An ally who they violate every dayeklavya wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_allyViv S wrote: Also, buying US weapons doesn't mean India has been reduced to a position of subservience in our bilateral relationship. Short of attacking a US ally, there's nothing that prevents India from pursuing its national interests.
According to the US Government, Pakistan is a major ally of the US.
Errrm .....nik wrote:An ally who they violate every dayeklavya wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
According to the US Government, Pakistan is a major ally of the US.
new definition of Alliance or anything for that matter when it comes to pukistan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10 ... ssistance/What the United States spends in Pakistan
The United States began providing economic assistance along and military aid to Pakistan shortly after the country’s creation in 1947. In total, the United States obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011. The levels year to year have waxed and waned for decades as US geopolitical interests in the region have shifted. Peaks in aid have followed years of neglect. In several periods, including as recently as the 1990s, US halted aid entirely and shut the doors of the USAID offices. This pattern has rendered the United States a far cry from a reliable and unwavering partner to Pakistan over the years.
In 2009, in an attempt to signal the United States’ renewed commitment to Pakistan, the US Congress approved the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act (commonly known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, or KLB). KLB’s intention was to put security and development on two separate tracks, insulating the development agenda from unpredictable geopolitical and military events and facilitating longer-term planning for development. The act authorized a tripling of US economic and development-related assistance to Pakistan, or $7.5 billion over five years (FY2010 to FY2014), to improve Pakistan’s governance, support its economic growth, and invest in its people.
Even with strong authorizing language, however, it is up to the administration to request the funds and up to the Congressional appropriations committees to approve those requests. As quantified in a recent Congressional Research Service report by Susan Epstein and Alan Kronstadt, in only one of the first four years of KLB’s five-year authorization did the final appropriation for US economic-related aid to Pakistan meet or exceed the average annual authorization of $1.5 billion.
How Has US Assistance Been Allocated in Recent Years?
Between FY2002 and FY2009, only 30 percent of US foreign assistance to Pakistan was appropriated for economic-related needs; the remaining 70 percent was allocated to security-related assistance. In the period since the KLB authorization (FY2010 through the FY2014 budget request), 41 percent of assistance has been allocated for economic-related assistance —still not a majority of total assistance, but the increase over the preceding period does demonstrate the renewed commitment to Pakistan’s development embodied by the legislation.
The following chart utilizes data from the US Foreign Assistance Dashboard, currently under construction, which intends to become the one-stop-shop for all data about US foreign assistance. It shows how funds designated for economic-assistance to Pakistan ($766 million requested in FY2014) have been allocated across sectors. Because we are most interested in what we consider to be development-related assistance - the programs that represent an investment in Pakistan's longer term economic development - we have removed the sectors "Peace and Security" and "Humanitarian Assistance" for this chart. Further details about the spending breakdown in each sector are available on the US Foreign Assistance Dashboard.
How Has US Assistance Funding Been Spent?
While the figures above show how officials planned to spend foreign assistance funds in Pakistan, actually disbursing the funds has proven to be a significant challenge. The limited capacity of local partners, legitimate concerns about corruption and security, a hesitation to deploy aid in the absence of necessary systemic reforms—for example in the energy sector—and the disruption to programmed assistance inflicted by natural disasters such as the 2010 floods have all contributed to difficulty in spending money.
In addition to challenges spending the money, as CGD staff have written in the past, it is difficult to know just how much money has been spent. According to figures in the most recent CRS report, between FY2010 and FY2012 approximately $2.2 billion of $4 billion appropriated for economic-related assistance was disbursed (including security-related assistance, just over $3 billion was disbursed in this time period).
Another source is the US Foreign Assistance Dashboard. The Dashboard reports that in this same time period (FY2010–2012), nearly $1.9 billion was spent in Pakistan. The Dashboard likely underreports obligation and spending data, in part because only 5 of 22 departments and agencies were reporting to the Dashboard at the time of this writing (see CGD’s US Foreign Assistance Dashboard Tracker for updates on reporting status).
A final source, probably the most accurate and certainly the most up to date, is the Quarterly Progress and Oversight Report on the Civilian Assistance Program in Pakistan, produced by the Office of the USAID Inspector General. According to the report, as of March 31, 2013, nearly $4 billion in civilian assistance funds for FY2010 through FY2013 had been obligated, and just over $3.5 billion had been spent. Using our categorization scheme where we classify ESF, GHCS, and the HR and Democracy Fund as development-related assistance, $2.6 billion in development-related assistance has been obligated and $2.3 billion spent.
How Do Assistance Levels to Pakistan Compare to Assistance to Other Initiatives and Countries?
The president’s FY2014 budget request marks a significant decline in assistance to Pakistan and the other frontline states of Afghanistan and Iraq. It also transfers the majority of assistance out of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) component, created for the temporary and extraordinary resources required for frontline states, and into Enduring/Core Programs.
Despite this decline, the amount of US aid pledged to Pakistan remains significant compared to funding for other development initiatives. The administration’s $1.16 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan exceeds requests for the Global Hunger and Food Security initiative ($1.06 billion), the Millennium Challenge Corporation ($0.90 billion), and the Global Climate Change initiative ($0.48 billion). It is also not far behind the requested $1.36 billion for the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), which makes loans and grants to the world’s 81 poorest countries and is the single largest source of development finance in these locations. As for bilateral assistance, according to the most recent data from USAID’s US Overseas Loans and Grants database (FY2011), Pakistan is the fourth largest recipient of US assistance, trailing Israel, Afghanistan, and Egypt. As a point of comparison, the United States has pledged seven times more aid to Pakistan than to Bangladesh, a neighboring country with a comparable population size and similar development needs.
It’s Not All About the US: Other Donors’ Contributions to Pakistan
Of course, the United States is just one of many countries and institutions that provide financial assistance to Pakistan. The following chart puts the United States’ contributions in context by quantifying each donor’s share of gross Official Development Assistance (ODA) that flowed into Pakistan in 2011. Total gross disbursements amounted to $4.15 billion (constant 2011 $). The United States was the largest contributor, constituting nearly a third of total ODA to Pakistan, and is followed by the World Bank’s International Development Association (21 percent of total ODA), Japan (14 percent), the United Kingdom (8 percent), and the EU Institutions (4 percent).
As for the multilateral institutions, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is Pakistan’s biggest multilateral partner, providing assistance of $4.4 billion from 2009 through 2012. Under its 2009-2013 Pakistan Country Strategy the ADB increased support for the energy, transport and irrigation infrastructure, and urban services sectors, providing annual average lending of almost $1.5 billion.
The World Bank’s portfolio in Pakistan currently consists of 30 projects with a total commitment of $5 billion. The Bank is heavily invested in the education sector (in Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan) and infrastructure (transport, sanitation, water management, and energy).
The IMF disbursed credit worth $5.2 billion to Pakistan from FY2008 to FY2010 following the 2008 economic crises. In 2011 the Government of Pakistan decided to end the IMF program, but following the country’s civilian election in May 2013 the new government, led by the Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz), has entered into a new provisional agreement with the Fund worth $6.6 billion for a bailout package for FY2013-2016. Although the IMF and Pakistan have an ‘unhappy history’, the new government is said to have little choice due to its balance of payments crisis and sharply declining foreign exchange reserves.
For more information and detailed data on donor flows to Pakistan, see the State Bank of Pakistan’s annual reports and its economic data.
Now just people like javed akhtar do == between genociders sent by pakis on 26/11 and RSS.US quietly releasing $1.6B in Pakistan assistance
The U.S. has quietly decided to release more than $1.6 billion in military and economic aid to Pakistan that was suspended when relations between the two countries disintegrated over the covert raid that killed Usama bin Laden and deadly U.S. airstrikes against Pakistani soldiers.
Officials and congressional aides said ties have improved enough to allow the money to flow again.
American and NATO supply routes to Afghanistan are open. Controversial U.S. drone strikes are down. The U.S. and Pakistan recently announced the restart of their "strategic dialogue" after a long pause. Pakistan's new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, is traveling to Washington for talks this coming week with President Barack Obama.
But in a summer dominated by foreign policy debates over the coup in Egypt and chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the U.S. hasn't promoted its revamped aid relationship with Pakistan. Neither has Pakistan.
The silence reflects the lingering mutual suspicions between the two.
The Pakistanis do not like being seen as dependent on their heavy-handed partners. The Americans are uncomfortable highlighting the billions provided to a government that is plagued by corruption and perceived as often duplicitous in fighting terrorism.
Congress has cleared most of the money, and it should start moving early next year, officials and congressional aides said.
Over three weeks in July and August, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development informed Congress that it planned to restart a wide range of assistance, mostly dedicated to helping Pakistan fight terrorism. The U.S. sees that effort as essential as it withdraws troops from neighboring Afghanistan next year and tries to leave a stable government behind.
Other funds focus on a range of items, including help for Pakistani law enforcement and a multibillion-dollar dam in disputed territory.
U.S.-Pakistani relations have weathered numerous crises in recent years. There was a months-long legal battle over a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistanis, in addition to the fallout from bin Laden's killing in the Pakistani military town of Abbottabad in May 2011. The Pakistani government was outraged that it received no advance warning of the Navy SEAL raid on bin Laden's compound.
Adding to the mistrust, the U.S. mistakenly killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in November 2011. Islamabad responded by shutting land supply routes for troops in Afghanistan until it received a U.S. apology seven months later.
Last week, the Pakistan Taliban insisted U.S. drone strikes in the country's northwest must stop before they will consider peace talks with the government. The main Pakistani political parties last month backed a government proposal to seek negotiations with the militants, who have been waging a bloody insurgency against the state since 2007.
The main umbrella Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan faction responded with a list of preconditions, including a government ceasefire and the withdrawal of troops from the tribal areas along the Afghan border where the militants may have hideouts.
TTP spokesman Shahidullah Shahid told AFP any ceasefire must include an end to U.S. drone attacks in the tribal areas, which have been targeting suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda militants since 2004.
"A ceasefire alone is not sufficient. The stoppage of drone strikes is essential, otherwise -- if drones continue to strike -- we will not accept the ceasefire," Shahid said.
The Pakistan government publicly criticizes the strikes as counterproductive and a violation of sovereignty, but Washington considers them an effective took in the fight against Islamist militancy.
The State Department told Congress that the U.S. hadn't conducted any significant military financing for Pakistan since the "challenging and rapidly changing period of U.S.-Pakistan relations" in 2011 and 2012. The department stressed the importance now of enhancing Pakistan's anti-terrorism capabilities through better communications, night vision capabilities, maritime security and precision striking with F16 fighter jets.
The department told Congress on July 25 that it would spend $295 million to help Pakistan's military. Twelve days later it announced $386 million more. A pair of notifications arriving on Aug. 13 and worth $705 million centered on helping Pakistani troops and air forces operating in the militant hotbeds of western Pakistan, and other counterinsurgency efforts.
The administration had until the end of September to provide Congress with "reprogramming" plans at the risk of forfeiting some of the money, which spans federal budgets from 2009-2013.
State Department officials said the renewal of aid wasn't determined by any single event. But they noted a confluence of signs of greater cooperation, from Pakistan's improved commitment to stamping out explosives manufacturing to its recent counterterror offensive in areas bordering Afghanistan that have served as a primary sanctuary for the Taliban.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about the aid relationship ahead of Sharif's visit. They said the money would start reaching Pakistan in 2014 but take several years to disburse fully.
"Pakistan's long-term stability is of critical national security interest to the U.S., so we remain committed to helping achieve a more secure, democratic and prosperous state, including through continued civilian and military assistance," said Dan Feldman, the State Department's deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said the assistance plan will deliver results for both countries and enhance Pakistan's ability to fight terrorism.
In its notifications to Congress, the department described fighting terrorism as a mutual concern but said little about the will of Pakistan's government, army and intelligence services to crack down on militant groups that often have operated with impunity in Pakistan while wreaking havoc on U.S. and international forces across the border in Afghanistan.
Top American officials have regularly questioned Pakistan's commitment to counterterrorism.
In 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the militant Haqqani network as a "veritable arm" of Pakistani intelligence. Lawmakers and administration officials have cited Pakistani support for the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other militant groups.
In September, the administration sent officials from multiple agencies for closed-doors briefings with the House and Senate foreign relations committees, officials and congressional aides said.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee has cleared all of the notifications. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is reviewing a $280 million chunk of military financing, Senate aides said. Aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly on the matter.
"The committee held up the projects to get more information and express concerns," said the office of Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the House panel's chairman. "Though they went forward, the committee continues its close oversight."
While Washington has publicly challenged Islamabad to step up its fight against militant groups, Pakistan's biggest complaint has been the huge surge in drone strikes on terrorist targets, which Pakistanis see as violations of their sovereignty. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically this year.
The countries say they're now moving past the flaps and mishaps that soured their partnership in recent years. During an August trip to Pakistan, Secretary of State John Kerry announced the restart of a high-level "strategic dialogue" with Pakistan on fighting terrorism, controlling borders and fostering investment.
Among the economic aid programs included in the U.S. package, support for the Diamer-Basha dam near Pakistan's unresolved border with India has the potential for controversy and tremendous benefit.
Pakistan's government has been unable to secure money for the project from the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank is waiting to hear from the United States and India before providing financing to help construction. The dam faces massive funding shortfalls.
In its July 24 notification to Congress, USAID said the project could cost up to $15 billion and take a decade to complete. The agency promised only to provide "financial and technical assistance" for studies, including on environmental and social aspects, while expressing hope the dam could be transformative for a country with chronic power shortages. State Department officials put the bill for the studies at $20 million.
If the dam were ultimately built, USAID wrote, it could provide electricity for 60 million people and 1 million acres of crop land, and provide a ready supply of water for millions more. It noted that Pakistani officials have sought American support at the "highest levels."
Despite amounting to just a small portion of the overall U.S. aid package, congressional aides said Pakistan's government has lobbied particularly hard for the dam money to be unlocked.
The Associated Press and AFP contributed to this report.
Checked Wiki pages for F35 and they have built 100 so far compare to Rafale 126 built in last 14 yearssanjayg wrote:
The F-35 is plagued with problems, it can't fly in bad weather!!! The optical feeds to the pilots helmet have not worked and it is a flying slug, meaning a older Russian or Chinese fighters can out maneuver it, eg. Mig 29. It has cost $400 billion so far and the costs are potentially expected to reach a trillion! F-35 partners are starting to back out, or have backed out, Canada has cut its orders for example.
Options are the French Rafale, Eurofighter or the Russians for a quick fix. Maybe the Swedes.
Hello, This is the mother of all contracts -> 20 billion contract and up to 60 billion $ lifetime cost deal. Are we still begging here or what? We are signing off our future to the french as we will absolutely have no money left after this (last I heard we were struggling to even fund next stage of IAC1 - ludicrous )sanjayg wrote: Was going through Paris when the Indian Rafale potential was announced, it's a big deal there. They will maintain their promises.
Hoping you share links and not paste the whole article as it was way too long.Dhananjay wrote:
Errrm .....
Najare inaayet farmayeeye:
http://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers
Now just people like javed akhtar do == between genociders sent by pakis on 26/11 and RSS.
amrikophiles here will do america's AID + selling supercapable techs like F 16 sniperpod and AMRAAM C5 to other deals.
Yup major allies. Must account for all those US flags sold in Pakistan.eklavya wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_allyViv S wrote: Also, buying US weapons doesn't mean India has been reduced to a position of subservience in our bilateral relationship. Short of attacking a US ally, there's nothing that prevents India from pursuing its national interests.
According to the US Government, Pakistan is a major ally of the US.
It must be drone season again.Dhananjay wrote:US quietly releasing $1.6B in Pakistan assistance
The U.S. has quietly decided to release more than $1.6 billion in military and economic aid to Pakistan that was suspended when relations between the two countries disintegrated over the covert raid that killed Usama bin Laden and deadly U.S. airstrikes against Pakistani soldiers.
Pakistan: 13 killed as US resumes drone strike campaign
The foreign ministry of Pakistan has condemned the strikes as a violation of the country's sovereignty
Thursday 12 June 2014
US drones have fired missiles at militant hideouts in north-western Pakistan, killing 13 suspected insurgents and marking the resumption of the CIA-led programme after a nearly six-month break, officials said on Thursday.
The Pakistani foreign ministry condemned the strikes as a violation of sovereignty.
Then, early on Thursday, another suspected US missile strike targeted a separate militant compound in North Waziristan, killing at least 10 people, Pakistani intelligence officials said.
Pakistan's north-west, particularly North Waziristan, is home to numerous militant groups – both local and al-Qaida-linked foreign groups – which often work together, sharing fighters, money or expertise.
There was no immediate information on the identities of those killed in the operation but the two intelligence officials who gave information about the strikes said both were in areas dominated by the Haqqani network, and most of those killed are believed to have belonged to the organisation.
"We have also been hearing some names coming from our field agents, but we don't have any confirmation so far," said one of the officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media.
The Haqqani network is believed to carry out operations against US and Nato forces in Afghanistan from bases in North Waziristan and is considered one of the more lethal groups operating in Afghanistan. It is believed to have been the organisation holding Bowe Bergdahl, a US prisoner of war recently released in exchange for five Taliban prisoners.
Strange argument! Did US pay 1.6 billion dollar aid after bombing Gaddafi's libya palace and killing his 10 year old daughter?Viv S wrote: Yup major allies. Must account for all those US flags sold in Pakistan.
It must be drone season again.Dhananjay wrote:US quietly releasing $1.6B in Pakistan assistance
The U.S. has quietly decided to release more than $1.6 billion in military and economic aid to Pakistan that was suspended when relations between the two countries disintegrated over the covert raid that killed Usama bin Laden and deadly U.S. airstrikes against Pakistani soldiers.
Pakistan: 13 killed as US resumes drone strike campaign
The foreign ministry of Pakistan has condemned the strikes as a violation of the country's sovereignty
Thursday 12 June 2014
US drones have fired missiles at militant hideouts in north-western Pakistan, killing 13 suspected insurgents and marking the resumption of the CIA-led programme after a nearly six-month break, officials said on Thursday.
The Pakistani foreign ministry condemned the strikes as a violation of sovereignty.
Then, early on Thursday, another suspected US missile strike targeted a separate militant compound in North Waziristan, killing at least 10 people, Pakistani intelligence officials said.
Pakistan's north-west, particularly North Waziristan, is home to numerous militant groups – both local and al-Qaida-linked foreign groups – which often work together, sharing fighters, money or expertise.
There was no immediate information on the identities of those killed in the operation but the two intelligence officials who gave information about the strikes said both were in areas dominated by the Haqqani network, and most of those killed are believed to have belonged to the organisation.
"We have also been hearing some names coming from our field agents, but we don't have any confirmation so far," said one of the officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media.
The Haqqani network is believed to carry out operations against US and Nato forces in Afghanistan from bases in North Waziristan and is considered one of the more lethal groups operating in Afghanistan. It is believed to have been the organisation holding Bowe Bergdahl, a US prisoner of war recently released in exchange for five Taliban prisoners.
Libya was bombed by carrier based aircraft and by units deploying from Italy and Malta. In contrast, for the last decade the US has been operating drones from Pakistan to bomb Pakistani territory (though now they've supposedly relocated of Afghan bases). Plus the withdrawal from Afghanistan is taking place via Karachi port.Dhananjay wrote:Strange argument! Did US pay 1.6 billion dollar aid after bombing Gaddafi's libya palace and killing his 10 year old daughter?
Did US pay vietnam for bombing millions and millions of civilians children women?
The Pakistanis have been doing their own bombing in North Waziristan. No need to present a fait accompli through the Americans. The US has its own priority targets and has in effect purchased an exemption from Pakistan's sovereignty.For all we know this NW bombing too could've been at the behest of pork army-isi killing people while labeling them as haqanni terrorists.
So the marines would need weather reports constantly when they declare IOC next year and deploy to Japan in 2016?The F-35 is plagued with problems, it can't fly in bad weather!!!
The gen 2 is out to the fleet with the next gen in advanced testing. So much is the confidence of solving the helmet issue that the program has terminated the alternative helmet program which was specifically designed out of the worry that the main helmet would not be developed by IOC.The optical feeds to the pilots helmet have not worked and it is a flying slug,
WOW. Does one f-35 cost 400 billion or 1 trillion? Lets get a few things straightIt has cost $400 billion so far and the costs are potentially expected to reach a trillion!
The IAF carried out the technical evaluation, and provided the results to the Government. After that, its up to the Government what they do with the results. IAF would have and will happily accept the F-16IN or the F-18 E/F or one of the other two that did not make the down-select (without the slightest murmur of protest), if that is what Government decides. IAF does the best with what the Government can afford to buy for the IAF. Government decided in favour of Rafale and Typhoon. The financial proposal has been on the table since 2011, and the Government is still speaking to Dassault.NRao wrote:I thought the IAF selected two and that the Rafale was supposedly L1. At $20 billion we have s new meaning to L2.
Talking of flags, do you recognise the one on the tail of this fighter:Viv S wrote: Yup major allies. Must account for all those US flags sold in Pakistan.
Someone forgot to tell the gov that?. IAF does the best with what the Government can afford to buy for the IAF.
Same as the one on this and this I'd imagine. And soon enough we'll have Mi-35s with the same flag.eklavya wrote:Talking of flags, do you recognise the one on the tail of this fighter:Viv S wrote: Yup major allies. Must account for all those US flags sold in Pakistan.
You're proving my point.
I can't make any sense of your post. The IAF is an arm of the Government of India, contributes to GoI decision making, and implements GoI decisions. The decision to acquire the Rafale has been made by the GoI. The people wasting time and space are those talking about F-35 on the Rafale thread. The IAF would very happily operate the F-35, if the GoI asks them to. Its so obvious.NRao wrote:Someone forgot to tell the gov that?. IAF does the best with what the Government can afford to buy for the IAF.
What a waste of time on the part of the IAF and the various vendors.
M2K. Still not too late. Clean the dust from the old lines, rebuild some and there you have it.
When I mentioned ally, the reference to an actual ally. Japan, Australia, South Korea etc. The fact that the US is bombing Pakistan says everything about the reality of their 'alliance'. (We won't have been ordering the AH-64E if it couldn't be used against Pakistan.)eklavya wrote:You said that US equipment cannot be used to attack a US ally (and I am not disputing that; I fully agree with you), and Pakistan is a major ally of the US, as per the US Government's own designation. Listen to the USAF chief making it absolutely clear at ca 1:00 (he calls Pakistan an "important ally" that the US intends to "stand by in the long-term"):
The IAF is not an arm of the govt. It answers to the govt, its directed by the govt and its managed by the govt, but its not a part of the govt.eklavya wrote:I can't make any sense of your post. The IAF is an arm of the Government of India, contributes to GoI decision making, and implements GoI decisions. The decision to acquire the Rafale has been made by the GoI.
You think its a photo-shop? There are many other such images on the net of the single-seat fighter:JTull wrote:Hmm! Conformal fuel tanks?
I would rather believe the US Government and the USAF chief rather than you. US Government says "major ally". USAF chief says "important ally".Viv S wrote:When I mentioned ally, the reference to an actual ally. Japan, Australia, South Korea etc. The fact that the US is bombing Pakistan says everything about the reality of their 'alliance'. (We won't have been ordering the AH-64E if it couldn't be used against Pakistan.)
If the government pays your salary, you are part of the government. What work you do for the government is a separate issue.Viv S wrote: The IAF is not an arm of the govt. It answers to the govt, its directed by the govt and its managed by the govt, but its not a part of the govt.
By all means, believe the US govt over me. Has the US govt and/or USAF chief ever said that we can't use the P-8I, AH-64, M777 or Javelin against Pakistan?eklavya wrote:I would rather believe the US Government and the USAF chief rather than you. US Government says "major ally". USAF chief says "important ally".
The govt pays civilian contractors also but that doesn't make them a part of the govt. In any case, by convention GoI refers to the Union Govt (which the Indian Armed Forces are not a part of) and not the Indian State as a whole.Viv S wrote:If the government pays your salary, you are part of the government. What work you do for the government is a separate issue.
If the US perceives that its interests may be harmed by Indian actions, the US will use all the leverage they have to persuade India to not take such actions. Had we opted for an MMRCA manufactured by a US company, US leverage over Indian security policy would have increased materially. The perpetrators of 26/11 go unpunished, and the US and its allies have stepped up F-16 deliveries to Pakistan.Viv S wrote:By all means, believe the US govt over me. Has the US govt and/or USAF chief ever said that we can't use the P-8I, AH-64, M777 or Javelin against Pakistan?eklavya wrote:I would rather believe the US Government and the USAF chief rather than you. US Government says "major ally". USAF chief says "important ally".
The govt pays civilian contractors also but that doesn't make them a part of the govt. In any case, by convention GoI refers to the Union Govt (which the Indian Armed Forces are not a part of) and not the Indian State as a whole.eklavya wrote:If the government pays your salary, you are part of the government. What work you do for the government is a separate issue.
Since apparently only the US govt's public statements are 'believable', when did the US govt (and/or USAF chief) ever say that US-origin equipment cannot be used against Pakistan?eklavya wrote:If the US perceives that its interests may be harmed by Indian actions, the US will use all the leverage they have to persuade India to not take such actions. Had we opted for an MMRCA manufactured by a US company, US leverage over Indian security policy would have increased materially.
The US has no obligation to bring the 26/11 perpetrators to book. It has its own issues vis a vis Pakistan (Haqqani group acts 'as a veritable arm' of the ISI - ADM Mullen). The last Block 52+ was delivered in 2012 to the PAF, no earlier than scheduled AFAIK.The perpetrators of 26/11 go unpunished, and the US and its allies have stepped up F-16 deliveries to Pakistan.
Being an 'arm' of the Union Govt is not defined by 'symbolism' or salaries. You've reduced to base semantics now. The issue at hand is what the govt's decision should be with the Rafale having been declared L1 in the MMRCA process, but with the contract value having escalated by over 50%. Assuming the MoD approves it, the contract will be vetted through multiple levels including the MoF and CCS. The govt still very much has the option of scrapping the program.Contractors are not paid a salary by the GoI, so your example is invalid. The armed forces are a part of the Government of India; they fly the Indian flag, they display the Emblem of India on their uniforms, they are paid by the GoI, and they are the most visible symbol of the state on key national occasions like Republic Day.
First comm systems have to do with CISMOA not with the EULA or EUMA. And the need for that is technical (eg. clashing of radio frequencies) and not political.Dhananjay wrote:It was good experience that even for platforms like C-130 and C-17 the US despite its change of heart towards us insisted in EULA and EUMA.
Since IAF refused the radio and communication on hercules had to changed.
Fortunately, the teens are not being compared here. And like it or not, the F-35 beats the pants off the Rafale at a very comparable price.THIS AND THIS ALONE would have given the IAF a solid idea of what it'd be getting into if they were to buy phat panting teens. This is another matter the ef2k and rafale beat the teens hands down on 643 parameters set by IAF.
So bringing up issues of cost, affordability and value-for-money is 'disrespectful to the IAF'? And this when the IAF was clearly never tasked with doing a cost-benefit analysis.Now those 643 parameters are supreme in this deal, through their experience and needs these parameters were created by IAF officers, to keep bringing again and again "ooh the aasm is too expensive while amrikan jdmx will be cheaper.... so to get the benefit of cheaper jd-munitions F-18 / 35 should be bought......" arguments are disrepectful to IAF.
0) Such concerns are legitimateIf the US perceives that its interests may be harmed by Indian actions, the US will use all the leverage they have to persuade India to not take such actions. Had we opted for an MMRCA manufactured by a US company, US leverage over Indian security policy would have increased materially.
But IAF never invited f-35 specifically in MMRCA, while amrikans also offered only teens for MMRCA to be pitted against Rafale and others where the teens lost due to pathetic performance compared to Rafale and others. Why didn't you offer F-35 for MMRCA?Viv S wrote: Fortunately, the teens are not being compared here. And like it or not, the F-35 beats the pants off the Rafale at a very comparable price.
Anyway a question when US had agreed to sell the javeling missile for Army they went back on their word later saying that "only limited number of launchers will be sold to Bharat, otherwise it'll tilt the balance too much...."hnair wrote: Acharayaji, the takleef is this - currently. Khan power is personified by two things amongst World public. Its aircraft carrier sailing ominously over a calm sea and the multi-role fighters that dash off to smote "God's righteous anger". Forget the fact that those 10s of bus-size satellites make it all possible. In fact no lowly tinpot cringes when these satellites silently flit over their heads. But the stock footage of roaring teen fighters and stock footage of a carrier with lots of conveniently parked craft in CNN makes them assume the worst......
So any number of orders for transports is not going to get khan to acknowledge that their wazikashi is blunt. Especially when said by an SDRE warrior with a barely straight face. There is going to be bitterness against India. Bitterness of a kind that would make a paki jihadi or Osamy-mama contemplate apostasy.....
Geez, I cant afford a 2$ meal, but boy am I laughing
http://bit.ly/SMiCU8
Because it wasn't ready when the competition started.Dhananjay wrote:Why didn't you offer F-35 for MMRCA?
The SH still would have been the best choice. Is the Rafale better in technical terms? Perhaps, but it is not better for India. It is so expensive that it doesn't make sense. That money could be better spent in a variety of other areas while the SH would have afforded a quick, affordable, reliable solution to falling squadron numbers.Dhananjay wrote:At that time you and georgewelch were fighting for pathetic teens to be selected.
National defence HAS to be China-centric. Pakistan has a certain nuisance value but as far as conventional warfare goes its an extremely diminished threat.vishvak wrote:Why should Indians fall into box of china centric capability that would come on top of American interests for a given timeframe. And why is pakis not yet declared terrorist country. We have to think a lot about everything.
See the key here is "their nation interests", while amrika has problem with pakistan's national interest threatened. When china-pork nuclear prolifteration happens, US looks the other way and silently provides porks with the delivery platform (f-16). But gets bawaasir at Bharat testing the warheads.NRao wrote:
1) That is true of any nation. Even Israel, Russia, France, etc will pressure India (or any other nation) if it impacts their national interests negatively
I don't know about even both armies, hardly see US excercising with our armed forces anymore, it seems they had some strategic targets to excercise with us which has been fulfilled now they don't want any longer.4) Like it or not there is a synergy between the Services of the two nations. Politically they have more difference today than in the Bush era. We will need to see what happens with Modi - the wait will not be too much. I do not see much changes in the relationship of the Services. MICs? Difficult to say now, but looks more promising than a year ago. Politically? My feel is that they will agree to disagree and move on. On topics where they have gareement they will make great strides
SH couldn't even take off with load from leh, later they reduced all the load to just 2 missiles still it took double the runway of ef2k and Rafale to take off.GeorgeWelch wrote:The SH still would have been the best choice. Is the Rafale better in technical terms? Perhaps, but it is not better for India.Dhananjay wrote:At that time you and georgewelch were fighting for pathetic teens to be selected.
The RFI for the MMRCA was issued in 2004 and the RFP in 2007.Dhananjay wrote:But IAF never invited f-35 specifically in MMRCA, while amrikans also offered only teens for MMRCA to be pitted against Rafale and others where the teens lost due to pathetic performance compared to Rafale and others.
So apparently questioning the cost of a French aircraft makes me an American huh?Why didn't you offer F-35 for MMRCA?
A. Yes I argued that the EF offered the best package (not the teens FYI).At that time you and georgewelch were fighting for pathetic teens to be selected. Then it was rafale vs ef2k so you were batting for ef2k which again lost on cost bases.
Actually the Rafale's price tag and delivery schedule is what's 'sabotaging' the deal.Now suddenly f-35 is being pitched against Rafale. This shows very ugly mentality of US, first they tried to pass of pathetic junk old jets like teens while not sending their latest and best for MMRCA, now when there platforms' inferiority has been proven to the whole world, it is being tried to sabotage the deal by f-35
And that story of 'limiting the sale' was rubbished by the US Defense Secretary who made it clear that there were no restrictions on the Javelin offer -Anyway a question when US had agreed to sell the javeling missile for Army they went back on their word later saying that "only limited number of launchers will be sold to Bharat, otherwise it'll tilt the balance too much...."
There is no downgrading involved for export F-35s (links posted on JSF thread). Nor is feasible for financial reasons.How would americans prevent the balance from tilting in case Rafale is cancelled and 189 jsf are procured, by limiting the sensors? or by limiting number of weapons?
The IAF's more recent statement raises questions on the PAK FA's cost, stealth, ToT and reliability.Philip wrote:The US peddled its '70s tech birds (F-16s and F-18s) as the superfighters of the century,that too after almost every US ally and non-ally like Pak,India's mortal enemy had bought them. When we signed on the FGFA deal with Russia they touted the JSF,which the IAF clearly said it didn't want.
The PAF acquired third hand F-16s from Jordan not the US. For $15 billion (and a threat to bomb them to the stone age), the US got to use Pakistan a base for its operation in Afghanistan. Today, Pakistan's fighting an internal insurgency, its deployment on the IB & LoC is at record lows, and its facing a new threat from the north-west in an India-friendly Afghan state (with 300,000 strong army). I'd say US' actions have worked out quite well for us.It decided to give Pak $15B in aid despite its terror against India and have now decided to increase the numbers of and revamp the Paki F-16 fleet. Why on earth should we simply kowtow to the US and pay for the pleasure of being punished by Pak?
Sanctions aren't an issue because unlike the many Pak-centric voices in our polity the US is aware of the implications and scale of China's rise.Secondly,there is no guarantee that sanctions will not be imposed if there is a future clash with Pak.With Russian and European nations,the chance is less likely,though even with the Europeans,any US eqpt./components will have to be replaced for such a contingency.remember the Sea Kings that could not be maintained/supported.Even with Israeli eqpt.,which generally should be safe from sanctions, there is a small lingering Q mark about what would happen if they were under massive US pressure.
Was the US involved in hiking the Rafale's cost?It is no secret that the US has been doing everything possible to sabotage the Rafale deal.
And reduction in acquisition will simply raise the cost further.lesser Rafales or a modification of the deal (more outright purchases than local production) might be acceptable to the IAF,
None of the IAF's current planes, including the MKI, could meet the RFP.Dhananjay wrote:IAF has been very thorough in creating these 643 parameters for its needs and operational experience. The teens failed in that so they're useless.
