F-16 deal in doldrums?

Pakistan refuses monkey-version F-16s By Imtiaz Gul
The delay in signing the LoA proves that reports about the operational limitations of the F-16s were spot-on
September 22-28, 2006 - Vol. XVIII, No. 31
The Friday Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The much-anticipated signing of the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) for the F-16 deal between Pakistan and the United States has been deferred following a high-profile briefing the Pakistan Air Force gave General Pervez Musharraf on September 4 in which the president was informed of the absence of vital electronic warfare systems in the aircraft.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has now asked the US Secretary Air Force International Affairs (SAFIA), who is the coordinator and supervisor for the project, to extend the signing until December 31 (the last extension was July 31).

The impending deal on the sale of at least 18 new F-16 fighter aircraft, with the option of another 18 in the future, was expected to spark debate because of the conditions imposed by the US on operating them and the absence of vital electronic capabilities from these platforms.

“So the signing of the deal is off,” says an insider. “Perhaps President Musharraf will try to extract some concessions during his meeting with President Bush. But the entire deal is likely to spark much more debate and change before finalisation.”

According to a June 28, 2006 announcement by the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan of 36 F-16 C/D Block 50/52. The deal’s total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $3 billion, the agency said.

Besides the many avionics and weapons’ systems, the Agency’s list says that the aircraft will be fitted with Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites without Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) or AN/ALQ-184; Electronic Counter Measures pod without DRFM or AN/ALQ-131 Electronic Counter Measures pod without DRFM or AN/ALQ-187; and Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suites without DRFM; or AN/ALQ-178 Self-Protection Electronic Warfare Suites without DRFM.

The agency has announced that it takes note of Pakistan’s “geo-strategic location and partnership in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)” and that the proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping an ally meet its legitimate defence requirements. The aircraft will also be used for close air-support in ongoing operations contributing to GWOT.

These additional comments at the end of the notification underline (also corroborated to TFT by those involved indirectly in the negotiations) that the deal has been premised on Pakistan’s active support in GWOT, for which it is getting about $50 million for maintaining troop deployment in FATA alone. Scores of other supplementals, sources claim, are also flowing in for PAF as well as the army and the navy.

In fact, in a testimony before the House International Relations Committee in July this year, John Hillen, assistant secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs in the State Department, pleaded in favour of Pakistan by alluding to its role in GWOT. However, Hillen also attempted to allay fears – largely of the Democratic Legislators, a number of whom work closely with the Indian lobby inside the United States – by assuring the committee that the conditions attached to the deal would allow Pakistan to use the advanced air defence and assault systems only under given conditions.

“We’ve put it into the deal that they must comply with the approved security plans for their F-16-related bases and facilities before we will release any systems in the sale,” Hillen told the House committee.

More importantly, Hillen underlined that the US will maintain its presence (at bases and facilities where the F-16s will be based) to monitor compliance with the security plan requirements. Access to F-16 aircraft equipment and munitions will be restricted and limited only to Pakistan air force personnel that are pre-approved for such access. Hillen said a security and monitoring plan would give the US access and influence that would enable Washington to be involved in “a leadership position” rather than just “standing by” in case of misuse of the systems or violation of the security and monitoring plan.

Hillen’s responses were aimed at neutralising critical voices of concern within the Committee, particularly those who had pointed out the Dr AQ Khan scandal that rocked Pakistan in 2004. “There is a two-man rule for access to this equipment and restricted areas, and F-16 flights outside of Pakistan…must be approved in advance by the United States government,” Hillen told the Committee, adding that the programme is designed to ensure control of “unauthorised proliferation”.

Another concern that haunts the American administration is China, which is considered an expert in reverse engineering. China has been closely working with Pakistan on the nuclear and defence armaments programmes. Both are currently in the last stages of developing the JF-17 Thunder multi-role fighter aircraft.

“We understand US concerns are largely China-centric,” said one of the key figures related to the F-16 deal. “The history of our relations with China serves as the guide to these apprehensions and the Americans will try anything to preclude the possibility of China benefiting from anything related to F-16s.”

Insiders claim that under the given circumstances – 4000 F-16s of Block 50-52 flying around the world with a large spares back-up available in many countries at considerably much lower prices – the deal is the best thing for the PAF. Also the price per aircraft is about half of what the Eurofighter, or the Rafael (French) or Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripin would cost with limited and very expensive technical and spares back-up options. Longer life and extreme reliability are other factors in favour of the F-16s, which will fly for as long as 25 years and have an even longer engine life.

“But what concerns officials and citizens is that these F-16s will not have EW programming capabilities for their radar warning receiver (RWR). This means that they will have a pre-installed threat library and its RWR will only be able to identify non-NATO aircraft,” explains an expert. “Any NATO aircraft attacking these F-16s using beyond visual range (BVR) capability could take them out easily simply because these F-16s would not know when they would be locked in the sights of the attacking adversary and hence would be unable to take evasive measures.”

These issues have already been highlighted by some press reports and comments. It now seems that these reports were spot-on and the two issues of conditionalities and operational limitations of these aircraft are being taken up at the highest level.