El-comechingón
Fanático del Asado
Para que nos vaya como con la licencia de los TR..?
Rumores y discusión sobre el próximo multirrol que no fue para la FAA
- Tema iniciado Cocker
- Fecha de inicio
Roland55
Colaborador
Siempre se pueden cambiar, pero depende mucho el componente que sea, no es lo mismo cambiar el Radomo del radar, el radar, el asiento o la computadora FBW, cuanto mas complejo, mas nos va a salir, lo vale? lo dudo en el caso del FA-50.
No, para que nos vaya como con el Pampa, con la diferencia que hay otros operadores y tiene mayor capacidad militar
Pero yo hablo de la fuerza aérea de Singapur, no de Malasia. Creo que no estamos hablando los dos de lo mismo
La RSAF es casi un brazo de la USAF en pleno Sudeste Asiatico. Si post Guerra de Vietnam el "gendarme designado" para la región iba a ser Tailandia, Singapur fue desarrollando su estado democratico y como ex Commonwealth forjó sus vinculos con los ANZAC, RU y posteriormente EEUU.
El salto social y económico desde que Malasia los "echó" de su territorio es casi conmovedor.
El salto social y económico desde que Malasia los "echó" de su territorio es casi conmovedor.
Se ha hablado de las restricciones que pone USA para operar F-16 (Pakistan por ej), perfiles de misión, y uso de armamento.
Alguien sabe que tipo de condicionamientos (si los hay) tienen los aparatos y misiles chilenos?
Alguien sabe que tipo de condicionamientos (si los hay) tienen los aparatos y misiles chilenos?
De memoria de los documentos públicos que leí hace unos dos años y que hemos conversado en distintos foros.
Similarmente a otros usuarios de exportación, tu firmas un acuerdo de usuario final donde están los estándares de las instalaciones, lugares de operación, compromiso en seguir los estándares de mantenimiento en apego a la documentación técnica del fabricante (prohibida la modificación sin la aprobación del fabricante), los perfiles de misión autorizados y las situaciones que constituyen violación (atacar a un aliado de EE.UU, agredir a otro país sin justificación legal, violar los derechos humanos). Eso lo firmas de antemano. Si lo violas se investiga posteriormente.
En el armamento avanzado hay un acuerdo en donde aceptas condiciones de almacenaje (ubicación, humedad, temperatura), seguridad y monitoreo en línea, en donde hay visitas inspectivas periódicas de auditoría por parte de personal estadounidense. El país comprador puede sacar cuando necesite la munición del almacen y utilizarla, debiendo luego notificar a la contraparte norteamericana de su uso, fin y disposición final. La idea de esto es que siempre cuadre el numero de municiones del almacen con el registro en línea para evitar que ninguna munición avanzada caiga en manos de terceras potencias como Rusia, China o Iran (esa sería la peor violación a los términos contractuales, pues se prohibe expresamente ceder municiones a terceras potencias)
Una infracción de los términos de uso fue el disparo de AIM-120C5 en territorio de la India por parte de F-16 paquistaníes en 2019 que partieron desde bases no autorizadas previamente para luego disparar sus AMRAAM a distancia BVR contra Su-30MKIs y Mig-21Bisón IAF. La investigación que determinó responsabilidades se hizo en forma posterior a la violación (es decir, el país comprador usa el armamento y luego se ve si fue en regla). Las sanciones a las que se expone un usuario por violar el acuerdo de usuario final pueden llegar incluso al corte total del soporte.
India Shows Proof U.S. Made F-16s And AIM-120 Missiles Were Used By Pakistan In Aerial Brawl
This would mark the first time Pakistan's has used these jets in combat against Indian forces, which could have major repercussions.
www.thedrive.com
Saludos
Llegan inspectores a mirar los almacenes.
Además hay un seguimiento en linea en el almacén, o sea, tienen como verificar si sacas cosas sin notificar.
Tienes que notificar que estas sacando munición viva y justificarlo porque está en el contrato.
Hay algunos que encuentran que son violaciones a la soberanía.
Yo creo que es control de su tecnología, porque no es sólo la base de su negocio I+D sino que si no lo hicieran comprometerían la seguridad de todos los usuarios de exportación y aliados varios.
Son pros y contras que hay que sopesar, estos al menos son transparentes en las condiciones.
Como ven, la confianza que le tengan a tu país (y a su alineamiento geopolítico) determina el acceso a estas municiones avanzadas. Por eso la venta de este tipo de armas son cosas de alta política tanto por el lado del vendedor que expone su tecnología y parte de su seguridad, como del comprador que busca capacidad para defenderse. Si eres un país paria, imprudente, impredecible o poco confiable para el US DoS, el US DoD y el US Congress, la munición avanzada no se te vende.
Saludos
Última edición:
Pero eso te trae un riesgo considerable a futuro... si le das al SDA un uso que a entender del vendedor no está autorizado, corres el riesgo posterior de perder la logística de flota, ergo, si no solucionas ese problema te quedan todos los SDA en tierra y tenes que renovar toda la flota con un SDA de otro origen (algo que en cuanto a inversión debe ser tremendo).
En tal aspecto hay que diferenciar según mi opinión dos aspectos muy diferentes.
Uno es el control del material para evitar el espionaje técnico de otra potencia (lo cual me parece lógico) y eso lo deben hacer todos los vendedores.
Pero otra cosa es el control del uso por cuestiones o posicionamiento geopolítico del vendedor.
En tal sentido, teniendo en cuenta quien sería nuestra principal hipótesis de conflicto, no veo el negocio, pues ya sabemos cuál es el posicionamiento geopolítico del vendedor en caso de un incidente (y de que lado caería la moneda)
Posicionamiento o alineamiento respecto de UK que en SDA de otro origen no se presentaría.
Me parece muy riesgoso, y va de ejemplo la controversia entre India y Pakistán... como ud bien sostiene... ambos países intentan probar el uso indebido o no... me parece un riesgo relevante.
Última edición:
USA sabe que si se usaron F-16 contra la India. Ni los JF-17 ni los Mirage ROSE son capaces de lanzar AIM-120C5.
Además lo sabe porque hay supervisión en linea de los almacenes.
Esto pasó (resumen de la nota de más abajo). Le mandaron una carta al jefe de la Fuerza Aérea de Pakistan donde expresaron preocupación de que las municiones no caigan en manos de un tercero (al final es lo único que realmente les importa), que no las opere fuera de los parámetros aprobados en el contrato de venta (en el caso de ellos, inicia en los 80s diciendo que operan desde dos bases Mushaf y Shahbaz, en misión contraterrorista y no contra otros países -cosas de esa época con algo de desconfianza hacia el país árabe-) y que permita que personal estadounidense (Technical Security Teams) reanude las visitas de auditoría en los almacenes de Pakistan (estos grupos además brindan asesoría para mejorar las vulnerabilidades de seguridad de esas bases donde hay material norteamericano). Es decir, fue una carta diplomática de advertencia: tarjeta amarilla. La carta no fue tan fuerte porque entendieron que fue una operación de defensa por parte de Pakistán, sin embargo repararon en la forma del despliegue va más allá de los términos aprobados. Sólo advertencia de momento.
State Department Reprimanded Pakistan for Misusing F-16s, Document Shows
A State Department letter details American concerns about how Pakistan fielded fighter jets after a skirmish with India over Kashmir.
By Paul D. Shinkman, Senior Writer, National Security Dec. 11, 2019, at 5:54 p.m.
More
AAMIR QURESHI/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
American officials allege the Pakistani air force used U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter jets in ways that violated the terms of the two countries' agreement in early 2019.
A TOP AMERICAN DIPLOMAT sent a written reprimand to the chiefs of the Pakistani air force in August accusing them of misusing U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter jets and jeopardizing their shared security, according to documents obtained by U.S. News.
Pakistan claims it shot down two Indian jets
The communication came months after India claimed one such F-16 shot down one of its fighter jets during a days-long skirmish in February over the contested region of Kashmir, which would amount to a fundamental violation by Pakistan of the terms governing the sale of its U.S. fighter jets and a dangerous form of military escalation among nuclear powers.
A source who viewed the August letter, written by Andrea Thompson, then-undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, says it serves as a direct response to U.S. concerns about the F-16 use over Kashmir in February, though the letter itself does not specifically reference the incident.
Addressed to the head of the Pakistani air force, Air Chief Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan, the letter began by relaying the State Department's confirmation that Pakistan had moved the F-16s and accompanying American-made missiles to unapproved forward operating bases in defiance of its agreement with the U.S. Using diplomatic language, Thompson, who has since left government, warned the Pakistanis that their behavior risked allowing these weapons to fall into the hands of malign actors and "could undermine our shared security platforms and infrastructures."
The letter represents the first admission since February from the U.S. of its concerns about how Pakistan used its fleet of F-16s in stark violation of the original terms of the sale. A State Department spokeswoman said in March that the department acknowledged the Indian reports of Pakistan's misusing the fighters in the February skirmish, adding "we're following that issue very closely."
The State Department declined to respond to questions on the record. An official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the department as a matter of policy does not comment publicly "on the contents of bilateral agreements involving U.S. defense technologies, nor the communications we have about them."
The Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not respond to requests for comment.
Several diplomatic officials and analysts with experience in Pakistan say it is not surprising that Thompson did not expressly mention in the message U.S. concerns about using the F-16s to shoot down the Indian fighter jet. Acknowledging in a formal State Department transmission such a clear violation of the congressionally approved terms for selling the fighter jets to Pakistan would likely have triggered formal procedures to reprimand Islamabad at a time the Trump administration is attempting to repair contentious relations with the ally.
Thompson, a career military intelligence officer who first entered the administration as Vice President Mike Pence's national security adviser, admonished Pakistan in the letter for having "relocated, maintained and operated" the American made F-16s and the AMRAAM missiles they use from forward operating bases not approved under the original terms of the sale. The former Army colonel, who left the White House in September, also expressed concern at the access Pakistani officials allowed American weapons inspectors.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-08-05/factbox-kashmirs-history-indias-revoking-of-special-status-in-context
"While we understand from you that these aircraft movements were done in support of national defense objectives," Thompson wrote in the letter, "the U.S. government considers the relocation of aircraft to non-U.S. government authorized bases concerning and inconsistent with the F-16 Letter of Offer and Acceptance."
"Such actions could subject sensitive U.S.-technologies to diversion to or access by third parties, and could undermine our shared security platforms and infrastructures," Thompson wrote.
A flare-up in military tensions between Pakistan and India began in mid-February, after a Pakistani militant group claimed credit for a suicide bombing in Kashmir that killed 40 Indian security personnel. India has consistently claimed that Pakistan uses militants to destabilize the region, which Pakistan and India have each claimed since they were separated by partition in 1947.
The subsequent tensions escalated as both countries deployed fighter jets, and in one dogfight an Indian plane was shot down. Its pilot landed in Pakistani territory and was imprisoned until his release in March. On Feb. 28, the Indian government presented evidence it says showed Pakistani jets fired AMRAAM missiles at the Indian planes.
The Pakistani armed forces possess 76 American-supplied F-16s – by far the most potent fighter jet in its military arsenal. Pakistan first began receiving the plane in 1982 and maintains them under strict rules imposed by the State Department, the Department of Defense and Congress. Among the rules are that Islamabad may only house the fighters and the corresponding American missiles on two specific air force bases at Mushaf and Shahbaz and that it only uses them for counter-terror operations, not against foreign countries.
The agreement for their sale and subsequent operation, governed in part by the State Department's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, also stipulates that American contractors and mechanics must have access to the jets at any time of day or night both to help maintain them and to monitor how the Pakistani military employs them.
The agency in July – weeks before Thompson's letter – re-approved the terms for these monitors, known as Technical Security Teams, at a cost of $125 million.
"This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by protecting U.S. technology through the continued presence of U.S. personnel that provide 24/7 end-use monitoring," the agency wrote in a statement announcing the renewed contract, which must receive congressional approval.
Those who track aerial combat in the region and the weapons used for it aren't surprised that Pakistan would risk being caught violating its agreement with the U.S. when it regards an issue as hotly contested as Kashmir.
"Given how volatile the situation was, it was important for both sides not to lose face in getting their plane shot down," says Karl Kaltenthaler, a professor at the University of Akron. "It makes sense that Pakistan would do that, but it was at the potential cost of getting called out by the U.S. for using the weapons platform that way. For the Pakistanis, this is how they operate."
In her letter, Thompson raised concerns about American access to the bases and the U.S.-made equipment there. She said it had been four years since Office of Defense Representative–Pakistan – the office that carries out defense cooperation with partner countries – had been allowed to perform an assessment of the security vulnerabilities on the Pakistani bases.
Paul D. Shinkman, Senior Writer, National Security
Paul Shinkman is a national security correspondent. He joined U.S. News & World Report in 2012
Saludos
Todo bien, pero en la nota se dice que "Entre las reglas está que Islamabad solo puede albergar a los cazas y los correspondientes misiles estadounidenses en dos bases específicas de la fuerza aérea en Mushaf y Shahbaz y que solo los usa para operaciones antiterroristas, no contra países extranjeros.". ¿De verdad USA vendió a Paquistán F 16 con misiles con misiles AIM-120 AMRAAM para lucha antiterrorista? Eso es para defensa aérea pura y dura, en el 99% de los casos respecto de acciones de otros estados, como el caso en análisis.USA sabe que si se usaron F-16 contra la India. Ni los JF-17 ni los Mirage ROSE son capaces de lanzar AIM-120C5.
Además lo sabe porque hay supervisión en linea de los almacenes.
Esto pasó (resumen de la nota de más abajo). Le mandaron una carta al jefe de la Fuerza Aérea de Pakistan donde expresaron preocupación de que las municiones no caigan en manos de un tercero (al final es lo único que realmente les importa), que no las opere fuera de los parámetros aprobados en el contrato de venta (en el caso de ellos, inicia en los 80s diciendo que operan desde dos bases Mushaf y Shahbaz, en misión contraterrorista y no contra otros países -cosas de esa época con algo de desconfianza hacia el país árabe-) y que permita que personal estadounidense (Technical Security Teams) reanude las visitas de auditoría en los almacenes de Pakistan (estos grupos además brindan asesoría para mejorar las vulnerabilidades de seguridad de esas bases donde hay material norteamericano). Es decir, fue una carta diplomática de advertencia: tarjeta amarilla. La carta no fue tan fuerte porque entendieron que fue una operación de defensa por parte de Pakistán, sin embargo repararon en la forma del despliegue va más allá de los términos aprobados. Sólo advertencia de momento.
State Department Reprimanded Pakistan for Misusing F-16s, Document Shows
A State Department letter details American concerns about how Pakistan fielded fighter jets after a skirmish with India over Kashmir.
By Paul D. Shinkman, Senior Writer, National Security Dec. 11, 2019, at 5:54 p.m.
More
AAMIR QURESHI/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
American officials allege the Pakistani air force used U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter jets in ways that violated the terms of the two countries' agreement in early 2019.
A TOP AMERICAN DIPLOMAT sent a written reprimand to the chiefs of the Pakistani air force in August accusing them of misusing U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter jets and jeopardizing their shared security, according to documents obtained by U.S. News.
Pakistan claims it shot down two Indian jets
The communication came months after India claimed one such F-16 shot down one of its fighter jets during a days-long skirmish in February over the contested region of Kashmir, which would amount to a fundamental violation by Pakistan of the terms governing the sale of its U.S. fighter jets and a dangerous form of military escalation among nuclear powers.
A source who viewed the August letter, written by Andrea Thompson, then-undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, says it serves as a direct response to U.S. concerns about the F-16 use over Kashmir in February, though the letter itself does not specifically reference the incident.
Addressed to the head of the Pakistani air force, Air Chief Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan, the letter began by relaying the State Department's confirmation that Pakistan had moved the F-16s and accompanying American-made missiles to unapproved forward operating bases in defiance of its agreement with the U.S. Using diplomatic language, Thompson, who has since left government, warned the Pakistanis that their behavior risked allowing these weapons to fall into the hands of malign actors and "could undermine our shared security platforms and infrastructures."
The letter represents the first admission since February from the U.S. of its concerns about how Pakistan used its fleet of F-16s in stark violation of the original terms of the sale. A State Department spokeswoman said in March that the department acknowledged the Indian reports of Pakistan's misusing the fighters in the February skirmish, adding "we're following that issue very closely."
The State Department declined to respond to questions on the record. An official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the department as a matter of policy does not comment publicly "on the contents of bilateral agreements involving U.S. defense technologies, nor the communications we have about them."
The Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not respond to requests for comment.
Several diplomatic officials and analysts with experience in Pakistan say it is not surprising that Thompson did not expressly mention in the message U.S. concerns about using the F-16s to shoot down the Indian fighter jet. Acknowledging in a formal State Department transmission such a clear violation of the congressionally approved terms for selling the fighter jets to Pakistan would likely have triggered formal procedures to reprimand Islamabad at a time the Trump administration is attempting to repair contentious relations with the ally.
Thompson, a career military intelligence officer who first entered the administration as Vice President Mike Pence's national security adviser, admonished Pakistan in the letter for having "relocated, maintained and operated" the American made F-16s and the AMRAAM missiles they use from forward operating bases not approved under the original terms of the sale. The former Army colonel, who left the White House in September, also expressed concern at the access Pakistani officials allowed American weapons inspectors.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...-indias-revoking-of-special-status-in-context
"While we understand from you that these aircraft movements were done in support of national defense objectives," Thompson wrote in the letter, "the U.S. government considers the relocation of aircraft to non-U.S. government authorized bases concerning and inconsistent with the F-16 Letter of Offer and Acceptance."
"Such actions could subject sensitive U.S.-technologies to diversion to or access by third parties, and could undermine our shared security platforms and infrastructures," Thompson wrote.
A flare-up in military tensions between Pakistan and India began in mid-February, after a Pakistani militant group claimed credit for a suicide bombing in Kashmir that killed 40 Indian security personnel. India has consistently claimed that Pakistan uses militants to destabilize the region, which Pakistan and India have each claimed since they were separated by partition in 1947.
The subsequent tensions escalated as both countries deployed fighter jets, and in one dogfight an Indian plane was shot down. Its pilot landed in Pakistani territory and was imprisoned until his release in March. On Feb. 28, the Indian government presented evidence it says showed Pakistani jets fired AMRAAM missiles at the Indian planes.
The Pakistani armed forces possess 76 American-supplied F-16s – by far the most potent fighter jet in its military arsenal. Pakistan first began receiving the plane in 1982 and maintains them under strict rules imposed by the State Department, the Department of Defense and Congress. Among the rules are that Islamabad may only house the fighters and the corresponding American missiles on two specific air force bases at Mushaf and Shahbaz and that it only uses them for counter-terror operations, not against foreign countries.
The agreement for their sale and subsequent operation, governed in part by the State Department's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, also stipulates that American contractors and mechanics must have access to the jets at any time of day or night both to help maintain them and to monitor how the Pakistani military employs them.
The agency in July – weeks before Thompson's letter – re-approved the terms for these monitors, known as Technical Security Teams, at a cost of $125 million.
"This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by protecting U.S. technology through the continued presence of U.S. personnel that provide 24/7 end-use monitoring," the agency wrote in a statement announcing the renewed contract, which must receive congressional approval.
Those who track aerial combat in the region and the weapons used for it aren't surprised that Pakistan would risk being caught violating its agreement with the U.S. when it regards an issue as hotly contested as Kashmir.
"Given how volatile the situation was, it was important for both sides not to lose face in getting their plane shot down," says Karl Kaltenthaler, a professor at the University of Akron. "It makes sense that Pakistan would do that, but it was at the potential cost of getting called out by the U.S. for using the weapons platform that way. For the Pakistanis, this is how they operate."
In her letter, Thompson raised concerns about American access to the bases and the U.S.-made equipment there. She said it had been four years since Office of Defense Representative–Pakistan – the office that carries out defense cooperation with partner countries – had been allowed to perform an assessment of the security vulnerabilities on the Pakistani bases.
Paul D. Shinkman, Senior Writer, National Security
Paul Shinkman is a national security correspondent. He joined U.S. News & World Report in 2012
Saludos
Concuerdo. Y ni siquiera haría falta un conflicto bélico.
Supongamos que tenemos un gob. que decide que nuestra soberanía merece una FFAA equipada. Se compran F-16 (entre otras cosas muy necesarias)
Mejor no tener ni una sola escaramuza con los coloniales (sin llegar a disparar, solo hostigamiento. Una patrulla que sobrevuele nuestras embarcaciones, por ej, requeriría que se salga a interceptarlas)
Seriamos tildados como "agresores" inmediatamente. Con la muy alta probabilidad de que nos dejen todo el SDA en tierra definitivamente.
Vale el riesgo, con tal de operar material made in USA?
El error que comenten muchos de los repetidores seriales.
Hay que olvidarse de UK como principal hipótesis de conflicto.
Primero, porque para que nosotros podamos estar a su altura hay un tramo largo por recorrer, que difícilmente se de.
Y segundo, si se entra en conflicto con ellos, todos te dejan los SA en tierra, sean rusos, chinos, franceses o marcianos.
Todos te embargan en caso de conflicto armado con uno de los 5 grandes.
Interesante hipótesis, pero ¿por qué harían algo así los rusos o chinos? Slds!
Plata, intereses, conveniencia. Lo mismo de siempre.
Bueno, por plata si estas en época de guerra, o sea necesidad, es claro que todo el mundo te ajusta los tornillos, sean armas, alimentos, etc. En cuanto a intereses y conveniencia, me parece que esos dos países estarían mucho mas interesados en ver sus equipos en acción contra su enemigo natural, no parece lógico que sea su interés o conveniencia dejar los SA en tierra, salvo que se me escape algún acuerdo entre ellos o detalle en común que eventualmente pudiera perjudicarlos
Temas similares
- Cerrado
