Our thank you to Pakistan

[KRC]

We're providing a nation that India has been at or near a state of war with for damn near forever with attack fighters.  Perception is reality, and India percieves that we're supplying their age-old enemy with the tools with which to threaten them. 

288586[/snapback]

 

...and India has the same ability to buy the stuff that Pakistan is getting since the sanctions have been lifted for them as well. It is nobody's fault but India's.

[/dev/null]

Selling 35 year old technology is not top og the line.  We have 18's, 22's and soon the JSF that are much better than these.

287919[/snapback]

 

FA-18s are almost as *old* as F16s, in fact when the Air Force commissioned the F16 in 70s, the design it beat out was what the Navy/Marines used for the FA-18

 

How many F22s are actually in service and not just test fighters?

 

JSF given the status of the F22, we won't be seing these for awhile either

[VABills]

FA-18s are almost as *old* as F16s, in fact when the Air Force commissioned the F16 in 70s, the design it beat out was what the Navy/Marines used for the FA-18

 

How many F22s are actually in service and not just test fighters?

 

JSF given the status of the F22, we won't be seing these for awhile either

288860[/snapback]

Actually the f16 was bought in 1972, with the test flights and prototypes starting in the late 60's, the FA18 was even given it's first test flight until 1978 and adopted starting in 1981.

 

Also, the Raptors are the main plane for several AF units, and were started to be adopted in limited roles to replace aging 15's. They are not being brought in in leaps and bounds as the JSF will start getting adopted into the services by 2010 with in service testing starting by 2008.

 

And yes the 16's are a much older design still, and on its last legs.

[/dev/null]

Actually the f16 was bought in 1972, with the test flights and prototypes starting in the late 60's, the FA18 was even given it's first test flight until 1978 and adopted starting in 1981.

 

Also, the Raptors are the main plane for several AF units, and were started to be adopted in limited roles to replace aging 15's.  They are not being brought in in leaps and bounds as the JSF will start getting adopted into the services by 2010 with in service testing starting by 2008. 

 

And yes the 16's are a much older design still, and on its last legs.

288864[/snapback]

 

actually no...

 

The F16 program started in the mid 70s with 2 prototypes, XF16 and the XF17. The XF16 won out and the XF17 was the design that became the FA18. The first F16 flew in 1976 and they went into commission in 1979.

 

The FA18, like i said, was first designed along with the F16. The first one flew in 1978 and went into commision in 1983.

 

As far as the F22s, they've been trying to get those into service for 10 years. Gradually they will get a few here and there

 

And the JSF, we'll just have to wait and see. From personal experience with military contracts, a delivery date of 2010 doesn't necessarily mean 2010

 

anyway, just because they're 30 years old, does that make you more comfortable giving them to pakistan? would you be comfortable giving them B52s, a design thats over 50 years old (and still kicking)

[Alaska Darin]

They are expecting 50 here at Elmendorf to replace our F15s.

 

Story

[Campy]

...and India has the same ability to buy the stuff that Pakistan is getting since the sanctions have been lifted for them as well. It is nobody's fault but India's.

288657[/snapback]

Why insist on assigning blame when there really isn't any.

 

All I'm saying is that regardless of whether India can buy them or not, our decision to arm their adversary isn't very popular with them.

 

What you're suggesting is akin to saying that Nation X can sell DPRK 24 ICBMs and the US has no reason to be upset because Nation X offered to sell 24 ICBMs to the US 3 years ago.

[BuckeyeBill]

Bush on vacation, gee wiz, that NEVER happens....

287913[/snapback]

 

He works harder than you do

[KRC]

Why insist on assigning blame when there really isn't any.

 

All I'm saying is that regardless of whether India can buy them or not, our decision to arm their adversary isn't very popular with them. 

 

288988[/snapback]

 

Exactly. Why would India blame the U.S. when they have the ability to arm themselves with the same weapons? If any blame should go around, they need to point it at themselves.

 

We are obviously not going to agree on this, so I will drop it. India could have received these weapons before Pakistan but are only now complaining that they need to play "catch-up" to Pakistan.

 

I will not get into the DPRK example you provided because it is not comparing apples to apples.

[nobody]

...and India has the same ability to buy the stuff that Pakistan is getting since the sanctions have been lifted for them as well. It is nobody's fault but India's.

288657[/snapback]

 

 

Isn't that the usual method the US (and other contries that sell arms) uses - sell an item to someone's enemy which might inspire the other country to purchase as well.

[KRC]

Isn't that the usual method the US (and other contries that sell arms) uses - sell an item to someone's enemy which might inspire the other country to purchase as well.

289094[/snapback]

 

Sometimes, yes. Othertimes, it is a reward for something. Each case needs to be taken on an individual basis. IMHO, I see this as the latter in this particular case.

[TheMadCap]

He works harder than you do

289023[/snapback]

 

Oh.....ok then....

[Campy]

Exactly. Why would India blame the U.S. when they have the ability to arm themselves with the same weapons?

289065[/snapback]

Oh, I don't know.

 

Why do you think that, despite our declaration of neutrality during the first years of WWI, Britain and France were PO'd at the US for selling arms, munitions, and supplies to Germany, who in turn was PO'd at the US for selling arms, munitions and supplies to Britain and France?

 

When you arm a nation's adversaries, that tends to PO that nation. Cuban Missile Crisis anyone?

[Campy]

Bitching about Pakistan getting this stuff, claiming that India is getting shafted, is just ridiculous. That can have the same stuff. It is not Pakistan's fault that India has not purchased the stuff.

288656[/snapback]

I think I found our difference of opinion here. You seem to be under the misguided notion that I "bitched" about Pakistan buying the fighters. Not only did I not "B word" about it, I even posted that I don't believe it was wrong to do.

 

I also never claimed that India was getting "shafted." I only made reference to their reaction - which is somewhat understandable because we are selling arms to their adversary. Should it stop us from selling fighters to Pakistan? I don't believe it should, but at the same time, I understand what the source of India's objections might be.

[KRC]

I think I found our difference of opinion here.  You seem to be under the misguided notion that I "bitched" about Pakistan buying the fighters. Not only did I not "B word" about it, I even posted that I don't believe it was wrong to do. 

 

I also never claimed that India was getting "shafted."  I only made reference to their reaction - which is somewhat understandable because we are selling arms to their adversary.  Should it stop us from selling fighters to Pakistan?  I don't believe it should, but at the same time, I understand what the source of India's objections might be.

289470[/snapback]

 

I never attributed this to you. The "bitching" I was talking about was coming from India. I am sorry if I was not clear enough in my post.

 

Trust me, I see your point. I just do not have much sympathy for them. Again, they could have had this stuff before Pakistan, but chose not to get the stuff.