US Agrees to Supply Pakistan’s F-16s with Maintenance Equipment

In September, the U.S. State Department approved the sale of F-16 aircraft sustainment equipment to Pakistan. The deal, valued at $450 million, will cover aircraft and engine hardware and software adjustments, repair and return parts, and other support services.

Explaining the decision, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said that the sustainment program will support Pakistan’s counterterrorism operations and capabilities. Price also mentioned that the United States expects Pakistan to take sustained actions against all terrorist groups.

The development is a major diplomatic win for Pakistan for many reasons. For years, the Pakistani military has called on the U.S. to not only upgrade the country’s F-16 fleet but also offer necessary maintenance support at reasonable costs to keep it functional. Currently, Pakistan’s air force doesn’t have the technical capacity to maintain F-16 on its own and remains dependent on U.S. support. Pakistan has long argued that the F-16s are vital for the country’s operations against militants in tribal areas along the Afghan border.

However, the U.S. has maintained that the Pakistan Army doesn’t need F-16s to fight militants in the tribal areas. Washington suspects Islamabad may use the fighter jets in a conflict against India, Pakistan’s arch rival. It is pertinent to mention here that India lobbied hard to block the agreement.

The timing of the development is particularly interesting. The announcement of the F-16 support program comes amid a growing perception that ties between Pakistan and the U.S. are fundamentally strained due to former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s criticism of the Biden administration and the Pakistani military’s reluctance to fulfill Washington’s counterterrorism requirements in Afghanistan.

Experts say that the deal offers additional evidence that Pakistan-U.S. counterterrorism cooperation has resumed but caution that the agreement will not change anything fundamental as far as the trajectory of the bilateral relationship is concerned.

Marvin Weinbaum, director of Afghanistan and Pakistan studies at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told The Diplomat that the departure of the Khan government could be one factor for the revival of the relationship, as the broadening of ties may not have been possible under the previous government. “The deal represents an upgrade in military-to-military ties between the two countries,” he said. At the same time, Weinbaum suspects the deal is linked to the U.S. desire to strengthen intelligence sharing for its counterterrorism efforts in the region.

Dr. Claude Rakisits, a senior strategic analyst and associate professor at the Australian National University, observed that despite Khan’s repeated accusations that the Biden administration was behind his ouster earlier this year, the “bilateral relationship can still go forward.” He said that this is because of Pakistan’s importance in a “geostrategically important region of the world.”

“The U.S. could not afford to put the bilateral relationship on hold,” he said. However, Rakisits cautioned that in return for this deal, the United States may have been authorized to use Pakistani airspace to deploy drones against terrorists hiding in Afghanistan.

James Schwemlein, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told The Diplomat that the foreign military sale is not a sign that either Pakistan or the U.S. is seeking to develop an ambitious, broad-based relationship. “Rather, both the U.S. and Pakistan acknowledge that it is in their respective national self-interests to maintain constructive relations.”

Schwemlein said he would recommend a minimalist interpretation of the U.S. decision to sustain Pakistan’s F-16s. “For the U.S., this transaction is about responding to a longstanding request from the Pakistan Army and ensuring that the F-16s remains airworthy and functional,” he added.

Analysts say that the development is also an indication that the both Pakistan and the U.S. do not want the rift to deepen. Discussing Pakistan’s interests to maintain a working relationship with the U.S., Rakistis said the current civilian government would want to sustain the relationship. “Pakistan needs the U.S. on its side on several fronts, particularly in the short-term for flood relief and getting off FATF’s gray list,” he said.

Explaining the U.S. view, Schwemlein said: “Alongside the F-16 sustainment decision, the robust U.S. distribution of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to Pakistan, continuation of U.S. scholarship programs to Pakistani students, and the still growing program of support for critical flood recovery and reconstruction efforts are all signs that the U.S. does not want a deeper rupture in U.S.-Pakistan relations.”

For obvious reasons, India was expected to disapprove any Pakistan-U.S. deal, as it has in the past. But the U.S. decision to offer support for Pakistan’s F-16 program will not have any impact on India-U.S. ties.

Rakistis said that given New Delhi’s position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, “India can hardly make too much noise.”

Schwemlein rebuffed the significance of the deal for India-U.S. ties, saying that it shows “confidence in the resiliency, and increasing ambition” of their bilateral relationship. “The ambitious trajectory of U.S.-India relations contrasts with the more pragmatic and modest trajectory of U.S.-Pakistan relations,” he added.

Marvin said it was quite natural for New Delhi to express dissatisfaction over the issue, but “U.S.-India relations are now too far-reaching to be threatened” by Pakistan. “It’s hard for India to complain too greatly in light of its Russian military dependency,” he emphasized.