Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Apr 2011 01:16

PraGha-ji, this was during those days when there were a flurry of opinion pieces in the american and british newspapers about Cold Start.
Surely the Pakistanis must have complained to the Americans and offered the threat from Cold Start, after which all of this happened. 400% willing to bet that MMS did another gambit to 'reassure' the Pakistanis.

BTW has anyone noticed that it appeared that the NASR did a very rapid climb after being fired. It climbed suddenly. Perhaps the control fins coming into play?
One possible use of such a manoeuvre could be to fool a WLR. Since the WLR will calculate the launch point based on the flight path that it can see, any manoeuvre made over the horizon are safe. Another modality added to protect the launcher in addition to shoot and scoot.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Apr 2011 01:27

^ Boss most of the MLRS have variable range for eg. SMERCH has ~ 20-90km variable range, obviously elevation angle will be steeper for shorter ranges.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Apr 2011 01:36

^^ and accuracy will be hit for longer ranges.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Apr 2011 01:38

ambidex wrote:....

username changed to Sabyasachi.
google its sanskrit meaning if you wonder why.

cheers.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 21 Apr 2011 01:43

Another funny thing: it is a twin-shot system

So Pakis are not too sure if the first one will work?
Though more than one barrel, this is not MBRLS. More like they finally got that "steampunk retro" looking HATF-I into a canister with chinese help and under Khan's benevolent gaze. The wee-looking nose fins seems like a low-cost replacement for the pif-pafs, that the Big Four(US, Russia, France and India) have already mastered.

Neither Pinaka nor Smerch are the answers. Nor is PAD/AAD - too short a range. Iron Dome or DEW maybe.

This system has to be deployed since Cold Start means zero lead time. So I love the idea of beards lugging around two tiny peachy nuclear warheads in the badlands. Nothing can go wrong

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Apr 2011 02:02

ParGha wrote:
shiv wrote:Both Deepak Kapoor and another COAS have said things that caused great takleef to Pakis...
Right, and please note that the current COAS, Gen. VK Singh, has had to unsay many of those things and salvage the situation diplomatically. One of those things being, there is no such thing as the Cold Start Doctrine. This was not specifically directed at shiv (he was talking about nuclear doctrine in this quote), just saying...

And yet, we have exercise after exercise with objective of cutting down mobilization times and rapid thrusts.....as they say, rose with another name....

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 21 Apr 2011 02:14

Ofcourse it is important that we cut down mobalization time for the Army, the threat of an armed Incursion into TSP will be potentially more important than an actual thrust. Already the thought of several Indian IBG's entering TSP has them shaking in their boots and mulling the possibility of TNW's on armoured formations.

Wether an actual armed incursion by the IA will happen and what results it might give is a matter of speculation but to have that capability to execute it at will is vital . Hell, it might even deter the PA from launching direct and large scale terror attacks against India.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 21 Apr 2011 03:21

Pakistan's new missile aimed at India's 'Cold Start' doctrine: Experts

The new system is primarily aimed at deterring India's purported Cold Start doctrine, under which the Indian army has allegedly created integrated battle groups comprising infantry and mechanised elements that could be quickly mobilised and used for launching rapid thrusts into Pakistani territory in the event of hostilities, according to an analyst who did not want to be named.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 21 Apr 2011 04:35

rohitvats wrote:
ParGha wrote:Right, and please note that the current COAS, Gen. VK Singh, has had to unsay many of those things and salvage the situation diplomatically. One of those things being, there is no such thing as the Cold Start Doctrine. This was not specifically directed at shiv (he was talking about nuclear doctrine in this quote), just saying...
And yet, we have exercise after exercise with objective of cutting down mobilization times and rapid thrusts... as they say, rose with another name...

Col Ahmed sums up the issue very neatly here:

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/Ongoing ... med_060110

However, from India’s defence acquisition and doctrinal direction that bespeaks of an extra-territorial military capability, it would appear that India also has a strategic doctrine in incubation for a middle term future in which it sees itself as a player of consequence. The ‘professed doctrine’ tides India over the interim as it builds up the economic indices of power. The latter - ‘incubatory doctrine’ - is for preparing for the future in which as a regional player and nascent great power, India would require sharing the global strategic burden. The problem appears to be that the military is taking its cues from India’s ‘aspirations’ (Mehta), rather than its objectives grounded in current reality.

The CSD is, at best, a candidate for the "incubatory doctrine" list -- and not a very strong one at that. As India grows economically and infrastructurally stronger, some of the key political considerations for the so-called CSD obviate themselves, while raising new considerations that will be better addressed by other strategies.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 21 Apr 2011 08:36

VinodTK wrote:Pakistan's new missile aimed at India's 'Cold Start' doctrine: Experts
The new system is primarily aimed at deterring India's purported Cold Start doctrine, under which the Indian army has allegedly created integrated battle groups comprising infantry and mechanised elements that could be quickly mobilised and used for launching rapid thrusts into Pakistani territory in the event of hostilities, according to an analyst who did not want to be named.

It's really "sad" that Porkies have started to think about end-game scenarios where their forces are overrun against overwhelming odds.

And just having one stupid MBRL, they think they have blunted their enemies advantages.

Once I was discussing same thing with my dad (who is in armed force) that how easily India can target key cities, like Lahore, inside Porki land by placing our long range MBRL from within our borders. In his opinion even Bofors was bought keeping in mind delivering tactical nuclear shells.

But simple answer was if we can deploy, so can they. They can also deploy a long range MBRL to target our major cities like Chandigarh. Its really shocking to see how their ex-military planners are thinking of using nukes.

Porkies have been used successfully used as a satellite nation, by Unkil and cunning Pandas, to contain India both strategically and economically.

With nuke they are like "bandar ke haath mein ustra". They will end up hurting themselves, like every time, before hurting anyone else.

Porkies should think twice before crossing the nuclear threshold.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 21 Apr 2011 08:41

Gagan wrote:I am sure that there is a file gathering dust, somewhere in the cavernous labyrinths of the MoD, where the Army has asked for Precision MBRL rounds to be procured. Now NASR will light a fire under the netas and babu's musharrafs and that file will be dusted and will start to move, as also the Iron Dome acquisition.

TATAs along with the Israelis had demonstrated precision MBRL rounds with Pinaka. Basically a fire-finder radar tracks the fired round and transmits correction to the rocket. The actuators in the rocket then perform corrections. This had the advantage that the rocket itself did not have sensors. They showed pretty remarkable improvement in accuracy.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 21 Apr 2011 09:00

Anujan wrote:
Gagan wrote:I am sure that there is a file gathering dust, somewhere in the cavernous labyrinths of the MoD, where the Army has asked for Precision MBRL rounds to be procured. Now NASR will light a fire under the netas and babu's musharrafs and that file will be dusted and will start to move, as also the Iron Dome acquisition.
TATAs along with the Israelis had demonstrated precision MBRL rounds with Pinaka. Basically a fire-finder radar tracks the fired round and transmits correction to the rocket. The actuators in the rocket then perform corrections. This had the advantage that the rocket itself did not have sensors. They showed pretty remarkable improvement in accuracy.

err.. I have a question here. How can a fire-finder radar guide rocket if target is not in LOS?? Like over a mountain.

IMHO Isrealies had some GPS/INS assisted guidance kit which was offered for integration with Pinaka rockets.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2011 09:07

Did not loitering ammo or this make such radars a 'lil ancient?

We, on BR, need to move forward.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2011 09:18

Anujan is right. the genesis of their TCS was their own US made MLRS needing better accuracy.

from 2006:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/ ... 60511.aspx

it will face some limitations when used in mountain areas with WLR radar sited on reverse slope as terrain will limit its LOS but in plains should be fine. hopefully the WLR itself is LPI with short bursts to evade counter battery radars and airborne snooping.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Apr 2011 09:28

shiv wrote:In fact the term cold start was not mentioned by the Army at all. So there is no such thing as Cold start. I would be glad to be corrected. The army had some ideas. Someone (media?) called it cold start. So there is no Indian Army Cold start doctrine.

It was PIB. IIRC, one of the Army Commanders Conference, they mentioned "cold start" being to be discussed or something like that. Media is imaginative, but, "cold start" is beyond imagination. The issue is not the name "cold start" and who named it. It has become a name for the new army doctrine, and that's what matters.

I was chatting up.

IA is already practicing combat in NBC environment. Another opinion is that, IAF will have to be involved early for softening the targets early. Then the cold start can kick in, so that they don't have to battle both fallout and fortifications.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Apr 2011 11:25

More than a Tactical Nuclear Weapon, I would be more worried about a Chemical weapons attack using that MBRL.
Biological, I am not sure that Pakistan has sufficient biotechnology to be able to design and field any such weapon successfully.
Nations of similar technology level - the Iraqis and the Iranians in the 80s all fielded Chemical Weapons.

India has got the Tactical Nuke scenario well covered by the Nuclear Doctrine right at the outset.

But Chemical weapons are usable by a desperate Pakistan, The Chemical Weapons Treaty non-withstanding.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2011 11:28

the same thought had crossed my mind yesterday.
biological is easily degraded by adverse conditions like heavy rain and hard to control once it disperses..blowback is possible.
but chemical is not a live infectious thing and generally restricted to the targeted area.

armour vehicles have overpressure NBC protection but people on foot or trucks are definitely quite vulnerable as no army can afford to kit them up in hazmat suits and breathers and if they did, would be combat unready and suffering from heat effects too.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Apr 2011 19:24

Well NoKo is not even a signatory to the chemical weapons related toilet paper; Chipanda can easily facilitate the transfer just like the ding dongs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2011 20:35

I would imagine they already have a supply.

Don · Post by **Don** » 24 Apr 2011 12:58

Pakistanis pilots being trained on Sukhoi's

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Apr 2011 13:18

Those are Mirage patches on the side-arms.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Apr 2011 13:26

^^
Yes. PAF does operate mirage-3/5.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Apr 2011 12:14

IDSA Comment on 'Nasr'

That said, taking Nasr seriously at face-value helps arrive at its actual significance. The development of Nasr indicates that Pakistan views India’s Cold Start doctrine with concern. The Nasr is meant to deter India’s launch of Cold Start. Since Nasr is reportedly nuclear capable, short range and light weight, it could imply the use of tactical nuclear weapons were such a conflict to occur. Fearing a lower nuclear threshold, implied by availability of tactical nuclear weapons, India may be deterred from embarking on Cold Start. This would enable Pakistan to recreate the space it once had for continuing its prosecution of proxy war - a space that has been constricted by India’s formulation of a Cold Start doctrine, even though all the components of the doctrine such as weapons acquisitions, relocation of formations and change to a manoeuvre war culture are not yet entirely in place.

It has been assessed that Pakistani reliance on its nuclear cover would increase with India’s increasing felicity with Limited War doctrine. Pakistan is reportedly ahead of India in numbers of nuclear warheads and in a more variegated missile delivery capability. This, to one analyst, spells a strategy of ‘asymmetric escalation’. In the Pakistani logic, nuclear deterrence is also to operate at the conventional level. Nasr, to Dr. Mazari, makes for deterrence stability since it helps strengthen this dimension of nuclear stability. Dr. Mazari is right on deterrence stability, but gets her reason wrong - the reference to Cold Start being anachronistic.

India’s Army Chief has indicated that no such doctrine exists. It appears that the Indian military is looking to respond to subconventional provocations at the same level. This may be in the form of surgical strikes, Special Forces operations, border skirmishes, activation of the Line of Control, select punitive operations, etc. The Indian intent will be to convey a message of resolve as well as to punish and cause selective attrition. And the aim would be to address Pakistani cost-benefit calculations in such a manner as to coerce Pakistan into limiting its provocation below India’s ‘level of tolerance’. Such a course of action by India has internal political utility in letting off steam in terms of ‘something’ being done. {Ohh... at last, there seems to be a recognition that 'something needs to be done'} It is also decidedly less expensive, preserving India’s grand strategy of economic rise from being unnecessarily buffeted.

The Indian move away from a default resort to Limited War places the onus of escalation on Pakistan. India’s conventional capability is to ensure that Pakistani reaction to such subconventional retribution is non-escalatory. Should Pakistan try to respond with conventional action, that would provoke a ‘Cold Start’ by India. Pakistan would thus be placed a second time round in a position of decision to escalate, this time by using Nasr. The prospects of Pakistan’s self-deterrence under such circumstances are higher. In the event, Pakistan will be forced to react defensively to India’s ‘contingency’ operations.

In case push comes to shove and Pakistan does resort to the use of Nasr, then this would more likely be on its own territory, rather than provocatively on Indian launch pads close to the border. India’s promised retaliation may not then necessarily be along the lines of its nuclear doctrine of ‘massive’ punitive retaliation (strategy having the privilege of departing from doctrine). The net result would be further nuclear impact(s) on Pakistani territory.{Which means that India will also use TNWs on a widespread scale within Pakistani territory. If the region happens to be the Punjab and on the periphery of Lahore, one can imagine the kind of damage}

In other words, stability reigns not due to India being deterred, but Pakistan being self-deterred. Accountability for initiating both the conflict and a possible nuclear conflict would rest with the Pakistani military.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Apr 2011 12:16

Sabayasachi, pl read the above commentary from IDSA in the light of my earlier post.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 13:47

The IDSA article ties in with my hypothesis that Nasr is aimed at hitting at the base premise of CSD.

But I don't agree with the premise of the article. It does not address the PA response(s) to anything that India may do-and disproportionate response(s) at that. Without CSD, or whatever name you want to give it, we run the risk of not controlling the escalation ladder.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Apr 2011 17:22

WRT the Pakistani Mirage pilots flying in the WSO seats of the Chinese Su-27s.

Pakistan Fizzaiya is really woeful about the condition of its Mirage III/V fleet, the Rose upgrade non withstanding.
The airframes are too old and creaky, spare supplies are a problem and they have to often resort to cannibalizing parts to keep a minimum number of upgraded planes functioning.

These are their version of DPSA

, but anyways this entire fleet is outdated.

Hence the Chinese friends come in with the Su-27 chinese copy, the magnificent Shenyang Jiang -11 fitted with the superb WS-10A powerplant and chinese avionics.

Pakistan might get around 30-50 of these, provided they come up with some way to pay the chinese in kind (they don't have any cash for this).

Sabyasachi · Post by **Sabyasachi** » 25 Apr 2011 19:10

Thanks Rahul M for changing my ID to better one.

Thanks SSridhar.
I reckon you were tipping few points to IDSA

. Anyhow my main aim to lurk around here is to understand why Pakistan army is assertive about counter CSD and shouting bluffs like NSAR with conviction. I am going to appreciate IDSA article’s opening statements regarding Pakistani effort to recreate a space to conduct terrorist (strategic) strikes in India with help of jihadi pigs.

What i personally think is that a true CSD is invincible irrespective of what Pakistan may be able to throw at it (IBGs). On operational tactics level then situation aware arraying armoured column be able to speed up or each component be able to stretch many hundred meters if SRBM may blast of from Pakistan. On decision making to use strategic or tactical nukes and then delivering either of those sucks time. Both has to be assemble and mated with delivery systems on time.

As far as if CSD is operational or not is concerned then I think that InA is never going to admit it. Because a great con act and deception is mandatory by both decision makers (GoI) and security forces (something like Pokhran II). On another 26/11 or even for the last one (I wish) InA is/has to test our patience big time and strike when they are not anticipating it (Like Russians entered in Georgia). On failure of polical dicision to respond after offically admiting it as operational and can bring embarsment to our forces.

I know I am going little OT but I will start believing in ‘’CSD is operational’’ when our navy be able to have formidable amphibious attack capabilities. Why? Some another day ..i ran out of my rants.

Cocktail of points regarding CSD?
By Commander Muhammad Azam Khan, Pakistan Navy (Retired).

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... rt-too-hot

No future war can be fought without operational synergy, and a military strategy that does not assimilate this reality will always fail. In Cold Start, a north-south split of Pakistan could occur in the event of a penetration by an IBG positioned in the south. The country’s military planners must think beyond using tactical nuclear weapons. This is imperative: Indian nuclear doctrine is unambiguous in declaring that even a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon will invite a massive retaliatory strike.23 But Pakistan certainly has some other and better response options to consider.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 25 Apr 2011 19:14

Can IAF make PAF poof?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 25 Apr 2011 19:42

Sabyasachi welcome to BRF.

That Naval angle in Cold Start is interesting.
The point is that there have been several navalized landing exercises going on recently that the IA and the IN have engaged in. The frequency of these is much more frequent that usual. To the extent that on IA brigade / Division has been 'attached' to a Navy landing unit and so that division may be considered to be IA's 'Marine' division.

What I would like to know and debate is, what sort of preparations do the political and military masters have for a Post Pakistan scenario.

Let us assume that a CSD is implemented, and at the end of it pakistan starts to, begin to unravel. There have to be several things in place so that the unfolding events can be managed at the military and the political level.

Oh BTW, for Kiyani, this dealing with MMS and piss and tranquillity is pure Taqiya - Pakistan is over stretched militarily, their strategic forces (terrorists) are under the lens, and they are being careful not to make any false moves now. This more than any is the reason for the lull after 26/11.
The Pakistan realized that 26/11 was a bit too much, as the ISI has virtually admitted that attacking Jews and Americans was a bad oversight.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 21:12

^^^There is a dedicated Brigade for amphib. ops based in Trivandrum.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 25 Apr 2011 21:18

sanjeevpunj wrote:Can IAF make PAF poof?

What do you mean by that?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 25 Apr 2011 21:23

rohitvats wrote:^^^There is a dedicated Brigade for amphib. ops based in Trivandrum.

IIRC it was re-roled as an Independent Mechanized Brigade?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 21:30

What you refer to is 340(I) Mech. Brigade which is now with XII Corps. There is 91 Infantry Brigade, part of 54 ID, which is based in Trivandrum for the amphib. role. I guess, it flows from the supposed role of 54 ID as Indian intervention force.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 25 Apr 2011 22:25

rohitvats wrote:What you refer to is 340(I) Mech. Brigade which is now with XII Corps. There is 91 Infantry Brigade, part of 54 ID, which is based in Trivandrum for the amphib. role. I guess, it flows from the supposed role of 54 ID as Indian intervention force.

Got it, thanks!

manum · Post by **manum** » 25 Apr 2011 23:08

rohitvats wrote:The IDSA article ties in with my hypothesis that Nasr is aimed at hitting at the base premise of CSD.

But I don't agree with the premise of the article. It does not address the PA response(s) to anything that India may do-and disproportionate response(s) at that. Without CSD, or whatever name you want to give it, we run the risk of not controlling the escalation ladder.

wait a sec how PA will read a situation as CSD already being executed to attack the base of CSD...or you meant it is to shiver the very base of the idea of csd...but in this case also...PA runs the risk of reading one thing too many...and unnecessary cluttering their response...

So you mean in any case PA might risk using nasr...and if csd doesnt exists then it might escalate a precise operation into a nuclear war?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Apr 2011 23:46

^^^No. What I mean is that the IDSA article assumes linear response cycle. We go X, PA goes X or may be 2X. What if PA goes Y where Y>X? After all, they will choose to retaliate at their place and timing. And in all this game, one needs to be prepared for the ultimate in cycle. Somewhere, PA needs to be made to understand that along the escalation ladder, Indian response will be so heavy that PA will run the risk of loosing face and suffering serious material damage.

Take example of SF operations - these are extremely logistic heavy and require real time intelligence....now, what if PA attacks along LOC with heavy brigade size force and takes up one or two vital posts? After all, there are areas where they are at an advantage. What does India do then?

So, while PA may not deploy Nasr in response to heavy arty shelling along the LOC or SF assault, they can repay us in the same coin. Such operations suit PA fine - after all, Indian superiority in anything does not come into play. They match our arty barrage with theirs. The big stick needs to be kept ready.

nits · Post by **nits** » 27 Apr 2011 11:56

Revealed: Every step of 26/11 plan since 2005

The United States charged four more Pakistani conspirators with carrying the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The second superseding indictment filed by the federal prosecutors before a Chicago court on Monday, revealed how the attacks were planned since 2005. In a two part series, rediff.com explains in detail the meticulous 26/11 conspiracy.

In an indictment filed before a Chicago court on April 25, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has for the first time revealed the identities of four of the ringleaders of the Pakistan-based conspiracy for the planning and execution of the 26/11 terrorist strikes of 2008 in Mumbai

.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 29 Apr 2011 10:59

Pakistan tests Hatf-8 cruise missile

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2011 12:05

the pakis had got themselves the south african kentron mupsow weapon (150km range). this latest test if indeed a 300km weapon would be the kentron torgos weapon which was also under development.
http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforc ... se-missile

its not clear if the SAAF itself uses it, though potentiall the Gripen can easily carry such weapons having already done it for KEPD.

whether these weapons and sensors therein match up to J-series/scalp/apache/KEPD is also a case to think about. even if they are 25% less advanced still quite a threat due to low flight profile , smallish size and long range.

Pak has likely funded these SA projects which were in cold storage in late 90s for lack of funds and driving them to completion.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2011 12:16

this is from 1999 - about when I figure SA found pak as the partner.

http://articles.janes.com/articles/Jane ... ssile.html

South Africa seeks partner to develop cruise missile, Air-to-Surface

TEXT: Kentron, part of South Africa's Denel Group, is seeking a jointventure partner to develop an air-launched, stand-off cruise missile, writes Paul Beaver. Designated Torgos, and said by thecompany to comply with the requirements of the international MissileTechnology Control Regime (MTCR), the weapon is a development which evolved from the pioneering Raptor series of glide bombs which wereused operationally in the early 1980s.

Torgos draws concepts and technology from the MUPSOW (Multi-PurposeStand-Off Weapon) advanced technology demonstrator programme, which sought to create a sub-munition dispensing system for day or night strategic strike against airfields, air defence systems and similar targets. Torgos has been developed into a low-mass, relatively stealthy, agile missile which can penetrate enemy air defences at relatively long range and use a variety of warheads, including a penetrator.

---
per web torgos is around 1 ton weight, has a turbojet engine, 700kmph top speed and features INS-GPS and terminal IIR.

the AM39 exocet is around 700kg and the MirageIII can just about carry one on centerline. so the maybe the Bundar which has more powerful engine could cart around one of these. or the F-16 could do it.