in other people's buisness can get you in trouble.

 

[pau17]

The export versions of F-16s and the like usually don't have the most cutting-edge hardware (e.g. less-sophisticated radar systems), which is reserved for the USAF models. And even if these are loaded with all the latest improvements, they aren't F-22s by a long shot.

 

[Annex]

I don't see why the USA is violating Pakistani airspace. Consider the outrage if Pakistan was building bases in Mexico or Canada. If some Americans get shot down they should hopefully learn that messing around in other people's buisness can get you in trouble.

Islamic extremist groups have been known to operate within the mountainous terrain on Pakistan's border. The US actually has a legitimate reason for being there, unlike other places.

 

[silver 2039]

Islamic extremist groups have been known to operate within the mountainous terrain on Pakistan's border. The US actually has a legitimate reason for being there, unlike other places.

And Pakistan has been incapable and unwilling of dealing with those groups. The Taliban is undergoing a resurgence right now. Also the Pakistani military and the ISI have been aiding the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

 

[Sims2789]

Obama doesn't like Pakistan either. He keeps making statements about it.

He said he'd take out terrorists if the Pakistani government won't, but all the European lefties were like "ZOMG he's gonna invade Pakistan!!!" Don't buy their fear.

 

[Elrohir]

I don't see why the USA is violating Pakistani airspace. Consider the outrage if Pakistan was building bases in Mexico or Canada. If some Americans get shot down they should hopefully learn that messing around in other people's buisness can get you in trouble.

What outrage? I find the idea of a Pakistani air base in Mexico or Canada to be rather hilarious, not outrageous. If Pakistan wants (And can afford ) an airbase in either of those countries, and those countries are amenable, then let them have their air base.

People make this argument all the time, with Venezuela, China, Pakistan, etc. I still don't understand it - why should I care if Pakistan has fighters in Mexico? They aren't going to attack us. And we'd destroy them utterly if they tried. So why should I care about such an idea at all, outside of thinking it's entertaining?

Maybe the US shouldn't be intervening in Pakistani airspace (Although I'm not convinced that this is so) but you need a better argument.