Sunday, October 19, 2014

India's Israel Envy: What If Modi Attacks Pakistan?

Newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi government's rhetoric about "jaw-breaking" (munh tod) policy toward Pakistan is the latest manifestation of a disease described by Indian diplomat Sashi Tharoor as "India's Israel envy".

India's Israel Envy:

India's Israel envy is reinforced by the Hindu Nationalists over-estimating their country's strength while under-estimating Pakistan's. It's aided by India's western allies' belief that Pakistan can not fight a conventional war with india and its only option to defend itself would be to quickly escalate the conflict into a full scale nuclear war.

Indian MP Mani Shankar Aiyar has summed up India's war rhetoric against Pakistan in a recent Op Ed as follows:

(Indian Defense Minister) Arun Jaitley thumps his chest and proclaims that we have given the Pakis a "jaw-breaking reply" (munh tod jawab). Oh yeah? The Pakistanis are still there - with their jaw quite intact and a nuclear arsenal nestling in their pockets. (Indian Home Minister) Rajnath Singh adds that the Pakis had best understand that "a new era has dawned". How? Is retaliatory fire a BJP innovation? Or is it that we have we ceased being peace-loving and become a war-mongering nation? And (Indian Prime Minister Narendra) Modi thunders that his guns will do the talking (boli nahin, goli). Yes - and for how long?

India's Delusions:

Indians, particularly Hindu Nationalists, have become victims of their own hype as illustrated by Times of India's US correspondent who checked into the veracity of claimed achievements of Indians in America and found such claims to be highly exaggerated: "On Monday, the Indian government itself consecrated the oft-circulated fiction as fact in Parliament, possibly laying itself open to a breach of privilege. By relaying to Rajya Sabha members (as reported in The Times of India) a host of unsubstantiated and inflated figures about Indian professionals in US, the government also made a laughing stock of itself." The Times of India's Chidanand Rajghatta ended up debunking all of the inflated claims about the number of Indian physicians, NASA scientists and Microsoft engineers in America.

Similarly, a US GAO investigation found that India's IT exports to the United States are exaggerated by as much as 20 times. The biggest source of discrepancy that GAO found had to do with India including temporary workers' salaries in the United States. India continuously and cumulatively adds all the earnings of its migrants to US in its software exports. If 50,000 Indians migrate on H1B visas each year, and they each earn $50,000 a year, that's a $2.5 billion addition to their exports each year. Cumulatively over 10 years, this would be $25 billion in exports year after year and growing.

Since the end of the Cold War, the West has been hyping  India's  economic growth to persuade the developing world that democracy and capitalism offer a superior alternative to rapid development through state guided capitalism under an authoritarian regime---a system that has worked well in Asia for countries like the Asian Tigers and China.  This has further fooled Hindu Nationalists into accepting such hype as real. It ignores the basic fact that India is home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry and illiterates. It also discounts the reality that  Indian kids rank near the bottom on international assessment tests like PISA and TIMSS due to the poor quality of education they receive.  The hype has emboldened many Indians, including the BJP leadership, to push neighbors around.

Defense Spending as Percentage of GDP Source: World Indicators

Pakistan's Response:

Pakistan has so far not responded to the Indian rhetoric in kind. It might create an impression that Pakistan is weak and unable to respond to such threats with its conventional force. So let's examine the reality.

Ground War:

In the event of a ground war, Pakistan will most likely follow its "offensive defense" doctrine with its two strike corps pushing deep inside Indian territory. Though Indian military has significant numerical advantage, Pakistan's armor is as strong, if not stronger, than the Indian armor.

Before embarking on further offensive, gains shall be consolidated.  Pakistan is also as strong, if not stronger, in terms of ballistic and cruise missiles inventory and capability, putting all of India within its range.  These missiles are capable of carrying conventional and nuclear warheads.

India-Pakistan Firepower Comparison Source:

In 1990 the Central Corps of Reserves was created to fight in the desert sectors, where enemy land offensives are expected. These dual capable formations trained for offensive and holding actions are fully mechanized. The Pakistan Army has ten Corps including the newly formed Strategic Corps. The Army has twenty-six divisions (eight less than India). Two more divisions were raised as Corps reserves for V and XXXI Corps. The Army has two armored divisions, and ten independent armored brigades. Presently one hundred thousand troops are stationed on the Pak-Afghan border to fight terror.

The Special Service Group – SSG - comprises two airborne Brigades, i.e. six battalions. Pakistan Army has 360 helicopters, over two thousand heavy guns, and 3000 APC’s. Its main anti-tank weapons are Tow, Tow Mk II, Bakter Shiken and FGM 148 ATGM. The Army Air Defense Command has S.A- 7 Grail, General Dynamics FIM-92 Stinger, GD FIM Red Eye, and ANZA Mk-I, Mk-II, Mk-III and HQ 2 B surface to air missiles. Radar controlled Oerlikon is the standard Ack Ack weapon system.

The ballistic missile inventory of the Army is substantial. It comprises intermediate range Ghauri III and Shaheen III; medium range Ghauri I and II and Shaheen II, and short range tactical Hatf I- B, Abdali, Ghaznavi, Nasr, Shaheen I and M -11 missiles. All the ballistic missiles can carry nuclear warheads....some can carry multiple warheads. Nuclear and conventional weapon capable Babur Cruise missile is the new addition to Pakistan’s strategic weapon inventory.  It has stealth features to evade radar to penetrate India's air air-space to hit targets. The number of ballistic missiles and warheads are almost the same as those of India. So there is a parity in nuclear weapons, which is a deterrent.

Tactical missile which can be tipped with miniaturized nuclear warhead is the latest addition to Pakistan's arsenal. It's a battlefield weapon designed to destroy enemy troop concentrations poised against Pakistan.

Air War:

Pakistan has about 900 aircraft compared to India's 1800, giving India 2:1 numerical advantage over Pakistan. India's biggest advantage is in transport aircraft (700 vs 230) while Pakistan has some numerical advantage in two areas: Airborne radars (9 vs 3) and attack helicopters (48 vs 20).

Pakistan Air Force has  over 100 upgraded F-16s and 200 rebuilt Mirage- 3's (for night air defense) and Mirage-5's for the strike role. They can carry nuclear weapons. They have been upgraded with new weapon systems, radars, and avionics. Additionally, the PAF 150 F-7's including 55 latest F-7 PG’s. Manufacture of 150 JF 17 Thunder fighters (jointly designed) is underway at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra. The JF-17 Thunder is a 4th generation fly by wire multi-role fighter aircraft. Eight are already in PAF service. An order has been placed with China for the purchase of 36 JF-10, a Mach 2.3 -5th generation multi-role fighter, comparable in performance to the Su-30 Mk-1 with the Indian Air Force.

In spite of Indian Air Force's numerical superiority since independence in 1947, Pakistan Air Force has performed well against it in several wars. The PAF pilots have always been among the best trained in the world.

Complimenting the Pakistan Air Force pilots, the legendary US Air Force pilot Chuck Yeager who broke the sound barrier, wrote in his biography "The Right Stuff": "This Air Force (the PAF), is second to none". He continued: "The  (1971) air war lasted two weeks and the Pakistanis scored a three-to-one kill ratio, knocking out 102 Russian-made Indian jets and losing thirty-four airplanes of their own. I'm certain about the figures because I went out several times a day in a chopper and counted the wrecks below." "They were really good, aggressive dogfighters and proficient in gunnery and air combat tactics. I was damned impressed. Those guys just lived and breathed flying. "

 In 1965, Roy Meloni of the ABC reported: "Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources."

Indian Media Cann't Stop Praising Pakistan Air... by zemtv

Naval War:

Of the three branches of the military, India's advantage over Pakistan is the greatest in naval strength. Pakistan has just 84 sea-going vessels of various kinds versus India's 184.

Pakistan Navy can still inflict substantial damage on the Indian Navy. The Indian Navy has 17 submarines. Pakistan Navy has ten, some are brand new and equipped with AIP. Indian Navy has 28 war ships, Pakistan Navy has eleven.

As seen in the past wars, India will attempt a naval blockade of Pakistan. Here's how MIT's Christopher Clary discusses in his doctoral thesis the Indian Navy's ability to repeat a blockade of Pakistan again:

"Most analyses do not account adequately for how difficult it would be for the (Indian) navy to have a substantial impact in a short period of time. Establishing even a partial blockade takes time, and it takes even more time for that blockade to cause shortages on land that are noticeable. As the British strategist Julian Corbett noted in 1911, "it is almost impossible that a war can be decided by naval action alone. Unaided, naval pressure can only work by a process of exhaustion. Its effects must always be slow…. ". Meanwhile, over the last decade, Pakistan has increased its ability to resist a blockade. In addition to the main commercial port of Karachi, Pakistan has opened up new ports further west in Ormara and Gwadar and built road infrastructure to distribute goods from those ports to Pakistan's heartland. To close off these ports to neutral shipping could prove particularly difficult since Gwadar and the edge of Pakistani waters are very close to the Gulf of Oman, host to the international shipping lanes for vessels exiting the Persian Gulf. A loose blockade far from shore would minimize risks from Pakistan's land-based countermeasures but also increase risks of creating a political incident with neutral vessels."


The chances of India prevailing over Pakistan in a conventional war now are very remote at best. Any advantage that India seeks over Pakistan would require it to pay a very heavy price in terms of massive destruction of India's industry, economy and infrastructure that would set India back many decades.

In the event that the India-Pakistan war spirals out of control and escalates into a full-scale nuclear confrontation, the entire region, including China, would suffer irreparable damage. Even a limited nuclear exchange would devastate food production around the world, according to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, as reported in the media. It would set off a global famine that could kill two billion people and effectively end human civilization as we know it.

I hope that better sense will prevail in New Delhi and India's BJP government will desists from any military adventurism against Pakistan. The consequences of any miscalculation by Narendra Modi will be horrible, not just for both the countries, but the entire humanity.

Here's a video discussion on this and other current topics:

India-Pakistan Tensions; End of TUQ Dharna; Honors for Malala; Ebola Threat from WBT TV on Vimeo.

Here's an interview of former President Musharraf on an Indian TV channel:

Parvez Musharraf blasts Modi in an Indian Talk... by zemtvRelated Links:

Haq's Musings

India Teaching Young Students Akhand Bharat 

Pakistan Army at the Gates of Delhi

India's War Myths

India-Pakistan Military Balance

Pakistan Army Capabilities

Modi's Pakistan Policy

India's Israel Envy

Can India Do a Lebanon in Pakistan?


Vishal said...

Yes, I agree with you Mr. Haq --- consequences of a full-blown war would be disastrous. But we have known that for decades and yet wars have happened.

India would not like any terrorist activity originating from (state or non-state) actors from Pakistan. The emerging view point in India is that if peace overtures don't work, associate a high cost for any militant misadventure and force Pakistan to think about the cost. Rockets-for-bullets is a policy that arises from that perspective. Can that escalate into a major war? Perhaps. And yes, it would have a high cost.

But then, what is the other option? Unless Pakistan has a single power center, or perhaps, a military dictator like Musharraf, I don't think there are many chances of solving the border issue. The way things are progressing in Pakistan, I would not rule out military again coming to power. And yes, that would be the single best thing to happen to both India and Pakistan and peace in that region.

Riaz Haq said...

Vishal: "India would not like any terrorist activity originating from (state or non-state) actors from Pakistan"

There's currently no basis for your claim. It appears to be an excuse by Modi to rally his Hindu Nationalists base.

The last know terrorist attack in India linked to Pakistani group was in 2008.

Pakistan's support for Kashmiri militants ended in 2002.

But, even if your claims are true, think of what you'd achieve by launching war against Pakistan?

I suggest you read the following excerpt from a Mani Shankar Op Ed for an answer:

When a young band of Serbian terrorists slipped into Bosnia to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Government of Serbia did not know, even as it is entirely likely that the Government of Pakistan did not know that Ajmal Kasab and his gang had slipped into Mumbai to target the iconic Taj Hotel. But, as in India, so in Austria, the suspicion was so strong that there were rogue elements in the Serbian establishment that were backing the terrorists, no proof was needed: suspicion amounted to conviction. Therefore, when the Serbian terrorists struck, assassinating the heir-apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, the Empire needed no conclusive proof that the Serbian government was behind the assassination. It knew, as India "knew", that 26/11 was master-minded by the Government of Pakistan. And even as the Pakistan government denied any involvement in such cross-border terrorism and undertook to set in train an investigation into the dastardly terrorist attack, so also, a hundred years earlier, did Serbia condemn the assassination and offer to investigate and bring to justice those responsible.

But Vienna would not be appeased. An eight-point ultimatum was sent to Serbia demanding full acceptance of the eight conditions within a month. Eventually, after much hemming and hawing, Belgrade accepted seven of the conditions but baulked at the eighth - that a joint Austrian-Serbian investigation be launched into the assassination. That was enough for Vienna to insist that if all conditions were not fulfilled, the far more powerful Austro-Hungarian forces would reduce Serbia to rubble in a matter of days.

The threat was meant to cow the Serbians. The Serbians went as far as they could, but baulked at abject surrender. In consequence, military plans began to roll - to the alarm of both Emperor Franz Joseph of Austro-Hungary as well as the German Kaiser whose belligerence was pushing Vienna further and further down the road to disaster. Their political misgivings were entirely understandable. For Russia had declared that any military action against her Slav cousin would invite Russian retaliation against both Austria and Germany. At the same time, Germany had made it clear that her first target was France. Treaty obligations made it incumbent for France to come to Russia's rescue and vice versa in the event of war. Britain was committed to entering the war in these circumstances. The very balance of power that was supposed to have kept the peace in Europe for a hundred years was now pushing the world to the brink.

To prevent this catastrophe, the two Emperors who had been the loudest in proclaiming a "munh thod jawab" to Serbia tried at the last moment to stop the guns from booming, but were over-ruled by their respective military hierarchies. War was launched. The mighty Austro-Hungarian Empire conquered Serbia but ended up losing the War and disappearing from the map of the world. Germany won the opening rounds but ended in humiliating defeat. Defeat on the battle-field led to the Peace Treaty but contained the seeds of resentment that resulted in WWII breaking out 20 years later. It did not end till nearly a hundred million people - mostly unarmed non-combatant civilians - had been killed the world over. That was the outcome of Vienna saying "Boli nahin, goli".

Vishal said...

Mr Riaz: "Pakistan's support for Kashmiri militants ended in 2002."

Well mostly, but not completely. The tacit support still continues. Every year more than 50-60 militants try to sneak in Kashmir before the snow falls. At the peak of militancy this number was in thousands. Interestingly, almost always the infiltration attempts are accompanied by cover fire by Pakistan army. Many of these attempts have been well-documented.

Also, since you cite Mr. Mani Shankar Iyer, he has been a known critic of Mr. Modi (Mr Iyer lost badly in recent elections) and has been critical of anything and everything BJP government has done. While I was never a big fan of Mr. Modi, I think Mr. Iyer's rants have been opposed by even his part members.

Also, while Serbia-Austria example is interesting, it is not quite relevant. Yes, they went to war but that was in the bigger microcosm of WW2, where Austria had aligned with German block that was about to lose against the allied powers. That war theatre is missing in the context of India-Pakistan. But again, I will agree that wars are disastrous and serve no good. But that does not mean you allow infiltration across your borders.

Hashk03 said...

Vishal: "But again, I will agree that wars are disastrous and serve no good. But that does not mean you allow infiltration across your borders."

Does this principle of ethics only apply on Pakistani infiltration on Indian land or does the same principal also apply on Indian infiltration across its borders, e.g. Sri Lanka and other countries.

Would you allow Indian infiltration and support for groups in other countries?

In case of India and Pakistan I can understand that both countries by birth had some issues so they are fighting or trying to defend themselves. But I am struggling to understand why would India support terrorists in Sri Lanka? Any view's on that?

Riaz Haq said...

From India Today: India, Pakistan Army chiefs square off:

The army chiefs of India and Pakistan squared off on the Kashmir issue on Saturday, with General Dalbir Singh directing his commanders to put "relentless pressure" on terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir and his Pakistan counterpart, General Raheel Sharif, reiterating Islamabad's push for Kashmiris to be given the right to self-determination.

During his address at the culmination of the Army Commanders Conference, a key brainstorming session of the top generals, Indian Army chief Gen. Singh referred to the internal security situation and "stressed on the need to maintain relentless pressure on the terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir".

This is necessary so that the terrorists "are not capable of disrupting the forthcoming elections", Singh was quoted as saying in an official statement.

Gen. Sharif, who was addressing a passing-out parade at the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul, raked up the Kashmir issue and pushed Islamabad's line that Kashmiris should have the right to self-determination and said his force would give a "befitting response" to any "aggression".

"Lasting peace in the region will only come about with the fair and just resolution of the Kashmir issue in accordance with the will of Kashmiri people as enshrined in the UN resolutions," he said.

"Coercion and repression of the Kashmiri people will never shake their confidence to ultimately exercise their freedom of choice promised by the international community. It is our firm belief that the determination of our Kashmiri brethren and collective conscience of free world will bear fruit and their aspirations will eventually be realised," he claimed.

The general, whose remarks echoed recent comments by Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and foreign policy chief Sartaj Aziz, said the Pakistan Army is fully capable of "deterring and defeating aggression across the entire spectrum of threat".

"Yet, we persistently seek peace in the region and beyond... We desire regional stability and a relationship based on equality and mutual respect. Sentiments of goodwill and amity notwithstanding, let there be no doubt that any aggression against our beloved country will get a befitting response and no sacrifice will be too great in this sacred cause," he said.

Read more at:

Vishal said...

>> Does this principle of ethics only apply on Pakistani infiltration on Indian land or does the same principal also apply on Indian infiltration across its borders, e.g. Sri Lanka and other countries.

Hask03: Correct. From August 1983 to May 1987, India, through its intelligence agency RAW, provided arms, training and monetary support to 6 Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups including LTTE.

That was indeed a big blunder and they realized that over the next 2 decades through harsh consequences. Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, was assasinated in a bomb blast by the LTTE. Regional war in Srilanka forced hundreds of thousands of refugees in Tamilnadu and brought instability in southern India. It was only after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination that India withdrew its support to LTTE. Karma did pay them back for that blunder.

Mark said...

War is rarely started unless one country is in a clear strategic advantage. China had an advantage over India in 62 - India's intelligence and leadership was in a total mess, India/Bangladesh had an advantage over Pakistan in 71 - not going to start why to avoid getting trolled. India did not force an offensive during Kargil or after terrorist attacks because it did not have an advantage.

A war of attrition will be long drawn, drain the economy, cause several million deaths and if won, will lead to maintaining a territory that hates them - and also total isolation from international community. There is more to be gained from trade and commerce than enslaving mass populations. Thankfully, most nations are sane enough to realize this after 5000 years of warfare.

Ramesh said...

India's top 3 companies are listed in American Stock exchanges and each have a turnover of 5 billion USDollars. It is hard to imagine that their real income is 1/20th of that and american law enforcement are busy reading quran while this fraud by Hindu banias continue.

While we are at it, can you name one single Pak IT company which has an annual turnover of $250 million dollars.

As for war, please try to remember Dec 16 1971. The anniversary is coming soon.


Riaz Haq said...

Ramesh: "India's top 3 companies are listed in American Stock exchanges and each have a turnover of 5 billion USDollars. It is hard to imagine that their real income is 1/20th of that.."

Do you what a code coolie in a body shop? Have you heard about Ron Hira? D you know how Indian govt mislabels code coolie earnings as IT exports?

Have you heard about Satyam fraud?

Ramesh: "As for war, please try to remember Dec 16 1971. The anniversary is coming soon."

Living in 1971 and trying to replicate it now would spell doom for India.

Ramesh said...

The link you are showing to prove indian IT industry cooking books is Oct 2005, nearly a decade old. Since then I have not heard of one Indian single company in USA booked for earnings fraud.

Riaz Haq said...

Ramesh: "you are showing to prove indian IT industry cooking books is Oct 2005, nearly a decade old. Since then I have not heard of one Indian single company in USA booked for earnings fraud"

The problem of Indian govt counting H1B worker salaries year-after-year as exports still persists.

If there was any correction, it would have been reflected in revisions showing significantly lower IT exports.

Indian body shop companies operating in US can count H1B salaries as earnings but Indian govt should not count them as exports.

Hemashri said...

Let me burst your bubble sir. India has it's problems but, the general consensus regarding Pakistan, in the world today, is much more negative than compared to

And here you are, a Pakistani blogger, trying to be hypercritical of India or appease the Pakistanis who may visit your site. There is simply very little credibility sir!

Riaz Haq said...

Hemashri: "Let me burst your bubble sir. India has it's problems but, the general consensus regarding Pakistan, in the world today, is much more negative than compared to India."

Nothwithstanding any negative consensus on Pakistan and western cheerleading of India, the fact is that there are few countries in the world as messed up as India with its widespread poverty, hunger, illiteracy, disease and open defecation.

In fact, India has more poor people than all of Africa combined. India's social indicators are like those of the most backward nations of sub-Saharan Africa.

India has more and fiercer insurgencies than any other country in the world.

India is a poster child for why democracy does not work in the developing world to solve basic problems of the people.

And if you are still deluded enough to start a war with Pakistan, you are in for the shock of your life.

Riaz Haq said...

Eradicating poverty in India requires every person having access to safe drinking water, sanitation, housing, nutrition, health and education. According to the MPI, out of its 1.2 billion-plus population, India is home to over 340 million destitute people and is the second poorest country in South Asia after war-torn Afghanistan. Some 640 million poor people live in India(40% of the world’s poor), mostly in rural areas, meaning an individual is deprived in one-third or more of the ten indicators mentioned above (malnutrition, child deaths, defecating in the open).

In South Asia, Afghanistan has the highest level of destitution at 38%. This is followed by India at 28.5%. Bangladesh and Pakistan have much lower levels. The study placed Afghanistan as the poorest country in South Asia, followed by India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal.

A total of 1.6 billion people are living in multidimensional poverty; more than 30% of the people living in the 108 countries analysed (compare that with a global figure of 1.2 billion in income poverty)
Of these 1.6 billion people, 52% live in South Asia, and 29% in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most MPI poor people – 71% – live in Middle Income Countries (I won’t try and compare this with regional income breakdowns, as the MPI doesn’t cover all countries yet)

Riaz Haq said...

BBC: Modi with Indian troops in Kashmir:

Indian PM Narendra Modi has made a brief visit to the Siachen glacier on his way to Indian-administered Kashmir to spend the Diwali festival looking at damage caused by last month's floods.

The glacier, claimed by both India and Pakistan, is known as the world's highest battlefield.

Mr Modi tweeted he was going to Siachen to "spend time with our brave soldiers on this special day".

He is the the second PM after Manmohan Singh to visit the contested site.

Mr Singh visited the glacier in June 2005 and had said it should become a "peace mountain" between India and Pakistan.

More soldiers have died from the harsh weather conditions in Siachen than in combat. Soldiers have been deployed at heights of up to 22,000 ft (6,700m) above sea level on the glacier.

Indian troops snatched control of the glacier in northern Kashmir in April 1984, narrowly beating Pakistan. Three decades later, the two sides remain locked in a stand-off.

Mr Modi will later travel to Kashmir where floods last month killed 281 people and left Srinagar city under water. More than a million people were displaced. He had called the deluge a "national disaster".

'Share our grief'
September's flooding damaged some 180,000 houses and many people are still living in relief camps.

Mr Modi is expected to review relief measures, visit a camp for flood victims and announce special assistance for the affected.

His visit is taking place on Diwali, the biggest Hindu festival, and is being seen as a gesture of solidarity and assistance to the flood hit people.

He tweeted on Monday that he would spend his Diwali with "our brothers and sisters affected by the unfortunate floods" in Srinagar.

Riaz Haq said...

Pankaj Mishra in Nw York Times:

"Mr. Modi doesn’t seem to know that India’s reputation as a “golden bird” flourished during the long centuries when it was allegedly enslaved by Muslims. A range of esteemed scholars — from Sheldon Pollock to Jonardon Ganeri — have demonstrated beyond doubt that this period before British rule witnessed some of the greatest achievements in Indian philosophy, literature, music, painting and architecture. The psychic wounds Mr. Naipaul noticed among semi-Westernized upper-caste Hindus actually date to the Indian elite’s humiliating encounter with the geopolitical and cultural dominance first of Europe and then of America."

Riaz Haq said...

It has been evident for some time that India’s security policy in relation to China and Pakistan is in a serious state of disrepair. If security concerns of a country in the international sphere are deemed to be a sub-set of its external relations, then it is reasonably clear that our policy towards two of our most significant neighbours, one of which aspires to the status of an international superpower, leaves much to be desired.
More, things have got worse, not better, since the Modi regime was ushered in last May on a high note and with the loud proclamation that the incoming government was oriented to fix troubles with neighbours and launch into a period of peace and stability.
The unspoken part was that matters had worsened in the previous 10 years of the Congress-led government, that dialogue was sterile or absent in this time, and the prosecution of foreign affairs had lost steam; ergo, a fresh look by the new leader, made powerful by virtue of a full-fledged parliamentary majority, would yield India its rightful place and command respect from all, especially the neighbours.
On Friday, however, Union home minister Rajnath Singh, addressing the ITBP on its raising day, observed that it made India “hurt and angry” when Pakistan engaged in ceasefire violations and China intruded and made territorial claims on the Indian side. Clearly, a new era is not about to dawn.
That was apparent when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was engaging with visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping seated on a swing in Ahmedabad but Chinese troops were rolling into Indian territory. Now the home minister says we should solve all problems on the basis of talks alone, but inserts the rider that good relations can only be on the basis of “honour”.
Who can dispute that? But how come the government has not been able to establish where matters lie now and how they can be taken forward? Is the PM keeping all this close to his chest while the home minister labours in a state of innocence?
In the context of Pakistan, the Prime Minister announced that India had “shut Pakistan’s mouth”. Not particularly elegant coinage. But it is not even consistent with facts on the ground. Ceasefire violations have gone on intermittently and took place even on Diwali day. Meanwhile, the Pakistan Parliament has declared India the violator and urged the UN to step in. Is there a comprehensive effort to look at the overall picture and act? National security adviser Ajit Doval has reiterated the talks mantra but also spoke of India’s search for a “deterrence” to deal with Pakistan’s ceasefire violations. We are in the dark if there is a nuclear ring about this. The country must be taken into confidence.

Riaz Haq said...

India has grounded its entire Sukhoi-30 fleet after a recent crash because it doesn’t want to put its pilots in harm’s way.

The fighters have not flown for a week after a Su-30 MKI of the Indian Air Force crashed near Pune, raising questions about the safety record of the fighter.

With the IAF operating close to 200 twin-engine Su-30s, the grounded planes represent almost a third of the country’s fighter fleet. India is due to get 72 more of these planes, each worth over Rs. 200 crore.

The IAF is down to 34 combat squadrons, as against an authorised strength of 44. Each squadron has up to 18 fighter planes.
Villagers gather near an Indian Air Force Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter jet that crashed near Pune on October 14. (PTI Photo)

An IAF official said safety checks with “special focus on ejection seats” were being conducted and flight operations would resume only after each plane was cleared. A highly-placed source said the pilots of the plane that crashed on October 14 near Pune had reported “automatic seat ejection.” One of the two pilots was involved in a previous Su-30 crash too.

Five Su-30 fighters have crashed during the last five years, setting off alarm bells in the IAF. The Su-30 fleet has been grounded at least twice in the past.

Former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Major told HT, “A fleet is grounded when you have no clue as to what brought the plane down. It’s serious.”

Asked if buying Su-30s was a doubtful choice, Major said the planes were splendid but IAF needed to get to the bottom of the problem. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited assembles and repairs these planes in India.

IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha had told reporters on October 4 that the Su-30 fleet was facing certain problems, but he refused to elaborate. The IAF’s Su-30 fleet has faced a high number of mid-air engine failures during the last two years, said another official.

Riaz Haq said...

Although the results of such exercises (Red Flag in Las Vegas, NV) are rarely made public, the USAF jumped the gun. Just as it leaked the results of Cope India 2004, in November 2008 a video surfaced of a US Air Force officer talking in a generally condescending manner about the IAF. In particular five things that Col Terence Fornof said stick out:

The IAF has problems with its Russian jet engines
Indian pilots were prone to fratricide – shooting down friendly aircraft
The IAF required 60-second intervals between takeoffs, compared with half that for other air forces
The American F-15 can defeat the Su-30MKI, the most advanced fighter in the Su-30 series
IAF not keen on 1 vs 1 dogfights with the USAF.

Riaz Haq said...

From Indian Express:

Pakistan will launch a campaign internationally against the human rights “violations” by the Indian army in Kashmir, the country’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs said on Friday.
Giving a statement in the Senate, the Upper House of the Parliament, on the recent incidents of ceasefire violations, Sartaj Aziz said, “700,000 Indian troops are responsible for human rights violations in occupied Kashmir and Pakistan will launch a campaign to highlight these abuses at the international level.”
Radio Pakistan quoted the adviser as saying that the violations were a reflection of the “election manifesto” of Narendra Modi, who he claimed had said that his government would “get tough” on Pakistan.
Aziz has said that India carried out 224 ceasefire violations on the Line of Control (LoC) and Working Boundary this year and their intensity has been more than the previous violations.
He also said that Pakistan always tried to resolve the issue through dialogue but there was no positive response from the Indian side.

- See more at:

Scorcher said...

Modi will attack, he has to, he has painted himself into a corner, just like Pakistan has done to itself, war is necessary and an inevitability.
Modi will never get re-elected if he does not declare war on Pakistan, we know we are going to have a war, the dust clouds will make this winter a global very long one. 

Riaz Haq said...

Scorcher: "Modi will attack, he has to, he has painted himself into a corner, just like Pakistan has done to itself, war is necessary and an inevitability.
Modi will never get re-elected if he does not declare war on Pakistan, we know we are going to have a war, the dust clouds will make this winter a global very long one"

If Modi is foolish enough to attack Pakistan, India will suffer a humiliating defeat with its crappy Arjun tanks overheating and junk Su-30s flown by Indian pilots prone to fratricide. So Modi and his fellow Hindu Nationalists face a bleak future either way.

Majumdar said...

Prof Riazul Haq sb,

I am surprised you dont like ModiGee at all. He is the "democratic" version of the authoritarian Asian leader that you crave for.


Anonymous said...

He is the "democratic" version of the authoritarian Asian leader that you crave for.

eggjactly.Basically Modi is India's Musharaf.He has absolute power inside BJP having sidelined the old guard.

The important difference which IMHO will make him much more effective:

1.India is starting from a MUCH HIGHER base than Musharaff did in 1999.(Tata alone generates more annual revenue than Pakistan's entire industrial output.There are many others RIL,AV Birla Group,L&T etc etc)

2. India's internal savings rate is >30% of 2 trillion USD GDP so a LOT more internal funds to play with.

3.HE has a united large support base.

4.He has extensive administrative experience as a 3 time Gujarat CM so the execution part of plans would be better.

Atri said...

India will never attack anyone unless it's attacked first. Right now we are trying to develop our nation in all sectors and any kind of large scale war will damage the economy. Modi is a very shrewed leader , he will not make any stupid move. Fire/Shell exchange in border is small thing but it will not led to serious war unless Pakistan attacks us in full force. Pakistan is now a failed state only because of their stupid leaders who blindly supported Uncle Sam and relied on them and fed the terrorists , now look where it got them after 68 years of Independance , a GDP lower than our Maharastra state, army dictated puppet govt. and poverty. India did increase it's defence but at the same time other sectors were not ignored which is why we are developing fast and made it to the 3rd largest economy , a global market. War is bad and India will try to stay out of it , unless you try to set foot on our land

Riaz Haq said...

Atri: "Atri: "Right now we are trying to develop our nation in all sectors and any kind of large scale war will damage the economy. Modi is a very shrewed leader , he will not make any stupid move."

Modi is using war rhetoric (boli naheen goli) to get out of a major bind he's in.

His Hindu Nationalists won't be satisfied and won't vote for him if he does not follow through on his rhetoric.

If he does attack Pakistan, India will be humiliated and its economy and industry devastated and he will lose the next election.

India's crappy overheating Arjun tanks and junk Su30MK1s (grounded for the umpteenth time) flown by fratricidal Indian pilots (as described by Americans at Red Flag Las Vegas) are enough to guarantee India's humiliating defeat by Pakistan with its superior armor and fighter jets.

He's put himself in a no-win situation.

GSLV said...

Indian Navy has aircraft carriers. Indian Navy will destroy Pak Navy and blockade Pakistan

Riaz Haq said...

GSLV: "Indian Navy has aircraft carriers. Indian Navy will destroy Pak Navy and blockade Pakistan"

What good is an aircraft carrier with no aircraft on it?

India does not have any fighter jets capable of flying missions from an aircraft carrier.

It will be sunk by Pak subs just as INS Khukri was sunk by PNS Hangor in 1971.

Anonymous said...

'What good is an aircraft carrier with no aircraft on it?

India does not have any fighter jets capable of flying missions from an aircraft carrier'


India has Mig 29 Ks which fly from INS Vikramaditya. 30 are carried by INS Vikramaditya.

India's aircraft carrier does't go around alone waiting to be sunk it like all ac carriers has a 10-15 ship+2-4 submarine battle group surrounding it.

Hopewins said...

^^RH on Oct 20:"Living in 1971 and trying to replicate it now would spell doom for India."

^^RH on Oct 26: "It will be sunk by Pak subs just as INS Khukri was sunk by PNS Hangor in 1971."

Please try to be consistent. Either you 'live in 1971' or you move on. Pick one and stick with it.

Riaz Haq said...

HW: "Please try to be consistent. Either you 'live in 1971' or you move on. Pick one and stick with it."

So in your view, a sub sinking a ship is the same as one country invading and occupying another country? Is that what you mean?

Riaz Haq said...

Excerpt From Op Ed by David Karl in The Diplomat: "3 Reasons Modi is Misguided on Pakistan"

In August, New Delhi abruptly cancelled foreign secretary-level talks on the grounds that the Pakistani ambassador had continued with the longstanding practice of meeting with Kashmiri separatists. This reaction may have been right in principle. But in practical terms, it amounted to a demand that Pakistan – which draws much of its national identity from the Kashmir conflict – make a significant diplomatic concession without receiving anything of importance in return. This was certainly no deal that any civilian government in Islamabad could accept as the price for merely beginning a conversation with Modi’s team, much less one that was then embroiled in a deep political crisis at home and uncertain of the military leadership’s allegiances.
Indeed, the Indian government is in danger of becoming captive to its hawkish rhetoric. Defense Minister Jaitley emphasizes that “Of course we can talk to Pakistan, but it is up to Pakistan to create an atmosphere for talks.” Given the turmoil inside Pakistan, it will be difficult to start any sort of meaningful dialogue with Islamabad as long as that condition is strictly insisted upon.

A third problem is even more fundamental. Mr. Modi appears to believe he can revitalize India’s great-power prospects without the trouble of reaching a basic accommodation with Pakistan. Yet New Delhi’s continuous ructions with Islamabad have constantly proven vexatious to its larger ambitions. They sap precious national resources (including the armed forces) and divert the attention of those leaders who prefer to look to larger arenas. They also create a paradox: India yearns for a place in the first ranks of world power and yet cannot establish much sway over its own neighbors. Despite the common civilizational and historical links that permeate South Asia, New Delhi has been unable to integrate the region in the same way that Beijing has economically stitched together the much more culturally diverse and geographically disperse East Asian area.

Ignoring Pakistan may well score short-term political points at home but it is a poor strategy for the longer-term items on Mr. Modi’s agenda.

Crafting the right blend of deterrence credibility and substantive engagement with rival states is a hard task for any government. But so far, the Modi government seems fixated one objective while paying little heed to the other.

Riaz Haq said...

The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for GRC43M Cutters and associated equipment parts training and logistical support for an estimated cost of 350 million.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale this week with a statement stressing that the sale will help improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia.

Pakistan has requested the purchase of 8, 43 meter Global Response Cutters (GRC43M).

Each Cutter will be a mono hull design made of Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP). Also included in this sale outfitted 8, 25mm or 30mm Naval Gun Systems 32 M2 HB .50 caliber machine guns 32, 7.62mm guns 8, 8 meter Rigid Inflatable Boats ballistic armor protection of critical spaces command and control equipment, communication equipment, navigation equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training U.S. government and contractor engineering technical and logistics support services and other related elements of logistics and program support.

The total estimated cost is 350 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia the DSCA said in a statement.

This sale will enhance Pakistan’s ability to enforce the rule of law over its coastal areas to safeguard seaborne energy corridors deter the outbreak of piracy along the north Arabian Sea and curtail the trafficking of narcotics and other illicit goods.

These vessels provide the Pakistan Navy with the capability for medium to long endurance coverage of its 660 miles of coastline.

Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing GRC43M Cutters into its armed forces.

This sale will not alter the basic military balance in the region, the DSCA said. (APP)

Irfan said...

In the naval department, Pakistan can do the sensible thing that the Russians have done, and quite exceptionally. Instead of trying to match India, ship for ship, they should invest in missile technology, given the resource crunch. Missiles-particularly sea skimming cruise missiles, have remained under-rated so far, but they can spring a surprise in any naval engagement, and turn out to be game changers. Missiles are the weapons of choice in future wars, in the recent American-Iranian showdown in the Hormuz, US had to pretty much back out to the Iranian response.

Anonymous said...

As u say sir two different types of fighter jets (sukhoi 30 MKI is air superiority fighter with Multirole fighter aircraft ) is comparing lion with cat. and also our two aircraft carrier equipped fighters like upgraded su 29, sea harrier ,sea king is able to destroy Pakistan main airports and harbor. so compare to navy their no match to Indian navy. in air force again 2:1 favor to India and also advanced fighters. so compare army again pakistan playing proxy war with india why ?
because they not directly face indian army as fighting replaythey face in all war they know what kind of power IA having so they create militant and send to india to fight. so why this happening because MODI fever in high over world (even china) so pakistan is fear to go in war against india and lose all they made so they having only two way to go one go to UN (US) and make some noise or China (but china is having good trade relation with india in MODI vist they do not want to lose it ).so finaly MODI IS MODI they made us all indian proud. as pakistan thought they can play war with india again is war is not that he play in history pakistan want pay big big so big ammount to this ware so.shut ur mouth and make progress towards terrorist free pakistan.

Riaz Haq said...

The annual APEC summit is underway in Beijing. Perhaps the most notable absentee is India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who received an unprecedented invitation in July from Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend the gathering. Despite growing to become the world’s third largest economy in PPP terms, India is not a member of APEC, and as a result would not normally attend the summit. But this year President Xi used his platform as the summit host to extend invitations to non-members India, Pakistan, and Mongolia. While Pakistan and Mongolia’s leaders made the trip to Beijing for APEC, Prime Minister Modi decided not to do so. It’s a missed opportunity for India’s economic diplomacy at a time it could use a boost.

Riaz Haq said...

61% in #Pakistan view #India negatively. #SaudiArabia, #China viewed positively by 71%, 58%

India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads for over half-a-century now, resulting in four wars, countless skirmishes, tenuous negotiations, occasional displays of trust and everything in between.

Despite the endless cycle of aggression and finger-pointing, there has been a fascinating change in how the average Pakistani has come to view India. Compared to 30-odd years ago, few Pakistani’s expect India to use a nuclear weapon—and more want the vexed Kashmir issue revolved without conflict.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan is in the process of retrofitting its 50 Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 fighters to an improved Block II configuration.

The new configuration features improved avionics and better software, and adds a fixed air-to-air refuelling probe, says Air Cdre Khalid Mahmood, chief executive of JF-17 sales and marketing.

Mahmood spoke to Flightglobal at the Pakistan booth at Airshow China in Zhuhai. He was part of a 20-strong delegation from Pakistan, which also brought a single JF-17 to appear in the static display
Pakistan brought large contingents to the 2010 and 2012 shows, which included three JF-17s, transport aircraft and the nation’s display team. Mahmood scotched speculation that the pared-down presence reflects any change in Pakistan/China relations.He says the two countries still have an excellent working relationship, and notes that Pakistan sent a squadron of 18 JF-17s to a recent air combat exercise in western China.

Given the small size of the combat fighter, a fixed refuelling probe was found to be preferable to a retracting one. Pakistan uses the Ilyushin Il-78 to provide air-to-air refuelling for its fleet.

In December, Pakistan will begin taking delivery of 50 JF-17s configured in the Block II configuration. Beyond this, its air force has options to take its fleet of the type up to 150 or 200 aircraft. Additional improvements are foreseen in a planned Block III upgrade.

Mahmood adds that the air force is satisfied with the fighter's Klimov RD-93 engine. The powerplant can currently be operated for up to 800 flight hours between overhauls, but there is an effort under way to improve this.Mahmood reveals that the type has seen combat in western Pakistan, where it has employed both guided and unguided munitions.

Riaz Haq said...

Russia to sell Mi-35 helicopters to Pakistan

ISLAMABAD - Russia will trade Mi-35 helicopters with Pakistan to strengthen its counterterrorism efforts. Talking to the State-run radio, Ambassador of the Russian Federation Alexey Dedov said the deal between Pakistan and Russia will help combat terrorism.
He said politically the deal has been approved, however, further negotiations on details of political-commercial contract are in progress.
The Ambassador also said that Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoygu will soon visit Islamabad and his agenda of talks with Pakistani counterparts also includes the sale of defence equipments to Pakistan.
Regarding Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Alexey Dedov said Russia is actively involved in the process of accession of Pakistan to the organisation as a full member. He hoped that at next Summit meeting, scheduled to take place in July next year in Russia, full member status will be awarded to Pakistan.
He said that documentary work in this regard has already been completed.
He said Russia intends to resolve Afghan conflict during its Chairmanship of SCO.
He expressed the hope to succeed in bringing sustainable peace in the region through concerted and collaborative efforts of Afghanistan and the countries of the region. Russia and Pakistan are already engaged on the matter and fruitful meetings have taken place recently in this regard, he said.
He said besides terrorism, drug trafficking which stems from Afghanistan is also an area of concern. Ambassador Dedov said Russia fully supports Chinese plan of developing Silk Route, which also includes China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
He said that Russia is interested in various energy related projects including CASA-1000, development of Gwadar Liquefying Facility and construction of pipeline between Gwadar and Nawabshah.
The Russian Ambassador said Pak-Russia Intergovernmental Commission's meeting is scheduled to take place in Moscow on 26th of this month, which will give new impetus to our bilateral economic cooperation.
He said bilateral trade volume of the two countries does not coincide with the actual potential and plenty of room exists which needs to be tapped.
He said a Russian Parliamentary delegation is also ready to participate in Asian Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Lahore.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haq,

You are missing the point here. India may be testing the nuclear threshold of Pakistan. Its politically far too costly for any political party to idly sit by while Mumbai like terrorist operations are orchestrated. Any Government of the day has to be seen doing something about....Congress party did a bad job, had no strategic bearings.

My guess is Modi government wants to test how far the nuclear threshold that Pakistan so often threatens to unleash can stretch. Without knowing the limits of this threshold Modi government may not be able to manoeuvre a short but punitive action against Pakistani non-state / state sponsored actors. BJP not reacting to terror strikes will cost it politically. Also I think the strategy is to make terror ventures unsustainable.

If Modi succeeds it will lead to peace but tenuous at best. I call it tenuous because, settling Kashmir means - giving up territory, thats what Pakistan wants change in status-quo, which no Indian government can ever do.


Riaz Haq said...

Russia and Pakistan on Thursday signed their very first military cooperation agreement and laid out future avenues of cooperation, ending years of division over Islamabad's close military ties with the U.S. and Moscow's with India.

Sergei Shoigu, the first Russian defense minister to visit Pakistan since 1969, characterized his meeting with counterpart Khawaja Asif as an important step in strengthening ties between Moscow and Islamabad.

"During the meeting we agreed that bilateral military cooperation should take on a more practical orientation and enhance the combat capability of our armed forces," news agency TASS quoted Shoigu as saying after the meeting.

Although the concrete terms of the agreement are not publicly known, Shoigu said joint naval exercises will be a key feature of future cooperation with Pakistan, as well as military officer exchanges, arms sales and counternarcotics and counterterrorism cooperation.

Behind the scenes, Shoigu may have been negotiating an important sale of Mi-35 transport helicopters to Pakistan, Yury Barmin, an expert on Russian arms sales, told The Moscow Times.

Russia approved the delivery of 20 Mi-35s to Pakistan in November, but the details still have to be negotiated, "which is probably one of the reasons why Shoigu is traveling to Pakistan a week after this informal approval was issued by Moscow," Barmin said.

But more important than specific defense contracts are Russia's growing strategic interests in the region, driven by security concerns shared with Pakistan — such as instability in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of U.S. troops and counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.

Nonetheless, Moscow will play it safe to ensure that its moves do not anger India, Russia's main strategic partner in the region, said Pyotr Topychkanov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

Regional Interests
India last year purchased $3.8 billion worth of Russian arms — far ahead of the $981 million worth it purchased from the U.S., according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Last year Russia's recorded exports to Pakistan were much more limited, valued at a mere $22 million, according to SIPRI. The total sum is somewhat higher than this, as Russia also sells arms to Pakistan through China.

Shared security interests are also drawing Pakistan and Russia closer together, as evidenced by Shoigu's announcement that joint military exercises and security cooperation will become a routine feature of their bilateral relationship.

"The main purpose of these exercises is to share experience in counterterrorism, counternarcotics and anti-piracy," Topychkanov said.

According to Barmin, the key concern driving Moscow to court Islamabad is the alarming flow of narcotics out of Afghanistan.

"Forty percent of Afghan drugs travel by sea, and a lot of it ends up in Russian ports," Barmin said.

Also at play is Pakistan and India's possible ascension next year to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an economic and military organization comprising Russia, China and several other Central Asian states.

"In the run-up to the SCO's summit in Ufa in July 2015, Russia will be courting the two countries … and will avoid doing controversial things, such as active defense cooperation with Islamabad," Barmin said.

Riaz Haq said...

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has received into service 'a squadron' of Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter aircraft from the Royal Jordanian Air Force (RJAF), a senior PAF service official disclosed on 19 November.

Speaking under the Chatham House Rule at the IQPC Fighter Conference in London, the officer said that the F-16A/B fighters had recently arrived in Pakistan, and will be used to augment the PAF's existing F-16 fleet, which is heavily involved in counterinsurgency operations along the country's border area with Afghanistan.

"Recently a squadron of used F-16A/Bs have been procured from Jordan to take some of the load off our other F-16s, which are undertaking numerous tasks in the 'law enforcement' operations. The F-16s are supporting our ongoing law enforcement efforts on our western border. We are not using [attack] helicopters, but are using F-16s to stop the terrorists," he said.

The purchase of surplus RJAF F-16s was first mooted in February, with deliveries commencing in April. At that time, a PAF official confirmed to IHS Jane's that it was to receive 12 F-16A and 1 F-16B Block 15 aircraft to increase the size of its fast jet fleet. Although designated Block 15s, all of these aircraft have undergone mid-life upgrades, although details have not been released.

IHS Jane's understands that these former Jordanian aircraft have been assigned to 19 Squadron at PAF base Mushaf (Sarghoda).

When the deal for the surplus Jordanian aircraft was disclosed earlier in the year, the PAF stated that it had also approached at least two other countries for additional F-16s. The status of these discussions is unclear.

Prior to the Jordanian deal, the PAF fielded 12 F-16C and 6 F-16D Block 50/52 jets, and between 45 and 50 F-16A/B aircraft. These earlier aircraft have now all been upgraded to Block 52 standard by Turkish Aerospace Industries in Ankara.

nishant said...

I have seen many of your posts on India and it seems you think India is land of beggars and can be a pushover for Pakistan ,I really pity your commonsense after knowing that you are highly educated person

Unknown said...

The way you describe it looks to me that you are afraid of India and you are the main policy maker in Pakistan establishment the reality is Pakistan is beggar country with no self-respect with no farsightedness. US has already raped your country and now you are getting used to it that is way you are now letting china rape you too. Boosting about weapons will not make you strong country your people will die hunger one day as you do not have anything other left your leaders are jokes of the world your army general is nothing but a beggar with bowl in his hand in front of America if you are so powerful why are you running to China and America and other big countries. We do not produce anything which we should be in owe

Unknown said...

Pakistan is nothing the reality is Pakistan is 8th most dangerous country in the world and exporter of terrorism in the world no tourist comes to Pakistan no body in the world likes Pakistan. No country wants to invest in Pakistan barring
China for its own strategic benefit no good for Pakistan. India is emerging power Our IIT & IIM are the best in the world. Our AIIMS in Delhi the best medial college. In our country no body talks about Army and Army generals as it is done in Pakistan. Pakistan Army is such a worthless thing which has already destroyed Pakistan by its wrong policy it is the biggest terrorist organization in the world

Riaz Haq said...


Nuclear weapons and the debate over the necessity for such weapons have persisted for several years. As opinions against nuclear weapons increase, so too do more and more countries yearn to possess these weapons and demonstrate their power. This means that we have to discover those benefits which are of such significance that a country prefers to divert a huge portion of its finances from public sector to become a nuclear capable state.

The rational for Pakistan to develop a nuclear weapon was so that the country could have the self-reliance to ensure its security. After the hefty losses in the wars of 1948 and 1965, and the debacle of 1971, Pakistani leadership understood that none of the great powers were going to support Pakistan in times of crisis against any Indian aggression. Therefore self-reliance was the crucial idea of Pakistan’s policy makers to make sure that only Pakistan should be responsible for defending their country against any Indian offensive. In this regard, we must understand that being a nuclear power is crucial for Pakistan’s survival and sovereignty. Preserving and improving national security is vital to the national interest, and expenses from the state budget in support of this objective are permissible.

For a country like Pakistan, having nuclear weapons means that it has the ultimate strategic defense. Wars are bad for the economy and nuclear deterrence is a best tool to avoid wars. A short conventional war between India and Pakistan would cost Islamabad U.S. $ 350 million per day. Now one can easily estimate the economic deprivation if Pakistan had to face another 1971 debacle without having any nuclear weapons. In contrast, to conventional warfare, nuclear deterrence has made wars between nuclear states rationally non-viable.

In this regard, the possession of nuclear weapons serves not only military and political purposes, but also economic functions. The acquisition of nuclear weapons appears to be associated with the long-term decline in conventional military spending. This is acutely accurate in the case of Pakistan. Pakistan’s conventional military expenditure has been constantly on decline since the nuclear tests. Military expenditure (% of GDP) in Pakistan was measured at 5.3 % in 1998, according to the World Bank. In 2012 that expenditure was 3.13 %. This is a clear instance where nuclear capability served as a major cause to diminish military expenditure in Pakistan.

Riaz Haq said...

This test means the Hatf/Vengeance VIII Ra'ad (Thunder) has now been officially tested five times since 2007. It is generally comparable to the Anglo/French Storm Shadow or US AGM-158 joint air-to-surface standoff missile, but exact specifications are not available.

Analyst, author and former Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail said, "The test firing was a typical combo of a technical upgrade timed with political signaling, something that both India and Pakistan have turned into an art form."

Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer in the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, who specializes in Pakistan's nuclear program and its delivery systems, said the test was not in answer to India's test-firing of its Agni V intermediate range ballistic missile.

The Agni V was test fired on Saturday.

"I am not sure if this is a tit-for-tat response," he said. "The fact that it is a 350 kilometer vs. a 5,000-8,000 kilometer test reflects Pakistan's emphasis on credible minimum deterrence with only an India-centric posture, while India is clearly moving far beyond the requirements of a minimum deterrent driven by global power projection ambitions."

Instead, he believes the test was part of ongoing efforts on "improving the effectiveness and validating the enhanced operational parameters of existing delivery systems that comprise the country's nascent triad."

He added, "Ra'ad and the land and sea versions of the Babur cruise missiles offer diversification in targeting options, greater operational and deployable flexibility and increase the overall survivability of its deterrent force."

He says the two cruise missiles are especially important for Pakistan's nascent "posture of full spectrum deterrence with added emphasis on counter-value targeting to offset India's strategic and conventional force modernization," which are integral aspects of India's "emerging proactive operations strategy."

Ra'ad is claimed to be operational, but is such a critical weapon it is still somewhat cloaked in secrecy.

Ahmed, however, said Ra'ad may have "finally matured as an operational and deployable system," but "this might also be a batch test coupled with the possible completion/accomplishment of required miniaturization of suitable warheads for this system. Hence this test."

He believes that aside from technical improvements, the timing is significant in terms of its non-conventional strike capabilities.

"Range remains the same; the only thing that might have improved is accuracy, guidance and control parameters, etc. Also this test comes at a time when plutonium production for miniaturized warheads is meeting the operational requirements, with the commissioning of the fourth production reactor at Khushab," he said.

Despite being described as a conventional and non-conventional weapon, analysts like Tufail are unconvinced Ra'ad can effectively be employed by Pakistan in the conventional role.

"Platforms like the Ra'ad have limited use as conventional weapons launching platforms, because a payload of 450-kilograms [at best] can do little harm unless launched in a shower of a few score, something that would be outrageously costly," he said.

"Glide bombs are an economical choice for stand-off delivery of conventional weapons," he added.

Indeed, Pakistan does seem to have made further steps in this regard and showcased the latest of its glide bombs, the Global Industrial Defence Solutions' 'Takbir', at December's IDEAS2014 defense exhibition.

The Ra'ad has been tested on the Mirage III strike aircraft, but it is unknown if it has been integrated onto Pakistan's F-16s.

Tufail said it is more likely the JF-17 will be the next delivery platform.

Riaz Haq said...

India’s air force risks a major capability gap opening up with China and Pakistan without new western warplanes or if local defence contractors can’t produce what the military needs in a timely manner.
A 2012 agreement to buy 126 Rafale fighters from France’s Dassault Aviation has stalled due to a dispute over the assembly of the aircraft in India. India’s first homegrown fighter, the Tejas light combat aircraft, will finally be delivered next month, 30 years after it was conceived.
But senior air force officers privately said they were unimpressed, with one former officer, an ex-fighter pilot, saying the plane was “so late it is obsolete”.
While India’s navy is undergoing an accelerated modernisation drive, experts said India was vulnerable in the skies because of its reliance on a disparate fleet of ageing Russian-made MiG and French Mirage fighters, along with more modern Russian Sukhoi Su-30s. But half of India’s fighters are due to retire beginning this year until 2024.
“It could lead to humiliation at the hands of our neighbours,” AK Sachdev, a retired air force officer, wrote last year in the Indian Defence Review journal. A coordinated attack by China and arch-rival Pakistan could stretch the Indian military, he added.
It’s a scenario defence strategists in New Delhi have been asked to plan for, Indian air force sources say, although experts say such an event is highly unlikely to happen, primarily due to nuclear weapons owned by all three.
India’s ties with China, though warm in recent times, are still hamstrung by a dispute over their Himalayan border that led to war in 1962. New Delhi is also wary of China’s expanding naval presence in the Indian Ocean and its close relations with Pakistan.
Multiple crashes
India’s air force has 34 operational squadrons, down from 39 earlier this decade and below the government approved strength of 42, a parliamentary committee said in December. In 2012, the then defence minister had said that more than half of India’s MiG fighters had crashed and burned.
In this time, however, China has managed to project its military power, by exponentially ramping up its defence budget and boosting production capability in all areas, particularly aerial. It is flying locally built fourth-generation J-10 fighters and is testing two fifth-generation stealth fighter jets.
On the Western front, Pakistan is upgrading its Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters as well as using JF-17 warplanes developed with China. To replace and upgrade its fleet of ageing Mirages and F-7Ps, Pakistan is also in talks with China to buy J-10s.
But India still maintains an edge over Pakistan – the sheer size of its air force. But the slow modernisation means victory would come with heavy casualties, said Richard Aboulafia, Washington DC-based vice president of analysis at the Teal Group, an aerospace and defence think tank.
So far, India has bought more Su-30s and upgrading other existing fighters to keep itself in the game. Though keeping up may soon be no longer enough.
“We do need to increase our defence preparedness,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the opening ceremony of the Aero India airshow in the city of Bengaluru on Wednesday.
Tejas criticism unfounded
K Tamilmani, a senior official at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), a defence ministry agency which designed and developed the plane brushed aside criticism of the light aircraft.
In this regard, the best hope for India is its Tejas Mark II, a slightly larger plane than the original, which will feature more powerful engines, better radars and upgraded avionics.
India is also looking to add trainer jets, light transport aircraft and helicopter to its list of indigenous defence programmes. “People who fly planes, want the best value for money, which means off-the-shelf,” said Aboulafia. “People who want jobs and technology development schemes have different priorities. That’s why the two groups don’t like each other much.”

Riaz Haq said...

‪#‎Indian‬ Army plan 'was leaked to ‪#‎Pakistan‬ last year by ‪#‎ISI‬ mole' Pakistan Army countered quickly. via Grocott's Mail Online
It was noticed that within a few hours, the Pakistan Army had begun redeploying its troops to counter the Indian plan.
Alarm bells started ringing in the Indian Army about the shocking “leak”. The Army chief immediately informed the defence minister, who then briefed then prime minister Manmohan Singh.
A meeting of the Army top brass was later held with Manmohan Singh, who visited the DGMO war room. The Army managed to identify the “mole”, who was a senior officer who had leaked the operational details to ISI. He was court-martialled.
As a follow-up step, the security of the entire South Block was beefed up with the installation of CCTV cameras.
Then DGMO lt. Gen. (retd.) Vinod Bhatia said: “The leak did happen… there is always an insider hand”.
But Antony chose not to give details.
“I do not comment…I don’t want to say anything now”.
Former Army chief General Bikram Singh also preferred not to talk about the incident.
“I retired a year ago, check with the Army headquarters,” he said.
Asked if the minutes between the then defence minister and the Army chief in February 2014 were leaked, the then DGMO Bhatia said: “No security system is foolproof. A leak did happen, how it happened is a different matter, but I can assure you whenever this kind of leak happens, we do re-check our security system and make it foolproof. Whatever happened that time, shouldn’t have happened. We will ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
When asked if there was a lapse and whether it was an insider job, he replied: “There is an old saying ‘ghar ka bhedi lanka dhaye’. There is always insider hand, why does he do it? How does he do it? Whom does he do it for? Important thing is it’s an insider job. I cannot reveal the steps taken publicly, but steps were taken. It is almost a year, but whenever information is leaked, the system will be corrected.”

Riaz Haq said...

Retired #Pakistan pilot Sattar Alvi recalls how he shot down Capt Lutz flying a #Mirage in 1973 #Arab-#Israel war. …

They were closing in rapidly and there was no choice, but to turn and engage. No sooner had the leader ordered the turn, that the radio and radar signals were jammed, emitting unbearably shrilly noises. Just as I was turning to position myself during the turn, I got a glint of metal from behind and well below me. I simply could not ignore it and turned back to find two Mirages zooming up towards me from the valley beneath. By this time, my own formation had turned 180 degrees away flying at Mach 1.2 with no radio contact. ‘This was it’, I knew instinctively, and I was alone: Two Mirages against a single Mig-21. Instantly the fighter pilot’s training kicked in and all other thoughts left my mind. I proceeded to do what I had been trained to do.
A cardinal rule of air combat is knowing and using the limitations and strengths of your own and the enemy’s aircraft. A Mirage is good at high speeds and poor at slow speed combat. The Mirage leader made his high speed pass at me and as I forced him to overshoot he pulled up high above me. His wingman followed in the attack and I did the same with him; followed by a violent reversal and making the aircraft stand on its tail. The speed dropped to zero. The wingman should have followed his leader.
To my surprise he didn’t, and reversed getting into scissors with me at low speeds. That was suicidal and a Mirage should never do that against a Mig-21. But then, the game plan probably was for the wingman to keep me engaged while the leader turned around to sandwich and then shoot me. It was a good plan, but not easy to execute. The only difficulty in this plan was that the second Mirage had to keep me engaged long enough without becoming vulnerable himself. This is where things began to go wrong for the wingman because his leader took about 10 seconds longer than what was required.
The ‘Miraj’ effect
The wingman couldn’t just hang on with me and there was a star of David in my aiming sight after the second reversal. Seeing his dilemma and desperation to escape, the wingman attempted an exit with a steep high-speed dive. That in fact made my job easier and quicker. As soon as the distance increased and I heard the deep growl of the K-13, I fired. The missile takes one second to leave the rails and that was the longest second of my life. A second later there was a ball of fire where the wingman had been and I turned to face the leader charging towards me. We crossed but he had made a beeline for his home and thank God for that. I had only vapours remaining and no fuel. I hit the deck with supersonic speed.
Capt Lutz who was flying as the unfortunate wingman, was rescued by a helicopter and brought to the military hospital. He succumbed to his injuries later in the hospital before I could have a tete-a-tete with him. I have his flying coverall with me, presented to me as a war trophy by the Syrian air force commander-in-chief. I was awarded Wisam-e Faris and Wisam-e-Shujaat by the Syrian government, which are equivalent to Pakistani Hilal-e-Jurat and Sitara-e-Jurat.

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an excerpt from a piece in Diplomat on "India and Pakistan Locked in a Nuclear Naval Arms Race"

...Rehman highlights a few other interesting points about the naval nuclear dynamics in the Indian Ocean:

India’s pursuit of a sea-based nuclear strike force is the next logical step in its quest for an assured retaliatory capability.
To enjoy an effective sea-based deterrent vis-à-vis China, India’s other prospective nuclear adversary, New Delhi has to develop larger SSBNs with greater missile carriage capacity and more powerful nuclear reactors.
Pakistan’s naval nuclear ambitions are fueled primarily by the sense of a growing conventional, rather than strategic, imbalance between New Delhi and Islamabad.
By dispersing low-yield nuclear weapons across a variety of naval platforms, Islamabad aims to acquire escalation dominance and greater strategic depth and to reduce the incentives for a preemptive strike on its nuclear assets.
Interestingly, Rehman also underlines that, “the submarine-based leg of India’s nuclear triad will have a major impact on the nation’s existing command-and-control arrangements.”

Writing for The Diplomat, Amit R. Saksena, already elaborated on this point back in January. “For a sea-based asset, where deterrence is primarily achieved by long-term radio silence, and launching control is delegated to seniority on board the vessel, the existing command and control model is not applicable,” Saksena emphasized.

India’s nuclear warfare policy is predicated on a No First-Use (NFU) doctrine; consequently, New Delhi needs to field a credible second-strike capability.

“Just like Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons (TnWs), New Delhi will essentially be delegating launch control to field officers on board the submarine, massively increasing the probability of incidental firing,” according to Saksena.

Furthermore, he points out another issue. “India, like Pakistan, is known to keep its nuclear warheads de-mated from the delivery mechanisms. For the INS Arihant to fulfill its operational responsibility, SLBMs mounted with nuclear warheads will have to be deployed on the vessel.”

Rehman does not discuss this issue in any detail. Nor, despite highlighting the problem, does he elaborate on what a new command and control model for India’s strategic forces might look like.

However, the report contains an interesting section on what lessons Islamabad and New Delhi can derive from naval nuclear operations during the Cold War, as well China’s future role in shaping naval nuclear policies in the Indian Ocean.

At the end of the report, which is worthwhile reading in its entirety, Rehman concludes that “the present period offers a precious window of opportunity for both New Delhi and Islamabad to shape, rather than be shaped, by the emerging naval nuclear regime in South Asia.” Yet the window for the implementation of new confidence-building measures between the two countries is shrinking rapidly.

Riaz Haq said...

NEW DELHI: The government on Saturday cleared the DRDO project to build advanced "eyes in the sky" or next-generation AWACS (airborne warning and control systems), which can detect incoming aerial threats like hostile fighters, drones and cruise missiles from 400-km away.

The Manohar Parrikar-led defence acquisitions council (DAC) approved the building of two Awacs, which will involve mounting indigenous 360-degree coverage AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars on Airbus A-330 wide-body jets, at a cost of Rs 5,113 crore.

The eventual plan is to induct eight such aircraft under the "Awacs-India" project since both China and Pakistan are well ahead of India in this critical area in modern-day warfare, as was reported by TOI earlier.

"It will take at least 5-7 years to build the first two Awacs . Six more Awacs will be ordered when the project is mid-way," said a source. The decision, incidentally, comes ahead of PM Narendra Modi's visit to France and Germany, which primarily house the European Airbus consortium, in early-April.

The DAC also approved the Army's Rs 1,605 crore acquisition of 30 weapon-locating radars from defence PSU Bharat Electronics and the Rs 710 crore order for 1,512 mine-ploughs for the T-90S main-battle tanks from Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.

But the controversial Ravi Rishi-owned Vectra Group, which acted as the go-between in the supply of all-terrain heavy Tatra trucks to India, was "dropped" from the list of five vendors in contention to supply 220 truck-mounted lifting devices (TMLD) for Rs 24 crore.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan to buy 8 #Chinese attack submarines. Biggest ever multi-billion dollar arms export deal for #China @WSJ

Pakistan’s plan to buy eight Chinese submarines is likely to be one of China’s biggest arms deals and to intensify an emerging undersea contest in the Indian Ocean.

The deal, confirmed by a senior Pakistani defense official, is also expected to be among Pakistan’s biggest-ever weapons purchases.

Rear Admiral Mukhtar Khan, additional secretary in Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence, revealed the plan at a meeting of parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence on Tuesday, according to an official record of the meeting.

The official record quoted him saying that “the National Security Committee (NSC) has approved, in principle the project to acquire eight Chinese submarines. Financial negotiations for the same are in advance stages.”

The National Security Committee is the top decision-making body for defense issues, with both civilian leadership—including Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif—and the military chiefs sitting on this committee.

Pakistan Navy officials declined to comment. An official in the press office of China’s Defense Ministry referred questions on the submarine deal to local defense industry representatives but declined to say which ones were involved.

A senior Pakistani government official said that discussions were ongoing, but the financial and technical details of the deal won’t be publicly discussed until negotiations are wrapped up and it has actually been signed.

China and Pakistan have had close relations for decades based largely on their mutual suspicion of India, and China has long been one of Pakistan’s main arms suppliers.

Hua Chunying, a Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman, didn’t respond directly when asked about the submarine deal on Thursday but said: “China and Pakistan are traditional friends and neighbors.”

She said that China abided by its principles and international standards when selling arms.

She also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping was looking forward to paying a state visit to Pakistan “as soon as possible” and both sides were in close contact on that issue. She didn’t give a date for the visit.

Military experts and defense industry publications say the deal is most likely for Pakistan to buy China’s diesel-powered Yuan class attack submarines, which are also known as Type 039A or Type 041.

However, some earlier reports have suggested that Pakistan could purchase another Chinese diesel-powered attack submarine called the Qing class, or Type 032.

Pakistan’s navy currently operates five French-designed Agosta class submarines, two purchased in the 1970s and three in the 1990s, according to the navy’s official website.

“I think the reasoning for Pakistan, is, as always, competition with India,” said James Hardy, Asia Pacific editor of IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly.

“These subs would be attack subs so conventionally armed [antiship missiles and torpedoes rather than nuclear armed] and would be designed to complicate any Indian blockade operations around Karachi or elsewhere in the event of a war. ”

China’s global arms exports more than doubled between the five-year period ended in 2009 and the five-year period ended in 2014, according to an annual report on weapons transfers published last month by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

China was Pakistan’s biggest arms supplier between 2010 and 2014, accounting for 51% of Pakistani weapons imports. The U.S. was in second place with 30%, according to the report.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan To Buy 8 Submarines From China

He (Analyst Haris Khan) said the Type-214 deal was the centerpiece of the naval aspect of the AFDP, and that the first submarine would have been delivered in 2015. The naval aspect of the AFDP especially is in total disarray, he said.

It is unknown if the Type-214 was shelved until finances become available (some industry officials believe this was at least the intention at the time the deal collapsed), but attention subsequently switched to acquiring six AIP-equipped submarines from China.

Due to the need to decommission the Agosta-70s, Khan believes any refurbished submarines will be required to be "sailing under a Pakistani flag within 12 months."

Acquiring Turkish Type-209s remains possible, and despite Pakistan's predicament, Khan says "Under the present circumstances I don't see any collaboration between Pakistan and Turkey since Pakistan will only be locally producing Chinese submarines."

Whether the Chinese submarines are the S-20 export derivative of the Type-039A/Type-041 Yuan-class submarine, or a bespoke design, is unclear. But the Yuan has also been mentioned, and according to government officials the deal was supposed to be secured by the end of 2014.

If the deal transpires, Khan said it will be the largest ever Sino-Pakistani deal. He believes the submarines will each cost $ 250 million to $325 million.

Neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Navy would shed further light when asked. No answers were forthcoming to requests regarding the timeframe of the deal, whether the two Agosta-70s will finally be retired now the number of planned Chinese submarines has increased to eight, clarification on acquiring surplus Western submarines, or the status of the Type-214 acquisition efforts.

Should the Chinese deal go through, it will be a considerable relief, and be especially significant for the nuclear deterrent.

Pakistan inaugurated its Naval Strategic Force Command in 2012 in response to India's rapid nuclearization.

A potential force of 8 AIP-equipped Chinese subs and the three Agosta-90Bs "is a quantum leap in existing capabilities," said Mansoor Ahmed of Quaid-e-Azam University's Department of Defence and Strategic Studies.

Though acknowledging nuclear-powered attack boats are far more capable, he believes "An AIP [diesel-electric submarine] offers Pak the best bang for the buck. But it has to be supplemented with a commensurate investment in [anti-submarine warfare] capabilities to neutralize developments on the Indian side."

He said this will lay the groundwork for having a permanent sea-based deterrent equipped with plutonium-based warheads fitted to cruise missiles, "which is expected to be the next major milestone in Pakistan's development of a triad."

Ahmed acknowledges this "would pose fresh challenges for ensuring effective and secure communications at all times with the submarines for both India and Pak in addition to having a mated-arsenal at sea that would require pre-delegation of launch authority at some level for both countries.

"This would be an altogether new challenge that would have to be addressed for an effective sea-based deterrent."

Nevertheless, AIP-equipped conventional submarines "provide reliable second strike platforms, [and] an assured capability resides with [nuclear-powered attack and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines], which are technically very complex and challenging to construct and operate compared to SSKs, and also very capital intensive."

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan and the United States moved closer to a billion dollar defense deal this week, after U.S. authorities notified Congress of a proposal to supply helicopters and missiles to sharpen up Pakistan's counter-terrorism efforts.

U.S. ally Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of 180 million people, is fighting a Taliban insurgency in its northwest, a separatist insurgency along its Iranian border in the west, and has a heavily militarized and disputed border with arch rival India in the east.

The $952 million proposal involves the United States supplying Pakistan with 15 AH-1Z attack helicopters, 1,000 Hellfire missiles, engines, targeting and positioning systems and other equipment. But negotiations are not complete.

The helicopters and weapon systems were designed for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations, especially in the mountainous Taliban strongholds along the Afghan border, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency said.

On Monday, the agency notified Congress of the proposed sale, noting it would "contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia".

The equipment "will not alter the basic military balance in the region," the agency said.

Pakistani defense officials did not reply to requests for comment. The United States has been pushing Pakistan to take action against the Taliban as it withdraws most of its combat troops from neighboring Afghanistan, which is facing its own Taliban insurgency.

James Hardy, the Asia-Pacific editor for IHS Jane's Defence Weekly, told Reuters the helicopters would help modernize Pakistan's aging fleet, some of which had problems with spares and maintenance.

"Attack helicopters give you 'loiter' capability - you can hang around, find the target, knock it out," he said. "Right now Pakistan is using its fast jets for counterinsurgency work."

Pakistan is also trying to finalize a deal to buy eight submarines from China for a reported cost of between $4 billion to $5 billion.

China supplied 51 percent of the weapons Islamabad imported in 2010-2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which tracks global arms sales.

This year's budget allocated $7 billion to the military. The police received $800 million.

Riaz Haq said...

#India's Wrong Priorities: As Children Go Hungry PM #Modi Buys Expensive Fighters #France #RafaleDeal via Forbes​


The implications for India, however, are depressing: one more vivid illustration of misguided policies at the expense of the poor. 960 million Indians live on less than $2 a day. Reading the data is one thing; seeing the consequences, as I did recently driving through the slums on the outskirts of Jaipur, is heart-wrenching. Their plight could not be worse. Rafale jet fighters are about the last thing they need!


The greatest means to enhance security in South Asia is not more weapons. Member states of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) have one of the world’s lowest rates of intra-regional trade. This is especially the case of trade between Pakistan and India. As the early 19th century French political economist Frédéric Bastiat is alleged to have said: “if goods don’t cross borders, armies (or indeed Rafale fighter jets) will”. Both Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should have his portrait and quote hung in their respective offices.

Think of the hungry children of India, give back the Rafale fighter jets to France (we’ll survive).

Riaz Haq said...

Earlier this month, the United States approved a $952 million sale of helicopters, missiles, engines, targeting and positioning systems, and other equipment in response to a request made by Pakistan last year to help its efforts to counter domestic insurgents.\

“This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia,” reads the certification by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notifying Congress of the possible sale on April 6.

Yet national security may just be a pretext used for the swift clearance of this deal.

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, selling arms may once have been “a major foreign policy and security tool” for the U.S., but this practice has been replaced by the need to prop up the U.S. arms industry at a time when the country’s own military expenditures have dropped.

“To sell or not sell weapons depends only upon political and strategic imperatives,” said Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor of physics at the Forman Christian College University in Lahore, who is also a national security analyst.

Speaking to MintPress News, he added that that all arms suppliers, including the U.S., use human rights as a “fig leaf.” As an example of this, he pointed to the United States’ massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia, “which supports extremist groups across the world and mistreats minorities badly.”

“Today, given that Pakistan is fighting some Taliban groups instead of supporting them as earlier, it has become politically expedient and financially profitable for the U.S. to sell to Pakistan as well,” Hoodbhoy concluded.

Likewise, Commodore Uday Bhaskar, the director of the independent Society for Policy Studies in New Delhi and former head of the government-funded Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and the National Maritime Foundation, a non-governmental think tank, noted the sale should be tied to “stringent conditions” on Pakistan’s army’s compliance with terrorism and human rights frameworks.

In 2014, global defense trade increased for the sixth straight year to $64.4 billion, up from $56.8 billion, with the U.S. and Russia topping the list of arms exporters. Soon after the approval of its sale to Pakistan, the U.S also approved a potential $57 million sale of air-to-surface missiles to Egypt.

According to IHS, a global information company, there has been “unparalleled demand from the emerging economies for military aircraft” since the escalation of “regional tensions” in the Middle East and Asia Pacific.

IHS’s Global Defense Trade Report, released in March, lists the top defense exporters and importers in 2013 and 2014 and shows how these rankings have changed year-on-year:

Top Defence Exporters Top Defence Exporters
2013 2014
1. United States 1.United States
2. Russian Federation 2. Russian Federation
3. France 3. France
4. UK 4. UK
5. Germany 5. Germany
6. Israel 6. Italy
7. China 7. Israel
8. Italy 8. China
9. Sweden 9. Spain
10. Canada 10. Canada

Top Defence Importers Top Defence Importers
2013 2014
1. India 1. Saudi Arabia
2. Saudi Arabia 2. India
3. UAE 3. China
4. Taiwan 4. UAE
5. China 5. Taiwan
6. Indonesia 6. Australia
7. South Korea 7. South Korea
8. Egypt 8. Indonesia
9. Australia 9. Turkey
10. Singapore 10. Pakistan

India’s race for arms
The Indian defense budget has increased to $40 billion, compared to a mere $7 billion for the neighboring Pakistani military. “India is claiming to be worried but its weapons purchases far exceed Pakistan’s,” Hoodbhoy asserted.

Meanwhile, the Chinese defense budget stands at roughly $145 billion, nearly four times that of India. In fact, China is second only to the U.S. in triple-digit military spending.

Riaz Haq said...

Bulk of US$5.4 billion #American arms purchased by #Pakistan's own resources:Congress Report | Business Standard News: …

Sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for nearly half of these Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan, according to a report by Congressional Research Service for lawmakers.

India has time and again opposed the sale of such equipment to Pakistan as it apprehends that Islamabad may eventually use them against India.

In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases have been made with Pakistani national funds, although US grants have eclipsed these in recent years, CRS said.

Congress, it noted, has appropriated about $3.6 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Pakistan since 2001, more than two-thirds of which has been disbursed.

These funds are used to purchase US military equipment for longer-term modernization efforts. Pakistan also has been granted US defence supplies as Excess Defence Articles (EDA).

In April 2015, the State Department approved a possible $952 million FMS deal with Pakistan for 15 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters and 1,000 Hellfire II missiles, along with helicopter engines, avionics, training, and support.

Under Coalition Support Funds (in the Pentagon budget), Pakistan received 26 Bell 412EP utility helicopters, along with related parts and maintenance, valued at $235 million.

For counterinsurgency operations, the US has provided 4 Mi-17 multirole helicopters (another 6 were provided temporarily at no cost), 4 King Air 350 surveillance aircraft, 450 vehicles for the Frontier Corps and 20 Buffalo explosives detection and disposal vehicles, the CRS report said.

Through International Military Education and Training and other programs, the US has funded and provided training for more than 2,000 Pakistani military officers, report noted,

Major post-2001 defence supplies provided, or soon to be provided, under FMF include:

. eight P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and their refurbishment (valued at $474 million, four delivered, three of which were destroyed in a 2011 attack by Islamist militants);

. at least 5,750 military radio sets ($212 million);

. 2,007 TOW anti-armor missiles ($186 million);

. six AN/TPS-77 surveillance radars ($100 million);

. six C-130E Hercules transport aircraft and their refurbishment ($76 million);

. the Perry-class missile frigate USS McInerney, via special EDA authorization ($65 million for refurbishment; now the PNS Alamgir);

. 20 AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters via EDA ($48 million for refurbishment, 12 delivered); and

. 15 Scan Eagle reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles ($30 million). Supplies paid for with a mix of Pakistani national funds and FMF include:

. up to 60 Mid-Life Update kits for F-16A/B combat aircraft (valued at $891 million, with $477 million of this in FMF; Pakistan has purchased

45 such kits, with all upgrades completed to date); and

. 115 M-109 self-propelled howitzers ($87 million, with $53 million in FMF). Notable items paid or to be paid for entirely with Pakistani national funds include:

. 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 Fighting Falcon combat aircraft (valued at $1.43 billion);

. F-16 armaments including 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; 1,450 2,000-pound bombs; 500 JDAM Tail Kits for gravity bombs; and 1,600 Enhanced Paveway laser-guided kits, also for gravity bombs ($629 million);

. 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles ($298 million);

. 500 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles ($95 million); and

. seven Phalanx Close-In Weapons System naval guns ($80 million). Major articles transferred via EDA include:

. 14 F-16A/B Fighting Falcon combat aircraft;

. 59 T-37 Tweet military trainer jets; and

. 374 M113 armoured personnel carriers.

Riaz Haq said...

The U.S. Congressional Research Service reports that Pakistan has signed $5.4 billion in Foreign Military Sales contracts from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2014.
Procurement of F-16 aircraft and related equipment account for more than half of the sum.

"Major U.S. arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001 have included numerous items useful for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations, along with a number of "big ticket" platforms more suited to conventional warfare," the service said in its report. "In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases have been made with Pakistani national funds, although U.S. grants have eclipsed these in recent years."

CSR said Congress has appropriated about $3.6 billion in Foreign Military Financing, or FMF, for Pakistan since 2001 and more than two-thirds of that has been disbursed. Pakistan also has been given U.S. defense supplies as Excess Defense Articles and training was provided for the use of those articles.

Excess Defense Articles are systems no longer needed by the U.S. Armed Forces. They are offered at a reduced cost or no-cost basis to eligible foreign recipients on an "as is, where is" basis. Refurbishment, however, is the financial responsibility of recipients.

Major post-2001 defense supplies procured, or being procured by Pakistan through the Foreign Military Sales program, are eight P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and their refurbishment (four were delivered but three of them were subsequently destroyed in a 2011 terrorist attack); at least 5,750 military radio sets; 2,007 TOW anti-armor missiles; six AN/TPS-77 surveillance radars; six C-130E Hercules transport aircraft and their refurbishment; a Perry-class missile frigate; 20 refurbished AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters, of which 12 have been delivered; and 15 Scan Eagle reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles.

Items procured with a mix of Pakistani national funds and U.S. FMF include, 45 Mid-Life Update kits for F-16A/B combat aircraft AND 115 M-109 self-propelled howitzers, CSR said.

"Notable items paid or to be paid for entirely with Pakistani national funds include 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 Fighting Falcon combat aircraft (valued at $1.43 billion); F-16 armaments including 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; 1,450 2,000-pound bombs; 500 JDAM Tail Kits for gravity bombs; and 1,600 Enhanced Paveway laser-guided kits for gravity bombs; 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles; 500 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles; and seven Phalanx Close-In Weapons System naval guns."

A new $952 million FMS deal to provide Pakistan for 15 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters, missiles and other items was approved by the State Department last month.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan's SSG Black Storks commandos rank first among 9 most elite special forces in the world (via @BusInsiderAU) …

Elite special forces are some of the best-trained and formidable units that a country can boast.

They go where other soldiers fear to tread, scoping out potential threats, taking out strategic targets, and conducting daring rescue missions.

These really are the best of the best.

Although it’s extremely difficult to rank these forces relative to each other, there are some units that rise above the rest in terms of their track record and the fear they instill in their adversaries. These soldiers have been through weeks of rigorous training exercises explicitly designed to weed out those who can’t hit their exacting standards.

In a world where the importance of the sheer size of a country’s military forces is no longer a guide to their effectiveness, these soldiers are the ones state’s look to in order to get the job done.

Riaz Haq said...

Planes Landing On Autobahn NATO Exercise "Highway 84" West Germany 1984

Yes, #India Mirage landing on Yamuna Expressway is a big thing but #Pakistan did it much before via @firstpost …

Highway strips are strategic assets for a nation which double up as auxiliary bases in war times. Many European countries have used this tactic for decades, particularly Germany, Sweden, Finland and Poland. Countries like China, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia too have done so many times before.
But what should bring a reality check for the Indians is the fact that Pakistan has done it twice before – first in 2000 and then again in 2010.
The first time Pakistan achieved the feat was way back in the year 2000 when Pakistan Air Force (PAF) used the M2 motorway (Islamabad-Lahore) as a runway on two occasions. For those who have an appetite for technical details, Pakistan’s M-1 Motorway (Peshawar-Islamabad) and the M-2 Motorway (Islamabad-Lahore) each include two emergency runway sections of 2,700 m (9,000 ft) length each. The four emergency runway sections become operational by removing removable concrete medians using forklifts.
PAF used the M2 motorway as a runway for the first time in 2000 when it landed an F-7P fighter, a Super Mushak trainer and a C-130. PAF did it again in 2010 by using a runway section on the M2 motorway on 2 April 2010 to land, refuel and take-off two jet fighters, a Mirage III and an F-7P, during its Highmark 2010 exercise.
India has finally woken up to the need to have many road runways. The Agra-Lucknow expressway is the first Indian road runway.
There are many prerequisites for having road runways. For example, there should be a smooth road at least three kilometers long. Moreover, the road segment has to be straight, leveled, located on non-undulating ground without slope and must not have electricity poles, masts, or mobile phone towers.
For a country like India, whose worst security nightmare is having to fight a two-pronged war with Pakistan and China, road runways are crucial. This underlines the importance of expressways – the highest class of roads which are six-or-eight-lanes controlled-access highways.
As of now, India boasts of 23 expressways totaling a length of 1324 kms, but the truth is that all of these so-called “expressways” are misnomers.
If one goes by the strict definition of “expressways”, India has under 1000 kms of such network; and barely a couple of hundred kms network if one goes by the international parameters.
In other words, the more international-class expressways India has, the more Indian strategic interests are secure.
The moral of the story: expressways are not only lifelines for transportation but also key assets for national security.

Riaz Haq said...

#India's #Modi to Visit #Israel, 1st by an #Indian PM -

The New Indian Express via @NewIndianXpress

NEW DELHI: Narendra Modi will be travelling to Israel, the first by an Indian Prime Minister to the Jewish country with which bilateral defence cooperation is on an upswing.

No dates have been finalised for Modi's visit which will take place on mutually convenient dates, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said.

Swaraj said she will be travelling to Israel this year, besides Palestine and Jordan.

India had established "full" diplomatic relationship with Israel in 1992 though it had recognised the country in 1950. No Indian Prime Minister or President has ever visited that country.

The then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had become the first premier from that country to visit India when he came here in 2003. He is credited with transforming bilateral relations from diminutive defence and trade cooperation to the strategic ties of today.

"As far as my visit is concerned, it will take place this year. I will visit, Israel, Palestine and Jordan. As far as Prime Minister's visit is concerned, he will travel to Israel. No dates have been finalised. It will take place as per mutually convenient dates," she said replying to a question at a press conference.

At the same time, she asserted, "There was no change in India's policy towards Palestine."

L K Advani had visited Israel when he was Home Minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government. Jaswant Singh and S M Krishna had visited the Jewish nation as External Affairs Ministers. Recently Home Minister Rajnath Singh had also visited Israel.

Describing Israel as a friendly country, Swaraj said India had never "let down" the Palestinian cause and it will continue to support it.

Asked whether the Prime Minister will visit Iran, she said no such visit has been finalised so far but he will be visiting Turkey to attend G-20 Summit later this year. Swaraj said she will travel to Iran to attend the NAM Summit this year.

Talking about government's efforts to reach out to various countries, Swaraj said Prime Minister will visit five Central Asian countries including Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan when he travels to Russia to attend the BRICS Summit.

"When he goes to Ufa in Russia for BRICS summit, he will visit five Central Asian countries," Swaraj said, adding "the foreign policy has been spread quite significantly. We achieved a lot."

Riaz Haq said...

India recognised Israel on September 18, 1950. But because of India’s non-aligned stance, and its close ties with the erstwhile USSR, it maintained a cold outlook towards the nation which had clearly declared its loyalty to the US. India also seemed to be suspicious about Israel’s relations with its neighbours China and Sri Lanka. The Congress Party’s overarching presence at the centre and state levels meant a national consensus on supporting the Palestinians and opposition to Israel, with the foreign policy being uniformly pro-Arab
Yet these were not entirely fallow years in terms of contact between India and Israel.
India reportedly purchased arms and ammunition from Israel both after the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and the India-Pakistan Wars of 1965 and 1971. Israel was ready to sell the needed weapons thanks to embargoes in the UK, US and France. Similarly, a relationship between India’s security agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Israel's spy agency Mossad has existed since the 1960s
Even on the non-defence and security front, the situation was not entirely negative. India maintained contacts to understand Israeli techniques of dry land farming and drip irrigation. Along with a few direct and indirect contacts with Israel, mainly in the field of technology, in the late 1980s, the greatest success has been in the diamond industry which today accounts for 50 per cent of India-Israel non-defence trade.
In terms of diplomatic contact, a few high level, yet largely fruitless, contacts took place between the two nations, including the visit of then Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett (1956) in the middle of the Suez crisis; Ruth Dayan, wife of then Defence Minister Moshe Dayan (1968) and then Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan (1977).

The post-Cold War era

With the end of the Cold war, and shift in India’s foreign and economic policy, diplomatic ties between India and Israel were formally established by the Narasimha Rao government in 1992, when Israel opened an embassy in New Delhi in February, and India reciprocated in May with an embassy in Tel Aviv.
In 1996, India acquired from Israel, 32 IAI Searcher unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), Electronic Support Measure sensors and an air combat manoeuvring instrumentation simulator system. From then on, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has worked on several large contracts with the Indian Air Force, including upgrading MiG-21 ground attack aircraft.
Then Israeli President Ezer Weizman led a 24-member business delegation to India in December 1997, the first Israeli head of state head to the nation. Weizman met with then President Shankar Dayal Sharma, Vice-President K R Narayanan and Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda, and also went on to finalise a weapons deal involving the purchase of the Barak-1 vertically-launched surface-to-air missiles
In 2000, Jaswant Singh became the first Indian foreign minister to visit the West Asian nation, following which a joint anti-terror commission was set up by two countries
Ariel Sharon became the first Israeli PM to visit India in 2003, during which a series of cooperative agreements in various fields including health, education and drug trafficking were signed
No major high-level visits have occurred since then, from either side
BBC reported trade between the two countries had risen from $200 million in 1992 to about $4.39 billion in 2013
In 2013, India was Israel's 10th largest trade partner overall and its third largest trade partner in Asia after China and Hong Kong. Israel has also emerged as a major defence supplier to Delhi. Between Modi's election in May 2014 and November 2014, Israel exported $662 million worth of Israeli weapons and defence items to India. This export number is greater than the total Israeli exports to India during the previous three years combined.

Riaz Haq said...

the figures unveiled Friday showed 781 billion rupees (nearly US $7.7 billion) for "'Defence Affairs and Services," an approximately 11 percent increase over the previous year's budget, according to the Associated Press.

Regardless, much of any increase will be to finance the ongoing operation against the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), Operation Zarb-e-Azab.

Furthermore, though the economy is in reasonable shape and the government hopes for a 5.5 percent growth in GDP in the upcoming fiscal year, analysts do not expect the essentially stalled Armed Forces Development Plan, which was put in place modernize the military with new capabilities and equipment, to be restarted on wide scale.

Speaking about the latest increase, Brian Cloughley, former Australian defense attache to Islamabad, said, "I'm not at all surprised. The operating costs of Zarb-e-Azb have been enormous. Provision and transportation of fuel are major items in the budget, and air support is vastly expensive."

"And of course there can be no mention of the nuclear program, which must soak up an enormous amount, too," he added in highlighting that this would not be responsible for all the additional expenditure.
Pakistani defense budgets also consistently rise with Indian budgets, something which Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has previously highlighted.

The true size of the defense budget is thought to be somewhat higher, and some reports indicate 26 percent of taxes raised in fiscal 2015-16 will be allocated to defense in some form or another.

However, despite some improvement in the economy, Cloughley says the "AFDP seems to be stuck in the mud – but there's still a lot of procurement."

Much of this present procurement is from China, and Claude Rakisits, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's South Asia Center, believes this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

"The Pakistan military will continue to depend on Chinese loans to buy their big ticket items, as is the case of the 8 conventional, diesel-powered submarines that Pakistan is going to buy from China for $6 billion as part of the $46 billion [Pakistan-China Economic Corridor] deal," he said.

Pakistan has a long list of requirements when it comes to new equipment for all three branches of the armed forces, however, much of it from China, and analyst Haris Khan of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank says this includes tanks such as the VT-4, which will be called 'Haider' in Pakistani service; the VN-1 8x8 wheeled APC, surface to air missiles such as the FM-90, HQ-17, and HQ-9 to establish an integrated air defense system, plus submarines and frigates.

Though this amounts to a considerable amount of very expensive equipment, Khan highlights moves made by China that will streamline funding their acquisition for Pakistan.

"Since China has established Export-Import Bank of China is one of three institutional banks in China chartered to implement the state policies in industry, foreign trade, diplomacy, economy, and provide policy financial support, these procurements from China would become more manageable for Pakistan. The Chinese EximBank is based on the American EXIM for granting financial help, this new Chinese financial institutions has generated a lot of negative blow back from the Obama administration," he said.

Though he highlights there are other acquisition programs that also include the US, and that evaluation efforts are ongoing.

"On the other hand the sale of 15 AH-1Z has been approved and the deal will be paid by Pakistani funds via Foreign Military Financing. Pakistan is still looking for surplus or even new F-16.Serbia has sent one of its APC and SPA systems for evaluation along with China supplying three of its most advance attack-helicopter WZ-10 for real time evaluation," he said.

Avi548 said...

Haq ji, one thing I must admit, u r so called musings are very amusing. But I think these are some kind of fantasy work bit like star wars . India can't repeat 1971 with that much intensity and success today , ur right in that . But u r wrong in predicting that Indian capabilities vis a vis Pakistan had gone down . Real scenario is just opposite much to ur disappointment and fear. Pakistan has lost its significance as a major issue in india long time ago and we ( im Indian ) as a people don't believe in looking toward what we had left behind us because of general progressive attitude pervasive in our society due to our cultural soundness and which is in stark contrast with the situation in our back yard i.e Pakistan . Yes you got it right , i literally meant that 'backyard '. This is how world will know Pakistan in near future . Now you tell me my friend , what interests can we have in that piece of real estate lying in our backyard if we have an entire ocean of opportunities ahead (have u noted the term used ' real estate' because Pakistan is not even a failed state now ) in the form of ASEANs. Absolutely nothing , except for making sure that no snake gets in our home from there. So if u people can make sure no snake reach our home from ur side ,u will be as safe as anyone in this world. But if we ever come to know that their is a whole breeding ground , then we have to go for decontamination or even sterilisation in worst case scenario .Now after making my stance clear , I want to remove some of urs misconceptions . Istly Shashi Tharoor is a politician and not a diplomat. Mani Shankar Iyer is an opposition MP his job is to oppose Govt. of India .Plus Indian exports are not hyped because its impossible in a democracy with independent media and a very educated populace . Also our economic growth is real and is calculated independently by many national and international organisation to same results that include non western organisations like BRICS ,ADB etc. No bullshit xx 00 nth gen. Fighter aircraft from china can ever match SU-30 mki of IAF not even F-15 ( US officer himself confessed in that very vedio that SU - 30 is better than F15s). Regarding your bla bla about our edu. system and quality of students I will only say that avg. indian is far more smarter than avg. paki, our last in class can match ur best in class n even out class him, I am 23 years old lot inexperienced and younger than you but still know the world better and have a better perspective as well as situational awareness of current geopolitical world order. All this because of our educational n cultural edge over you peoples. In the last a line about your persona and state of mind as emanating from your wright up. You are a silly, below average and highly frightened mind with a heart full of hatred for superior cultures and envy for Indian economic growth. UR like a deer threatening a tiger bit like this,"If you killed me you will lose one of ur tooth and if you tried to devour me you will have digestive problems". Wkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwk . Must sound familiar to you , its also a medevial hurra to celebrate extreme happiness lol. Grow up kiddo...

Riaz Haq said...

Here's an CNN-IBN online poll result of its Indian audience:

Is Israel a role model for India when it comes to security?

Yes: 59 per cent

No: 41 per cent

Riaz Haq said...

In his recent trip to Bangladesh, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that his country played an important role in the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistani in 1971. The eastern wing of Pakistan - now Bangladesh - seceded from the former West Pakistan after a protracted struggle for the economic and political rights of the Bengalis that were severely curtailed by the rulers in Islamabad.

"The Indian PM was candid to say that India supported the 1971 war of liberation. But this is not tantamount to interference in Pakistan, as New Delhi, as a friendly neighbor, stood by Bangladesh whose independence was proclaimed on March 26, 1971. Therefore, it was support from one country to the other against its fight with a third country (Pakistan)," Bangladesh Information Minister Hasanal Haq Inu told an Indian newspaper on Thursday.
To make matters worse, India's Deputy Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, said Wednesday that India "will carry out surgical strikes at the place and time of our own choosing," referring to the Indian army's cross-border attack inside Myanmar against insurgents.
"Western disturbances will also be equally dealt with," the minister said during a press briefing when asked if India could also carry out strikes on the Pakistani border, according to a report published by a local news agency.

Ahmed believes that war rhetoric would only benefit the two countries' armies, defense industries, ultra-nationalists, and religious extremists.
"Who are the Indian politicians doing a favor to? Certainly not to PM Sharif's civilian government. They are giving a reason to Pakistan's army generals and their stooges - the Islamists - to create an atmosphere of hatred and jingoism in the country," he said.
Narendra Modi's election to Indian premier in May 2014 led some to expect a lasting diplomatic solution with Pakistan. Modi made the first move, as he invited Sharif to attend his oath-taking ceremony in New Delhi. Sharif opted to reciprocate Modi's friendly gesture and went to the Indian capital on May 26 with a "message of peace." Experts said it was an unprecedented step by a Pakistani leader to engage on such a high-level with a Hindu nationalist like Modi, who was allegedly involved in a Muslim massacre in Gujarat in 2002 as the state's head.
"There were high hopes for the improvement of bilateral relations between India and Pakistan with the fresh start of a new government. Before Prime Minister Modi came to power, the relations between the two neighbors were at an all-time low as all bilateral processes had been interrupted," Sarah Hees, Resident Representative of the German foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in India, told DW.
But in less than two months after the historic meeting of prime ministers Sharif and Modi in New Delhi, the armies of the two nuclear-armed South Asian nations began to trade gunfire along the Kashmir border. Things were back to square one in a very short time.


Indo-Pakistani ties have never been cordial, but the recent escalation of tensions have upset the neighboring countries' peace activists, who say that the blame game from both sides would be harmful for the masses who need peace and development more than anything else.
"If conflict persists, fundamentalist groups in India and Pakistan will benefit. The right-wing groups in both countries want war and animosity," Baseer Naveed, senior researcher at the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong, told DW.

Riaz Haq said...

“Our travel advice to #Modi is to send his soldiers to invade #Pakistan with their bodybags, they’ll need them"

An Indian military operation along its eastern border with Burma has Pakistani leaders rattled, resulting in threats of swift retaliation should India ever try similar maneuvers along its western border with Pakistan.

The Pakistani statements — which include provocative reminders that India is not the only subcontinent power with nuclear arms — are once again exposing the deep-rooted suspicions and lingering potential for conflict between the long-standing rivals despite groundbreaking outreach to ease tensions.

It has been worse. The two countries have fought three major wars since 1947, engaged in a nuclear arms race in the 1980s and clashed in the 1990s.
Both the Indian army and Burma’s government have denied that Indian troops crossed the border. In a newspaper interview, however, India’s information minister, Rajyavardhan Rathore, said Indian forces had pushed deep into Burma. He called the operation a “message” to countries such as Pakistan that it will not hesitate to pursue threats outside of its borders.

“We will strike when we want to,” Rathore, a retired army officer, told the Indian Express newspaper.

The reaction from Pakistani leaders has been swift and severe — touching off a wildfire of social media comments on both sides of the border.

In a statement issued late Wednesday, Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan warned Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to think twice before threatening Pakistan. “Those who are contemplating any kind of adventure in Pakistan must know that they will get a bloody face in the process,” Khan said. “Those who have evil designs against us – listen carefully, Pakistan is not” Burma.

Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Asif, even brought up the possibility of nuclear war should India ever launch a similar incursion into Pakistan. He urged the international community to intervene, telling Geo News the latest tension could prove a “harbinger of disaster” for South Asia.

[Floods link the countries in disaster]

Pakistan’s army chief, Raheel Sharif, chaired a meeting of his top commanders on Wednesday to discuss Pakistan’s worsening relationship with India. Over the past month, Pakistani leaders have repeatedly accused India’s intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), of sponsoring several recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan.


Meanwhile, social media on both sides reflected support of their leaders and militaries. Indians showed support for Modi through the Twitter hashtag of #56inchrocks, a reference to a past claim by Modi about his chest size. (Modi’s longtime tailor later said Modi has a 44-inch chest.)

In Pakistan, the most popular Twitter hashtag is #atankWadiIndia, which is a slur that refers to India as being a terrorist.

“Our travel advice to Modi is to send his soldiers to invade Pakistan with their bodybags, they’ll need them, and we don’t have any,” the group @defencepk, which tracks the Pakistani military, tweeted to its 69,000 followers.

Riaz Haq said...

#Musharraf ordered retaliation on #India targets after intel reports of #Indian plans to strike #Pakistan in 2002. …

General Musharraf sharing the untold story about 2002 India-Pakistan 10-month long standoff.

Musharraf conveyed the message to Indians that if they violate the borders there will be swift retaliation.

After he got the intelligence reports that Indian Air Force was about to launch strikes in Azad Kashmir, he not only made it clear to Indians but he also ordered Air Martial Mushaf to select the targets inside India and take those out just after India's adventurism and continue the next day.

PRINCE said...

well Haq Ji, what you done is not analysis, this is just pure assumptions with some wrong facts. 1st see the difference b/w the defence budget, now come in all 3 departments starting with Air force.....well yes PAF pilots are good and among the best trained in the world but our pilots are on the same page too. now about aircrafts j-10 or jf-10 is not a 5th gen aircraft, China developed J-11B to counter Su-30 MKI, which they are not exporting to Pakistan. you can think yourself about the quality of jf-17 which is not inducted by china itself. Now your F-16 are really good aircrafts but we too have improved Mirage 2000s and I don't have to mention about the capabilities of Su-MKI specially the radar it carries. plus we are going to have rafale too. now about Land Forces, Army...India have numerical advantage both in Personals and in equipments. Your Al-Khalid tanks are very good but still we have t-90's to counter them and we have them in large numbers, yes you guys have advantage in attack helicopters but India now can produce its own attack helicopters(LCH) plus already selected US apache for tender. In missile tech I say initially Pak used to have advantage but now India gained a lot and almost equal in this department thanks to french and Israeli help. Now about Navy, There is nothing to Compare, you talked about AIP fitted on subs, well India developed its own AIP which they will fit in last 2 scorpenes and 1st one already going through sea trials which is already fitted with French AIP(MESMA system). Now we have 2 aircraft carriers the new one is boarded with Mig-29ks, the aircraft is better than PAF's inventory except f-16's(though I don't want to compare sea based aircraft with land based). now about the destroyers, frigates and corvettes, there is no match untill unless you guys order type 52D, and remember that even after that order we still have the advantage of MF-Star AESA radar, which China wants from Israel and they refused to give them. Now you talked about economy, well in case of war economy will get effected, there is no doubt about it but our economy is not as weak and fragile as pakistan, so yes it will dip but not to a great extent. Now about the comments of Tharoor and shankar Iyer....yaar they are opposition leaders, they will criticise but you should know modi is a powerful elected leader and people will help and support him in his these kind of decisions just like you guys will support your govt. in case of war, isn't. so my final conclusion on the power balance: yes Pakistan army is strong but barring PAF other departments are not as strong as its counterpart. we hey we can't tell what actually happen if a real war is on so better to avoid war and work for betterment for people

Riaz Haq said...

Attack #Pakistan, Ex ISI Chief dares #India …

Talking to CNN-IBN, Gul said that to ascertain whether the militant captured in Wednesday's attack was from Pakistan, one would have to "check his DNA".
He also said Indian forces were attacking Pakistani villages near the border and killing civilians and Pakistani firing was retaliation.
He goes on to say, audibly agitated, "Do what you have to do... attack Pakistan and be done with it if it is so much trouble for you."
"Either settle the Kashmir dispute or attack Pakistan because Pakistan is troublesome and creating problems for you," he said.
"If you think Pakistan is out to destabilise India... then I am giving you an answer, we are prepared to take on," Gul said.
The former ISI chief also "hundred percent" denied any Pakistan links to the Gurdaspur terror attack in Punjab.

Riaz Haq said...

NY Times Editorial: #India has more to lose in war with #Pakistan. #Modi #Kashmir

More than 50 years after India and Pakistan were created in the partition of the British colonial empire, the disputed region of Kashmir remains a dangerous flash point. Cross-border violence has surged in recent months, raising new fears that the attacks could spiral out of control and set off another war between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.

In the last week alone, India and Pakistan have traded heavy gunfire and mortars almost daily across the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir into regions controlled by each side. Many civilians have been killed or wounded in the violence, including eight killed and 14 wounded on Sunday, according to officials.

Each side blames the other. Experts say Pakistan has been testing Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who, in a break with his predecessor, has vowed not to ignore attacks by Pakistan-backed militants on Indian targets. On July 27, gunmen dressed in military fatigues attacked an Indian police station near the border with Pakistan and at least nine people were killed.

The incident came after Mr. Modi met Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, during a regional meeting in Russia. Pakistan’s army, which draws its power from a constant state of tension with India, has often interfered when political leaders have tried to improve relations between the two countries.

Mr. Modi’s wish to strike back is understandable after many years of Indian restraint. But India, which is considerably stronger and more successful than Pakistan, has the most to lose if another war erupts. Mr. Modi recently became the first Indian prime minister in 34 years to visit the United Arab Emirates, which had been one of Pakistan’s biggest supporters but now sees the value in closer ties with India. In a joint statement, India and the emirates condemned the use of religion to justify terrorism and agreed to cooperate in counterterrorism operations.

In a sign of heightened concern over Kashmir, the United States and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, have urged India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and solve their differences through dialogue. They will have a chance to heed that advice when top Indian and Pakistani national security advisers meet later this month.

Riaz Haq said...

#Russia-#Pakistan Mi-35 Contract Could be Expanded For More Helicopters/ Sputnik International … via @SputnikInt

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The contract on the delivery of four Russian Mi-35 helicopters to Pakistan could be expanded, head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Second Asia Department Zamir Kabulov said Tuesday.
"It all depends on money. Pakistan has stated that it has the financial means for 10-12 helicopters of this type, but negotiations are ongoing," Kabulov told RIA Novosti.
Moscow and Islamabad are discussing possible supplies of Russian defensive weapons to Pakistan, Kabulov added.
"Pakistan has an interest in other Russian weapon systems. Negotiations are underway. We are talking about defensive systems," Kabulov told RIA Novosti.
In March, Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain announced Islamabad's intention to expand military-technical commerce with Russia with the purchase of Mi-35 gunships.
In August, a contract for four Mi-35M transport and attack helicopters was signed by Russia's state arms exporter Rosoboronexport and Pakistan's Ministry of Defense, according to a spokesperson for the Russian Embassy in Islamabad.
The Mi-35M (NATO Designation Hind-E) is an upgraded export version of the Mi-24V multipurpose assault helicopter, developed by the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant.

Read more:

Riaz Haq said...

#US DoD awards #Pakistan gives contract for 15 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters to Bell Helicopter Co- IHS Jane's 360 …

The US Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Bell Helicopter a USD581 million contract that includes the delivery of AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters to Pakistan.

The contract, which was announced by the DoD on 26 August but awarded the day before, covers the manufacture and delivery of 15 Lot 12 UH-1Y Venom utility helicopters, 19 Lot 12 AH-1Zs, one Lot 13 UH-1Y, and 21 auxiliary fuel kits for the US Marine Corps (USMC) and government of Pakistan.

Pakistan requested the sale of 15 AH-1Z helicopters in April, and this announcement is the first official confirmation that a deal has been signed. While the notification does not say how many of the 15 helicopters have been signed for at this stage, it states that 10% (USD57.9 million) of the overall contract value covers the sale to the government of Pakistan. This suggests that this is an initial deal for the first two helicopters only, with contracts for the remaining 13 (plus spares and support) to follow.

According to the DoD, these initial helicopters will be delivered by the end of August 2018. The original US Defense Security Co-operation Agency notification of Pakistan's request included 1,000 AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-surface missiles for "a precision-strike, enhanced-survivability aircraft that can operate at high altitudes. By acquiring this [AH-1Z and Hellfire II] capability, Pakistan will enhance its ability to conduct operations in North Waziristan Agency [NWA], the Federally Administered Tribal Areas [FATAs], and other remote and mountainous areas in all-weather, day and night environments".

The contract notification is the latest development in Pakistan's ongoing efforts to bolster its rotary-winged attack capabilities. As well as procuring the 15 AH-1Zs to bolster and eventually replace its existing 32 AH-1F Cobra platforms, Pakistan has also evaluated the Chinese CHAIG WZ-10 attack helicopters, which has included flying them operationally on counter-terrorism missions, and is rumoured to be interested in the Russian-built Mil Mi-28NE 'Havoc' as well. On 19 August it was announced that Pakistan and Russia had signed a formal agreement for the procurement of four Mi-35 'Hind' attack helicopters, with more likely to follow.

Unknown said...

Mr. Riaz Haq, I can do a lot better in my attempt to impress a girl than you can write to impress Pakistani citizens. It is true that if India and Pakistan go all out on each other, Indian economy will go back several decades but it will recover. Pakistan however, will go back beyond the point of recovery. Pakistan has always been a pain for the entire world. Don't you forget that when you daydream.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s Defence Minister on Sunday warned India that it will suffer “heavy losses” which it would “remember for decades” if it tries to “impose” a war on his country.

Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said “Pakistan’s armed forces will defend every inch of their motherland at every cost”.

He was talking to media during his visit to village Kundunpur along the international border in Sialkot.

“If India tries to impose war on Pakistan, heavy losses will be inflicted on India which it will remember for decades,” the Minister said.

Mr. Asif said “cowardly acts” by Indian forces have strengthened the determination of the nation to defend the motherland, state-run Radio Pakistan reported.

“India’s real face is exposed as it is supporting terrorism in Pakistan and creating tension on borders through unprovoked firing along the working boundary and line of control,” he said.

His comments came in the backdrop of heightened tensions along the border and LoC after Pakistan called off NSA-level talks set for August 23 when India made it clear that discussions on Kashmir and a meeting with separatists will not be acceptable.

Mr. Asif alleged India is diverting attention from its “internal failures” by creating tension on the borders.

He claimed that Pakistan has proof of India’s interference in the country which he said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif would present at the U.N. General Assembly meeting in September and to the U.S. leadership during his visit there in October.

Riaz Haq said...

Otto von Bismarck once wrote that “fighting preventive war is like committing suicide for the fear of death”. This seems an apt analogy, keeping in mind the current state of military preparedness and nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan. There is a huge risk that the leaders of the two nuclear states take, when military, and not diplomatic actions, are seen as preferred methods of conflict-resolution. The ‘quick fix military methods’ that India is seeking to employ, using its conventional force by initiating state warfare against perceived non-state actors and an irregular threat can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a failed military doctrine, which may invite a counter-military strike by Pakistan. Even a lieutenant knows that when it comes to a military operation, things often don’t go as hoped and planned. Given this, is there any need to play with fire and to willingly disengage and withdraw from demonstrating an ‘all options on the table’ attitude?

Pushing the nuclear threshold is dangerous. Why would India’s army chief speak about a short and swift military action if its military is not preparing itself to execute such a mission? Pakistan, on the other hand, by testing its tactical nuclear weapons has already hinted that it has lowered its nuclear threshold. Why would such weapons be tested if they won’t be used? Which side is bluffing? There are huge responsibilities attached to being a nuclear state and sidestepping these can result in dangerous accidents, unleashing a sequence of events that might be difficult to control.

The core ideology of Nazism was laid out by Adolf Hitler in his autobiography, Mien Kampf. That Hitler-inspired ideology led millions of young men and women to various frontlines and battlefields, and eventually to their deaths. Had President Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Charles De Gaulle not repeatedly met and spent endless hours in conferences, they would have been unable to set the right goals to meet the threat posed by Hitler.

Terrorism is another form of Nazism and a common enemy of not only India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, but the whole world. Defeating terrorism demands prudence and good political judgment by leaders who are prepared to display the kind of statesmanship demonstrated by the leaders of the day during the Second World War. It shouldn’t take a military catastrophe, millions of deaths and another Hiroshima and Nagasaki-like scenario for the leaderships of India and Pakistan to figure this out — for if it comes to that, it would mean that they didn’t learn anything from history.

Riaz Haq said...

Indian analyst Krishna Kant explains how India's Hindu Nationalist BJP party has unwittingly helped Pakistan by going nuclear:

1. India’s hands and feet are, however, tied behind its back, thanks to nuclear tests by the previous NDA government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The blasts burnished the macho image of the Bharatiya Janta Party but also allowed Pakistan to go nuclear, forever limiting India’s geostrategic options in the region.

2. History suggests that the threat of a nuclear attack is enough to deter powers from entering into a direct conflict with aggressors. This explains why United States is trying to contain North Korea rather than confront it for it cannot afford a nuclear missile attack on South Korea, Japan or worse on its own Western seaboard.

3. We face a similar situation on our western borders. The threat of a nuclear attack has forced us to raise our tolerance level towards Pakistan military transgressions, both on the border and inside the country. Just count the number and severity of cross-border terrorist attack that India has suffered since the 1999 nuclear tests.

4. After going nuclear, Pakistan’s defence spending decelerated and its share in GDP is expected to be decline to around 2.5% in the current fiscal year, slightly ahead of India’s 2%. This is releasing resources for Pakistan to invest in productive sectors such as infrastructure and social services, something they couldn’t do when they were competing with India to maintain parity in conventional weapons.

5. In this environment, a hard talk by (India's NSA) Mr (Ajit) Doval (India should stop punching “below its weight” and “punch proportionately” instead) followed by a high-decibel drama by the government on the National Security Advisor’s talk between the two countries seems nothing more than a show for the gallery. The audience may be applauding right now, but claps may turn to boos as the public realises the inconsistencies in the script and the pain it inflicts on the hero.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan-#China joint air war games conclude …
A joint air exercise “Shaheen IV” between Pakistan Air force (PAF) and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force, concluded on Saturday at Yinchuan Airbase, China.

Air Vice Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan, Deputy Chief of Air Staff (Operations) Pakistan Air Force and Lt Gen Zheng Qun Liang Deputy Commander PLA Air Force were also present in the closing ceremony of the exercise.

According to PAF , the exercise was aimed at enhancing bilateral relationship and defence cooperation between both friendly neighbouring countries.

It was the fourth exercise of Shaheen series which commenced on 12th September, 2015.

It was for the first time that three different types of front line fighter aircraft from various Squadrons of PAF participated in the exercise. (APP)

Unknown said...

Mr Haq started off scaring the Indians, and also rest of the world, so that when the Indians not scared by Haq's painting of disaster go ahead with their pulverising machine, the rest of the world in order to save themselves have to rush to India, and stop the war. Thanks for showing all the cards in your hand. India will take all you stated into account. But, when we decide to start a war, we would have thought of all eventualities, yet we will be ready to face ALL CONSEQUENCES. Mr. Haq, if we are forced into a war, we will fight it, whatever the consequences. In India, now patriotism is to be ready for MAD. You can not scare us with even a million Atom Bums.

Unknown said...

If Gen PN Hoon was a fictitious character in a novel, and said the same narrative, in the same language, I would have thought him as a comic character with almost zero IQ. But he is real. The book will fetch him a minimum of a crore rupees in white from with in India, sensationalism seems to be the motive. Of course more number of pirated copies will be sold in Pakistan. Having said that, one of my grievance is assuaged after reading about Gen Sunderji. I always have been furious of top generals and decision making politicians who were reluctant to act against Pakistan. They always needed severe provocation and outright attacks from Pakistan cornering India without a choice, to wake up into reaction mode. Now this revelation about Gen Sunderji, his proactiveness, is a bit reassuring. If war is inevitable, better be done with it soon, then those of us who survive can keep busy in regrouping. If we are afraid of death and destruction, we have no business to maintain armies.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan Army to increase intake of cadets at PMA. Set to grow in size to tackle security challenges

ISLAMABAD: The army has decided to increase the intake of cadets at its premier training institute — Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul — by around one third, which potentially sets the ground for increase in its (army’s) size.

During his visit to PMA Kakul on Wednesday, Army Chief Gen Raheel Sharif reviewed the progress in this regard.

“The visit focused on reviewing the current training regime for cadets and PMA’s capacity enhancement projects including progress work on the 4th Pakistan Battalion,” a statement by the ISPR said.

Know more: Afghan army cadets arrive in Pakistan for training

The PMA, which currently has three battalions, annually inducts two batches of around 500 cadets each. The addition of a fourth battalion would mean that up to 150 more cadets would be inducted in each batch.

The Kakul academy annually inducts two batches of around 500 cadets each
The cadets after completing their training at the academy are commissioned in the army as officers.

The increase in officer cadre is expected to lead to a proportional increase in the number of troops.

No timeline was given for the setting up of the new battalion at PMA, but insiders say the academy could be ready for the increased intake within 12-18 months.

Gen Sharif was quoted in the statement as having emphasised “the need to remain abreast with the latest regional and global environment and developments”.

A military analyst said that the increase in the size of military was being necessitated by its continuing involvement in tribal areas, where troops are expected to stay at least till 2019; the creation of a security division for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor; and increased requirement of officers for paramilitary forces like Frontier Corps and Rangers. Additionally, troops are getting increasingly engaged with UN peacekeeping operations and disaster relief operations.

India’s aggressive posture towards Pakistan is also a cause of concern.

A military spokesman, meanwhile, said that the army was already facing a shortage of officers and the increased induction would help overcome that requirement.

The current size of the army is believed to be around 500,000 active troops. Army’s publicly known budget for the current fiscal year 2015-16 is Rs371 billion. The military’s budget has been on an average growing by around 11 per cent.

It is a slow process of course. It will take at least 5-10 years to implement this change as it inducts an extra battalion of officers each year, currently PMA trains 3 battalions of officers. That is a significant increase in size.

Why do you guys think Pak Army is increasing it's size?

Here are possible reasons:

1. The incoming troops might be deployed in three Strike Corps with offensive objectives in any future war.
2. These troops might be for a future Expeditionary Force with foreign deployment planned. The situation in middle east is becoming worse day by day, and we might deploy these soldiers to KSA or other battlefields in the Middle East.
3. Pakistan is forming a new branch of Army. With new deadly weapons like Nasr being inducted, Pak Fauj might need a new artillery corps with a very specific purpose in mind.
4. Might need extra troops to permanently secure our Eastern border with Afghanistan, as you may already know, currently Pakistan has deployed 150,000 soldiers in KPK and FATA. With these incoming troops, we can turn our focus back to our herbivorous neighbors.
5. The new troops may be used to secure CPEC. But i feel that is highly unlikely, the number of troops deployed by FC are sufficient.


Unknown said...

Good for Pakistan. They certainly need double the strength of their armed forces. They need at least 43% of their GDP to be spent on their armed forces. In India, from among the civil society we are thinking of the protective measures, stocking, and other related issues, as a non-governmental efforts of the civic society. We must have one last and final decisive war, all out and with a clear winner and loser. It is justified on both sides to make preparations for that. Let the survivor live in peace.

Riaz Haq said...

Mekala: "They need at least 43% of their GDP to be spent on their armed forces."

India's flawed policies have helped Pakistan go nuclear and establish strategic parity with a nuclear dividend.

India threw away its substantial conventional military edge over Pakistan when the Hindu Nationalist government of Atal Bihari Vajapayee decided to carry out its nuclear tests in 1998. It gave Pakistan the justification it needed to go nuclear a few weeks later, thereby achieving balance of terror with its much larger neighbor with a huge conventional military.

Indian analyst Krishna Kant explains his country's policymakers blunder as follows: "Nuclear weapons have reduced Pakistan defense cost while we (India) have been forced to spend tens of billions of dollars to acquire latest military hardware in a bid to retain the edge. Its shows in the defence budget of the two countries since 1999 nuclear blasts. All through 1980s and 90s, Pakistan was spending around a third of its government budget and 5-6% of its GDP on defence, or about twice the corresponding ratios for India. After going nuclear, Pakistan’s defence spending decelerated and its share in GDP is expected to be decline to around 2.5% in the current fiscal year, slightly ahead of India’s 2%. This is releasing resources for Pakistan to invest in productive sectors such as infrastructure and social services, something they couldn’t do when they were competing with India to maintain parity in conventional weapons."

Unknown said...

Best of luck .India will talk to Pakistan after 2025 .till then no talk .after 2030 India will be 10 trillion dollar economy and China will be 24 while USA will be 22 .German will be 5 ,Japan ,6.7 ,Brits 4 so India will be 3rd largest even on ppp basis .its milatery spending will be 250 billion .while Pakistan will be 600 billion economy by then .comparing Pakistan with India is worse than comparing India with USA .USA economy even in nominal term is 17 trillion while Indian economy is 2.3 trillion .if ppp us taken into account its 8 trillion .Pakistan economy is is just 250 billion .India produced 100 times more steel ,200 times more cement ,15 times more electricity than Pakistan. In agricultural goods India is 2nd largest producer after CHina .come to blockade portion .India has 45 big surface warship .just wondering how Pakistani submarine of last decade can even sneak into area patrolled by Boeing poseiden p8 .your submarine hunters are junks from 1970s with none of latest tech while Indian Boeing poseiden is best available submarine hunter in world .so Indian poesiden will keep out your submarine from equation .then comes india n anti submarine kamorta class coverttes .how will your navy counter brahmos and barak 8 combo .have you got any answer to that .final touch will be given Indian navy aircraft carrier ensuring complete blockade .everyone knows your energy crisis .now come to aircraft .your jf17 is a junk which even Chinese rejected .Chinese backbone fighter is still old generation of Indian sukhoi su30mki .that all. Sum your milatery capabilities .just wondering which of your awacs are comparable to phalcon .your awacs are junk which only poor countries uses .Chinese gave you some old junk from their inventory .India has s300 Sam's and phalcon with both range above 300 km that means all main Pakistani airbase and cities are under Indian Sam cover and every single aircraft taking off from Pakistan is under Indian radar and Sam range while Pakistan donot have such advantage .within first hour of war Indian Sam will take out all Pakistani aircraft by just staying inside Indian border while Pakistan donot have Sam's with range of 1000 km for deep Indian bases which house sukhois .after aircraft come to missiles. Do you know India has functional missile shield .now you will give link from report of 2012 or2013 that it lacks .but it is 2015 and India has almost all Sam's and anti missile weapon available in this world while your Pakistan us naked which means all of Indian missiles will land in Pakistan .India has missile of range to target mars which tell capabilities in missile .now come to most modern form of warfare .that is emp weapons. India has emp weapons which will fry all electrical and electronics circuit when used at any target .India also has 30 milatery grade satellites .with emp weapons in play Pakistan will be in total blackout after first few minutes of war .in fact 90% of Pakistani military equipment will be of no use after Indian emp weapon fired .all your missile will be just junk without their electrical and electronics circuit .your nation donot have enough satellites to have comand and control and all those satellites will be taken out by Indian anti satellites weapons. Your Pakistan donot have a single emp weapons. .

Unknown said...

Mr Haq,
I am not inclined to disagree with you. To be very frank, I want you to truly believe in what you say. We are playing a chess game. The game is not over after two moves, nor will it be over when one player says it is "over". The game will be over when one is conclusively defeated and the other declared and acknowledged as a winner. Now coming to the brass tacks, please do not selectively quote some Indian, who is not known in India. Let us not discuss someone else's comment, let us make our own arguments. First, we exploded the nuclear weapon exclusively to verify whether Pakistan possesses similar capability and we knew Pakistan was itching to do that. It is ridiculous and knave to think that a covert nuclear capability of Pakistan will remain unutilised when need arises purely for the reason of such capability not being overt. So, making you overt or keeping your capability covert would in any case not alter the situation. Now the game starts. Nuclear threshold is a poker game. It is not defined with mutual agreement, this is different for India, and different for Pakistan too. Pakistan has been bragging about the use of Atom Bums, and India covertly allowed, rather encouraged such bragging. Now our foreign policy is dictated on a framework painfully conceived and continuity maintained irrespective of the regime change. Same is not the case with Pakistan. Terrorism, invented through religious fundamentalism and carefully groomed as an instrument of state policy has become an albatross around Pakistan's neck. A number of chess game moves are thought over along with Pakistani counter moves, and lined up to be unfolded after every future move of Pakistan. Since I am not in the business of scaring Pakistan with wild imaginations or otherwise, I am not going to talk about them. The net argument is despite having you, your terrorism, around us, we are moving forward. We can do similar move forward as long as we want despite your future acts. Terrorism, infiltration, border violence are no more going to be strengths and means of blackmail for Pakistan to drag us to the dialogue table. Please remember, your defence budget went up to 57% of GDP post 1965 war for some time. Despite your nuclear arsenal, either you will be forced to spend similar amounts now, or start minding your own business as a good neighbour. We know that our strength is in getting ready for an all out nuclear war, and vanquish or get vanquished once for all. There is no more room left out to push us even one more inch, we are on the wall. Choice is yours, best of luck. "Fortune and luck favor the brave". One last point, not even one single square inch of land will be ceded from India, let heavens fall or qayamat arrive prematurely.

Unknown said...

Mr Haq,
I do not agree with Ayush Kumar's comments. Wars are never won by boasting. I am not war mongering, but I welcome a "final deciding" war. It should be called mother of all wars. One point which is part of my chess game move plan, is China's involvement, which I have taken into consideration. You know China as your "all weather" friend. But I know China better than Pakistan, because I faced it for four years as "all weather" enemy. During 1971 I entered China and was ready for fireworks. Whatever the reasons, they made more sounds on the radio than on the ground. Their performance was damp squib. I was disappointed since best of the troops were not on Pakistan border, but on China border. They know we are waiting for them through Pakistan. You are welcome to start things jointly, we do not mind.

Unknown said...

Chinese equation in that geopolitical game is all against USA not against India .CHinese knows that they can't risk India siding westerner. Remember both brics and aiib bank control has been given to India by CHina .in fact in big economic war which is currently ongoing on global platform like imf and world bank and others .India is right hand of CHina .without Indian help CHina will be all alone .and on those platform Pakistan donot even count. For Chinese purchase of gwadar India has purchased oil block in south CHina sea from Vietnam .for Chinese naval base in gwadar India is building its own in chahbahar and in Vietnam .infact India has posted 12 warship continuously in south CHina sea to protect Vietnam and Indian oil assets .your Pakistan media barks a lot on cpec but donot even dare to talk over north south transport corridor .that tells all about how much threatened you ppl feels .

Riaz Haq said...

White House: US Set to Sell 8 New F-16 Fighter Jets to #Pakistan in Bid to Bolster Partnership. #Obama #NawazSharif

The Obama administration is preparing to sell eight new F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, senior American officials said, an overture intended to bolster a tenuous partnership despite persistent concerns about Islamabad’s ties to elements of the Taliban and quickly expanding nuclear arsenal.

The decision comes ahead of President Obama’s meeting on Thursday with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, which is to be dominated by the president’s decision to extend the American troop presence in Afghanistan and a quiet effort to get Mr. Sharif to halt the deployment of a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons.

But Mr. Obama, like President George W. Bush before him, is trying to balance pressure on Pakistan with signs that Washington still considers it a vital ally. Congress was notified just days ago about the proposed sale of the additional fighters, although it is not clear if the White House plans to announce the sale of the aircraft during the visit.

The Federation of American Scientists, a leading American group that monitors the spread of nuclear weapons, published a report on Wednesday that shows that Pakistan has expanded its arsenal to 110 to 130 warheads, up from a range of 90 to 110 four years ago.

While those figures show a steady but expected increase, the group estimated that by 2025 the figure would rise to 220 to 250 warheads. That would make Pakistan the world’s fifth-largest nuclear power, behind the United States, Russia, China and France, but ahead of Britain, which is shrinking its arsenal.

It is the nature, not the size, of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal that tops Mr. Obama’s agenda. Over the past two weeks, officials in Washington have said they are exploring whether a deal might be possible to halt the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons that American experts fear are vulnerable to being launched without authorization, or stolen, on the battlefield. Until earlier this week Pakistani officials had said nothing about the program, although the foreign secretary, Aizaz Chadhary, told reporters in Islamabad on Tuesday that the country had built “low-yield nuclear weapons” to counter India, according to the Dawn, a major daily newspaper in Pakistan.

It is unlikely that either side will talk publicly about nuclear weapons on Thursday, but Mr. Obama plans to raise the issue at length, according to administration officials. Selling Pakistan more arms, however, is an issue that is often discussed more publicly to signal that Pakistan is acting in its role as a “major non-NATO ally,” a designation Mr. Bush bestowed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The new aircraft, whose sale could be blocked by Congress, would add to Pakistan’s already sizable force of fighter jets — it has more than 70 F-16s and dozens of French and Chinese attack aircraft. But perhaps of equal importance to supporters and critics alike is the symbolic value of the sale to an ally whose relationship with the United States has been marked by long stretches of acrimony in recent years.

Much of the tension has arisen from Pakistan’s ties to elements of the Taliban, especially the Haqqani Network, which is linked to Al Qaeda and is seen by American commanders as the most deadly faction of the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan. In recent years, numerous American officials have publicly and privately complained about the support to the Haqqanis provided by Pakistan’s main spy agency, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence.

Riaz Haq said...

#NawazSharif says #India's hostile actions, statemets and arms buildup compel #Pakistan countermeasures via @Reuters

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said on Friday Pakistan would be forced to take "countermeasures" to deter against any attacks, given a major arms buildup by neighboring India and its refusal to resume talks over Kashmir.

"While refusing dialogue, India is engaged in a major arms buildup, regrettably with the active assistance of several powers," Sharif said in a speech to the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington.

"It has adopted dangerous military doctrines. This will compel Pakistan to take several countermeasures to preserve credible deterrence."

Sharif charged that a "cancellation" of talks between the nuclear-armed countries had been followed by increased ceasefire violations by India across the Line of Control dividing Pakistani and Indian Kashmir.

He said there had also been "a stream of hostile statements by the Indian political and military leadership."

Sharif, who held talks with President Barack Obama in Washington on Thursday, said there was a need to resume dialogue with India and urged the United States to be more understanding of Pakistan's position in the interests of regional stability.

"I believe a close review of some of the existing assumptions and analysis and greater attention to Pakistan's views and interests would be useful in enabling Washington to play a constructive role in averting the ever present danger of escalation and promoting stability in South Asia," he said.

Sharif did not define "countermeasures," but on Thursday, Obama urged Pakistan to avoid developments in its nuclear weapons program that could increase risks and instability.

Washington, which like Russia is major arms supplier to India, has been concerned about Pakistan's development of new nuclear weapons, including small tactical nuclear weapons.

It had been trying to persuade Sharif to make a unilateral declaration of "restraint" on nuclear development, but Pakistani officials said Islamabad will not accept limits to its weapons program and argued that smaller tactical nuclear weapons are needed to deter a sudden attack by India.

Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed in July to revive talks, but escalating tensions over Kashmir, which both countries claim in full but rule only in part, derailed the plans.

Earlier on Friday, India's foreign ministry spokesman welcomed Pakistan's pledge in a joint statement with the United States on Thursday to fight militant groups Delhi suspects of attacking Indian targets, but ruled out any third-party mediation to end the Kashmir dispute.

The spokesman, Vikas Swarup, said India "remains open" to talks between the two countries' national security advisers.

Mark Toner, a U.S. State Department spokesman, told a regular Washington news briefing that Pakistan's tensions with India needed to be addressed and this would be best done "through continued dialogue between the two countries."

In Thursday's statement, the United States and Pakistan expressed their commitment to the Afghan peace process and called on Taliban leaders to enter direct talks with Kabul, which have stalled since inaugural discussions in Pakistan in July.

On Friday, Sharif said he had told Afghan President Ashraf Ghani Pakistan was prepared to help revive the talks. But he added: "We cannot bring the Taliban to the table and be asked to kill them at the same time."

Sharif did not elaborate, but was apparently referring to U.S. calls for Pakistan to crack down on Taliban sanctuaries within Pakistan.

Riaz Haq said...

Declassified US documents reveal #India planned attack on #Pakistan nuclear facilities at #Kahuta in 1985. #nukes …

Last week, the US State department declassified its top-secret documents from 1984-85 which focus on the Pakistani nuclear programme. The CIA analysis, and the talking points for the US Ambassador to Islamabad while handing over President Ronald Reagan’s letter to General Zia-ul Haq, show that the US warned Pakistan about an Indian military attack on the Pakistani nuclear reactor at Kahuta. But the Americans were not alone in anticipating an Indian attack. Prof Rajesh Rajagopalan of JNU recently pointed to The End of the Cold War and the Third World: New Perspectives on Regional Conflict, a book by Sergey Radchenko and Artemy M. Kalinovsky based on the declassified documents of the Eastern Block. Radchenko says that documents in the Hungarian archives show that the Soviets had shared with the Hungarians India’s plans to attack Kahuta. It is not clear though, Rajagopalan says, if the Soviets actually had access to any Indian plans or were only reporting widespread rumours. The rumours were indeed widespread, and The Washington Post had run a front-page story on December 20, 1982 headlined, ‘India said to eye raid on Pakistan’s A-plants’. It said military advisers had proposed an attack to prime minister Indira Gandhi in March 1982 but she had rejected it. In his book, India’s Nuclear Policy —1964-98: A Personal Recollection, K Subrahmanyam recollected that the Indian proposal to Pakistan for non-attack on each other’s nuclear facilities, which he suggested to Rajiv Gandhi, was an outcome of such rumours in the Western media. Although the ‘Agreement on the Non-Attack of Nuclear Facilities between Indian and Pakistan’ was first verbally agreed upon in 1985, it was formally signed in 1988 and ratified in 1991. Since 1992, India and Pakistan have been exchanging the list of their nuclear facilities on January 1 every year. -

But how close was India to attacking Kahuta in the 1980s? The first time India is believed to have considered such an attack is in 1981. The idea obviously originated from the daring Israeli attack of June 7, 1981, that destroyed the under-construction Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Eight F-16s of the Israeli Air Force flew more than 600 miles in the skies of three enemy nations to destroy the target and returned unscathed. In 1996, WPS Sidhu, senior fellow for foreign policy at Brookings India, was the first to state that after the induction of Jaguars, Indian Air Force (IAF) had conducted a brief study in June 1981 on the feasibility of attacking Kahuta. The study concluded that India could “attack and neutralise” Kahuta but feared that such an attack would result in a full-blown war between India and Pakistan. This was besides the concerns that an Indian attack will beget an immediate retaliatory — some say, even pre-emptive

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan Army is most battle-hardened: General Raheel Sharif. #India #Modi #TTP #Taliban #Terrorism … via @ibnlive

Pakistan's Army chief General Raheel Sharif on Saturday said his troops are the most battle-hardened and their achievements against terrorism are acknowledged globally.

The Chief of Army Staff said while addressing the closing ceremony of the third Physical Agility and Combat Efficiency Championship held near Attock in Punjab, army said in a statement.

He said Pakistani soldiers were way above the international standards as per the guidelines followed worldwide. "Our overwhelming achievements in fight against terrorism speak volumes of our professional competence, which has also been acknowledged globally," he said.
"Physical fitness helps in improving self-confidence and competence of a soldier," he said.

He lauded the performance, competitive spirit and efforts of both trainers and trainees in achieving remarkable standards.
"All teams participated with extraordinary vigour and demonstrated highest level of motivation, agility and physical fitness," he said.
The army chief appreciated the soldiers setting new records and encouraged them to participate in national and international events.
He also said that training was heart and soul of combat readiness, which contributed positively towards success on the battlefield.

Ghalib said...

Sir, J 10 is not a 5th generation aircraft, the J20 could possibly be but still under development. The Sukhoi MKI is a very lethal platform as has many systems from Israel and France also integrated besides the best of Russian technology. The upgrades Sukhoi to SU 35 standard has no known equal besides the F-22. So respectfully Pakistan has no match in airforce also. Plus very important factor is that if Karachi port is destroyed by our missiles, Pakistan will run out of fuel with a couple of weeks. India has a lot of strategic depth which Pakistan does not. To be fair your artillery with the 155mm 52 calibre guns are far better than our obsolete artillery at the moment as India has not been able to upgrade due to the bofors scam.

Riaz Haq said...

A General who led the Indian Army on ground in the Kargil conflict, has broken his 11-year silence to say that he believes India actually lost the war in strategic terms.

In an exclusive interview to NDTV, Lieutenant-General Kishan Pal, who was then the head of the Srinagar-based 15 Corps, says India has failed to consolidate its tactical gains.

Asked for his assessment of the conflict 11 years later, Gen Pal told NDTV: "Well for 11 years I did not speak at all...I did not speak because I was never convinced about this war, whether we really won it...We did gain some tactical victories, we regained the territories we lost, we lost 587 precious lives. I consider this loss of war because whatever we gained from the war has not been consolidated, either politically or diplomatically. It has not been consolidated militarily."

Gen Pal was recently in a controversy involving the battle performance report of one of his juniors, Brigadier Devinder Singh.

Speaking to NDTV, the then Army chief General VP Mailk refused to get into the debate but said there was little doubt who won that war. (Watch: Kargil war ended on our terms: Gen VP Malik)

Riaz Haq said...

Farooq Abdullah: #India Does Not Have the Power to "Retrieve #Pakistan-Occupied #Kashmir" (Azad Kashmir) … via @ndtv

SRINAGAR: Former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah on Wednesday defended his assertion that "Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) is part of Pakistan and will remain with it", saying neither New Delhi has the power to retrieve that side of the divided line, nor would Islamabad be able to take this part of Kashmir.

"After doing politics all these years, I do not see that we have the power to retrieve that (PoK) or they (Pakistan) can retrieve this (J-K)," Mr Abdullah, who is also the president of opposition National Conference (NC), told reporters in Srinagar.

He said by that formula Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir" will become Pakistan's region with the similar autonomy that we have and by that then the borders will become easy and everybody from here can have access to that place and everybody from that Kashmir can have access to this place".

"So, we can trade, our boys can marry girls from there and their boys can marry girls from here. It will be, you know, like a joint a joint family. That will settle many of problems of India and Pakistan.

"Once this is acceptable, then we will not need all the troops here and they will not need to put all the troops there. And we will have a happy situation," he said.

Mr Abdullah said the only "trouble" with that solution is that the "shops of those who want the situation in Jammu and Kashmir to remain as such will close down."

"They are surviving because of the division and their shops will close once there is a solution," he said, referring to those who criticised his remarks.

Reacting to the criticism of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the former Union Minister said it was a suggestion put forth by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who belonged to the BJP.

"Vajpayee went to Pakistan via bus and he spoke to (Pakistan Prime Minister) Nawaz Sharif. He suggested him to keep that (PoK) and we will keep this (J-K).

"He was BJP PM, was he not? When he gave this suggestion then, why are they (BJP) enraged now? If they have any other solution and they think they can occupy that (PoK) by military might, why are they not doing that then?" Mr Abdullah asked.

Mr Abdullah said his party would support any other solution which could help in creating good relations between India and Pakistan.

"I believe if there is any other solution which can create good relations among Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and India and Pakistan, National Conference has no problem in accepting that. I have said this earlier several years ago and I will continue saying this," he said.

The National Conference president said dialogue is the only option to address all issues.

"Dialogue is the only solution. There is no other solution. We have had so many wars, did that solve our problems? Is there any other way by which you think there will be a solution. I do not see it," he said.

He said Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan have realised that there is no alternative to dialogue.

"Now after my remarks, what happened by the God's grace. India and Pakistan premiers met in Paris with love.

It is because there is no other solution (than dialogue)," he said.

He said it is the people of Kashmir on both sides who are dying because of the situation. "One explosion here and tourism disappears. What industries we have here. Shopkeepers, houseboats, hotels are sitting idle, there is no business.

"They have the fear of terrorism. When will this end? When will we sleep at ease?" he said.

Mr Abdullah said he was a free citizen and would not apologise to anyone over his remarks.

"I am not going to apologise to anybody, I am a free citizen of this country and as a free citizen I put my view.

Riaz Haq said...

#PAF Chief: "Pakistan to get 5th generation fighter jets within 5 yrs" Stealth, Avionics, Air Frame, Integration

Pakistan will acquire the fifth generation multi-role fighter aircraft from the international market but, for the time being, it will devote its full attention on its state-of-the-art JF-17 Thunder to make it the most effective of its generation.

It has been revealed by Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman while talking exclusively with The News here on Wednesday evening. He said that Pakistan wouldn’t lag behind the countries of the region in obtaining the fifth generation planes and it has opened negotiations with the US manufacturers for exploring options of buying single engine multirole F-35 viewed as the plane of the next decade.

At least three other options are under consideration. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) could be equipped with aircraft of fifth generation within five years. Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman said that Indians were buying 126 French Rafale calling them as fifth generation planes but after discussion of years and hitches, they had decided to buy 36 planes at the end of the day and still the deal was in troubled waters.

“I am not prepared to acknowledge Rafale as a plane of the fifth generation since its features are confined to the fourth generation’s planes,” the CAS maintained.

He said that Indian Air Force (IAF), despite having a numerical edge, doesn’t have superiority over Pakistan since Pakistan has planned its air strength in a way where no aggression could work against it. The PAF’s devotion and skill is second to none and for the reason it is graded one of the best air powers of the world, he said.

“We will never let the nation down in any eventuality or test. People have faith in their armed forces and they are very rightly doing so,” he added. He disclosed that Thunder JF-17 was being sold to four countries without disclosing the buyers and number of the planes. He said that it has become difficult to supply all the ordered aircraft within the stipulated time-frame but we will fulfill our obligations.

Riaz Haq said...

This #Pakistan #nuclear missile, Shaheen III with 2,750 Km, can hit targets anywhere in #India. #Nukes #Missiles …

Pakistan test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile on Friday (Dec 11), the military said, two days after the government confirmed it would resume high-level peace talks with arch-rival India.

The military said it had fired a Shaheen III surface-to-surface ballistic missile which can carry nuclear and conventional warheads within a range of 2,750km.

Shaheen-III has a maximum range of 2,750 kilometers (1, 700 miles).

According to Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the test flight was aimed at validating various design and technical parameters of the weapon system.

Pakistan became a declared nuclear power in 1998.

The test was witnessed by senior officers from Strategic Plans Division, Strategic Forces, Scientists and Engineers of Strategic Organisations. He said Pakistan desires peaceful co-existence in the region for which nuclear deterrence would further strengthen strategic stability in South Asia.

It may be noted here that the Shaheen-I and Shaheen-II missiles were test-fired in Pakistan a year ago.

India and Pakistan are longtime foes engaged in a regional arms race, stemming from a conflict dating back to Britain's partitioning of its Indian protectorate into what now are India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan's tool of war: #PAF's rolling thunder #JF17 Fighter Jet

Pakistan Air Force’s thunder
JF-17 is a single-engine multi-role fighter,capable of performing interception roles, ground attack and aerial reconnaissance. The fighter was inducted as a replacement for the ageing fleet A-5C, F-7P, Mirage 3 and Mirage 5 aircraft that were due to be replaced.

The initial Block 1 JF-17s were received in 2007, with production of the upgraded Block 2 JF-17s started in 2013. The upgraded models have upgraded avionics, air-to-air refuelling capability, data link, enhanced electronic warfare capability and enhanced load carrying ability.

The JF-17 is powered by a Russian RD-93 afterburning turbofan, which has a top speed for Mach 1.6. The engine is a derivative of the engine that powers the MIG-29 Fulcrum. With the recent improvement in Pakistan-Russia relations, it might be possible to source the engines directly from Russia, rather than through China. In November it was reported that PAF will stick with using the RD-93, and not opt for a Chinese-made engine.

It was also reported recently that PAF is interested in joint engine development with Russia. The air force for years has wanted to expand its technical capabilities in engine development, as they have lacked the capability in this highly-technical field.

Splash one bandit
The JF-17 can be equipped with air-to-air and air-to-ground ordinance, and has a 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon mounted under the port side air intake.

The aircraft can carry 8,000lbs of ordinance on seven external hardpoints, which is an adequate amount of ordinance for any mission profile. The JF-17 enhances the much needed capability of the air force in beyond visual range (BVR) engagements.

JF-17 mounts both short-range infra-red air to air missiles along with longer ranged radar-guided BVR missiles, an essential capability for a frontline interceptor. Missiles used on the aircraft come from a variety of different nations.

Apart from a capable air-to-air mix, the aircraft can be fitted with laser-guided, satellite-guided and dumb iron bombs. The precision-guided weapons are paired with a targeting pod, mounted on the centreline hardpoint. JF-17's are also capable of carrying anti-runway munitions, specifically the Durandal, which crater a runway, denying its use to enemy aircraft.

The JF-17 Thunder, when equipped for an anti-maritime mission profile, can be equipped with the C-802 anti-ship missile (ASM) and the hypersonic CM-400AKG, often referred to as a ‘carrier-killer’ ASM. It hits the target at Mach 4 or above and its kinetic impact alone is enough to destroy any high-value target.

For Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) missions, the Thunder can be equipped with anti-radiation missiles for neutralising the enemy's air defence radars, allowing the PAF to operate in a less restrictive airspace.

Overall, the varying ordinance carried by the JF-17 makes it a capable aircraft for multiple mission profiles.

The JF-17 fighter incorporates a fly-by-wire system, through which the aircraft’s pitch axis is controlled, with leading edge slats/flaps and trailing edge flaps automatically adjusted during maneuvering to increase turning performance. The performance of the jet reportedly is similar to the F-16.

Incorporating a defensive aids system (DAS), sensors such as radar warning receivers (RWR) and missile approach warning (MAW) enable the pilot to have a clear picture of the threats in an operational area. The electronic warfare (EW) suite of the aircraft is mounted in the tail of the JF-17.

It is reported that the pilots can be equipped helmet mounted sights, which gives the pilots a distinct advantage in visual-range air combat, as they can simply look at and guide the missile onto their intended target.

Riaz Haq said...

With or without the #F16s, #Pakistan Air Force will remain a regional game changer. #India #JF17 … via @tribuneblogs

Fighting Falcon F-16, an American built multi-role fighter jet, has enjoyed a deep-rooted relationship with Pakistan for over three decades. Thanks to its design, it offers an almost complete solution to the tactical and narrowed strategic demands of a compact Air Force like Pakistan’s. Its matchless aerodynamics and upgraded avionics put it a notch above its peers of third generation fighters.

The prime factor of its marriage to Pakistani Air Force is its war tested (Afghan-Soviet) history. It was the first advance jet fighter of the American region that became the green tail, replacing the renowned F-86, the Sabre. F-16, just after its induction, was very promptly employed and operationally proved its lethality against one of the world’s superpowers. Exactly like its predecessor, it enjoyed the best multi-role utility and discovered its utmost war potentials in Pakistan than in the US itself. The Americans themselves must have had a jaw-dropping moment when they saw its employment in both tactical and strategic theatres by Pakistan. It was, and still is, the most romantic of unions.

Soon after the Cold War, the US, cautious of its future designs in the region, initially deferred and subsequently cancelled the next F-16 deal with Pakistan. Realising the need for a regional power balance, Pakistan looked for alternatives and focused on its Super Sabre (now the JF-17) program with China. With committed devotion and sheer hard work, it proved to be quite successful. Pakistan became the only Muslim country to design, develop and produce a high-tech modern combat aircraft. This was not expected by the global and regional hegemons.

Pakistan, once again, attempted an F-16 deal with an upgraded package, which due to obvious reasons was overwhelmingly accepted. Meanwhile, the JF-17 program was also pursued with the same diligence. Diplomatic efforts were employed to entice Pakistan into acquiring upgrades from foreign powers and abandon its indigenous development of weapons. Pakistan, however, chose to be self-reliant. Finally, the long awaited dream came true and the JF-17 was fully in service in 2012.

Recent developments in the US Senate, to stall the sale of eight F-16 jets to Pakistan, find their roots in the same fears I’ve mentioned above. The emerging role of Pakistan in the regional tug of war has further raised the apprehension of US policymakers. The increased Indian influence in both the US Congress and Senate has added fuel to the fire by raising false alarms against the Sino-Pak economic handshakes. It is not worthless to highlight that Henry Kissinger’s recent publication “World Order” admits the underestimation of the regional importance of Pakistan as a whole. He further adds that it would now be impossible to arrest the increased role of Pakistan in both regional and Islamic platforms. With sustained and stabilised continuation of diplomatic and strategic policies, Pakistan will perform a copious role in the region.

US congressmen and think-tanks have not realised the obvious reality that the supplementary sale of F-16s will not distract Pakistan from indigenisation but would further strengthen its war potential. The world is also cognisant that Pakistan has embedded the F-16 in its tactical nuke delivery system, which can again be an extremely unconventional potential affecting the new world order in the Middle East. However, Pakistani military minds have already envisaged this development, and have gone far in developing alternative options.

Pakistan is and will remain a regional game changer, now and forever.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan successfully tests Ra’ad air launched cruise missile with 350 km range: ISPR

Pakistan on Tuesday conducted a successful flight test of the indigenously developed Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) – Ra’ad – said the military’s media wing in a statement.

The flight test of the cruise missile, which is also known as Hatf VIII, was the seventh since it was first tested in 2007.

It is essentially a flying bomb, generally designed to carry a large conventional or nuclear warhead many hundreds of miles with high accuracy. Modern cruise missiles can travel at supersonic or high subsonic speed.

These guided missiles are self-navigating and fly on a non-ballistic very low altitude trajectory in order to avoid radar detection.

The most common mission for cruise missiles is to attack relatively high value targets such as ships, command bunkers, bridges and dams. The modern guidance system permits precise attacks.

The Inter-Services Public Relations said Ra’ad, with a range of 350km, “enables Pakistan to achieve air delivered strategic standoff capability on land and at sea.” The missile is approximately five metres long and could weigh up to 1,000kg.

Read: Pakistan's tool of war: Why the Mi-35 Hind-E is an excellent choice

Special “terrain hugging low level flight maneuvers enable it to avoid detection and engagement by contemporary air defence systems,” the statement added.

Cruise technology is extremely complex and has been developed by only a few countries in the world.

The president and the prime minister congratulated the scientists and engineers behind the development for their outstanding achievement on the successful flight test of Ra’ad.

Director General Strategic Plans Division, Lt Gen Mazhar Jamil, termed the success a major step towards complementing Pakistan’s deterrence capability.

He said achievement of “this milestone will surely enhance strategic stability and contribute to peace in the region.”

Riaz Haq said...

#India IAF blunder on #RepublicDay: Fighter jet ‘accidently’ drops 5 bombs over #Indian territory in #Rajasthan #BJP …
In a bizarre incident, a fighter jet accidental dropped five bombs over Gugdi town in Rajasthan’s Barmer district on Tuesday. The sound of the explosion was heard in a 10 km radius. No casualties have been reported as of now. Initial reports suggested that the bombs were slipped out of the fighter jet which was on a sorties over the area.

Meanwhile, a team of Indian Air Force (IAF) left for the site where five bombs dropped from a fighter plane over Gugdi. An inquiry has been ordered to probe the blunder made by IAF jet. More details are awaited. Fortunately, bombs were dropped over an isolated place otherwise it could have caused huge devastation.

On the Republic Day day when Indian Air Force that displayed 27 mighty aircraft, three C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft, five Jaguar combat planes and a Su-30MKI fighter to show India’s military strength, the incident in Gudge can be considered a major embarrassment.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan Air Force pilot M.M. Alam among 7 of the Greatest Flying Aces in World Aviation History - … via @PopMech

A dogfight between two aircraft is perhaps the most fascinating type of combat. The technical knowledge and precision required to operate a fighter aircraft combined with the physical and mental strain of a dogfight make the fighter pilots who excel at them truly exceptional.

Unofficially, a flying ace is a fighter pilot who shoots down at least five enemy aircraft, though the number a single pilot can achieve has steadily decreased because anti-aircraft and tracking technology has made dogfights rare in modern warfare. From Erich Hartmann, the Nazi fighter pilot credited with the most aerial victories of all time, to Giora Epstein, the ace of aces of supersonic jet pilots, these men are among the most skilled fighter pilots to ever enter a cockpit.

Muhammad Mahmood Alam was a Pakistani Air Force jet fighter pilot in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. He was the last fighter pilot to become an ace in a day, shooting down five Indian Hawker Hunter fighter jets in less than a minute on September 7 1965, the last four of which he downed within 30 seconds. A national hero in Pakistan, Alam holds the world record for becoming an ace in the shortest amount of time. This bold feat also makes him the only jet pilot to become an ace in one day. Alam was already a respected leader and proficient pilot and gunner when the war started in April 1965. He piloted an F-86 Sabre and downed a total of nine Indian Hawker Hunters in the 1965 war, as well as damaging two others.

Top 7:

Manfred von Richthofen - World War I

Erich Hartmann - World War II

James Jabara - Korean War

Muhammad Mahmood Alam - Indo-Pakistani War

Charles B. DeBellevue - Vietnam War

Giora Epstein - Arab–Israeli Wars

Cesar Rodriguez - Gulf War

Riaz Haq said...

Islamabad will pay $70 million per aircraft under the proposed follow-on sale, including the latest F100-229 “increased performance engine” and 14 joint helmet-mounted cueing systems. Other equipment includes eight Northrop Grumman APG-68(V)9 mechanically-scanned, long-range radars and eight Exelis ALQ-211(V)9 advanced integrated defensive electronic warfare suites.

“The proposed sale improves Pakistan's capability to meet current and future security threats,” the DSCA notice says. “These additional F-16 aircraft will facilitate operations in all-weather, non-daylight environments, provide a self-defence/area suppression capability and enhance Pakistan’s ability to conduct counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations.”

Riaz Haq said...

#India's panic over #Pakistan F16 going on for 40 years. Even 12-1 margin fails to make #Indian Air Force confident. …

Like Pavlov's dog (and this no compliment) the moment the US supplies F-16s to Pakistan, Indians become pitifully pathetic puddles of whines. In the days before India and US were allies, this whining was quite aggressive, and led inevitably to soothing pats and hugs from the USSR, which then consoled us with multiple times the weaponry Pakistan was receiving from the US.

The F-16 panic has been going on for 40 years. Before that it was the F-104 panic. In response to US supply of 20 or so F-104s to Pakistan, India went on to buy 250 MiG-21s. But even the 12-1 margin failed to make us confident.

Without going into the boring details, altogether the US has delivered 83 F-16s to Pakistan, 58 new and the rest used. Pakistan has bought and continues to look for second-hand F-16s. This is like India buying used Su-27s from a Third World air force, something we would never stoop to. The current provocation is a fresh deal for eight F-16s. By the time these are delivered, India will have acquired 272 Su-30 heavy fighters. These are considerably more lethal than the F-16 for attack missions.

But in the same time frame, India also purchased 98 MiG-29s, all upgraded/grading to the UPG standard, as well as 59 Mirage 2000, also being upgraded. This makes 429 new fighters to Pakistan's 64 new F-16s. We don't count the 160 Jaguars on India's side and 50 JF-17s on Pakistan's for various reasons. We also don't count PAF's used F-16s because even after modernisation, these remain the same airframe and engine. So does a 7-1 advantage in new fighters make us confident? Apparently not even a little bit. And let's not forget we rejected the US bid to supply us F-16s because we said we didn't want an old aircraft. So how come this old aircraft now becomes a threat in Pakistan's hands?

Riaz Haq said...

F-16 Fightrer Jets Dispatched to #Pakistan (and $700 Million Dispatched to #Lockheed Martin?) -- The Motley Fool …

Few people realize it, but Pakistan currently boasts one of the most powerful air forces in the Middle East, including hundreds of Chinese F-7 fighter jets and French Mirages combined -- and nearly four dozen early model Lockheed F-16s (the most popular fighter jet on the planet). But as recently revealed in a notification to Congress by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Pakistani air force is about to tip more heavily toward the F-16, thanks to an impending sale of eight new F-16 "Block 52" Falcons.

As revealed in the notification, Pakistan has asked Congress to approve the sale of two new F-16C fighters and six F-16Ds. Each aircraft will be powered by United Technologies' (NYSE:UTX) F100-PW-229 turbofan engine. Including the cost of a set of helmet-mounted cueing systems for the pilots, this portion of the sale comes to $564.7 million in value -- about $70.6 million per fighter jet.

The remaining 20% of the deal's value, according to DSCA, is made up of non-"Major Defense Equipment" not subject to the federal government's notification requirements. Comprising radar systems and defensive electronic warfare (EW) equipment for the planes, plus "spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services," this portion of the sale comes to $134 million in value.

Who gets the loot?
Curiously, although Lockheed Martin is providing the planes that are both the core of this arms deal and also the most expensive equipment, Lockheed will not necessarily be named primary contractor. DSCA says, "Contractors have not been selected to support this proposed sale."

With Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) building the radar, Harris Corporation (NYSE:HRS) the EW equipment, and United Technologies the engines, it seems it's at least possible the Pentagon will ultimately run the contract through one of these three -- and leave Lockheed Martin the role of subcontractor!

What it means to investors
Even if the Pentagon does choose a company other than Lockheed to handle the sale, however, this deal promises to be very good for Lockheed. The reason is contained in a single line buried within DSCA's notification, noting that "this sale will... support transition training for pilots new to the Block-52."

The implication of this statement seems to be that the sale of eight new-model F-16s to Pakistan may be only a prelude to a larger deal to upgrade Pakistan's 46 older F-16s with more advanced models. Given that such a sale could rise into the billion-dollar-plus range, we'll be watching developments here closely.

Riaz Haq said...

Ahead of PM #Modi's #Israel visit, #India's arms purchase deals worth $3 billion from Jewish state via @timesofindia

head of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's first visit to Tel Aviv later this year, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) has begun to clear a slew of defence deals with Israel. The deals, some of which have been pending for long, are together worth well over $3 billion.
Defence ministry sources on Tuesday said while the deals for Spice-2000 bombs and laser-designation pods have already been cleared by the CCS, the ones for acquisition of two more Phalcon AWACS (airborne warning and control systems), four more aerostat radars and the medium-range surface-to-air missile system (MR-SAM) for the Army are now on the anvil.
TOI had last month reported that most of these deals had reached the final stages of approvals, while the negotiations for the initial Rs 3,200 crore contract for 321 Israeli "Spike" anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) systems and 8,356 missiles were also making some headway after being stalled for months.

Both the 164 laser-designation pods (Litening-4) and 250 advanced "Spice" precision stand-off bombs are meant to arm IAF fighter jets like Sukhoi-30MKIs and Jaguars for greater lethality and accuracy.
The around Rs 10,000 crore joint development of the MR-SAM for the Army, in turn, will follow the similar ongoing DRDO-Israeli Aerospace Industries projects worth around Rs 13,000 crore for the Navy and IAF. The IAF-Navy variants have an interception range of 70-km, while the one for the Army will be 50-km.
The acquisition of two additional AWACS for over $1 billion, in turn, will be a follow-on order to the three such "force-multipliers" already inducted by the IAF under a tripartite $1.1 billion agreement inked by India, Israel and Russia in 2004.

The AWACS are basically Israeli early-warning radar suites mounted on Russian IL-76 transport aircraft. With a 400-km range and 360-degree coverage, they are "eyes in the sky" capable of detecting incoming fighters, cruise missiles and drones much before ground-based radars.
Similarly, the four new aerostat radars - sensors mounted on blimp-like large balloons tethered to the ground - will follow the two such EL/M-2083 radars inducted by the IAF under a $145 million deal in 2004-2005.

Riaz Haq said...

#India is second most ignorant nation of the world after #Mexico: Survey via @dna

India has the "dubious honour" of being the second most ignorant nation in the world after Mexico, according to a survey which posed questions on issues like inequality, non-religious population, female employment and internet access.

The survey conducted by Ipsos MORI, a London-based market research firm, polled 25,000 people from 33 countries and found that while people "over-estimate what we worry about", a lot of major issues are underestimated.

Mexico and India receive the dubious honour of being the most inaccurate in their perceptions on these issues, while South Koreans are the most accurate, followed by the Irish," the survey said.

The rankings of the nations were based on the "Index of Ignorance" which was determined by questions about wealth that the top 1 % own, obesity, non-religious population, immigration, living with parents, female employment, rural living and internet access.

Most Indians "underestimate" how much of their country's wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top 1%, the survey said, adding that the top 1% actually own an "incredible" 70 % of all wealth.

The survey also found that most Indians "hugely overestimate" the proportions of non-religious people in the country to be 33% when the true figure is under 1 %.

While Israel significantly underestimates the proportion of female employment (by 29 % points), people in countries like India, Mexico, South Africa and Chile all think of more women in work than really are, it said.

India fell in the list of nations which overestimate representation by women in politics.

Countries like Columbia, Russia, India and Brazil all think there is better female representation than there really is, the survey said.

However, the Indian population seriously underestimates the rural population of the country and thinks more people have internet access than in reality.

In India the average guess among online respondents for internet access is 60 per cent - an overestimation of the true picture of 41 percentage points, the survey added.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan orders 9 more Bell AH-1Z attack helicopters, 1000 Hellfire missiles from #US in $170 million contract …

Bell Helicopter has been put on contract to build nine more AH-1Z Viper gunship helicopters for Pakistan, as part of a larger foreign military sales package for up to 15 helicopters and 1,000 Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire-series missiles that was approved last April.

Islamabad ordered its first batch of armed, twin-engine “Zulu Cobras” under that deal in August, as part of a larger US Marine Corps order for 19 AH-1Zs. It furnished an undisclosed number of AH-1Zs powered by GE Aviation T700-401C powerplants for $58 million, likely three.

Bell’s latest $170 million contract modification via US Naval Air Systems Command, announced on 4 April, buys nine more aircraft for Pakistan. That raises Pakistan’s AH-1Z programme value to $228 million.

All aircraft, including those ordered in August, will be delivered by August 2018, those respective contract announcements state.

Pakistan is the first international customer for the AH-1Z type, which the Marine Corps is buying as part of its H-1 upgrade programme to replace the AH-1W Super Cobra by 2020.

The marines ordered their 13th batch of H-1 derivatives, the 85% common, four-bladed Viper and UH-1Y Venom, in March.

Those two aircraft are delivered from Bell’s final assembly and checkout facility in Amarillo, Texas, and are being marketed around the world by Bell to keep assembly humming beyond 2020.

AH-1Zs carry a turret-mounted M197 20mm cannon and are equipped with four wing stations for anti-armour Hellfire missiles, AIM-9 Sidewinders or 70mm and 127mm rockets, the navy says.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan Seeks #France's Thales Damocles Targeting Pod For JF-17 Fighter Aircraft for precision targeting …

Pakistan is assessing the Thales-made Damocles targeting pod to be mounted on its JF-17 aircraft for giving the fighter precision-targeting capability.
Pakistan Air Force deputy chief Muhammad Ashfaque Arain, currently in Paris to discuss the possibility of acquiring the Domacles pod was quoted by Reuters today as saying, “the Damocles is a battle- proven system and the other options are not. If we do not get the Damocles pod for example, then we will need to look for alternate options that may not be proven.”
The JF-17 is a China- Pakistan joint venture manufactured in Pakistan. Arain said that the JF-17 with the Pakistan Air Force had been performing well but its usefulness in current operations was limited because it lacks precision-targeting, a need which would be fulfilled if Thales sold it the Damocles pod.
Arain revealed that 16 JF-17s will be produced this year in Pakistan and a further 20 in 2017. The aircraft are equipped to carry air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles and bombs.
The Damocles is a 3rd generation targeting pod, modular, eye-safe laser and a high performance pod. It is currently operated by Malaysia’s Su-30MKM jets, UAE Mirage 2000-9 jet, Saudi’s Tornado and Typhoon aircraft, as well as France’s Rafale and Mirage 2000D jets.

Riaz Haq said...

Indian Warship INS Khukhri was sunk by a Pakistani sub. Ghazi was sunk in a mine-laying accident, not by enemy. Indian Navy stayed away from Karachi after the sinking of INS Khukri which was the heaviest loss of life in a single incident in the entire war in which 18 Indian Navy officers and 178 sailors perished. Rishi Raj Sood, captain of INS Kirpan - which was accompanying Khukri, fled the scene. “We were hoping that Kirpan, our sister ship would come to rescue us but we saw her sailing away from the area”, Commander Manu Sharma, a survivor of Khukri, has been quoted by Cardozo as having said.

“An early rescue was what everyone hoped for. We thought that at least INS Kirpan would send boat for our rescue, but no rescue boat came from INS Kirpan” Lt Commander SK Basu, who was aboard Khukri and survived the Pakistani attack, told Cardozo. Sood perhaps could have saved the lives of at least some of the 194 people (18 officers and 176 sailors) who died in the attack on Khukri. He continues to defend himself saying that in no way he can disclose the secret behind his questionable action.

Riaz Haq said...

From Indian Defense Review on 1971 ground war on western front:

The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert. In both regions these gains lay in farflung, desolate, uninhabited and difficult areas of negligible economic, strategic and political value which could hurt the rulers of Pakistan only in their prestige.

On the other hand, Sartaj Singh lost the area of Chhamb, where the aftermath of the refugee problem still haunts the Jammu and Kashmir administration. The loss of the Kasowala bulge, the Hussainiwala enclave and the Fazilka agricultural belt in Punjab could not be equated with marginal gains in the Sehjra bulge and the Mamdot enclave in economic, military or political terms. The Indian occupation of the major portion of the Shakargarh bulge was somewhat embarrassing to the Bhutto government in v ..

Rawlley lost more than he gained in Punjab. The loss of Hussainiwala, the Fazilka cotton track and Chhina Bidhi Chand were inexcusable. The battle in this sector was a peripheral loss and gain of border outposts and nothing more.

Read more at:

Riaz Haq said...

Ex-Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar to #Modi's #India: "Stop Blaming #Pakistan for #KashmirUnrest " via @sharethis

Diplomat turned politician and senior Indian National Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar Friday advised India to stop blaming Pakistan for Kashmir unrest and start an unconditional parallel dialogue with both Pakistan and separatist leadership of Kashmir.
In an exclusive chat with Kashmir based news agency CNS, Aiyar said that it would not solve the problem for India instead it will get aggravated if India continues to keep on blaming Pakistan for Kashmir crisis. “There is an urgent need for parallel dialogue. India must start dialogue with Pakistan and at the same time it should engage ‘disgruntled’ separatist leadership of Kashmir. The fact is that whenever India engages Pakistan into dialogue, the tempers in Kashmir have cooled down,” he said.

Aiyar who was a cabinet minister in Manmohan Singh led Indian government admitted that there is so much dissatisfaction among people in Kashmir and it is high time we take measures to solve the Kashmir imbroglio. “We don’t have to re-invent the wheel but we have to only dust-off the past records that we had on Kashmir. So many groups and even interlocutors had come up with recommendations on Kashmir. We need to have a closer look over those Kashmir related files that have gathered dust and try to implement them. We need to show to the people of Kashmir that we are serious to settle the Kashmir issue,” he said and added that it is high time that Government of India implement the recommendations of the five Working Groups constituted by the then Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh in 2006.
Responding to a question, Mani Shankar Aiyar said that it is unfortunate that the documents related to Round Table Meetings over Kashmir were buried by successive Governments at New Delhi. He said that even Pakistan and India had arrived at a consensus to demilitarize both parts of Kashmir and evolve to mechanism to sort out common problems.
Aiyar said that it is very unfortunate that Bhartiya Janata Party that has not won even a single seat from Kashmir. “It is the right time for PDP to distance itself from BJP and seek support from Congress, National Conference and other independent members. People in Kashmir are highly dissatisfied with BJP,” he said and condemned the use of brute force in Kashmir.

“What New Delhi is trying to prove by using brute force on the protesters in Kashmir Valley? People in Kashmir are facing oppression. Any attempt to force the people of Kashmir to accept any solution against their will is bound to fail. The cosmetic measures are not going to work now. We need a permanent solution to this problem,” Aiyar said adding that when Government of India can reach out to the gun totting people of Nagaland, why it feels shy to reach out to the people of Kashmir.

Riaz Haq said...

There Should be 'Plebiscite' in #Kashmir, Says #India Congress Leader Scindia. #Pakistan #KashmirUnrest

Congress leader Jyotiraditya Scindia today said in Lok Sabha that there should be "plebiscite" in Kashmir as the situation in the Valley has deteriorated and the PDP-BJP government has "insulted" the "crown" of India.

"In Kashmir today, there is a need for plebiscite," he said using Urdu word 'rai shumari' while initiating a discussion in the House on Kashmir situation.

"PDP-BJP government has shed all the principles. Administration is divided and the government, which should support people, is using weapons against them," Scindia said, adding "the wounds there can be healed only through humanity."

While attacking the Centre and state government, the Chief Whip of Congress said, "There is a need to create an environment of peace and tranquality; growth and development."

Describing Kashmir as "an important part of the heart of every Indian", he said, "but today that crown is being insulted. This I feel is irresponsible."

He said the UPA government had created an environment of peace and harmony by taking everybody along.

"The reality is that there is a marriage of convenience in Jammu and Kashmir," Scindia said referring to the alliance between PDP and BJP.

"The reality is that there is an identity crisis in the state government...Today it is ckear that there is a political upheavel and terrorism is flourishing in Jammu and Kashmir. 60 per cent population in the state is below 30 years of age. If we are not able to create opportunities for them, we would be pushing them towards militancy," the Congress leader said.

Riaz Haq said...

#Israel Air Force #IAF to participate in #American #Flagstar air-to-air combat drill with #Pakistan #PAF, #UAE AF

The Israel Air Force is set to take part in a large-scale aerial exercise in the United States later this month. According to reports, teams from the Pakistani and United Arab Emirates air forces will also be taking part in the Red Flag air-to-air combat exercise in Nevada.
Israel will be sending land and air crews, as well as F-16 fighter jets, to the exercise, which is one of the biggest in the world. Haaretz asked the IDF spokesman to comment on the Israeli military’s policy on training with teams from Pakistan and the U.A.E. – countries Israel has no diplomatic relations with – but received no response.

The IAF has been preparing for the exercise over recent months, including the long-distance flight from Israel to the Nellis Air Force Base in southern Nevada. Flying the F-16s to the United States will require several fueling stops along the way, as well as midair refueling.

The IAF also participated in last year’s exercise, which simulates aerial combat fighting. The participating teams are put in a “blue” team and a “red” team, and these hold dogfights with one another.
Teams from the United States, Israel, Singapore and Jordan took part in last year’s exercise. At the time, it was reported in foreign media outlets that Israeli aircraft even refueled Jordanian jets en route to the United States for the exercise.
An IAF officer who took part in last year’s exercise called it “the biggest and best simulation of war in the world.”

The teams that took part in the exercise practiced intercepting aircraft, attacking targets, rescuing pilots and flying under the threat of anti-aircraft missiles.
The Nellis Air Force Base website didn’t disclose which air forces will be participating in the upcoming exercise. However, aerial enthusiast websites reported that teams from Spain and the U.A.E. will be taking part. Spain’s Ministry of Defense reported that the Spanish Air Force sent teams to the exercise last weekend. Pakistani media outlets also reported that Pakistani F-16s were en route to the United States.
The Aviationist, a website devoted to reports on military aviation, stated that Pakistani F-16s landed in Portugal 10 days ago, on their way to the exercise.

Riaz Haq said...

Israel and Pakistan Take Part in Joint Aerial Combat Exercise in U.S.
read more:


In recent days photographers in the area, near Las Vegas, have filmed Israeli, Spanish and Pakistani aircraft in advance of the joint exercise. In addition, a transport plane belonging to the United Arab Emirates was also photographed, indicating that, as reported, that country’s air force will also participate in the exercise.
The Israeli plane that will be used in the exercise is the F-16I (the “Sufa,” or Storm). In footage from Nevada one can see that IAF jets belonging to three different Sufa squadrons were sent to the United States. Air and ground crews will also participate.
The Red Flag exercise is scheduled to end on August 26.


“The Red Flag is the biggest and best simulation of war in the world,” one IAF officer said at the end of the 2015 exercise.
All of the squadrons participating are assigned to “red” and “blue” forces. They practice intercepting other aircraft, attacking targets, rescuing pilots and engaging in aerial activity under the ostensible threat of ground-to-air missiles.
Haaretz received no response when questioning Israel Defense Forces sources two weeks ago about the possible participation of Pakistan and the UAR in Red Flag.
At the time the IDF Spokesman's Office said only that, “The air force trains regularly in Israel and abroad in order to maintain operational fitness for various operational plans. The Red Flag exercise involves unique and high-quality training. When the IAF was invited to participate, it accepted the invitation.”

read more:

Riaz Haq said...

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) -- Pakistan Air Force F-16C/D aircraft traveled more than 7,700 miles to participate in Red Flag 16-4 here from Aug. 15-26.

The training allowed the Pakistan and U.S. air forces to continue building and strengthening their relationship. It also provided them the chance to improve integration, further training and enhance the readiness of air operations.

“The F-16 has been the lynchpin in accomplishing our mutual desired objectives,” said Pakistan Air Vice Marshal Syed Noman Ali, the deputy chief of air staff. “At the strategic level it has been extremely valuable. On the capability enhancement and objective achievement on the ground, this aircraft has been the most useful.”

Pakistan brought a unique set of skills to the exercise, from their willingness to collaborate to their motivation to get the most out of the training scenarios.

“For me, it is absolutely phenomenal to have a partner who is willing to do that and looks at this as truly an opportunity to not only get better as a force within the Pakistan Air Force but also how to better integrate with everyone else,” said Maj. Gen. Rick B. Mattson, the chief of the Office of the Defense Representative, Pakistan. “That has been a major focus for the team that has been here and I have already heard about ways they are able to integrate better through technology and we will try to work on that part.”

Not only have the Pakistan pilots been impressive but also their maintenance team as well.

“I have a lot of experience in the Middle East and this is a very unique capability that they have,” Mattson said. “When you go through the maintenance facility, bays, it’s all Pakistan enlisted working on these aircrafts.”

Integration has been a major focus for Red Flag 16-4 and the Pakistan Air Force has played a key role in helping achieve that goal.

“When you have a force that is that professional and is dedicated to training and working together as a coalition you are going to get better as a group and I think that has been the biggest lesson from this,” Mattson said.

The exercise has helped both air forces learn each other’s strengths and utilizing those strengths in real-world situations.

“Whenever we’ve been together with the U.S. in terms of an exercise or other engagements it has been amazing, productive and mutually rewarding experience on both sides,” Ali said. “Whether its actual strategies that have been going on in the region or it has been exercises that train for certain events, I would expect this type of relationship to grow stronger in the future.”

Ajay K Dubey said...

Riaz , you are living in fools paradise . You are crying as Mr Zakir Naik , as he has learnt some religious books as parrot and keep on repeating that .

I have been to US and Europe , and there PAKI is not less than an abuse and people take them with suspicion .

In your view , all these IT export of India is fake , out trillion dollar economy is fake , we are so fool that we are wasting our billion of dollars to buy junks from US , Russia and Israel beside developing our own ( You people has Chinese made defense equipment , and you will be happy to listen in India any thing of low quality and grantee is called Chinese Material. When the world's credit rating agencies says that India is the fastest growing economy , that is also fake .India's space program is second to none , it is also fake . Chandra Yan was a fire cracker . Sir ji , make your fact right and even you don't make it does not matter to India . Pakistan is totally a fake country , even the History what is taught is fake . You people foolishly consider you as decadent of Arabs but the reality is , you all were Hindus and the Arab's , Moughls etc have blood bathed you first as you were the first to come on the way and due to the fear of slaughter by them , you people accepted Islam . All you said is a Joke and it shows your frustration .

Riaz Haq said...

#India needs cool heads after #Kashmir attack but #Modi is a prisoner of his own bluster. #Pakistan #UriAttacks

the crucial - and more serious - question is whether India has the capability and intelligence to carry out targeted strikes or wage a limited war inside Pakistani territory.
Most experts say that successive governments don't appear to have built these capabilities. There is media chatter on why the air force should carry out surgical air strikes inside Pakistan, but many experts believe it would not be easy as Pakistan has robust air defence systems. There are even doubts whether India has built capabilities for unconventional deterrence.
The problem with Mr Modi's government, according to defence analyst Ajai Shukla, is that it has "escalated the rhetoric [against Pakistan] but has not created military capabilities and planning structure to respond in a more forceful manner [against terror attacks] than the previous government".

Now the government appears to have become a prisoner of its own bluster. "The danger of being trapped in your own rhetoric is that you can be forced into an aggressive response and then be ill-quipped to handle the escalation," says Mr Shukla.
So is India's tradition of so-called "strategic restraint" against Pakistan the only answer?
For one, the jury is out whether the policy has worked or not. There are no easy answers.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta of Delhi's leading Centre for Policy Research think tank says strategic restraint has served India quite well. "Pakistan will be isolated, except for China, and we should call for financial sanctions," he says. Also, he believes Sunday's attack will put Pakistan on the spot and let the pressure off Kashmir at the UN General Assembly meeting this week.
"We have actually boxed ourselves into a bit of corner by our public discourse, where the clamour to do something reckless is now great. Otherwise we are winning the long-term battle," says Professor Mehta.
Cold logic
Others like C Christine Fair, defence expert and author of Fight to the End, a scholarly account of Pakistan's army, differ. "If the objective is to deter Pakistan to stop pursuing terror against India it hasn't served the purpose. Does the international community feel any more compelled to take India's side because of its strategic response? Not really," she says.
Others feel that "strategic restraint" masks a morbidly cold logic that India, a country of more than a billion people with one of the largest standing armies in the world, can absorb the deaths of soldiers in terror attacks without any major political upheaval. "India is growing economically, Pakistan is not. So we can sacrifice a couple of hundred people in attacks, without risking a war. That's what the thinking behind strategic restraint is, which nobody really talks about," says an expert.

Riaz Haq said...

In a report to be unveiled on March 28, Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specialising in international security, defence, and Asian strategic issues said that air dominance was vital for India if it were to have deterrence stability in southern Asia and for preserving the strategic balance in the wider Indo-Pacific region.

Mr. Tellis’ report, “Troubles, they come in Battalions: The Manifest Travails of the Indian Air Force,” is a sharp analysis of the current state of the IAF’s preparedness to face down threats from potentially troublesome neighbours and it finds the country’s aerial fighting force to be inadequate on a number of parameters.

For example, the report notes that as of early 2016, the IAF was weaker than the numbers suggested, and “At nominally 36.5 squadrons, it is well short of its sanctioned strength, and many of its frontline aircraft are obsolete.”

On the other hand China and Pakistan have apparently fielded close to 750 advanced air defence or multirole fighters against the IAF’s 450-odd equivalents, and by 2025, China may well be in a position to deploy anywhere between 300 and 400 sophisticated air craft against India, in addition to likely 100 to 200 advanced fighters by Pakistan.

With India facing this regional threat matrix Mr. Tellis argues that the IAF’s desire for 42–45 squadrons by 2027, which is the equivalent of around 750-800 aircraft, was “compelling,” yet the likelihood of reaching this goal was “poor.”

The main barriers to embarking on a successful acquisition and modernisation drive, according to the Carnegie report is the fact that the IAF is “stymied by serious constraints on India’s defence budget, the impediments imposed by the acquisition process, the meagre achievements of the country’s domestic development organisations, the weaknesses of the higher defence management system, and India’s inability to reconcile the need for self-sufficiency in defence production with the necessity of maintaining technological superiority over rivals.”

Earlier this month The Hindu noted (Embracing America’s war machines) that a rare offer to produce F-16 fighters on Indian soil may be forthcoming from the aircraft’s producer, Lockheed Martin, and that there were several risks but many advantages to considering this option as the IAF presses on with its expansion.

If the IAF chose to avoid this approach it may have to continue relying on the Sukhoi and MiG platforms and the expected incoming 36 Rafale aircraft, and then cover any shortfall in capability with the indigenous Tejas.

While this approach may make sense from a cost perspective in that India could save money for a theoretical future purchase of the F-35 instead, a stealth-capable, fifth generation fighter, it may also slow India’s progress in building up its force posture in the manner envisioned by the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender, under which another 90 advanced fighters are still required.

In the context of the Tejas, the Su-30MKI acquisitions and the PAK-FA co-development programmes, however, the Carnegie report is clear in identifying technical shortcomings, and it notes that “All three tiers of the IAF are currently in trouble.”

Specifically the Tejas Mark 1 was handicapped by significant technological deficiencies; the prospects for expanding the MMRCA component to compensate for the Tejas’s shortcomings are unclear; and the IAF’s reluctance to proceed fully with the PAK-FA program could undermine its fifth generation fighter ambitions, the report argues.

Riaz Haq said...

#India leads global #defense growth with $56.5 billion budget in 2018 to be #3 (after #US, #China ) #Modi … via @FT

● $38.17bn: Indian defence spending in 2010
● $64.07bn: Indian defence spending (projected) in 2020
● $1.6tn: global defence spending in 2016
Source: Jane’s

India’s drive to modernise its military has helped it to oust Russia from the world’s top five spenders on defence this year, while the country is set to push Britain from the number three spot by 2018.


India this year surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the fourth biggest defence budget, spending $50.7bn against Russia’s $48.5bn and the UK’s $53.8bn. After three years of budgetary constraints, Jane’s is forecasting that Indian spending will surpass Britain’s, rising from $38bn in 2010 to a forecast $64bn in 2020, against expectations of $55bn for the UK.

Meanwhile, China’s defence spending continues to accelerate and the Jane’s analysts predict the shift from territorial protection to power projection, along with rising tensions around the South China Sea, could prompt faster budget growth in the Asia-Pacific region. Between 2011 and 2015, states surrounding the South China Sea spent $166bn on defence equipment. Between 2016 and 2020, that will rise to $250bn, the review states.

China’s defence budget will have doubled within 10 years from $123bn in 2010 to $233bn in 2020, the report predicts. In 2016, China spent $191.7bn. By 2020, China will be spending more than the whole of western Europe and by 2025, more than all states in the Asia-Pacific region combined.

Riaz Haq said...

Why #India cannot win wars against its neighbours #China, #Pakistan … via @scroll_in

Excerpted from Dragon On Our Doorstep: Managing China Through Military Power, Pravin Sawhney and Ghazala Wahab, Aleph Book Company.

Let alone China, India cannot even win a war against Pakistan. And this has nothing to do with the possession of nuclear weapons – the roles of nuclear and conventional weapons are separate in the war planning of India, China and Pakistan.

The reason India would be at a disadvantage in a war with Pakistan is because while Pakistan has built military power, India focused on building military force. In this difference lies the capability to win wars.

Military force involves the mere collection of “war-withal”, that is, building up of troops and war-waging materiel; military power is about optimal utilisation of military force. It entails an understanding of the adversaries and the quantum of threat from each, the nature of warfare, domains of war, how it would be fought, and structural military reforms at various levels to meet these challenges. All this comes under the rubric of defence policy (also called political directive) and higher defence management, which in India’s case is either absent or anachronistic and in urgent need of transformation.

A measure of this can be gauged from the (then) Defence Minister Arun Jaitley’s comment on Pakistan in October 2014. He said, “Our [India’s] conventional strength is far more than theirs [Pakistan’s]. If they persist with this [cross-border terrorism], they’ll feel the pain of this adventurism.” Given that the Pakistan Army unabashedly continues its proxy war against India, Jaitley and his successors should wonder why the mere 6 lakh strong Pakistan Army is not deterred by the 13 lakh strong Indian Army.


Military power has geopolitical implications. Pakistan today is sought after by the United States, China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the Central Asian Republics and the littoral countries of South Asia. It has emerged as a critical geopolitical pivot on the Eurasian chessboard. India, on the other hand, remains an important but certainly not geostrategic player. While geostrategic players have the capacity, capability and national will to exercise influence beyond their borders to impact geopolitical affairs, geopolitical pivots are nations whose importance is directly proportional to the number of geostrategic players that seek them out.


Instead of viewing China and Pakistan as two separate adversaries bound by an unholy nexus, India needs to understand that the road to managing an assertive China runs through Pakistan – both strategically and militarily. Only this will ensure space for India in Eurasia. For this reason, an Indian study about managing China should begin with an understanding of Pakistan’s security policy and military power. Whether we like it or not, the path to India becoming a leading power is through Pakistan. Without optimal regional integration through the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which has not happened since its inception, India cannot claim its rightful place in Asia and the world – a void which China has been stepping into boldly for several years now.

If India can grasp this reality, it will be able to understand China’s grand strategy for global domination.

Riaz Haq said...

#Indian officials: #India to deploy 464 newly ordered T-90MS tanks along border with #Pakistan | IHS Jane's 360 …

The Indian Army (IA) plans to deploy about 464 newly ordered T-90MS main battle tanks (MBTs) along India's western and northern borders with Pakistan, military officials told IHS Jane's on 19 January.

The T-90MS MBTs, which are being acquired in kit form from Russia for INR134.80 billion (USD2 billion), will in the coming years supplement around 850-900 Bhishma MBTs currently deployed in the Indian states of Rajasthan and Punjab, both of which border Pakistan.

Bhishma is the designation for the Indian variant of the T-90S MBT, the export model of the T-90 MBT in use with the Russian Ground Forces.

Riaz Haq said...

Comparison of India and Pakistan artillery

Total Strength of Indian towed artillery – 4150

Of which

Heavy Artillery – 480
Medium Artillery – 1270
Light Artillery – 2400

Total strength of Pakistani Towed Artillery – 3278

Of which

Heavy Artillery – 422
Medium Artillery – 1243
Light Artillery – 1613

Total Indian Towed Artllery strength stands at 4150 vs Pakistan’s 3278, on paper that is, in reality however, India’s fleet of S-23 180mm and D-30 122mm are retired or are currently in the process of being retired as state run OFB no longer manufactures the required Ammunition used in these guns. Actual Strength of Indian towed artillery is 3500 vs Pakistan’s 3278, this doesn’t look like a great scenario for a nation which wants to maintain a conventional firepower superiority against its main regional rival. Pakistan can bring the full might of its 3,278 strong artillery force while India will have to divide artillery between the Chinese and Pakistani borders to prevent any misadventure by either power.

Heavy Artillery

While India’s heavy guns, 203 mm, are out of action Pakistan fields a few dozen of 203mm gun as POF manufactures the required ammunition that are used in these guns.

On the 155mm front Indian army has failed to achieve a significant edge over its Pakistani counterpart.

India posses a total of 380 155mm guns compared to 394 155mm Guns of Pakistan. What’s interesting is that India originally acquired a grand total of 410 155 FH77/B guns from Swedish defense giant Bofors along with adequate tech transfer, but only 200 of them survive. The reason why India lost more than half of the FH77/B 155mm fleet was due to cannibalization of a large number of guns in order to obtain critical spare parts to run the remaining fleet. This clearly points out the inability of state run OFB to indigenize the Bofors gun and how Nehru-Gandhi corruption damaged India’s defense preparedness. The 155mm M-46 fleet, upgraded by Soltam-OFB, has stood the test of the time and is one of the most reliable artillery guns in India’s arsenal.

Pakistan will continue to enjoy a numerical advantage over India as far the 155mm class of artilery is considered as the Induction of homegrown “Dhanush” gun is slow and other major artillery programs are well behind schedule while Pakistan based Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) produces 30+ MKEK Panter 155mm guns a year with technology transfer from Turkey.

Medium Artillery

India has always maintained an edge against Pakistan in the medium artillery department, but as of today the Indian army has decommissioned all of it’s 122mm guns, In light of this development Indian army has fallen far behind against Pakistani counterpart in the Medium Artils department. As of today India has about 720 M46 130mm medium guns left in service, whereas Pakistan’s 130mm M46 clones and 122 mm variants stand at a staggering 1,243 guns, 523 guns more than India.

Pakistan will continue to expand its lead over India in Medium Artilery as the remaining M46 130mm guns are converted to 155mm standard and there are no plan to induct new guns in the Medium artillery segment.

at the top levels of government &the ministry of defense and incompetent defense ministers are some of the reasons why Indian Artils are in such a bad shape. New Delhi needs to move fast as half of the medium artillery has been retired, and more than half of the Bofors 155mm fleet has been cannibalized in search of spare parts, both the Army and the Government need to expedite the process of acquiring new Artillery . Success story of the 105mm light Artillery has already set the precedence for Indian Army to follow local production of artillery system to be replicated in the 155mm category.


Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan #Navy successfully tests land-based, anti-ship #missile

Pakistan Navy on Thursday conducted a successful test of a land-based, anti-ship missile, APP reported.

A press release from the Navy said that the trial was conducted from the coastal region and the missile secured a hit on a target placed at sea.

The missile is equipped with advanced technology and avionics, which enable engagement of targets at sea with a high degree of accuracy.

The event was witnessed by Vice Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Khan Hasham Bin Saddique and senior officers of Pakistan Navy.

Admiral Saddique commended the successful accomplishment of the objectives of the trial and lauded the hard work and efforts of all those who were involved, specifically appreciating the crew of the missile unit.

Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Muhammad Zakaullah in his message said that the weapon system has added a new dimension to the operational reach of Pakistan Navy, allowing it to bolster seaward defences by giving the Navy the capability to launch long-range, anti-ship missiles from land.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan conducts anti-ship missile test
By: Usman Ansari, March 16, 2017

Pakistan successfully test launched a land-based anti-ship missile on Thursday, but the did not reveal its identity, possibly indicating it is a new development of its Babur land-attack cruise missile.

The military’s media branch, ISPR, said the “land-based anti-ship missile” featured “advanced technology and avionics, which enable engagement of targets at sea with high accuracy.”

The trial, witnessed by Vice Chief of Naval Staff Adm. Khan Hasham Bin Saddique and other senior officers, was undertaken in the coastal region. A warning to shipping regarding missile tests was issued for March 16-17.

Siddique congratulated the technical team, saying the test would help improve Pakistan’s defenses and operational reach of the Navy by enabling the launch of long-range, anti-ship missiles from land.

No performance details or even the name of the missile were provided, however.

Though an image released by the government’s Press Information Department appeared to show a Babur missile, its resolution was insufficient to accurately determine the missile’s identity.

In April last year, a shore-based anti-ship missile dubbed Zarb was test fired. It was speculated by analysts to be the Chinese C-602/YJ-62.

However, a naval industry official told Defense News at Pakistan’s biennial defense exhibition IDEAS 2016 in November that Pakistan was working on indigenous anti-ship missiles. This followed an earlier revelation buried in a Ministry of Defence Production report of development of a shipboard anti-ship missile launcher.

In December, steel was cut for the first indigenous Azmat Block II missile boat, which in can be determined from the images released at the time will carry a larger anti-ship missile than the C-802A/CSS-N-8 Saccade that arms the Block I boats.

No confirmation of this missile’s identity has been forthcoming since then, but it sparked speculation that Pakistan’s indigenous anti-ship missile efforts were perhaps more advanced than realized.

The Babur offers the quickest route to an indigenous anti-ship missile, with a range exceeding the limitations of the Missile Technology Control Regime in the same vein as the United States' UGM/RGM-109B (TAS-M) Tomahawk.

It has already provided the basis of further developments. The updated Babur II was tested in December. The sub-launched Babur III, was successfully tested in January, enabling Pakistan to establish a second-strike capability.

Though the C-602 reportedly cruises at a height of 30 meters, test-area altitude for today’s test was restricted to 1,500 meters — more akin to the higher cruise altitude of the Babur.

A Navy spokesman was asked to comment on the missile’s identity, but there was no reply by press time.

Riaz Haq said...

#UK hands over 7 Sea King MK-45 #helicopters to #Pakistan Navy for rescue, transport, anti-ship, anti-submarine war

The Pakistan Navy has taken delivery of seven refurbished Westland Sea King helicopters from the U.K on Thursday, May 25.

In an official press release by the Pakistani High Commission in London, the formal handing over ceremony was attended by Pakistan’s High Commissioner to the UK Syed Ibne Abbas, the U.K. Ministry of Defence’s representative Christopher Bob Richardson and Pakistan Navy officials.

Pakistan bought the helicopters in 2016 and contracted the maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) firm Vector Aerospace to refurbish and prepare the aircraft for delivery in 2017.

Notes & Comments:

These will join the Pakistan Navy’s six Sea King Mk. 45 helicopters, which are shore-based assets used for multiple roles, among them search-and-rescue, troop transport, anti-submarine warfare and anti-ship warfare. The specific model of these additions is not known, nor is it clear if this recent batch will supplant the Pakistan Navy’s existing Sea King fleet.

Riaz Haq said...

For all the chest-thumping, #India cannot win a war against #Pakistan. #Modi #BJP via @qzindia

In the 1983 film WarGames, a nuclear war simulation is accidentally started by a supercomputer designed to take over in the event of the Cold War spiralling out of control. After evaluating all the possibilities, the computer declares that “war is a strange game, in which the only winning move—is not to play.” That advice is possibly truest for India right now.
For all the xenophobic war mongering touted in every medium, India cannot “win” a war against Pakistan and the sooner we appreciate this politico-military reality, the more coherent and serious we will sound to our adversaries and the world community. The demands for a “once and for all” resolution of Kashmir/Pakistan emanating from several quarters, which surprisingly includes some veterans—equating India’s non-retaliation with impotence—perhaps don’t factor the larger picture and the stark truth of modern military warfare.
Matter of fact, short of total genocide, no country regardless of its war-withal can hope to achieve a decisive victory with a “short war” in today’s world. As the US is discovering eight years, trillion dollars, and over 25,000 casualties later—in Afghanistan. That era of “decisive” short wars, especially in the Indo-Pak context, is largely over because of several reasons.

Firstly, the much vaunted Indian military superiority is largely an accounting subterfuge. Sure we have more soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and ships than Pakistan, but banking on mere numbers is misleading and irrelevant in military strategy. Pakistan has successfully locked down over 30% of our army in internal counter insurgency roles that not only sucks in combat troops from their primary roles for prolonged periods, but also alienates the local population in the valley.
The major reason for the Pakistani Op Gibraltar’s failure in 1965 was the overwhelming loyalty of Kashmiri locals towards India. Disguised Pakistani troops who had infiltrated into the valley to incite rebellions were caught by the locals and promptly handed over to the Indian security forces. Fifty years later, sentiment in the valley is very different. And this “turning move” has been achieved by Pakistan with a ridiculously low investment of merely a few hundred terrorists and psychological operations.

Another substantial part of our army is locked down in the North East insurgency and we are still trying to build adequate force levels against our much stronger adversary all along our border with China. India’s Chinese front is in a tenuous state because of decades of neglect and the massive infrastructure China has built to be able to mobilise several divisions in a matter of hours into that theatre.
Most worryingly, Pakistan and China have achieved military interoperability, which is the capability of their two armies to execute joint missions against a common target. Decades of mutual cooperation, technology transfer, training, equipment sales, and of course a common enemy, have welded our two adversaries into a formidable joint force. Pakistan’s accelerated achievements in nuclear technology, missile delivery systems, logistic supply chain of equipment, and spares as well as new-age technologies such as cyber and drone warfare are all the result of cooperation between the two countries.

Riaz Haq said...

For all the chest-thumping, India cannot win a war against Pakistan

For all the xenophobic war mongering touted in every medium, India cannot “win” a war against Pakistan and the sooner we appreciate this politico-military reality, the more coherent and serious we will sound to our adversaries and the world community. The demands for a “once and for all” resolution of Kashmir/Pakistan emanating from several quarters, which surprisingly includes some veterans—equating India’s non-retaliation with impotence—perhaps don’t factor the larger picture and the stark truth of modern military warfare.

----Sure we have more soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and ships than Pakistan, but banking on mere numbers is misleading and irrelevant in military strategy. Pakistan has successfully locked down over 30% of our army in internal counter insurgency roles that not only sucks in combat troops from their primary roles for prolonged periods, but also alienates the local population in the valley.
The major reason for the Pakistani Op Gibraltar’s failure in 1965 was the overwhelming loyalty of Kashmiri locals towards India. Disguised Pakistani troops who had infiltrated into the valley to incite rebellions were caught by the locals and promptly handed over to the Indian security forces. Fifty years later, sentiment in the valley is very different. And this “turning move” has been achieved by Pakistan with a ridiculously low investment of merely a few hundred terrorists and psychological operations.
Another substantial part of our army is locked down in the North East insurgency and we are still trying to build adequate force levels against our much stronger adversary all along our border with China. India’s Chinese front is in a tenuous state because of decades of neglect and the massive infrastructure China has built to be able to mobilise several divisions in a matter of hours into that theatre.
Most worryingly, Pakistan and China have achieved military interoperability, which is the capability of their two armies to execute joint missions against a common target. Decades of mutual cooperation, technology transfer, training, equipment sales, and of course a common enemy, have welded our two adversaries into a formidable joint force. Pakistan’s accelerated achievements in nuclear technology, missile delivery systems, logistic supply chain of equipment, and spares as well as new-age technologies such as cyber and drone warfare are all the result of cooperation between the two countries.
In contrast, India has not even been able to integrate its three services, what to speak of assimilation with political leadership, industry, academia and indigenous defence capabilities. As Praveen Sahwney points out in his book “The Dragon on our doorsteps,” India has primarily focused on developing its military arsenal whereas Pakistan and China have been developing war waging capabilities, which is a synthesis of many strengths other than just military force.
Secondly, Pakistan has leveraged its geopolitical position far more strategically than India has been able to. India has traditionally relied on moral high ground to achieve global consensus and support. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the world’s largest democracy, wedged in between a communist adversary and a rapidly radicalising Islamic nation got global mindshare and sympathy. Though none of that translated into meaningful benefits for India per se, our foreign policy continues to have the hangover of “doing the right thing.”

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan Army Aviation Receives 4 Mi-35M Advanced Attack #Helicopters From #Russia. @Diplomat_APAC

The Pakistan Army Aviation Corps (PAAC) took delivery of four Russian-made Mi-35M attack helicopters, Pakistan’s Defense Export Promotion Organization (DEPO) confirmed in a statement issued at this year’s International Military-Technical Forum (Army 2017), which took place August 22-27 in Moscow, according to local media reports.

“The contract was signed, we received all four cars [Mi-35Ms] and now we get new equipment,” DEPOs Brigadier General Waheed Mumtaz told reporters in Moscow. PAAC are now getting acquainted with the new equipment. Based on the gunships’ performance a follow-up order for additional helicopters is under consideration, Mumtaz said. The general also noted that other Pakistani orders of Russian military equipment might take place depending on the Pakistani military’s experience with the helicopters.

Russia officially lifted an arms embargo against Pakistan, in place since the Soviet-Afghan War, in June 2014.

Pakistan and Russia agreed to the $153 million helicopter deal during then-Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif’s visit to Russia in June 2016. A preliminary contract was concluded at the Pakistan Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi in August 2015. Pakistan military sources indicate that PAAC could purchase a total of 20 Mi-35 helicopters in the coming years. “Given the cost of building the necessary Mi-35M logistics and maintenance infrastructure, expanding the fleet beyond four aircraft would financially be a sound decision for the Pakistani military,” I explained in December 2016. The Mi-25M is a formidable weapons platform, as I noted elsewhere (See: “Confirmed: Pakistan Is Buying New Attack Helicopters From Russia”):

The Mi-35M attack helicopter, the export version of the Mi-24 gunship, was developed by the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant and has been produced in Russia since 2005. Next to serving in the Russian military, the aircraft has been exported to Azerbaijan, Brazil, Iraq, and Venezuela.

The company website of Russian Helicopters notes that the Mi-35 is particularly suited for mountainous terrain and can be deployed “round the clock” in adverse weather conditions. The website notes that the helicopter offers “combat use of guided and unguided weapons in regular and challenging climate conditions” and is “operational for attack flights at altitudes of 10-25 m daytime and 50 m at night over land or water.”

The helicopter can be deployed for a host of different missions, including transporting up to eight paratroopers and carrying military supplies weighing up to 1,500 kg internally and 2,400 kg externally.

It is unknown in what configuration the helicopters were delivered. The gunship is fitted with a mounted twin-barrel GSh-23V 23 millimeter cannon, and can also carry 80 and 120 millimeter rockets, as well as anti-tank guided missiles. The Pakistan Army is specifically looking to enhance its close-air support capability for counter-insurgency operations as well as anti-tank warfare.

Riaz Haq said...

Can India destroy Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?

By Naveed Ahmad Published: October 12, 2017

“As far as IAF is concerned, it has the ability to locate, fix and strike and that is not only for tactical nuclear weapons but also for other targets across the border,” he (IAF Chief) had said during the annual Air Force Day press conference on IAF response to Pakistan’s store of tactical nuclear weapons.

The Indian air chief is not the only one to hurl such warnings and publicly acknowledge the existence of Cold Start doctrine (CSD). On January 4, India’s Chief of Army Staff Bipin Rawat made a similar hawkish claim.

Despite throwing B-52s Tomahawk cruise missiles, the US could merely hit Scud storage areas and factories. Over 2,000 sorties and missile attacks failed to take out Iraq’s Scud mobile launchers. Thus, the tall claim of locating, fixing and destroy is trashed as nothing more than a shallow brag. India’s dream of ‘Great Nasr Hunt’ has quite many chinks to remedy.


One of the key impediments for India is obsolete but large military hardware while Pakistan is much smaller but more recent and constantly updated.

From its tanks, armoured vehicles to artillery as munitions, everything is to be replaced. The soldier morale has been hit hard by draconian powers with officers to sack them as well as a feeling of being ignored when it comes to basic needs such food (ration) and health. For an offensive operation of the scale, being crowed the Indian military Cold Start doctrine pre-requisites magical mix of 30% cutting military hardware, 40% existing technology and 30% obsolete munitions. Its war stamina from supplies and logistical perspective is less than two weeks, 10 days to quote exactly from Indian estimates.

At the operational level too, India lacks 1.5 to 1 numerical superiority. Its divisions deployed along the Pakistani border are predominantly infantry with limited offensive capacity. Islamabad has been investing rightly in its mechanised infantry which gives its army sharp teeth to bite. Though BrahMos cruise missile range has been extended to 600 kilometres after joining Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), it is yet to be properly integrated into the force structure.

Riaz Haq said...

What Good Are the Indian Navy's Aircraft Carriers Against Pakistan?
Just how useful will India’s carriers be in a potential future war with Pakistan?

By Robert Farley
December 12, 2017

The Indian Navy is devoting enormous resources to the development of an effective, multi-ship carrier force. It remains unclear, however, precisely how the Indian Navy would use that force in the event of a rekindled war with Pakistan. A recent Naval War College Review article by Ben Wan Beng Ho sheds some light on the problems that India’s carrier force might have in taking the fight to Pakistan. Long story short, India’s carriers would face enormous risks in undertaking offensive operations, with very uncertain benefits.

Ho argues that the need for self-defense, combined with limited deck space, make it very difficult for INS Vikrant and INS Vikramaditya, either separately or in tandem, to threaten Pakistani land installations. Pakistan’s A2/AD network, including submarines, aircraft, and surface ships, poses a credible threat to the carriers, making their use in offensive operations very risky. Conceivably, Pakistan could even attack Indian carriers with tactical nuclear weapons, if the war developed in that direction. The Indian carriers would struggle to execute a close blockade of Pakistani ports, destroy the Pakistani surface fleet, or do much damage to Pakistani military targets on land.

Ho suggests that the carrier fleet would be better employed as a decisive late-war weapon, after Indian Air Force assets had worn down Pakistani defenses. This would have the benefit of enabling India to bring its entire carrier force to bear. Ho also argues that the carriers could play a productive role in sea lines of communication (SLOC) protection, which might also allow them to threaten Pakistani lines of communication.

Ho details the problems associated with small-deck carriers, especially the limited number of aircraft to share offensive and defensive missions. The need for self-protection is not entirely problematic; Indian carriers will undoubtedly receive a great deal of attention from potential opponents, drawing resources away from other military operations. Other Indian naval forces could either use this misdirection to conduct offensive operations, or could rely on the defensive umbrella provided by the carriers.

But some core problems remain. Indian naval strategy envisions three operational carrier battle groups undertaking more or less the same tasks. But Indian naval procurement has produced a plan to acquire three carriers with radically different capabilities, meaning that the actual utility of the carrier battle group in crisis conditions will depend upon which carrier is operational at a given time.

We also have no clear idea regarding the reliability of the two existing ships. Vikramaditya is an old Russian hull that underwent controversial late-life transformation into a STOBAR carrier; Vikrant is a purpose-built STOBAR carrier, but will be the largest warship ever constructed in India, with all of the potential reliability issues that this entails. The two ships are similar but not identical, meaning that maintenance and flight procedures will vary in potentially consequential ways. This makes sharing aircraft and pilots a dicey proposition.

Moreover, as Ho notes, the reports we have regarding readiness in the naval aviation program are not great. The MiG-29K has been a carrier aircraft for less than a decade, and has never been subjected to a demanding, up tempo set of combat operations. Anecdotes from the Russian experience do not suggest optimism.

While Vikrant and Vikramaditya will provide important opportunities for learning, the Indian Navy may need to wait for the commissioning of INS Vishal, projected in the 2030s, to have a real offensive capability against Pakistan. By that time, however, the lethality of Pakistan’s A2/AD umbrella may have significantly increased.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan Tests An Indigenously Developed Anti-Ship Cruise Missile
Pakistan introduces the Harbah, a cruise missile with anti-ship and land-attack roles.

By Ankit Panda
January 08, 2018

Last week, the Pakistani Navy carried out the first-ever test launch of its Harbah anti-ship and land-attack cruise missile (LACM/ASCM). The test was carried out in the North Arabian Sea on January 3, according to a press release from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

“The successful live weapon firing has once again demonstrated the credible fire power of Pakistan Navy and the impeccable level of indigenization in high tech weaponry achieved by Pakistan’s defence industry,” ISPR noted in a statement. “The missile accurately hit its target signifying the impressive capabilities of Harbah Naval Weapon System.”

The Harbah is thought to be derived from Pakistan’s Babur family of cruise missiles. Pakistan has tested multiple Babur variants, beginning with the ground-launched Babur-I to the submarine-launched Babur-III, which was first tested last January. Though ISPR made no comment on the missile’s payload capabilities, its origin in the Babur family would suggest that it could be converted for both conventional and nuclear payload delivery.

According to Pakistani media reports, Pakistan’s Ministry of Defense Production had planned to develop a missile system for the PNS Himmat by October 2018. According to the Ministry’s 2014-2015 yearbook, the Directorate General of Munitions Production (DGMP) had been tasked with “the indigenous (sic) developing of ship-borne system with Land Attack Missile [LACM] and Anti ship Missile” by that date.

The missile was launched from an Azmat-class fast attack craft, PNS Himmat. PNS Himmat was commissioned into the Pakistan Navy last summer after extensive sea trials. Along with PNS Himmat, PNS Azmat and PNS Deshat are likely to also operate the Harbah ASCM once the system is declared operational.

Pakistan’s test-firing of the Harbah came shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to end U.S. military aid to the country in a tweet. While U.S. aid does not go toward Pakistan’s indigenous strategic weapons research and development, the ISPR statement noted that Pakistan’s chief of naval staff, Admiral Zafar Mahmood Abbasi, said that Pakistan needed to “reduce reliance on foreign countries” and “emphasized the need to capitalize on indigenous defense capabilities.”

Riaz Haq said...

#India's #defense budget (US$52.5) breaks into world's top 5: #UK report. #Modi

India's defence budget broke into the world's top five, beating the UK for the first time, a new report by a London-based global think-tank has said, signalling a key shift in the military balance between the two countries.

India overtook the UK as the fifth-largest defence spender in the world in 2017 at $52.5 billion, up from $51.1 billion in 2016, according to the 'Military Balance 2018' report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

In contrast, the UK's defence budget fell from $52.5 billion in 2016 to $50.7 billion last year.

"This represents a key shift in the military balance between India and the UK, with India allocating more capabilities to develop its regional resources than the UK in a global context," said IISS Senior Fellow for South Asia, Rahul Roy-Chaudhury.

The report notes that while India continues to modernise its military capabilities, China " with the world's second-largest ..

Read more at:

Riaz Haq said...

#McMaster of War: #American #tanks were several generations ahead of T-72s of his #Iraqi opponents. #Abrams have depleted uranium armor... and carry anti-tank munitions tipped with depleted uranium penetrators with significantly longer range. #Trump

A number of military experts – including the defense secretary, James Mattis – have warned that a US war against North Korea would be hard, incredibly destructive and bloody, with civilian casualties in the millions, and could go badly for US forces. But Lt. Gen. Herbert Raymond McMaster, President Trump’s national security adviser, is apparently insistent that ‘a military strike be considered as a serious option’.

One of Gen. McMaster’s claims to fame is a Silver Star he was awarded for a tank ‘battle’ he led in the desert during the so-called Gulf War of 1991. As a young captain leading a troop with nine new Abrams M1A1 battle tanks, McMaster destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks in 23 minutes without losing any of his own or suffering any casualties.

McMaster’s exploit (later embellished with a name, the ‘Battle of 73 Easting’) was little more than a case of his having dramatically better equipment. His tanks were several generations ahead of the antique Russian-built T-72s of his Iraqi opponents. They were protected by depleted uranium armour – a dense metal virtually impenetrable by conventional tank shells, anti-tank rockets and RPGs – and carried anti-tank munitions tipped with depleted uranium penetrators, which can punch through steel armour as if it were cardboard. They then ignite a tank’s interior, exploding any ordnance inside and incinerating the crew. The Abrams main cannon also has a significantly longer range than the tanks McMaster was confronting, meaning he and his men were able to pick off the Iraqi tanks while the shells fired back at them all fell short.

McMaster also fought in the Iraq War of the following decade. In 2005, running counter-insurgency operations in Tal Afar, a northern city of 200,000 people, McMaster ordered up a massive ground assault and aerial bombardment that levelled 60 per cent of the buildings in the old city centre. His experiences in Iraq raise concerns that Trump’s national security adviser may misperceive war as a one-sided affair in which an invincible US, with its super-powerful war machine, can smash its enemies with impunity.

I spoke to Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired army colonel who was chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was George W. Bush’s secretary of state. ‘McMaster knows very little about the [Korean] peninsula, period,’ he told me. ‘Thus far, his comments and – I must assume – his counsel to the NSC and its head, Trump, reflects that ignorance.’ Asked whether McMaster may be underestimating the risks of attacking North Korea, Wilkerson said: ‘That could be said of almost any US flag officer and reinforced with any who had combat experience in Iraq in 1990-91 or 2003.’

Riaz Haq said...

Indian Military Modernization
and Conventional Deterrence in
South Asia
Department of War Studies, King’s College London, UK

ABSTRACT In recent years, headline grabbing increases in the Indian defense
budget have raised concerns that India’s on-going military modernization
threatens to upset the delicate conventional military balance vis-à-vis Pakistan.
Such an eventuality is taken as justification for Islamabad’s pursuit of tacticalnuclear
weapons and other actions that have worrisome implications for strategic
stability on the subcontinent. This article examines the prospects for Pakistan’s
conventional deterrence in the near to medium term, and concludes that it is
much better than the pessimists allege. A host of factors, including terrain, the
favorable deployment of Pakistani forces, and a lack of strategic surprise in the
most likely conflict scenarios, will mitigate whatever advantages India may be
gaining through military modernization. Despite a growing technological edge in
some areas, Indian policymakers cannot be confident that even a limited resort to
military force would achieve a rapid result, which is an essential pre-condition for
deterrence failure.

Some Indian analysts have argued
that the significant amount of money Pakistan is spending on its own
military modernization program – assisted by China and the United
States – is actually eroding India’s ‘slender conventional edge.’


this vein, several retired Indian generals have recently argued that their
military lacks conventional superiority over Pakistan as well as the
ability to achieve a quick and decisive result against its neighbor.20
Despite the dramatic increases in defense spending, Indian analysts
contend that the military — in particular the Army — faces numerous
capability shortfalls that would hinder military operations against
Pakistan. The large number of obsolete tanks, armored vehicles, and
artillery pieces, not to mention critical shortages of ammunition and
air-defense assets, raise serious questions whether India can undertake
large-scale military operations at all, let alone whether ongoing
defense modernization really is sharply shifting the conventional
balance in its favor.21 In this vein, Arun Sahgal and Vinod Anand
have damningly written that India’s military modernization is primarily
designed to address the obsolescence of existing platforms ‘rather
than part of a well thought out force transformation strategy that
takes into account the changing nature of war.’

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s (Non-Nuclear) Plan to Counter ‘Cold Start’
Tactical nuclear weapons get most of the attention, but Islamabad is also building up conventional capabilities.

By Meenakshi Sood
March 25, 2017

While Pakistan’s nuclear response to CSD (Cold Start Doctrine) has dominated the narrative, it is the conventional response that was devised first. In the last few years of General Musharraf’s presidency, especially between 2004 and 2007, India and Pakistan were engaged in backchannel negotiations and came tantalizingly close to finding a solution to the Kashmir issue. Then the 2007 Lawyers’ Movement forced Musharraf out of power and a new leadership took charge. With General Kayani as the new chief of army staff, the threat from India came back into focus, and so did the perceived risk of CSD. Given India’s military capability and its declared Cold Start Doctrine, Kayani believed that Pakistan could not afford to let its guard down as the country prepared according to “adversaries’ capabilities, not intentions.” He went on to give his assessment of the timeline by which India would be able to operationalize CSD — two years for partial implementation and five years for full — betraying the urgency he attached to a counter-response.

Between 2009 and 2013, the Pakistan Army conducted military exercises codenamed Azm-e-Nau to formalize and operationalize a conventional response to CSD. At its conclusion, Pakistan adopted a “new concept of war fighting” (NCWF) that aims to improve mobilization time of troops and enhance inter-services coordination, especially between the Army and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). To this end, Pakistan Air Force’s aerial exercise High Mark was conducted alongside Azm-e-Nau III in 2010, which saw the participation of over 20,000 troops from all services in areas of southern Punjab, Sialkot, and Sindh along Pakistan’s eastern border with India. The 2010 exercises were the largest conducted by the Army since 1989. PAF’s exercise High Mark, conducted every five years, synchronizes the Air Force’s response with Army maneuvers, covering a vast area from Skardu in the north to the Arabian Sea in the south. As per military sources, with the implementation of the NCFW, the Pakistan Army will be able to mobilize even faster than India. This should worry India as CSD’s raison d’etre lies in the short reaction time it requires to launch an offensive. If Pakistan is indeed able to mount a counter-offensive even before India fires the first shot, literally and figuratively, it blunts the effectiveness of the Indian military doctrine.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan’s new war strategy
It is an overstatement — or perhaps a relative truth that Indian military forces are far superior to Pakistan’s

Muhammad Ali BaigMuhammad Ali Baig

FEBRUARY 26, 2018

What is Pakistan’s New Concept of War Fighting (NCWF)? Why and how is it a conventional response to Indian Cold Start Doctrine (CSD)? The conventional doctrinal destabilisation caused by India in 2004 in the form of CSD had to meet a response in the form of NCWF of Pakistan. With former Pakistan Army Chief General Mirza Aslam Beg’s Zarb-e-Momin military exercise conducted in 1989 – Pakistan started to adopt an offensive-defensive mode of security and presented a credible response towards Indian military’s Operation Brasstacks. Similarly, in response to Indian Cold Start Doctrine – Pakistan envisaged New Concept of War Fighting.

It is an overstatement or perhaps a relative truth that Indian Military Forces are far more superior to that of Pakistan. Both militaries share a common history and military culture due to their shared foundations in the British Indian Military traditions, nevertheless, while keeping in view many aspects of state, national and latent power – Indian Military Forces have an advantage over Pakistan. However, the four limited wars and countless border skirmishes between the two raise serious questions over the perceived and rhetorical superiority of the Indian Armed Forces in relation to Pakistan Armed Forces. A British scholar Walter Ladwig argued that Indian conventional military superiority is exaggerated since now the Indian edge over Pakistan is declining in terms of numbers, equipment, technology and training. It can be averred that now with NCWF – the doctrinal advantage is also equalised.

Pakistan while keeping in view the threat stemming from Indian Cold Start Doctrine – started to prepare its counter. In 2004 India moved away from Sundarji Doctrine and formulated Cold Start Doctrine which is a dangerous military instrument primarily due to its philosophical and theoretical foundations in German Blitzkrieg of the Second World War. Nevertheless, Indian Armed Forces especially the Indian Army used it to ward off the criticism it had to face at the backdrop of Indo-Pak military standoff and the failed Operation Parakramin 2001-02. Consequently, in 2007 former Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Kayani believed that CSD would require five years to operationalise fully and for that matter Pakistan Armed Forces conducted four Azm-e-Nau joint military exercises from 2009 to 2013. General Kayani famously said that ‘we plan on adversary’s capabilities, not intentions’. Azm-e-Naumilitary exercises were principally aimed to achieve synergy among the various branches of forces so that combined arms would strive for one objective with complete coordination and synchronisation along with enhanced mobility and speed. At the end of these exercises in 2013 – Pakistan Armed Forces formalised a doctrine named as New Concept of War Fighting (NCWF). The National Defence University, Islamabad played a vital role in the creation of NCWF since the majority of the simulated war gaming was conducted there.

Riaz Haq said...

India's Aircraft Carriers: A Giant Waste of Time?
Can they really be used in a war against Pakistan?

by Robert Beckhusen

Most likely, India would attempt to enforce a blockade of Pakistan and use its carriers to strike land-based targets. But Pakistan has several means to attack Indian carriers — with near-undetectable submarines and anti-ship missiles — which must also operate relatively far from India itself in the western and northern Arabian Sea. China does not have a similar disadvantage, as the PLAN would likely keep its carriers close and within the “first island chain” including Taiwan, closer to shore where supporting aircraft and ground-based missile launchers can help out.

Thus, Indian carriers would be relatively vulnerable and only one of them will have aircraft capable of launching with standard ordnance and fuel. And that is after Vishal sets sail in the next decade.

To directly threaten Pakistan, the small-deck carriers will have to maneuver nearer to shore — and thereby closer to “anti-access / area denial” weapons which could sink them. And even with a third carrier, the threat of land-based Pakistani aircraft will force the Indian Navy to dedicate a large proportion of its own air wings to defense — perhaps half of its available fighters, according to 2017 paper by Ben Wan Beng Ho for the Naval War College Review.

“Therefore, it is doubtful that any attack force launched from an Indian carrier would pack a significant punch,” Ho writes. “With aircraft available for strike duties barely numbering into the double digits, the Indian carrier simply cannot deliver a substantial ‘pulse’ of combat power against its adversary.”

Essentially, this makes Indian carriers’ self-defeating, with the flattops existing primarily to defend themselves from attack rather than taking the fight to their enemy. Carriers are also expensive symbols of national prestige, and it is unlikely the Indian Navy will want to risk losing one, two or all three. Under the circumstances, India’s investment in carriers makes more sense symbolically, and primarily as a way of keeping shipyards busy and shipyard workers employed.

However, this is not to entirely rule out a carrier-centric naval strategy. Ho notes that Indian carriers could be useful when operating far out at sea and in the western Arabian Sea, effectively as escort ships for commercial shipping and to harass Pakistani trade. Nevertheless, this strategy comes with a similar set of problems.

“In any attempt to impose sea control in the northern Arabian Sea and to interdict Pakistani seaborne commerce by enforcing a blockade of major Pakistani maritime nodes, Indian carrier forces would have to devote a portion of their already meager airpower to attacking Pakistani vessels, thereby exacerbating the conundrum alluded to earlier,” Ho added. “What is more, Pakistani ships are likely to operate relatively close to their nation’s coast, to be protected by Islamabad’s considerable access-denial barrier.”

Another possibility is India massing its carriers in the later stages of a war after the Army and Air Force pummel and degrade the Pakistani military.

But this raises the question as to whether India strictly needs carriers at all if it cannot use them during the decisive periods of a conflict — as opposed to, say, less-expensive warships, and more of them, equipped with long-range missiles.

Riaz Haq said...

Game-Changing #Chinese #Missile Aboard #Pakistan Frigates Could Dent #IndianNavy's #BrahMos Advantage. Chinese-made CM-302, which Pakistan will get, matches both the supersonic speed and the range of the #Indian Navy's BrahMos anti-ship cruise missiles.

An export variant of the YJ-12 missile, the CM-302, is likely to be the primary weapon on board four new Chinese frigates being built for the Pakistan Navy at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard in Shanghai.

The CM-302 matches both the supersonic speed and the range of the Indian Navy's BrahMos anti-ship cruise missiles, which have been deployed on several front-line frigates and destroyers of the Navy.

Senior defence officials monitoring the sale of new generation Chinese Type 054 frigates to Pakistan have told NDTV that the ships are likely to come armed with the CM-302, which they identify as a "new threat which represents a new capability."

But these officers also tell NDTV that "there is a long way to go for these missiles to become a credible threat for the Indian Navy" since the Pakistan Navy still lacks long-range sensors which need to target Indian platforms before a CM-302 can actually be fired.

"Possessing accurate targeting data, surveillance capability, and having the ability to penetrate a dense [Indian Navy] electronic counter-measures environment are a part of a complex matrix" that the Pakistan Navy's new frigates would need to overcome before they can attempt a missile launch.

Still, the acquisition of the CM-302 onboard the new Chinese-built frigates that will be inducted from 2021 means a lethal new capability for the Pakistan Navy.

According to, a leading online resource of emerging military threats, "the highlight of the YJ-12 is not its range but speed. It can reach 'Double Three' or 'Double Four,' namely a range of 300 kilometres at Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound) or a range of 400 kilometres at Mach 4."

It is unclear if the Barak 8 Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM), deployed on India's newest Kolkata Class destroyers, have the ability to intercept a missile of this class. In response to a query from NDTV, senior Navy officers declined comment on whether the Barak 8 system has been test-fired against any supersonic anti-ship missile, let alone a missile that flies faster than Mach 2.

In an article in, Robert Haddick, an independent contractor at the US Specials Operations Command, has said "the YJ-12 is the most dangerous anti-ship missile China has produced."

According to Mr Haddick, "the arrival of the YJ-12 is one more indication of how the US Navy is falling further behind in the missile competition against China, exposing flaws in operating concepts that US and allied commanders and policymakers have relied on for years."

News of the possible Pakistani acquisition of the YJ-12/CM-302 broke on twitter late last month when the China State Shipbuilding Corporation organised the steel-cutting ceremony for the second of the four Type 054A/P frigates that Pakistan is receiving. A digital image (shown below) emerged which showcased a CM-302 missile mounted on a launcher on a Pakistan Type 054 frigate. It is unclear if this detailed digital image was sourced from an official release or was the work of a Naval analyst.

Riaz Haq said...

In 1980s, #Pakistan Air Force shot down 4 Su-22s supersonic fighter-bombers, 1 Su-25 “flying tank” piloted by future #Russian vice president Alexander Rutskoy. #PAF lost a single #F16, apparently struck by a missile fired by its own wingman. via @YahooNews

Pakistan’s F-16s have been no stranger to controversy for nearly four decades.

In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Islamabad and Washington collaborated to train, organize and arm mujahideen resistance fighters in Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan. In retaliation, Afghan and Soviet warplanes began bombing the camps—and the PAF’s Chinese-made J-6 jets proved too slow to catch them.

Thus in 1981, Pakistan convinced the United States to sell it F-16 Fighting Falcon single-engine multi-role fighters—a then cutting-edge yet inexpensive-to-operate design with fly-by-wire controls affording it extraordinary maneuverability. The agile Falcon could attain speeds as high as Mach 2 and lug heavy weapons loads, though it did have a limited combat radius (around 350 miles) and early production models lacked beyond-visual-range missiles.

Between October 1982 and 1986, a total of twenty-eight F-16As and twelve two-seat F-16Bs were delivered to Pakistan via Saudi Arabia in Operations Peace Gate I and II. These outfitted the PAF’s No. 9, 11 and 14 Squadrons which flew patrols along the Afghan border, typically carrying two advanced AIM-9L and two cheaper AIMP-9P-4 Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles.

Unlike earlier heat-seekers which could lock on to the hot tail-pipe at the rear of an aircraft, the AIM-9L “Lima” Sidewinders could engage from any angle. The AIM-9L’s ability to hit opponents in a head-on-pass would soon prove particularly effective.

Between 1986 and 1990, the PAF credited th F-16 with shooting down ten Afghan and Soviet jets, helicopters and transport planes, with many additional claims unconfirmed. Soviet and Afghan records definitively confirm only six losses: four Su-22s supersonic fighter-bombers, one Su-25 “flying tank” piloted by future Russian vice president Alexander Rutskoy, and one An-26 cargo plane.

The PAF lost a single F-16, apparently struck by a missile fired by its own wingman. The F-16 patrols reportedly deterred more extensive bombardment of refugee camps on Pakistani soil, and disrupted Soviet efforts to resupply isolated outposts.

The Nuclear F-16 Controversy

By 1990 Pakistan had already placed Peace Gate III and IV orders for seventy-one improved F-16A/B Block 15s. But in October 1990, Pakistan’s nuclear research program led the United States to impose sanctions. Thus, twenty-eight newly-built F-16s for which Pakistan had already paid $23 million apiece were consigned to the desert Boneyard facility in Arizona, where they remained for over a decade.

In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration offered to deliver the jets in return for Pakistan refraining from nuclear tests—but such was not to be. On May 28, 1998 Pakistan detonated five underground nuclear devices in response to an Indian nuclear test. It became evident that the heavy-lifting F-16s would serve as one of Pakistan’s primary nuclear-weapon delivery systems, and intelligence reports indicated that No. 9 and No. 11 squadron F-16s were modified to deliver nuclear gravity bombs on their center pylons.

A year later the two nuclear powers engaged in a limited war when Pakistani commandos infiltrated the mountainous Kargil region of India. As Indian Mirage 2000s pounded the infiltrators while escorted by MiG-29s, F-16s flew combat air patrols along the Pakistani side of the Line of Control reportedly painting the Indian jets with their targeting radars—and vice-versa—in an effort to intimidate.

However, neither air arm was authorized to engage the other, so no air battles occurred. Nonetheless, three years later a PAF F-16B shot down an Indian Searcher II drone that had penetrated deep into Pakistani airspace.

Riaz Haq said...

How will #Pakistan Kill #India’s New Aircraft Carriers? It has several means to attack Indian carriers — with near-undetectable #submarines & anti-ship #missiles — which must also operate relatively far from India itself in #ArabianSea. #SouthAsia

To directly threaten Pakistan, the small-deck carriers will have to maneuver nearer to shore — and thereby closer to “anti-access / area denial” weapons which could sink them. And even with a third carrier, the threat of land-based Pakistani aircraft will force the Indian Navy to dedicate a large proportion of its own air wings to defense — perhaps half of its available fighters, according to 2017 paper by Ben Wan Beng Ho for the Naval War College Review.

“Therefore, it is doubtful that any attack force launched from an Indian carrier would pack a significant punch,” Ho writes. “With aircraft available for strike duties barely numbering into the double digits, the Indian carrier simply cannot deliver a substantial ‘pulse’ of combat power against its adversary.”

To see why Vishal is a big deal for the Indian Navy, one needs only to look at her proposed air wing — some 57 fighters, more than Vikramaditya — 24 MiG-29Ks — and Vikrant‘s wing of around 30 MiG-29Ks. While below the 75+ aircraft aboard a U.S. Navy Gerald R. Ford-class supercarrier, Vishal will be a proper full-size carrier and India’s first, as the preceding two are really small-deck carriers and limited in several significant ways.

The Indian Navy is also looking at an electromagnetic launch system for its third carrier, similar to the one aboard the Ford class. India’s first two carriers have STOBAR configurations, in which aircraft launch with the assistance of a ski-jump, which limits the maximum weight a plane can lift into the air. Typically this means that fighters must sacrifice weapons, or fuel thus limiting range, or a combination of both.

The Indian Navy is searching for a foreign-sourced twin-engine fighter for the Vishal, with the U.S. F/A-18 and French Rafale in the running, and India has already ordered 36 multi-role Rafales for its air force. This is a blow to advocates of an Indian-made fighter for the carrier such as naval version of the delta-wing HAL Tejas, which is too heavy for carrier work

But regardless of what kind of fighters Vishal uses, the question is whether India really needs a third carrier, which will cost billions of dollars over its lifetime. To be sure, a third and much larger carrier will free up the burden on the Vikramaditya and Vikrant, only one of which is likely to be battle-ready at any given time.

These smaller carriers probably have fewer operational fighters than they do on paper, given that the air wings likely have serviceability rates below 100 percent. Vikramaditya by itself could have significantly less than 24 MiGs capable of flying — and fighting.

Now imagine a scenario in which these carriers go to battle.

Most likely, India would attempt to enforce a blockade of Pakistan and use its carriers to strike land-based targets. But Pakistan has several means to attack Indian carriers — with near-undetectable submarines and anti-ship missiles — which must also operate relatively far from India itself in the western and northern Arabian Sea. China does not have a similar disadvantage, as the PLAN would likely keep its carriers close and within the “first island chain” including Taiwan, closer to shore where supporting aircraft and ground-based missile launchers can help out.

Thus, Indian carriers would be relatively vulnerable and only one of them will have aircraft capable of launching with standard ordnance and fuel. And that is after Vishal sets sail in the next decade.

Riaz Haq said...

Can #Pakistan counter #India’s new S-400 air defense system? Aerospace expert Douglas Barrie:“In and of itself, I see the S-400 acquisition having little to no impact on the overall credibility of the Pakistani [nuclear] deterrent” #AirDefense #Missiles

“Pakistan’s missile tests over the past several years appear to demonstrate enhanced accuracy and penetration capability in view of India’s growing investment in missile defenses. It has also introduced the [multiple independent reentry vehicle]-capable Ababeel ballistic missile system, designed to defeat any dedicated Indian anti-missile system,” he said. “While the S-400 remains a highly capable air defense system at best, its utility against missiles has yet to be proven in real-time conditions.”

Nevertheless, the S-400 does pose a considerable threat to Pakistan’s conventional deterrent.

“Suppression or destruction of enemy air defense (SEAD/DEAD) will likely have taken greater priority for the Pakistani Air Force in response to the S-400 acquisition,” Barrie said. “Options include acquiring more capable anti-radiation missiles, improved electronic countermeasures and aircraft self-protection.”


Overconfidence in its newly acquired S-400 air defense system may give India a false sense of invulnerability and increase the likelihood of a military miscalculation involving archrival Pakistan, analysts warn.

“Indian rhetoric appears to suggest a belief that the S-400 effectively makes its airspace impenetrable and its forces invulnerable,” Mansoor Ahmed, a senior fellow at the Pakistan-based think tank Center for International Strategic Studies who studies the country’s nuclear program and delivery systems, told Defense News.

Consequently, there are concerns “India may be emboldened to resort to military adventurism, believing its ‘Cold Start’ doctrine for punishing strikes and destabilizing incursions into Pakistan” is an assured success, he said.

Deliveries of India’s five S-400 regiments began in December 2021, with initial deployments along the Indo-Pakistan border.

On paper, the defensive — and potentially offensive — anti-access, area denial capabilities of the S-400 appear formidable. The system is reportedly effective against aircraft, UAVs, and ballistic and cruise missiles, with the latter capability potentially neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent.

Its layered coverage is provided by a combination of the 40-kilometer-range 9M96E, 120-kilometer-range 9M96E2, 250-kilometer-range 48N6, and 400-kilometer-range 40N6E missiles, enabling it to protect large areas, high-value targets and itself from attack.

It is also highly mobile, can be made operational 5 minutes after arriving at a new location and therefore can be regularly relocated to avoid detection.

However, aerospace expert Douglas Barrie at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank, told Defense News the S-400 “should not be underestimated, neither should it be over-estimated.”

A notable claimed feature of the S-400 is its potential offensive capability that would restrict an adversary’s use of its own airspace. For Pakistan, due to its geography and the long border it shares with India, the weapon system would cover most of the country.

However, Barrie is unconvinced. “Its much-touted maximum engagement range is dependent on the variant of surface-to-air missile deployed, the acquisition ranges of the associated radars in the operational area, the capacity of the personnel to effectively exploit the system, and also the steps and countermeasures any opponent might take.”

India plans to integrate the S-400 into its existing air defense network, which consists of indigenous and Indo-Israeli systems.

Riaz Haq said...

3 cheers for INS Vikrant & 3 questions for India’s leadership on naval doctrine

by Shekhar Gupta

Key points:

1. Indian aircraft carrier is powered by American General Electric turbines

2. Russian MIG 29s require a lot of maintenance. These will be replaced with French Rafales or US F-18s in future.

3. Chinese aircraft carriers are totally indigenous (including engines, weapons, and aircraft) are much bigger

4. China has developed "aircraft carrier buster missiles" to deal with hostile nations' Navies.

5. Indian Navy hid its aircraft carriers from Pakistani submarines during 1965 and 1971 wars.

6. Indian-American analyst Ashley Tellis questions the utility of Indian aircraft carriers in the absence of India's geopolitical aims and its Naval Doctrine.


Ashley Tellis on submarines vs aircraft carriers


The Unusual Carrier Killer Capability Of The Chinese Navy’s Strategic Bomber - Naval News

China’s recent test of a hypersonic ‘Orbital Bombardment System’ has been characterized as a ‘Sputnik moment’. The world is only just waking up to Chinese advances in strategic weapons technologies. Among a raft of new weapons, which increasingly do not have direct equivalents in the West, are anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs). One of these, an air-launched version, appears to include a hypersonic maneuvering missile.