Is Pakistan Ready For War With India?

[Riaz Haq]

Are Pakistanis willing to fight for their country if attacked by India? To answer this question, let's look at a 2015 survey by WIN/Gallup International that asked people in 64 countries if they would be willing to fight for their country.

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; Ebol... 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?

[Riaz Haq]

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-fac...

[Riaz Haq]

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-... 

[Riaz Haq]

From Sashi Tharoor:


‘isolation’ is a bigger challenge for New Delhi this time: Firstly, because Uri involved fewer victims than Mumbai; secondly, because they were soldiers, not civilians as in 26/11; and thirdly, because various countries have bilateral reasons not to isolate Pakistan.
The US needs Pakistan because of Afghanistan, and China has major strategic interests there, especially a $46 billion economic corridor that is China’s single biggest overseas development project. As long as major powers choose to stay engaged with Pakistan, overlooking its misbehaviour, diplomatic isolation will have its limitations as a policy.

‘Surgical’ airstrikes seem superficially attractive, not least because, in Eliot Cohen’s marvellous formulation, they are an option rather like modern courtship — they offer the possibility of gratification without commitment. You fly from a great height, drop a few bombs and come back home, without taking the issue any further, leaving your victims to contemplate the smoking ruins.

What about Pakistani retaliation, which is sure to be swift and perhaps disproportionate? At what point do you stop the punishment that will inevitably provoke more reprisals? And what about the international opprobrium you will incur for violating the LoC or worse, breaching an international frontier?

Above all, what about the ancillary risks of further escalation? India’s overriding priority is economic development, which requires foreign investment and a peaceful climate for economic growth. How does that square with the military adventurism being advocated by our armchair generals? Investors, naturally, do not like to invest in war zones. Can we afford to drive away the funds without which we cannot pull our people out of poverty?

The possibility of India revisiting the Indus Waters Treaty signed with Pakistan in 1960 has also aroused some strategists, and even MEA spokesperson Vikas Swarup, who said pointedly that “any cooperative arrangement requires goodwill and mutual trust on both sides”.
Under the treaty, India has control over three eastern rivers — Beas, Ravi and Sutlej —and Pakistan the western rivers of the Chenab and Jhelum. Swarup darkly hinted that it was in jeopardy: “For any such treaty to work, it is important there must be mutual trust and cooperation. It cannot be a one-sided affair.”
But the treaty under which the waters of the Indus and its five tributaries are distributed between the two countries is not purely a bilateral affair; it was brokered by the World Bank, whose involvement will be automatically triggered if India unilaterally abrogates it.

Nor can it be done like turning off a tap; various measures would be required to ensure that Indian cities do not get flooded with the water that is no longer flowing to Pakistan.


https://www.thequint.com/uri-attack/2016/09/25/scrapping-the-indus-...

[Riaz Haq]

Turning off Indus tap easier said than done
It is an idea that keeps returning to the table — but India probably can’t consider it without risks, including those of flooding its own cities and provoking even bigger waves of terror.

http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/india-pakistan-relation-...

Amid the clamour for avenging the Uri attack, a non-military option being suggested — including by Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha (The Indian Express, September 22) — is the abrogation of the 56-year-old Indus Waters Treaty that defines the water-sharing arrangement for six rivers of the Indus basin that flow through both India and Pakistan. The argument is that India, being upstream, can stop the flow of waters to Pakistan and bring it to its knees.
Pakistan’s dependence on the Indus system cannot be overstated. About 65% of its geographical area, including the entire Punjab province, is part of the Indus basin. The country has the world’s largest canal irrigation system, thanks to its development of the basin, which accounts for more than 90% of its irrigated area. Its three biggest dams, and several smaller ones, are located here. These are sources for hydroelectricity, irrigation and drinking water for millions of Pakistanis. If the tap could indeed be turned off from the Indian side, Pakistan’s capitulation is expected to be swift.

In stark contrast to their dealings in other matters, India and Pakistan have managed their shared river waters quite amicably, thanks to the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. The Treaty has survived wars and innumerable phases of frosty relations. So much so, it is cited as the global model for cooperation on the use of trans-boundary river waters. The success of the Treaty also lends weight to the theory that when it comes to water, nations tend to cooperate rather than get into a conflict.
The Treaty, which came after a decade of World Bank-brokered negotiations, classified the six rivers of the Indus system into ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ rivers. Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were eastern; Jhelum, Chenab and Indus itself were western. The categorisation was relative — the western rivers flow almost parallely to the west of the eastern ones. Indus, the largest river, originates in China, so does the Sutlej. The other four rise in India; all enter Pakistan from India.
The Treaty gave India full rights over the waters of the eastern rivers, while it had to let the western rivers flow “unrestricted” to Pakistan. India could use the waters of western rivers as well, but only in a “non-consumptive” manner. It could use it for domestic purposes, and even for irrigation and hydropower production, but only in the manner specified in the Treaty. With the eastern rivers, India could do as it pleased.
A Permanent Indus Commission was established to implement the Treaty. Each country has an Indus Commissioner, and they meet regularly — every six months these days — to exchange information and data, and to settle minor disputes. Meetings of the Indus Commissioners have never been suspended — more than 110 rounds of meetings, held alternately in India and Pakistan, have taken place so far.

---------

Indeed, the Treaty allows India to construct storage up to 3.6 million acre feet on the western rivers. But India has developed no storage capacities; nor has it utilised the water it is entitled to for irrigation.
Sinha also argued for India’s greater engagement with Afghanistan on the development of the Kabul river that flows into Pakistan through the Indus basin. “This again can make Pakistan extremely nervous. It is in our strategic interest in any case to enhance our engagement on developmental issues with Afghanistan,” he said.
Stopping the waters of the Indus rivers, on the other hand, can be counterproductive, Sinha said. “We have water-sharing arrangements with other neighbours as well. Not honouring the Indus Treaty would make them uneasy and distrustful. And we would lose our voice if China, decides to do something similar.”

[Riaz Haq]

Game-Changing #Chinese #Missile Aboard #Pakistan Frigates Could Dent #IndianNavy's #BrahMos Advantage. Chinese-made CM-302, which Pakistan will get, matches both the supersonic speed and the range of the #Indian Navy's BrahMos anti-ship cruise missiles. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/game-changing-chinese-missile-to-pa...

An export variant of the YJ-12 missile, the CM-302, is likely to be the primary weapon on board four new Chinese frigates being built for the Pakistan Navy at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard in Shanghai.

The CM-302 matches both the supersonic speed and the range of the Indian Navy's BrahMos anti-ship cruise missiles, which have been deployed on several front-line frigates and destroyers of the Navy.

Senior defence officials monitoring the sale of new generation Chinese Type 054 frigates to Pakistan have told NDTV that the ships are likely to come armed with the CM-302, which they identify as a "new threat which represents a new capability."

But these officers also tell NDTV that "there is a long way to go for these missiles to become a credible threat for the Indian Navy" since the Pakistan Navy still lacks long-range sensors which need to target Indian platforms before a CM-302 can actually be fired.

"Possessing accurate targeting data, surveillance capability, and having the ability to penetrate a dense [Indian Navy] electronic counter-measures environment are a part of a complex matrix" that the Pakistan Navy's new frigates would need to overcome before they can attempt a missile launch.


Still, the acquisition of the CM-302 onboard the new Chinese-built frigates that will be inducted from 2021 means a lethal new capability for the Pakistan Navy.

According to globalsecurity.org, a leading online resource of emerging military threats, "the highlight of the YJ-12 is not its range but speed. It can reach 'Double Three' or 'Double Four,' namely a range of 300 kilometres at Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound) or a range of 400 kilometres at Mach 4."

It is unclear if the Barak 8 Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM), deployed on India's newest Kolkata Class destroyers, have the ability to intercept a missile of this class. In response to a query from NDTV, senior Navy officers declined comment on whether the Barak 8 system has been test-fired against any supersonic anti-ship missile, let alone a missile that flies faster than Mach 2.

In an article in warontherocks.com, Robert Haddick, an independent contractor at the US Specials Operations Command, has said "the YJ-12 is the most dangerous anti-ship missile China has produced."

According to Mr Haddick, "the arrival of the YJ-12 is one more indication of how the US Navy is falling further behind in the missile competition against China, exposing flaws in operating concepts that US and allied commanders and policymakers have relied on for years."

News of the possible Pakistani acquisition of the YJ-12/CM-302 broke on twitter late last month when the China State Shipbuilding Corporation organised the steel-cutting ceremony for the second of the four Type 054A/P frigates that Pakistan is receiving. A digital image (shown below) emerged which showcased a CM-302 missile mounted on a launcher on a Pakistan Type 054 frigate. It is unclear if this detailed digital image was sourced from an official release or was the work of a Naval analyst.

[Riaz Haq]

#China-#Pakistan Navy Drills. 5 major #Chinese ships: 2 guided-missile destroyers, supply ship and submarine rescue ship. And 2 #Pakistani frigates, 2 fast attack craft, fixed-wing anti-sub aircraft, 2 ship-borne helicopters, over 60 special ops soldiers. https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/china-pakistan-naval-drills-more-th...

Earlier in the week, the navies of China and Pakistan began their sixth bilateral naval exercise, titled Sea Guardians-2020, in the northern Arabian Sea. Such military exercises are expected to strengthen security cooperation between the two countries, who are already “iron brothers.” According to Chinese media reports, the naval drills are aimed at exploring new methods of conducting China-Pakistan joint naval drills while stepping up the capabilities to jointly addresses issues such as maritime terrorism and crime.

The exercise is also sensitive because it is taking place on India’s west coast, a critical security area from New Delhi’s perspective. Clearly, the exercise will be very important for China because it increases the PLA Navy’s familiarity and understanding of the operational conditions in this part of the Arabian Sea. Moreover, gaining greater access to the Arabian Sea through Pakistan is also likely an attractive incentive for China. If it works, it can be an alternate route for China in the event of a naval blockade by an adversary that closes the Malacca Straits choke point.

In addition, India will also have concerns because India’s Arabian Sea coast hosts several major Indian ports including Kandla, Okha, Mumbai, Nhava Sheva (Navi Mumbai), Mormugão, New Mangalore, and Kochi. For China, the Arabian Sea is also important in the context of its air and naval facility, Jiwani, close to the Gwadar Port and the Iranian Chahabar Port that is jointly developed by India and Iran.

China appears enthusiastic about undertaking these naval exercises on a regular basis. In a story about these exercises in the Chinese newspaper Global Times, Zhang Junshe, a senior research fellow at the PLA Naval Military Studies Research Institute, argues that “serializing the drills and making them a routine will further enhance China and Pakistan’s friendship and cooperation.” Similarly, Zhou Hanwen, an executive director of the exercise, stated that “the training involving submarine will boost the two navies’ combat capabilities and show a high level of strategic mutual trust.” Commenting on the exercise, China’s ambassador to Pakistan Ambassador Yao Jing said that the exercise “fully reflects the good wishes of the Chinese and Pakistani navies in jointly building a community of shared maritime destiny, and demonstrates the confidence and capability to jointly guard marine peace and security.”

The exercise that began at the Pakistan Navy Dockyard in Karachi will go on for nine days from January 6 to 14. The opening ceremony had Vice Admiral Dong Jun, general director of the Chinese side and deputy commander of PLA Southern Theater Command, and Vice Admiral Asif Khaliq, general director of the Pakistani side and commander of the Pakistani Naval Fleet deliver speeches emphasizing the importance of their joint collaboration. China has continued to reiterate that the naval drills have nothing to do with the prevailing situation in the Middle East and that it is not aimed at any third country. The PLA reportedly stated that the joint exercise will involve two sessions – “joint training in Karachi and live-fire drills in northern parts of the Arabian Sea－and will include workshops, tactical simulation, joint patrol, air and missile defense, law enforcement inspection and anti-submarine operation.”

[Riaz Haq]

Retired PAF Air Commodore Kaiser Tufail:


http://pakistanpolitico.com/rafales-impact-on-iafs-air-power-capabi...

Mr. Modi has apparently not yet been briefed by his Air Staff about the JF-17’s upcoming PL-15 BVR missile guided by the new AESA radar, which beats the Rafale’s ramjet-powered Meteor by several tens of kilometers. It is manifest that long range BVR combat will take precedence over close combat in any future conflict, and enemy aircraft will be shot out of the skies while remaining well inside their own territory.

While we are at it, it may be worthwhile to have a cursory line comparison of the Rafale, F-16A and JF-17 in one-on-one visual air combat.

All three aircraft have a ‘clean’ configuration Thrust-to-Weight Ratio of 1:1 and can climb and accelerate equally well. In a turning fight, Aspect Ratio and Wing Loading are critical parameters. The JF-17 and F-16A enjoy better Aspect Ratios of 3.7 each, compared to the Rafale which stands at 2.6. A better Aspect Ratio (square of wing span to wing area) implies better aerodynamic efficiency due to less induced drag during turning. As for Wing Loading, or the weight of the aircraft per unit area, the lesser the better. The Rafale has a slight edge, having 68 lbs/sq ft compared to the JF-17 and F-16A, both of which have Wing Loadings of 77 lbs/sq ft. A lightly loaded wing helps in a tighter turn, though in case of the Rafale, this advantage is overcome by greater induced drag due its lower Aspect Ratio. In sum, all three fighters are at par, more or less, in a turning fight.

Induction of the Rafale in IAF has created considerable media interest, and the impression has been created that with immediate effect, IAF will rule the Indian skies. It must, however, be remembered that it will be at least two years before the Rafale achieves anything close to Full Operational Capability. PAF, on the other hand, has been flying F-16s for 37 years, including hot scenarios during the Afghan War, in local counter-insurgency operations, and the latest Operation ‘Swift Retort,’ downing half a dozen enemy fighters in these operations. The JF-17 has been fully operational for over a decade, and is expected to replace the legacy fighters over the next five years. These combat-proven PAF fighters are fully integrated with the air defence system, and are mutually data-linked, alongside all AEW and ground sensors. Such capabilities are not achieved overnight, and it will be several years before the Rafales can be considered a threat in any real sense.

Any immediate impact of the Rafale on IAF’s air power capabilities is, thus, simply over-hyped. This inference, however, must not be dealt with lightly, as there is a distinct possibility of the Indian Prime Minister using the Rafale for a false-flag operation in a surreptitious manner, to prove his point that, “with the Rafale, the results would have been different,” from those of 27 February 2019.

[Riaz Haq]

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-ki...


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.

[Riaz Haq]

Hague court rejects #India objections over #water row with #Pakistan. “In a unanimous decision, which is binding on the Parties & without appeal, the Court rejected each of the objections raised by India and determined that the Court is competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration” https://aje.io/e4ujxm via @AJEnglish

Permanent Court of Arbitration rejects India’s objections to a Pakistan-initiated procedure over water use in the Indus River basin.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague has rejected India’s objections to a Pakistan-initiated procedure over water use in the Indus River basin, reopening a procedure that had been blocked for many years.

India called the arbitration proceeding illegal as a neutral expert was also looking at the issue and the World Bank-brokered treaty prohibits parallel proceedings, the Reuters news agency reported on Thursday.

The South Asian neighbours have been arguing over hydroelectric projects on the shared Indus River and its tributaries for decades, with Pakistan complaining that India’s planned hydropower dams in upstream areas will cut flows on the river which feeds 80 percent of its irrigated agriculture.

To resolve the dispute, Pakistan sought resolution through PCA arbitration proceedings in 2016, prompting India to request that the World Bank appoint a neutral expert under the terms of the treaty. India has boycotted The Hague court proceedings and questioned the competence of the court.

“In a unanimous decision, which is binding on the Parties and without appeal, the Court rejected each of the objections raised by India and determined that the Court is competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration,” the court said in a statement on Thursday.

It gave no details on when and how the case will continue, but added that it will address the interpretation and application of the bilateral Indus Water Treaty, notably the provisions on hydroelectric projects, as well as the legal effect of past decisions of dispute resolution bodies under the treaty.

A spokesman for India’s foreign ministry, Arindam Bagchi, said India’s “consistent and principled position has been that the constitution of this so-called court of arbitration is in contravention of the clear letter and spirit of the Indus Water Treaty”.

He said India was participating in the proceedings of the neutral expert, which he called “the only treaty-consistent proceedings at this juncture”.

“Legal sophistry” will not compel India to participate in the proceedings of the PCA, Bagchi said.

India says the construction of its Kishanganga and Ratle Hydro Electric projects is allowed by the treaty.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office said it remained fully committed to the implementation of the Indus Water Treaty and its settlement mechanism, which it termed a “foundational agreement” between the two countries.

“We hope that India would also implement the Treaty in good faith,” Foreign Office spokeswoman Mumtaz Zahra Baloch said in a statement on Thursday night.