Pakistan's Willingness to Fight:
The Gallup survey found 89% of Pakistanis answered in the affirmative, a much higher percentage than the world average of 61%. By contrast, it showed 75% of Indians ready to fight for their country. The results ranked Pakistan 3rd and India 10th among 64 countries surveyed.
 |
| Source: WIN/Gallup International |
Only 11% of the respondents in Japan, the only nation to have suffered the atomic bombing of its two major cities in the second world war, said they are willing to fight for their country. Though higher than Japan, most Europeans who have seen the horrors of wars are among the least willing to fight for their countries.
There has been a lot of bellicose rhetoric coming out from the Hindu Nationalist government and its compliant Indian media to "teach Pakistan a lesson". It's a clear indication that they continue to suffer from disease described by Congress leader Sashi Tharoor as "India's Israel envy".
If Modi's India takes leave of its senses and decides to launch strikes against Pakistan, the Indian people could suffer the same horrible fate that fell upon the residents of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There should be no doubt in New Delhi that Pakistan will respond forcefully to any provocation against it. Pakistan will not hesitate to escalate if Modi's India persists in its war path.
Below, I am reproducing a 2014 post titled "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: GlobalFirepower.com |
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."
Summary:
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 zemtv
Related 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?
38 comments:
Modi who has revealed psychopathic traits just Indira also did in her conduct, means Pakistan needs to be vigilant.
Mayraj: " Modi who has revealed psychopathic traits just Indira also did in her conduct, means Pakistan needs to be vigilant."
Field Marshal Manekshaw said Indira's India had 50:1 advantage over Pakistan in East Pakistan; Modi doesn't have that today.
"About the 5th day of the (1971) conflict in (East Pakistan)...everything had gone wrong (for India); the (Indian) Navy had lost the Khukri; Our (India) Air Force has lost a lot of aircraft on the ground; my (Indian Army's) advances in Bangladesh were halted......ThePakistan Army in East Pakistan fought very gallantly but they had no chance; they were a thousand miles away from their base; I had 8 or 9 months of preparation; I had almost 50:1 advantage; they had no chance but they fought very gallantly."
http://www.riazhaq.com/2016/09/performance-of-pakistan-armed-forces-in.html
Modi is not rational. He is a psycho. Look how he handles opposition/dissent. No decency. So stupid not realizing now that they have done it have let opposition know okay to do it also.
In war the main thing is who will be the last man standing? It hardly depends upon numbers and toys. Therfore the matter has to be analysed from that perspective.
Pak Army will defend every inch of #Pakistan: Gen Raheel Sharif. #India #terrorism #war #Kashmir #Modi
http://www.dawn.com/news/1285619/army-will-defend-every-inch-of-pakistan-gen-raheel
Chief of Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif on Friday said the Army will defend "each and every inch" of Pakistan "no matter what the cost", an Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) statement said.
The Army chief, addressing officers at the National Counter-Terrorism Centre near Kharian, said that Pakistan's armed forces "have the capability to counter the complete threat spectrum".
Gen Raheel said that Pakistan had, despite being a victim of terrorism for over a decade, been able to turn the tide against terrorism due to the nation's resilience and the professionalism of its security forces.
The COAS on his visit to the NCTC inaugurated state-of-the-art upgradations to the centre's infrastructure allowing it accommodate the growing demand of foreign armies and Pakistan's own law enforcement agencies to train alongside the Pakistan Army.
The addition of the new facilities have made the NCTC one of the best counter-terrorism training facilities among contemporary armies, ISPR claims.
So far, 231,000 troops of the armed forces, 3,483 police officers and civil armed forces men have been trained at the NCTC, Lt Gen Umar Farooq Durrani, Commander of the Strike Corps, briefed the army chief.
He added that five joint exercises have been conducted at the centre with China, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Turkey.
The Army chief's strongly-worded statement comes at a time when regional tensions are soaring as Pakistan and India face off at the 71st United Nations General Assembly in New York over the Kashmir issue.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in his address to the UN maintained that Pakistan wants peace with India but it is "not possible without resolving the Kashmir issue". The premier urged the UN to demilitarise Jammu and Kashmir and called for steps to implement UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir.
India, exercising its Right of Reply, levelled serious allegations against Pakistan in its rebuttal, terming it a 'terrorist state'.
#Russian troops arrive in #Pakistan for 1st-ever joint drill
https://www.rt.com/news/360384-russia-pakistan-joint-exercise/
Russian troops have arrived in Pakistan on Friday to take part in two-week military exercise, a first in the two countries’ modern history. Moscow and Islamabad were on opposite sides during the Cold War.
Around 70 Russian soldiers and officers along with some 130 Pakistani counterparts are taking part in the war games called Friendship 2016, which kick-start on Saturday. The name is a symbolical reference to the old Cold War tensions between Moscow and Islamabad, which the two capitals are now trying to overcome.
On Friday, an Ilyushin Il-76 military transport plane delivered the troops to Pakistan from their home base in southern Russia.
The exercise is to take place in a mountainous area in the eastern Punjab province. Both countries have long experience of counterinsurgency operations in this difficult terrain, which they want to share with each other.
The exercise was first announced in January and is a signal that “Moscow and Islamabad are interested in deepening military-to-military relations,” Pakistan's ambassador to Moscow Qazi Khalilullah told TASS.
“This obviously indicates a desire on both sides to broaden defense and military-technical cooperation,” he said.
The Friendship 2016 drill is going ahead despite speculation that they may be canceled, which surfaced after tensions between Pakistan and India escalated in the wake of the September 18 attack on Indian troops stationed in Uri, a town in the disputed province of Kashmir.
Moscow informed New Delhi of the scheduled joint exercise with Pakistan and is certain that they should not concern India, considering that they are conducted far from the disputed territories, Zamir Kabulov, the chief or Russian Foreign Ministry's Middle East department told RIA Novosti.
Russian military cooperation with Pakistan has been gaining pace over the past few years, making a turn from the past, when Islamabad was a key supporter of the Taliban insurgency in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.
In 2014, Moscow lifted a longstanding ban on sale of arms to Pakistan. Last year the two countries signed a deal on four Russian Mil Mi-35M attack helicopters, which are meant to replace Pakistan's aging US-made AH-1 Cobras.
#Pakistan prepares operational plan, selects targets in #India: Report. #Kashmir http://toi.in/9fsf-Z via @TOIWorld
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Pakistan-prepares-operational-plan-selects-targets-in-India-Report/articleshow/54477735.cms
Pakistan's armed forces have reportedly selected targets in India in case the latter decides to move first with strikes against the country. In a Geo TV report, it is stated that an operational plan has also been prepared by the military establishment to retaliate against any possible offensive from across the border.
Quoting sources placed in the defense establishment, the news report states that targets in 'war-mongering' India have been selected in case of 'aggression or surgical strikes from the enemy.' One such source has said that Pakistan is fully prepared to counter India. "Pakistan is fully prepared to meet any military challenge from India. Our operational plan is ready, quid pro quo targets are finalised and forces have been dedicated."
Another source is quoted as saying that regardless of the nature of developments in the weeks to come, Pakistan forces will remain on high alert. "Whether it is a Cold Start or hot pursuit, we are ready. India is well aware of our capabilities and also knows the fact that despite the Pakistan Army's participation in internal security issues, a military balance is well maintained to meet any challenge from across the border."
The source even went to the extent of saying that 'in case of surgical attack from India, Pakistan would immediately respond for which targets had already been set.'
Tensions between India and Pakistan have spiked since the terror attack on an Indian army base+ in Uri on Sunday. Four terrorists were gunned down but 18 brave soldiers also lost their lives, even as India came out strongly+ to condemn the incident and the entire terror network in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Indian security establishment even provided the government with a variety of punitive but limited actions possible against Pakistan without actually going to war, which range from "surgical strikes" to "cross-border raids" by special forces or ghatak platoons of infantry battalions. Prime Minister Narendra Modi also promised+ that perpetrators of the ghastly attack would be brought to justice. These may have played a big role in Pakistan becoming rather jittery.
Furthermore, there was a report that Indian forces had crossed the Line of Control+ near Uri and eliminated 20 terrorists in a surgical strike. This though was denied by Indian Army sources.
Across the border, military preparations seem to have begun in earnest. Pakistan declared a no-fly zone across some of its northern regions where Pakistan Air Force conducted combat exercises which were later termed 'routine.' On Thursday night, a Pakistani journalist even tweeted that F-16 jets were flying over Islamabad in what may have been an air drill.
Scary part is that Indians are incapable of thinking through the scenarios. They are mentally little kids with big tows and might start something that can easily get out of hands.
"Despite their growing brawn, India’s armed forces still lack a brain."
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21707562-india-wise-speak-softly-it-could-do-bigger-stick-guns-and-ghee
G. Ali
From Economist Magazine:
...there are serious chinks in India’s armour. Much of its weaponry is, in fact, outdated or ill maintained. “Our air defence is in a shocking state,” says Ajai Shukla, a commentator on military affairs. “What’s in place is mostly 1970s vintage, and it may take ten years to install the fancy new gear.” On paper, India’s air force is the world’s fourth largest, with around 2,000 aircraft in service. But an internal report seen in 2014 by IHS Jane’s, a defence publication, revealed that only 60% were typically fit to fly. A report earlier this year by a government accounting agency estimated that the “serviceability” of the 45 MiG 29K jets that are the pride of the Indian navy’s air arm ranged between 16% and 38%. They were intended to fly from the carrier currently under construction, which was ordered more than 15 years ago and was meant to have been launched in 2010. According to the government’s auditors the ship, after some 1,150 modifications, now looks unlikely to sail before 2023.
Such delays are far from unusual. India’s army, for instance, has been seeking a new standard assault rifle since 1982; torn between demands for local production and the temptation of fancy imports, and between doctrines calling for heavier firepower or more versatility, it has flip-flopped ever since. India’s air force has spent 16 years perusing fighter aircraft to replace ageing Soviet-era models. By demanding over-ambitious specifications, bargain prices, hard-to-meet local-content quotas and so on, it has left foreign manufacturers “banging heads against the wall”, in the words of one Indian military analyst. Four years ago France appeared to have clinched a deal to sell 126 of its Rafale fighters. The order has since been whittled to 36, but is at least about to be finalised.
India’s military is also scandal-prone. Corruption has been a problem in the past, and observers rightly wonder how guerrillas manage to penetrate heavily guarded bases repeatedly. Lately the Indian public has been treated to legal battles between generals over promotions, loud disputes over pay and orders for officers to lose weight. In July a military transport plane vanished into the Bay of Bengal with 29 people aboard; no trace of it has been found. In August an Australian newspaper leaked extensive technical details of India’s new French submarines.
The deeper problem with India’s military is structural. The three services are each reasonably competent, say security experts; the trouble is that they function as separate fiefdoms. “No service talks to the others, and the civilians in the Ministry of Defence don’t talk to them,” says Mr Shukla. Bizarrely, there are no military men inside the ministry at all. Like India’s other ministries, defence is run by rotating civil servants and political appointees more focused on ballot boxes than ballistics. “They seem to think a general practitioner can perform surgery,” says Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, who has worked as a consultant for the ministry. Despite their growing brawn, India’s armed forces still lack a brain.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21707562-india-wise-speak-softly-it-could-do-bigger-stick-guns-and-ghee
Ex diplomat MK Bhadrakumar on Sharif-Kerry meeting:
While watching various Delhi TV channels tonight on issues surrounding Sunday’s attack on Uri base, one gets the depressing feeling that we are being delusional. What is entirely lacking is the ethical standard that the media should not incite public opinion by feeding it with such patent falsehoods.
We are living in a fool’s paradise, being led up the garden path by a bombastic leadership and led to believe falsely that the international community is rooting for India, that the country’s prestige is soaring sky-high, etc. and, therefore, Pakistan stands ‘isolated’.
In reality, though, the readout of the US State Department on the meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in New York on September 20 should come as an eye-opener. The readout is reproduced below:
Secretary Kerry met Monday with Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif to discuss our strong, long-term bilateral partnership and to build upon the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue. The Secretary commended the Prime Minister for restoring macroeconomic stability to Pakistan over the last three years and expressed appreciation for Pakistan’s cooperation on climate change priorities.
The Secretary reiterated the need for Pakistan to prevent all terrorists from using Pakistani territory as safe havens, while commending recent efforts by Pakistani security forces to counter extremist violence. They also spoke about regional issues, including recent developments with regard to Afghanistan. The Prime Minister and Secretary Kerry expressed strong concern with recent violence in Kashmir — particularly the army base attack — and the need for all sides to reduce tensions.
Secretary Kerry also stressed the need for restraint in nuclear weapons programs. The Secretary praised Pakistan for hosting Afghan refugees for over 40 years and highlighted the importance of continued respect for humanitarian principles.
This is a carefully worded document, drafted by career diplomats with the full knowledge of the intelligence inputs available with the US State Department regarding the attack that took place on Uri base over 36 hours previously on Sunday. Nonetheless, such manifestly effusive sentiments and fulsome praise for Pakistan have been attributed to Kerry.
See the expressions that have been used in the document with great deliberation – “strong, long-term bilateral partnership”; “commended the Prime Minister”; “expressed appreciation for Pakistan’s cooperation”; “commending recent efforts by Pakistani security forces to counter extremist violence”; “praised Pakistan for hosting Afghan refugees for over 40 years”, et al.
Most significantly, the reference to J&K and Uri attack is framed as the shared opinion of Sharif and Kerry – “The Prime Minister and Secretary Kerry expressed strong concern with recent violence in Kashmir — particularly the army base attack — and the need for all sides to reduce tensions.” What does this single stunning sentence imply in plain language, shorn of diplomatic idiom?
One, US is not willing to censure Pakistan;
Two, US shares Pakistan’s “strong concern over recent violence in Kashmir”;
Three, the Uri base attack is to be seen squarely in the context of the 2-month old upheaval in Kashmir Valley; and,
Four, US agrees with Pakistan on the need to reduce tensions (read on the imperative need of India-Pakistan talks).
The point that really makes one shudder is that Kerry does not think this is an act of cross-border terrorism. The Americans seem to have arrived at some conclusions of their own regarding what happened in Uri, which do not tally with our account.
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/09/21/why-indian-public-is-delusional-on-pakistan/
Modi diplomacy faces moment of truth
The report on the arrival of a Russian army contingent to participate in the first-ever military exercises with Pakistan since 1947 will come as a bitter moment of truth for the Narendra Modi government’s disastrous one-dimensional foreign policy course.
Of course, this is a huge topic of far-reaching significance and it deserves a full spectrum analysis separately. Meanwhile, what matters in real time today is that the ballyhoo that Modi boosted India’s influence like at no time in independent history, et al, stands rubbished as empty bluster in front of the national (and regional and international) audience.
The only good part is that Indians can heave a sigh of relief that notwithstanding all the sabre-rattling by such figures in the ruling circles as former RSS spokesman Ram Madhav — ‘tooth-for-jaw’, etc. — there isn’t going to be war between India and Pakistan. It is a comforting thought.
Obviously, Russians do not take seriously the prospect of Indian retaliation on Uri attack. Or else, they wouldn’t have dispatched their soldiers to a potential war zone. With all their military satellites over South Asia, Russians estimate that ‘hawks’ like Madhav are indulging in vacuous rhetoric to appease their constituency of Sangh Parivar and Hindu nationalists.
In political terms, this makes our leaders look the emperor without clothes, farcical and ugly – with nowhere to hide. They speak of ‘tooth-for-jaw’ without meaning a damn thing, making fools out of us.
Second, it is a diplomatic snub insofar as, evidently, Russians do not buy into India’s argument that Uri attack was staged by Pakistan. Third, in strategic terms, Russians signal their intention to move forward with the project to build sinews of a partnership with Pakistan, putting in place building blocks, and Delhi has to learn to live with this reality.
Fourth, in geopolitical terms, Russians signal that if India bandwagons with the US’ pivot to Asia against the backdrop of New Cold War, they will be constrained to respond. Finally, please note that the fortnight-long military exercise will be held in the tribal areas of Pakistan and in Gilgit-Baltistan.
The symbolism is self-evident — plain rejection of Modi government’s policy shift on Kashmir to irrationally stake claims to Gilgit-Baltistan as integral part of India. The Indian protestations over China-Pakistan Economic Corridor on the specious plea that the projects partially involve Gilgit-Baltistan become even more untenable.
----
Modi’s aides could have taken one good look at the map to know that inciting unrest in Baluchistan cannot go hand in hand with our projects in Chabahar in Sistan-Baluchistan. Rouhani told Sharif that Tehran will not allow contradictions involving Chabahar and Gwadar. Does Iran have the wherewithal to fulfill the assurance? You bet, it has. If Iranians could keep Mossad-CIA-MI6 at bay effectively through past 3 decades, they must be knowing their job.
By M K Bhadrakumar – September 23, 2016
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/09/23/modi-diplomacy-faces-moment-of-truth/
Yes Pakistan is ready for the conventional war after all Pakistan Military is in charge of running the country.
However, Pakistan is not ready for a diplomatic war much of it because of its Military. In fact that war has already been lost internationally.
Swaroop: " Pakistan is not ready for a diplomatic war much of it because of its Military. In fact that war has already been lost internationally"
Here's ex Indian meeting diplomat MK Bhadrakumar on his fellow Indians " being delusional"
While watching various Delhi TV channels tonight on issues surrounding Sunday’s attack on Uri base, one gets the depressing feeling that we are being delusional. What is entirely lacking is the ethical standard that the media should not incite public opinion by feeding it with such patent falsehoods.
We are living in a fool’s paradise, being led up the garden path by a bombastic leadership and led to believe falsely that the international community is rooting for India, that the country’s prestige is soaring sky-high, etc. and, therefore, Pakistan stands ‘isolated’.
In reality, though, the readout of the US State Department on the meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in New York on September 20 should come as an eye-opener. The readout is reproduced below:
Secretary Kerry met Monday with Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif to discuss our strong, long-term bilateral partnership and to build upon the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue. The Secretary commended the Prime Minister for restoring macroeconomic stability to Pakistan over the last three years and expressed appreciation for Pakistan’s cooperation on climate change priorities.
The Secretary reiterated the need for Pakistan to prevent all terrorists from using Pakistani territory as safe havens, while commending recent efforts by Pakistani security forces to counter extremist violence. They also spoke about regional issues, including recent developments with regard to Afghanistan. The Prime Minister and Secretary Kerry expressed strong concern with recent violence in Kashmir — particularly the army base attack — and the need for all sides to reduce tensions.
Secretary Kerry also stressed the need for restraint in nuclear weapons programs. The Secretary praised Pakistan for hosting Afghan refugees for over 40 years and highlighted the importance of continued respect for humanitarian principles.
This is a carefully worded document, drafted by career diplomats with the full knowledge of the intelligence inputs available with the US State Department regarding the attack that took place on Uri base over 36 hours previously on Sunday. Nonetheless, such manifestly effusive sentiments and fulsome praise for Pakistan have been attributed to Kerry.
See the expressions that have been used in the document with great deliberation – “strong, long-term bilateral partnership”; “commended the Prime Minister”; “expressed appreciation for Pakistan’s cooperation”; “commending recent efforts by Pakistani security forces to counter extremist violence”; “praised Pakistan for hosting Afghan refugees for over 40 years”, et al.
Most significantly, the reference to J&K and Uri attack is framed as the shared opinion of Sharif and Kerry – “The Prime Minister and Secretary Kerry expressed strong concern with recent violence in Kashmir — particularly the army base attack — and the need for all sides to reduce tensions.” What does this single stunning sentence imply in plain language, shorn of diplomatic idiom?
One, US is not willing to censure Pakistan;
Two, US shares Pakistan’s “strong concern over recent violence in Kashmir”;
Three, the Uri base attack is to be seen squarely in the context of the 2-month old upheaval in Kashmir Valley; and,
Four, US agrees with Pakistan on the need to reduce tensions (read on the imperative need of India-Pakistan talks).
The point that really makes one shudder is that Kerry does not think this is an act of cross-border terrorism. The Americans seem to have arrived at some conclusions of their own regarding what happened in Uri, which do not tally with our account.
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/09/21/why-indian-public-is-delusional-on-pakistan/
Indian Rafale Deal And Future Of PAF
https://voemag.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/indian-rafale-deal-and-future-of-paf/
India and France finally inked the Rafale deal of more than 8 billion dollars. French Dassault Aviation will provide 36 Rafale MMRCAs to Indian Air Force. The first aircraft will be delivered after 3 years and all 36 systems will be delivered within a time of 3 years after it. Rafale is no doubt a proven 4.5th generation aircraft which will enhance the capabilities of Indian Air Force but in my humble opinion, the delivery time is so late that it will not create much effect against Pakistan. Our own JF-17 Thunder will introduce its Block 3 within a year or two and its specifications will be enough to counter any 4.5th Generation aircraft.
As expected, JF-17 Thunder Block 3 will be upgraded to an AESA radar with additional IRST features. Its payload and range will also be enhanced due to which it will offer a deterrent against Rafales in Indian colours. Moreover, Thunder will be a more mature platform after 6 years as Rafale will be in a process of integration. Pakistan should invest more into JF-17 Thunder project as it is the destiny of PAF. It can fulfill our defense needs till year 2050. Thunder will be evolved into a much better platform in the coming years as it will be matured.
Current Pakistani Air Force is having almost 80 F-16s in its inventory and these F-16s serves as our mainline fighter. Nearly 100 JF-17s already joined PAF in different squadrons and it will ultimately achieve the desired number of 250 very soon insha’Allah. These 2 aircrafts are categorized in 4th generation fighters due to which their specifications serves the needs of modern times. Apart from these 2 different platforms, PAF also has 3rd generation old Mirages and F-7s which are near to retirement and they will be replaced by upcoming batches of JF-17 Thunder.
My focus is on the comparison of JF-17 Thunder with the future inductions of our adversary. Indians planned to acquire 136 Rafales from France but ended up signing a deal for the purchase of mere 36 systems. First Rafale will arrive India in 2019 and last one from this deal will be delivered after the 3 years of first deliveries if everything goes well for both countries. I am comparing a 4th generation lightweight fighter aircraft of PAF with a 4.5th generation medium-weight fighter aircraft of Indian Air Force but with a reason. The block 3 of JF-17 will have some advance features as discussed above. It will be able to challenge any modern 4.5th generation aircraft and still our Block-52+ and Thunder Block-II are potent to bring down 4.5th generation jets because they are in the hands of PAF professionals. Our Air Force already proved their mettle in international exercises by beating advanced EF-2000s of different Air Forces with their earlier generation F-16s. Technology surely matters but the man behind gun also matters and matters most.
Pakistan formally started JF-17 Thunder project in 1999 with 50:50 shares of both China and Pakistan. The aircraft flew within a record time and took its maiden flight in 2003. Pakistan Air Force is reaping the fruits of the seeds which they planted about 18 years ago. JF-17 Thunder is serving as a major force multiplier for all tri-services of Pakistan. Its 100 units which are produced till now are a strong deterrent against costly aircrafts of our enemy which it purchased in billions of dollars where our homegrown jet is in our budget and we have total control over it. It is evolving and will have the capacity to adjust according to the changing threat spectrum. Its future blocks will be able to protect Pakistani skies against all kinds of medium and heavy-weight 4th, 4.5th and 5th generation jets.
Barhumdagh's cousin, Shahzain, grandson of Akbar Bugti, backs #Pakistan, ready to fight #India. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/barhumdagh-bugtis-cousin-backs-pakistan-says-will-fight-india-3049839/ … via @IndianExpress
In a sign of internal rivalry in the Baloch separatist movement, Brahumdagh Bugti’s cousin has said he would fight for Pakistan in the event of a war with India. Shahzain Bugti, a grandson of slain Baloch tribal leader Nawab Akbar Bugti, has said that if war breaks out with India he and his tribal warriors would fight against Indian troops along with the Pakistan Army.
Shahzain, a cousin of Geneva-based Brahumdagh who has sought asylum in India, said at the annual convention of the Jamhoori Watan Party which was formed by his grandfather that the Bugti tribe would always stand in defence of Pakistan.
“Brahumdagh can stay in India or Geneva that is his personal decision. But as far as I or the party is concerned we will always follow the dictates of Nawab Akbar Bugti,” Shahzain said.
He said his grandfather had opted for Pakistan at the time of Partition and his party would remain loyal to this ideology.
“Nawab Akbar Bugti was always with Pakistan and in the past also our tribesmen fought for Pakistan. Nothing has changed. Our ideology is the same. Even today if India goes to war with Pakistan we will defend the Pakistani borders,” he said.
Ever since nationalist leader Akbar Bugti was killed in a military operation in August, 2006, there has been a war of succession between three of his grandsons including Shahzain and Brahumdagh who are both claimants to the title of the tribe’s chieftainship, and have refused to recognise Aali Bugti as his successor.
Akbar Bugti had decided to nominate Brahumdagh as his successor during his lifetime but met with resistance from several tribal elders.
He had informally appointed Brahumdagh as his political successor and Mir Aali as his tribal successor. Brahumdagh, who has been living in Switzerland, on Tuesday approached the Indian Embassy in Geneva seeking political asylum in India. His application was received by the Home Ministry in New Delhi which is examining it.
The troubled Balochistan province has been in the eye of a storm since Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the atrocities and human rights violations being committed in the province. India has also raised the Balochistan issue at the UN.
On Saturday, several hundred tribesmen also held a demonstration against India insisting they would fight side by side with the Pakistan military if war breaks out.
How is this possible? The chart you have shown indicates that:
1) Pakistan has 1/2 manpower of India
2) Pakistan has same land craft as India
3) Pakistan has 1/2 air craft as India
4) Pakistan has 1/2 naval craft as India
And yet, you have said that Pakistan defense budget at 3.5% of GDP (10 billion$) is only 1/5 of India's defense budget at 2.5% of GDP (50 billion$).
How can this be? How can Pakistan have 1/2 parity (or better) in everything at only 1/5 of the cost? Are India's soldiers paid more than Pakistan's?
Something is wrong somewhere.
Anon: "And yet, you have said that Pakistan defense budget at 3.5% of GDP (10 billion$) is only 1/5 of India's defense budget at 2.5% of GDP (50 billion$)."
Long term deployments of troops are very expensive. India has had over 700,000 troops deployed in Kashmir for 26 years.
Defense exports are also very costly. India is the largest importer of weapons in the world, according to SIPRI.
India has a huge Navy that Pakistan does not.
Please read "India's Arms Buildup: Guns Versus Bread" Guest Post: Col.(Retd) Pavan Nair
http://www.riazhaq.com/2010/01/indias-arms-buildup-guns-versus-bread.html
India can and will unleash and attack Pakistan with or without its Armed Forces
Why #India can’t defeat #Pakistan or #China in a war? http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Arrackistan/why-india-cant-defeat-pakistan-or-china-in-a-war/ … via @TOIOpinion
To provoke a somnolent establishment into action, your message has to be blunt. There cannot be a more blunt warning to India’s political leadership and defence establishment than what Pravin Sawhney and Ghazala Wahab have delivered in their admirable and unsparing book Dragon On Our Doorstep: Managing China Through Military Power (Published by Aleph, Pages 458, Price Rs 799). Let alone China, India cannot even win a war against Pakistan. Yes, you read that right.
------
Dragon On Our Doorstep could be a little misleading title since the authors are not only discussing the China threat but India’s defence strategy. In full play is Pakistan, Kashmir and the red menace, the greatest threat India is facing, as former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put it. Sawhney and Wahab say that in terms of threat, Pakistan is China and China is Pakistan, pointing out especially the ‘inter-operability’ that both military forces have achieved.
So despite the strongman Narendra Modi at the helm, why can’t India defeat Pakistan in a war? Sawhney and Wahab make a critical distinction to win their argument. Pakistan has built military power, India a military force. And they explain: “Military force involves the mere collection of war-withal, that is, building up of troops and war-waging material; military power is about optimal utilization 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.”
-------
What else makes Indian defence forces vulnerable? Since the defence forces are outside the government, they have little interaction with the political leadership in peacetime and little say in the acquisition of conventional weapons. The defence services have little knowledge and understanding of their own nuclear weapons and Pakistan’s nuclear redlines. As India does not have an efficient indigenous defence industry, war supplies are not assured. All these, for an average reader, sound pretty scary.
---------
The authors also examine India’s foreign policy in relation to China and Pakistan and criticise Modi for his failure in not rising as a statesman prime minister to transform India into a leading power. Modi’s foreign policy, the authors say, is more optics than substance.
They say that ‘Act East, Think West’ policy is hampered by the perennial failures in strategic thinking and a lack of appreciation for military power. They pick on India’s foreign aid policy and say that if our neighbours are neither deferential nor deterrent there is something amiss. Sawhaney and Wahab argue that aid is seldom given to fulfill the needs of the recipient. It is given to meet the requirements- strategic in the case of nations- of the giver. And if the requirements are not met, you increase the aid or diversify it. They also say that India is the only country in the world where foreign policy with nations having disputed borders- China and Pakistan- is made with regard to military advice. All these criticisms should rile the defence establishment and the bureaucrats who have straitjacketed India’s foreign policy.
Here's an except from "Army and Nation" by Steven Wilkinson:
Overall, though, it seems likely, given important studies by various experts on Indian military, that the civil-military constraints that have helped prevent a coup have hurt military effectiveness and preparedness in at least three important ways: (1) the weakening of the army before the 1962 China war; (2) the problems caused for defense coordination and preparation by unwieldy defense bureaucracy, duplication of functions among different branches and lack of sharing of information across branches and (3) the general downgrading of pay and perks since independence which has left the army with huge shortage of officers that affected the force's discipline capabilities (Cohen and Dasgupta 2010; Menon 2009; Mukherjee 2011).
The February 2000 Kargil Review Committee, for instance, pointed out that India's strategy of developing and controlling nuclear weapons outside of the army while it may make sense from the perspective of civil-military relations, "puts the Indian Army at a disadvantage vis-a-vis its Pakistani counterpart. While the former was in the dark about India's nuclear capability, the latter as the custodian of Pakistani nuclear weaponry as fully aware of its own capability. Three former Indian Army Chiefs of Staff expressed unhappiness about this asymmetric situation" (Menon 2009, 114-115, 117)
https://books.google.com/books?id=B-qaBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=wilkinson+indian+army+war+fighting+capability&source=bl&ots=7qxPQbiAmT&sig=GdnGcztrQnVepDw0UUgEyqB2Vm0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPgdX1wPfUAhVS1mMKHaSGCJgQ6AEIQDAE#v=onepage&q=wilkinson%20indian%20army%20war%20fighting%20capability&f=false
For all the chest-thumping, India cannot win a war against Pakistan
https://qz.com/990579/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.”
#Pakistan Army Aviation Receives 4 Mi-35M Advanced Attack #Helicopters From #Russia. @Diplomat_APAC
http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/pakistan-receives-4-advanced-attack-helicopters-from-russia/
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.
THE EXPRESS TRIBUNE > PAKISTAN
Can India destroy Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?
By Naveed Ahmad Published: October 12, 2017
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1529367/can-india-destroy-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal/
“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.
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
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/what-good-are-the-indian-navys-aircraft-carriers-against-pakistan/
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.
Indian Military Modernization
and Conventional Deterrence in
South Asia
WALTER C. LADWIG III
Department of War Studies, King’s College London, UK
http://www.walterladwig.com/Articles/Conventional%20Deterrence%20in%20South%20Asia.pdf
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.’
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
https://dailytimes.com.pk/207360/pakistans-new-war-strategy/
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.
Turkey to Upgrade Pakistan Navy Attack Sub
A Turkish defense contractor will upgrade the second of three Agosta 90B submarines in service with the Pakistan Navy.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
March 06, 2018
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/turkey-to-upgrade-pakistan-navy-attack-sub/
Turkish state-owned defense contractor Savunma Teknolojileri Mühendislik ve Ticaret A.Ş. (STM) has won a contract for the mid-life upgrade of the second of three Agosta 90B-class (aka Khalid-class) diesel-electric attack submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion systems, currently in service with the Pakistan Navy.
The contract was signed in Pakistan by senior representatives of the Pakistan Ministry of Defense Production and STM last month, according to a company statement. Pakistan selected STM over French shipbuilder Direction des Constructions Navales Services (DCNS), the original designer and producer of the Agosta 90B-class, in a competitive bidding process in June 2016.
“At the conclusion of the bidding process, STM’s offer was found to be commercially and technically superior, and the company was consequently selected as the prime contractor by Pakistan’s Ministry of Defense Production,” the company statement reads. The original June 2016 contract only covered the retrofitting of the first Agosta 90B sub, the PNS Khalid, slated for delivery in 2020.
The second Agosta 90B boat, like the first-of-class PNS Khalid, will be upgraded at the Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works (KSEW) in Karachi. “The modernization works will include the replacement of the submarine’s entire sonar suite, periscope systems, command and control system, radar and electronic support systems. HAVELSAN- [Turkey’s state-controlled military software company] and ASELSAN [Turkish defense contractor]-made systems will also be exported as part of the project,” according to STM.
Among other things, the upgrade includes the installation of a SharpEye low probability-of-intercept (LPI) radar system aboard the PNS Saad. Additionally, “[u]nder the project, STM will make modifications on the pressure hull, the most critical structure in a submarine, by carrying out system-to-system and platform-to-system integrations for various systems, to be provided by local and foreign companies.”
The PNS Saad is expected to be returned to service within 12 months following the delivery of the PNS Khalid. The upgrade of all three subs–should a third contract between the Ministry of Defense Production and STM be signed—will likely be finished by the end of 2022.
The three Agosta 90B attack submarines were inducted into service with the Pakistan Navy between 1999 and 2008. The first-of-class PNS Khalid was built by DCNS in France, while the second boat of the class, PNS Saad, was assembled by KSEW from submarine modules delivery by DCNS. The third attack submarine, PNS Hamza, was built locally in Karachi.
Next to French-built Exocet anti-ship missiles, the upgraded Agosta 90B boats will purportedly also be armed with the nuclear-capable Babur-3 submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM), currently under development.
Defeat is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War (Book Review)
Adnan Qaiser - March 8, 2018
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/defeat-is-an-orphan-how-pakistan-lost-the-great-south-asian-war-book-review/
...Myra MacDonald’s scholarship, Defeat is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War, records events shaping-up in India and Pakistan between 1998 and 2016. The author bestows lavish praises, levels blind accusations, makes flawed conclusions and renders erroneous judgements in favour of “a rising world power” (India) against what she calls a “near-failing state” (Pakistan) (27).
However, she cannot be faulted. Having been Reuter’s correspondent for nearly thirty years with specialization in South Asian politics and security – most probably based out of New Delhi – Ms. MacDonald’s India-bent justifiably pervades and parades. Never mind, it brings her otherwise great research effort into disrepute.
---
Dedicating her first chapter to Indo-Pakistan nuclear issues, Ms. MacDonald claims the nuclear weapons “accelerated [Pakistan’s] downfall [as it gave the country] a false sense of inviolability [to] unleash militant forces that it could no longer fully control” (27). Endorsing the claim of Pakistan as “insufficiently imagined” by Salman Rushdie, the disgraced author of The Satanic Verses in the Muslim world, Ms. MacDonald believes “Opposition to India bind[s] Pakistan together” (30, 170).
----
Discussing events leading to Indo-Pakistan nuclear tests of May 1998, the author justifies India’s “nuclear restraint,” but conveniently forgets it was Indian leaders’ threatening and provocative statements that had forced Pakistan to carry-out its own nuclear tests. However, she considers Pakistan to have “lock[ed] itself inside a house on fire … by making itself impregnable” (44).
In chapter two, Ms. MacDonald expediently overlooks India’s clandestine takeover of Siachen Glacier beyond bilaterally accepted point NJ9842 in April 1984 and denounces Pakistan’s Kargil operation, which was carried-out in the similar fashion in 1999. Despite turning out as a “strategic disaster” (57) due to Pakistan’s civil-military discord and geopolitical pressures, the operation was a “brilliant tactical” manoeuvre which gave India a bloody nose (51). Disregarding India’s territorial quest in the region and Pakistan’s right to avail any unguarded opportunity offered by its archrival, the author is out giving India brownie points: “India was simply too complacent. Poor intelligence and its expectation of peace after the nuclear tests had lulled [India] into a false sense of security” (55).
-------------------
In chapter seven, the author dissects the ten-month long India-Pakistan military standoff of 2001-2002, as India thought “it was time for a war to end all wars” (133). Ms. MacDonald believes India came out victorious as it achieved its objective “to defeat cross-border infiltration/terrorism without conflict [and] to contain the national mood of ‘teach[ing] Pakistan a lesson’ through international pressure” (134). However, Operation Parakram (valour) turned out to be a disaster for the Indian Army with high casualty-rate without engaging in war. India’s army chief, General V.K. Singh admitted: “We seemed to be at war with ourselves” (140).
The author, significantly points out that neither India had the political will nor military wherewithal to “destroy and degrade Pakistan’s war fighting capabilities.” She concludes “The Indian Army was not in a position to deal a decisive blow against Pakistan. Vajpayee’s best option was to use angry rhetoric to force the international community to squeeze more concessions from Pakistan” (135-137, 144). However, the author notes, the event led Pakistan to “expand its nuclear arsenal further … reinforce[ing] its belief that it was an insecure state that could be protected only by military force, including nuclear weapons and jihadist proxies” (149).
#India's #Aircraft Carriers: A Giant Waste of Time Against #Pakistan? Why not less-expensive warships, and more of them, equipped with long-range #missiles? #indiannavy https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/indias-aircraft-carriers-giant-waste-time-39672
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.
Are #Aircraft #Carriers Still Relevant? In the 1971 Indo-#Pakistan War, #India’s carrier, the Vikrant, was sent to the permissive Bay of #Bengal and not to the more contested northern Arabian Sea. @Diplomat_APAC #EastPakistan #Bangladesh #IndianNavy http://thediplomat.com/2018/11/are-aircraft-carriers-still-relevant/
By Ben Ho Wan Beng
At this juncture, let us revisit the Pacific War. During this conflict, William Halsey of the U.S. Navy was the archetypal aggressive and offensive-minded carrier admiral. His polar opposite, Raymond Spruance, was restrained and more adverse to risk. Hence, the big question is: In a future conflict involving carriers, would the leadership be in the mold of Spruance, the “Quiet Warrior”? Or would a “Bull” Halsey hold sway? The risk of losing a capital asset could play on the minds of the leadership, and it might take an existential threat to the homeland for carriers to be sent into a nonpermissive environment. Hence, it is likely that leaders, whether military or political, would deploy the vessel in a manner more akin to Spruance than Halsey.
It is worth noting that there has not been a direct clash-of-arms between great powers since World War II. Moreover, there has not been a major campaign at sea for over 30 years since the Falklands War. With very few reference points, any future conventional maritime campaign is likely to be cautious, with the side having the more valuable assets taking more probing actions.
Deterrence favors the A2/AD-centric nation in such circumstances.
Though carriers have not been in a high-end fight since 1944, there is evidence of them being deployed more cautiously in combat during the Cold War. In the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, India’s carrier, the Vikrant, was sent to the permissive Bay of Bengal and not to the more contested northern Arabian Sea. Similarly, during the 1982 Falklands campaign, the Royal Navy kept its two carriers farther from the area of operations than usual for fear of reprisals from Argentine airpower. It also bears notice that these two episodes occurred before the coming of age of precision-guided munitions and what the Russians termed as the reconnaissance-strike complex.
Moreover, in this current age where the “battle of the narratives” predominates, the enemy need not sink the carrier to secure a major political victory; this could be attained by merely hitting it (which may or may not cause significant damage). That said, even limited damage to the carrier force could be spun into a political victory for the adversary. Think China or Russia and their far-reaching information warfare (IW) edifices. To illustrate, the adversary’s IW machinery could amplify on social and other mediums a hit on a destroyer escorting the flat-top. The invincibility of the much-vaulted carrier task group could then be downplayed
Massive Global Cost of #India-#Pakistan #Nuclear War. Far away from #SouthAsia, 1 to 2 billion people will die from starvation cased by the nuclear winter following nuclear exchange between the two countries. https://youtu.be/O0ZPt60sZ0s via @YouTube
#Indian defense analyst Pravin Sawhney: Fighting tactical battles for one-upmanship. #Rafale and #S400 would certainly help Indian Air Force, but would not tilt the operational level balance in #India’s favor in conflict with #Pakistan https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/fighting-tactical-battles-for-one-upmanship/760082.html via @thetribunechd
The issue, thus, is about tactics and operational level of war. The Pakistan military, learning from the Soviet Union, has always given importance to the operational level. This is why in the 1965 and 1971 wars, despite being more in bean-counting of assets, India never won in the western sector. Proof of this are the ceasefire line and the Line of Control, which otherwise would have been converted into international borders.
The situation, regrettably, remains the same today. Separate doctrines of the Army and the Air Force, and with each service doing its own training is evidence that no amount of modernisation would help if the focus of service chiefs remains on tactics. For example, after the Balakot operation, a senior Air Force officer told me that the PAF would not last more than six days. He believed in tactical linear success. What about the other kinetic and non-kinetic forces which impact at the operational level?
This is not all. Retired senior Air Force officers started chest-thumping about the Balakot airstrike having set the new normal. Some argued that air power need not be escalatory, while others made the case for the use of air power in counter-terror operations like the Army. Clearly, they all were talking tactics, not war. Had India retaliated to the PAF’s counter-strike, what it called an act of war, an escalation was assured. It is another matter that PM Narendra Modi had only bargained for the use of the IAF for electoral gains.
Talking of tactics, Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa spoke about relative technological superiority. Perhaps, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman would not have strayed into Pakistani airspace if his MiG-21 Bison had Software Defined Radio (SDR) and Operational Data Link (ODL). The SDR operates in the VHF, UHF, Ku and L bandwidths and is meant to remove voice clutter. The ODL provides the pilot with data or text, in this case from the ground controller. The officer, separated from his wing-man, and without necessary voice and data instructions, unwittingly breached the airspace and was captured by the Pakistan army. There are known critical shortages of force multipliers in addition to force levels in the IAF. Surely, the IAF Chief can’t do much except keep asking the government to fill the operational voids. But, he could avoid making exaggerated claims since his words would only feed the ultra-nationalists, and support the Modi government’s spurious argument of having paid special attention to national security.
The same is the case with Rafale and S-400. These would certainly help, but would not tilt the operational level balance in India’s favour. For example, the IAF intends to use S-400 in the ‘offensive air defence’ role rather than its designed role of protecting high-value targets like Delhi, for which it was originally proposed. For the protection of high-value targets, the Air Headquarters has made a strong case to purchase the United States’ National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS). This is ironic, because while S-400 can destroy hostile ballistic missiles, NASAMS can’t do so. It can only kill cruise missiles and other aerial platforms. The thinking at the Air Headquarters is that since there is no understanding on the use of ballistic missiles — especially with Pakistan — both sides are likely to avoid the use of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads lest they are misread and lead to a nuclear accident. So, NASAMS may probably never be called upon to take on ballistic missiles.
Given the direction of the relationship between the India and Pakistan, this assumption may not be the best to make when procuring prohibitively expensive high-value assets.
#Modi's, #BJP's parent org RSS's chief advocates ‘Akhand Bharat’ that includes #Pakistan & #Afghanistan:"There is a need to make glorious Akhand Bharat for the welfare of the universe. That’s why there is a need to awaken patriotism for the country”#Hindu https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/rss-chief-advocates-akhand-bharat-says-pakistan-in-distress-ever-since-partitioned-from-india-217404#.YDmTjR7rIQc.twitter
More than the present India, the separated parts of erstwhile India, which shed their relevance with the country, have more necessity for the reunification to come out of their “miseries”, he further said.
Stressing that the concept of ‘Akhand Bharat’ is possible, Bhagwat said some people had expressed serious doubts before the partition of the country in 1947 whether Pakistan would be formed, but it happened.
India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, when asked before partition of the country in 1947, had said the possibility of formation of Pakistan was “dream of fools” though it happened.
According to Bhagwat, Lord Wavell (during British rule) also said in British Parliament that God has made India one and so who would divide it.
“But ultimately it (partition of India) happened.
What seemed to be impossible had happened, so it cannot be ruled out that ‘Akhand Bharat’ which may seem to be impossible, will not happen,” he said.
Alleging that there is unhappiness in the separated regions of ‘Akhand Bharat’ which now do not call themselves as ‘Bharat’, the RSS chief said the remedy to come out their miseries is reunification with India.
“They (separated countries) did all they could, but did not find any remedy. And remedy is reunification (with Bharat) only and all their problems will get resolved,” he said.
He, however, said the reunification should be done through “humanitys dharm” which according to him is called “Hindu dharm”.
“Gandhar became Afghanistan. Is there peace and tranquility in Afghanistan since then? Pakistan was formed.
From that date till now, is there peace and tranquility?” he asked.
He said India has the endurance to overcome several challenges and the world looks towards it to overcome difficulties.
With “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (world is one family) belief, India can again offer happiness and peace to the world, he added. PTI
Vikrant
Aircraft carrier
http://www.military-today.com/navy/vikrant.htm
The INS Vikrant is the first India's indigenous aircraft carrier. It is also the largest warship ever built in India. Development of such a complex warship signifies a high degree of India's self-reliance in this field. Currently only four other countries in the world, including United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia are capable of construction aircraft carriers of this size.
Work started on this ship in 2005. Originally it was planned to enter service with the Indian Navy in 2014. However due to constant delays the ship will be commissioned not earlier than in 2020. Indigenous Indian weapon programs are typically plagued with delays and setbacks due to technical difficulties, funding problems, procurement problems and corruption. The INS Vikrant aircraft carrier is no exception. Once comissioned, it will operate alongside INS Vikramaditya, a former Kiev class aircraft carrier, that has been refitted and was commission with the Indian Navy in 2014. It has been reported that second ship of the class is also planned.
The Vikrant has broadly similar capabilities as the INS Vikramaditya. It can carry up to 36 aircraft and helicopters. The hangar accomodates a total of 17 aircraft and helicopters, while remaining 19 can be stored on the flight deck. There are two elevators. The Vikrant is fitted with sky jump and will have to take-off runways.
It has been reported that main weapon of the Vikrant will be its fighter aircraft. It will carry a mix of Russian MiG-29K and Indian carrier-borne version of the HAL Tejas and, possibly, Sea Harrier. The multi-role MiG-29K will be the primary air superiority and ground attack aircraft.
The ship will also carry Russian Ka-31 early warning helicopters, Ka-28 anti-submarine helicopters, HAL Dhruv utility helicopters, and, possibly helicopters of other types.
Defensive weapons of the Vikrant will include Israeli long-range air defense missiles. It is reported that two 16-cell vertical launch systems will be installed. Also the ship will be fitted with Russian AK-630 close-in weapon systems. Some sources report that the ship will also have four 76 mm naval guns.
This aircraft carrier has conventional propulsion. It is powered by four LM 2500 gas turbines, generating 80 MW of power and driving two shafts. The INS Vikrant will have a range of about 8 000 nautical miles (15 000 km).
Once commissioned the INS Vikrant will join the INS Vikramaditya. So within the next couple of years Indian Navy will operate two large modern aircraft carriers.
Pakistan resumes armor modernization as terror threat recedes
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/11/19/pakistan-resumes-armor-modernization-as-terror-threat-recedes/
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan’s armor modernization efforts are maturing amid a refocus toward archrival India and away from operations against the militant group TTP, otherwise known as Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan.
With India having ordered the advanced T-90MS tank, built a large fleet of T-90A tanks and upgraded most T-72M1 tanks, Pakistan is countering with its own acquisition and upgrade programs for new types of vehicles and improved battlefield integration.
Though low-level acquisition continued throughout the TTP campaign, author, analyst and former Australian defense attache to Islamabad Brian Cloughley explained that necessity demanded larger programs be cut back or frozen.
“The expansion of Taliban and other militant activity, particularly in regions along the border with Afghanistan which are inaccessible to heavy vehicles, focused the army on COIN [counterinsurgency]. It was a budgetary decision, backed by tactical pragmatism,” he said. “But it was acknowledged that as counterinsurgency wound down, so could armor programs be reinstituted.”
The Pakistan Army effectively defeated the TTP-led threat after first launching Operation Zarb-e-Azb (or “Cutting Blow” in English) from 2014 to flush out domestic and foreign terrorists in the ungoverned spaces along the border with Afghanistan.
The TTP and its allies had until then mainly held territory in rugged Waziristan, in the essentially self-governed Federally Administered Tribal Areas that were later absorbed into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
This was followed by Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (or “Elimination of Strife”) from early 2017, a combined ongoing military-civilian effort to eliminate terrorist sleeper cells nationwide.
Fencing along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is also largely complete, restricting the movement of remaining TTP forces.
The Taliban recently retook control of Afghanistan following a U.S. withdrawal from the country. The group subsequently assured Pakistan it will not allow TTP remnants to attack the country.
Though there are occasionally low-level terrorist attacks in Pakistan, the government there has felt confident enough to offer amnesty to TTP members on the condition they lay down arms and surrender.
However, Cloughley said, the Army “has not effected a ‘switch’ from counterterrorism, which as in all armies continues to be a very high priority in asset management, technology and training.”
Still, he added, “the years of emphasis have been productive, and the Army now feels its primary role — continental defense against India — can be allocated more resources than it has been able to commit for the past 20 years.”
What armor upgrades are in the works?
Some of Pakistan’s latest armor developments were revealed during a Nov. 9 visit by Army chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa to state-owned armored fighting vehicles manufacturer Heavy Industries Taxila, or HIT.
Bajwa inspected the upgraded production facilities and ongoing projects, including:
Newly developed protection measures and remote weapon stations for main battle tanks.
An indigenously developed 155mm artillery gun barrel.
Ballistic and improvised explosive device protection for armored fighting vehicles.
Programs to manufacture, rebuild and upgrade armored personnel carriers and tanks.
Notably, footage of the visit shows the indigenous Viper infantry fighting vehicle and a modernized version of the Type-85APII main battle tank. At one point, a Type-85APII turret is visible with an exposed composite armor module, possibly indicating replacement with a new type.
An industry source with knowledge of HIT’s ongoing programs told Defense News on the condition of anonymity that the Viper was undergoing pilot production. The source also said Ukrainian-supplied T-80UD tanks have been equipped with a new thermal gunner’s sight and a locally developed solid-state autoloader.
Pakistan resumes armor modernization as terror threat recedes
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/11/19/pakistan-resumes-armor-modernization-as-terror-threat-recedes/
Though he was unable to provide details on the Type-85APII upgrade, Defense News understands it was upgraded along similar lines to the T-80UD.
HIT officials previously told Defense News that the T-80UD and Type-85APII tanks would receive upgrade after undergoing a pilot rebuild, although the Type-85APII fire and gun control systems had already received some attention, and the gunner was already equipped with a thermal sight.
The Type-85APII has also received an upgraded power pack, with some sources now referring to the platform as the Type-85UG.
Future hopes are pinned on the VT-4, with the first delivered in April 2020. It entered service around June 2021.
Though derived from the Type-90II/Al-Khalid, the VT-4 features the improved gun of China’s high-end Type-99A main battle tank and therefore can fire the same rounds with greater penetrative power compared to Pakistan’s other tanks. The VT-4 also has more advanced composite and reactive armor; China’s third-generation thermal imaging systems; more advanced fire and gun control systems; and a Chinese-made powertrain.
Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the VT-4 and related technology will deliver an element of parity between India and Pakistan.
“NORINCO’s VT-4, as a direct purchase or as the basis for the domestically produced Al-Khalid 2, would offer Pakistan a wide array of modern tank technologies competitive with the Russian T-90MS being acquired by India, from powertrain to fire control, high velocity gun, gun-launched anti-tank missiles and active protection systems,” he said.
However, he cautioned, “rough parity may be unsatisfactory for both Pakistan and India, so both likely will seek regular available upgrades or next-generation options.”
Unlike with the original Al-Khalid, Pakistan avoids with its VT-4 a reliance on expensive European sighting systems and the occasionally problematic supply of Ukrainian powertrains. But there is no indication that the Chinese powertrain will replace that shared by T-80UD and Al-Khalid tanks.
The Viper is based on the Saad armored personnel carrier (similar to the American Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle), featuring additional armor protection and the unmanned Slovakian Turra 30 combat module with a 30mm gun and two anti-tank missiles. It carries a crew of three, plus nine dismounts.
Pakistan’s shift to infantry fighting vehicles comes many years after other major armies, which Cloughley said was unavoidable.
“IFVs are expensive, and their operation requires a great deal of training at all levels, which the Army, of necessity concentrating on counterinsurgency operations, did not want to commit to,” he explained. “The [Pakistan Army] has always wanted IFVs, and now sees the opportunity for a balanced introduction program, taking into account unit training.”
The Army is also sharpening its armored warfare skills, having this year held a series of large-scale exercises to improve integration among the various branches of its ground force, including infantry, mechanized forces, combat aviation, surveillance platforms, air defense and artillery.
Cloughley believes emphasis is also “being placed on maneuvers in the nuclear battlefield, and that closed-down operations are being practiced on almost all exercises.”
“HIT has always been conscious of the importance of developing [nuclear-, biological- and chemical-protected] technology, and crew comfort has received attention,” he said.
While the Army will be relieved its armor modernization program is back on track, Cloughley issued a word of warning: “While I agree that it is very important that the [Pakistan Army] continues to improve interoperability and must upgrade its armored capabilities, it must not lose sight of the COIN imperative, which is a significant aspect of its mission.”
China’s ‘Most-Powerful’ Missile Defense System Likely To Be Deployed Along Both LAC & LOC
By
EurAsian Times Desk
October 21, 2021
Pakistan Army’s air defense unit has recently inducted a variant of the Chinese-made HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system most likely to be deployed along the LOC. China had earlier deployed these missiles along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), its de facto border with India.
https://eurasiantimes.com/new-headache-for-india-chinas-most-powerful-missile-defense-system-likely-to-be-deployed-along-both-lac-loc/
The HQ-9/P (P for Pakistan) high-to-medium air defense system (HIMADS) was inducted into the Pakistan Army at a ceremony held at the Army Air Defence Centre, Karachi. Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa was in attendance at the event.
------------------------
Powered By ‘On The Fly’ Algo, China Says Its AI-Controlled Hypersonic Missiles Can Hit Targets With 10 Times More Accuracy
The latest defense collaboration between the ‘iron brothers’, Pakistan and China, may be seen as a fresh threat to India, whose military has long been strategizing to tackle two-front war challenges.
The Hóng Qí-9 (HQ-9), literally the ‘Red Banner-9’, is a Chinese medium- to long-range, active radar homing SAM system. The weapon uses an HT-233 passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar system, which has a detection range of 120 km with a tracking range of 90 km.
The system has four different types of radar — Type 120 low-altitude acquisition radar, Type 305A 3D acquisition radar, Type 305B 3D acquisition radar, and H-200 mobile engagement radar. In terms of capability, HQ-9 can be compared with the Russian S-300 and American Patriot air defense systems.
The EurAsian Times had earlier speculated that HQ-9 missile battery could feature one 200 kW Diesel generator truck, and eight transporter erector launchers (TELs) each with 4 missiles, totaling 32 rounds ready to fire.
A variety of equipment can be added to the system to make larger, more capable formations. Among the equipment that can be added is one TWS-312 command post, one site survey vehicle based on the Dongfeng EQ2050, additional transporter/ loader vehicles with each vehicle housing four missile TELs based on Tai’an TAS5380, etc.
Big Breakthroughs: After Landing Taikonauts On ‘Space Station’, China Tests World’s ‘Largest Solid-Fuel Rocket Engine’
Various units of these highly mobile systems have finished conducting long-distance maneuvers and drills.
China has developed multiple variants of this SAM system. The Hǎi Hóng Qí-9, literally the ‘Sea Red Banner-9’, is HQ-9’s naval variant. It seems to be quite identical to the land-based version.
China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has deployed the HHQ-9 in its Type 052C Lanzhou-class destroyer in Vertical Launch System or VLS tubes.
An anti-radiation variant of the missile system has also been designed and developed by China. The export designation for the air defense version is Fang Dun-2000 (FD-2000), literally meaning defensive shield. Its is developed by China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC). It comes with anti-stealth capability.
Meanwhile, the HQ-9A version of the missile features advanced electronic equipment and software that provides it with increased accuracy and probability of kill. The HQ-9B has a longer range and is equipped with an extra seeker.
This new vertical launch, ground-to-air missile defense system has a target range of over 250 km and up to a height of 50km.
The naval variants of the missile are HHQ-9A and HHQ-9B. HQ-9C is currently under development. It is expected to be equipped with fully active radar homing.
Meet Pakistan’s Maritime Patrol Aircraft That Reportedly Detected Indian Navy Submarine Near Karachi
3 cheers for INS Vikrant & 3 questions for India’s leadership on naval doctrine
by Shekhar Gupta
https://youtu.be/3GbgmJM4Ygw
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
https://youtu.be/6BficVBrqls
------------------
The Unusual Carrier Killer Capability Of The Chinese Navy’s Strategic Bomber - Naval News
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/the-unusual-carrier-killer-capability-of-the-chinese-navys-strategic-bomber/
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.
Post a Comment