Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 27 May 2011 02:25

Cable : Pakistan Officers Taught Anti-U.S. Courses

WikiLeaks

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 May 2011 05:18

Pakistan to ask US for two more Orion planes
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... =5/24/2011

Pakistan being an ally of the US in the so-called war on terrorism reserves the right for making such demand.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 27 May 2011 05:18

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 May 2011 06:15

S - 2: Options for the Pakistan Navy
Commander Muhammad Azam Khan, Pakistan Navy (Retired)

Second Strike on board Conventional Submarines: The Agosta 90B

In October 2008, the chief of staff of the Pakistan Navy claimed that his service was capable of deploying strategic weapons at sea. The details as to how strategic or nuclear weapons would be deployed and whether Pakistan had developed a capability to launch missiles from submarines were not disclosed. But it is widely speculated that work on arming the Pakistan Navy’s conventional submarines with nuclear-tipped missiles has been going on now for quite some
time. A sea version of the Babur cruise missile is thought to have been developed by the country’s strategic organizations. If that is true, Pakistan would not be the first country to arm conventionally powered submarines with such a capability.

...

Pakistan Navy’s Agosta 90B, or Khalid-class, attack submarines (SSKs) carry crews of highly skilled and professionally trained officers and men. The submarines, designed by DCN (now DCNS) of France, are a version of the Agosta series, with improved performance , a new combat system , and AIP ( air independent propulsion) for better submerged endurance. A higher level of automation has reduced the crew from fifty-four to thirty-six. Other improvements include a new battery, for increased range; a deeper diving capability of 320 meters, resulting from the use of new materials, including HLES 80 steel;
and a reduced acoustic signature, through the installation of new suspension and isolation systems.

Three Agosta 90Bs were ordered by Pakistan in 1994. The first, Khalid (1999), was constructed in France; the second, Saad (2003), was assembled at the Naval Dockyard (Karachi); and the third, Hamza (2008), was constructed and assembled in Karachi. These submarines are equipped with diesel-electric propulsion and the MESMA (Module d’Énergie Sous-Marin Autonome) AIP system.

The diesel-electric plant consists of two SEMT-Pielstick 16 PA4 V185 VG diesels, providing 3,600 horsepower, and a 2,200-kilowatt electric motor driving a single propeller. Pakistan is the only country bordering the Indian Ocean to have acquired AIP submarines. The two-hundred-kilowatt MESMA liquid-oxygen system increases significantly the submerged endurance of the submarine at four knots. It consists essentially of a turbine receiving high-pressure steam generated by a boiler that uses hot gases from the combustion of a gaseous mixture of ethanol and liquid oxygen. The AIP suite causes an 8.6-meter extension of the original 67.6-meter hull, increasing the boat’s submerged displacement from 1,760 tons to 1,980.

The Agosta 90B is equipped with a fully integrated SUBTICS combat system. SUBTICS processes signals from submarine sensors and determines the tactical situation by track association, fusion, synthesis, and management, as well as
trajectory plotting. This track management allows appreciation of the surface picture by the commander and consequent handling of weapons-related command and control functions. The Agosta 90B submarine has four bow-mounted 1Q63 A Mod 2 torpedo tubes, 533 mm in diameter, and carries a mixed load of sixteen torpedoes and missiles. The boat can also fire tube-launched SM39 Exocet subsurface-tosurface missiles, capable of hitting targets out to twenty-seven nautical miles (fifty kilometers) away. The sea-skimming missile has inertial guidance and active radar homing and travels at 0.9 Mach.

Target range and bearing data are downloaded into the Exocet’s computer via SUBTICS. The boat can also launch
the DM2A4 wire-guided, active/passive, wake-homing torpedo, adding a new dimension to its firepower. Targets up to forty-five kilometers away can now be engaged. In the short term (within five years), Pakistan Navy Khalid-class submarines with their cutting-edge technology could be armed to carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Several formidable challenges would, however, have to be overcome. Missile installation and subsequent integration with the onboard combat
system, as well as with the nuclear command-and-control infrastructure (C4I network), could be daunting tasks.

The combat system, meant for conventional weapons, may require major changes to accommodate nonconventional
weapons. During operational deployments a Pakistan Navy submarine carrying nuclear weapons would be under the operational control not of Commander Pakistan Fleet, as in existing practice, but of the National Command Authority.
Perhaps a greater challenge would be ensuring foolproof communications between the submerged submarine and the shore-based command. An electromagnetic pulse following a nuclear burst would disrupt the earth’s electromagnetic spectrum, resulting in a partial or complete breakdown of communications, including shore–submarine. The problem is compounded by the absence of domestic communications satellites. A very-low-frequency (VLF) communications system can provide an answer, to some extent.

...

A word of caution may be in order here. The Pakistan Navy once enjoyed a sharp edge over the Indian Navy’s conventional submarines, like the Sovietdesigned Foxtrot-class boats, which were noisier than the French submarines operated by Pakistan. But the Indian Navy has not only been catching up but is now on the verge of surpassing Pakistani submarines. Its French Scorpènes are supposedly a generation ahead of the Agosta 90B.

On a positive note, however, the recent introduction of advance platforms like the SAAB Erieye airborne early warning and control system and Il-78 refuelers by Pakistan Air Force, besides bolstering Pakistan’s strategic capability both on land and at sea, will significantly strengthen the nation’s air defenses.

Employing the P-3C

The P-3C Orion long-range maritime-patrol aircraft (LRMP) has a proven maritime surveillance and reconnaissance record that dates back to the Cold War. Several old and new versions of the aircraft continue to serve in more than eighteen countries, including the United States. It is a turboprop, multidimensional aircraft commonly known to the naval community as an “airborne destroyer.” The Pakistan Navy first acquired P-3Cs in 1991. The present inventory is suitably modernized and equipped with cutting-edge sensors and weapons to track, identify, and hunt surface and subsurface targets. The aircraft can carry a mixed payload of eight Harpoon missiles and six torpedoes, besides mines and bombs. It has endurance in excess of eighteen hours and can operate as low as three hundred feet, making its detection quite difficult. In the recent past, the Pakistan Navy brokered a fresh deal with the United States for eight refurbished P-3Cs. In addition to improved sensors, a digital tracking system, electro-optical and infrared sensors, a chaff dispenser, an electronic support measures (ESM) suite, and sonobuoy detection system, the new batch of P-3Cs is to be fitted with inverse synthetic-aperture radar (ISAR). ISAR is a state-of-the-art radar that provides a dual advantage. First, it eases the
identification problem by displaying a target’s silhouette, a physical image, which improves the overall effectiveness of tracking and attacking. The other advantage is variable power output, which makes ISAR difficult to identify via
ESM.

...

The P-3C is a mainstay of the Pakistan Navy’s offensive arm. With its advanced weapon and sensor outfit, it gives the Pakistan Navy a clear qualitative edge over the Indian Navy’s LRMP capability—at least for now. Thanks to its
load-carrying capacity, altitude advantage, and other aerodynamic characteristics, the P-3C could be armed with land-attack missiles or strategic weapons. This modification, however, would require specialized equipment—currently
a grey area in the Pakistan Navy. A suitably equipped P-3C could serve as a powerful backup to an undersea second strike on board Agosta 90Bs. A well-thought-out employment strategy could render the P-3C a potent constituent of the nuclear triad.

The Medium and Long Terms (beyond Five Years)

...

In China, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is currently involved in one of the world’s most ambitious submarine expansion and construction programs. It includes acquisition of conventional submarines, like the Russian Kilo (SS), and the construction of the Jin-class (Type 094) SSBN and the Shang-class (Type 093) SSN. These submarines are expected to be much more modern and capable than China’s aging older-generation boats. In 1983 the PLAN built an eight-thousand-ton Xia-class SSBN, reportedly armed with twelve JL-1 missiles with a range of a thousand miles. The submarine twice test-fired its missiles but never ventured beyond China’s regional waters. The new Type 094 Jin, which will replace the single Xia, will carry between ten and twelve JL-2 SLBMs.

However, the PLAN has major handicaps in its limited capacity to communicate with submarines at sea or expose these platforms on strategic patrols. The once slowly expanding military ties between Beijing and Islamabad have
now matured into a strategic partnership, as is evident from local production of the JF-17 Thunder multirole fighter, the Al-Khalid tank, and F-22P frigates. This partnership is further evidenced by the PLAN’s regular participation in the large
multinational AMAN series of exercises hosted by the Pakistan Navy. Pakistan’s strategic community and Beijing could plan the training and subsequent lease of a nuclear-powered submarine. The PLAN’s Xia submarine could be an appropriate start. A pool of selected Pakistan Navy officers could be trained to operate an SSBN, with theoretical/academic work ashore followed by operational training at sea and finally a strategic deployment. Though such a plan seems ambitious and the PLA Navy’s SSBNs rarely prowl far, this remains a viable choice that would serve the two countries well strategically.

...

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 27 May 2011 08:45

Rakesh wrote:Pakistan to ask US for two more Orion planes
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... =5/24/2011

Pakistan being an ally of the US in the so-called war on terrorism reserves the right for making such demand.

Like they have right to demand chinkos to develop naval base for them and right to demand terrorist to attack India.

(but as chinkos made clear thats not gonna happen and terrorist have made clear that they prefer attacking porkistan better.. so i doubt uncle gonna honor porki "right to demand")

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 May 2011 09:16

Rakesh wrote:Pakistan to ask US for two more Orion planes
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDe ... =5/24/2011

Pakistan being an ally of the US in the so-called war on terrorism reserves the right for making such demand.

lost no time in putting forth their begging bowl !

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 27 May 2011 09:41

abhishek_sharma wrote:S - 2: Options for the Pakistan Navy
Commander Muhammad Azam Khan, Pakistan Navy (Retired)

Second Strike on board Conventional Submarines: The Agosta 90B

.

Pakistan Navy’s Agosta 90B, or Khalid-class, attack submarines (SSKs) carry crews of highly skilled and professionally trained officers and men. .
.
.
.

A word of caution may be in order here. The Pakistan Navy once enjoyed a sharp edge over the Indian Navy’s conventional submarines, like the Sovietdesigned Foxtrot-class boats, which were noisier than the French submarines operated by Pakistan. But the Indian Navy has not only been catching up but is now on the verge of surpassing Pakistani submarines. Its French Scorpènes are supposedly a generation ahead of the Agosta 90B.

HA HAH HAH HAAA

Lots of lahore logic and madarsa math in here

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 May 2011 16:48

X Posted.

French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet on the subject of arm sales to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

So no French avionics for the JF-17?:

"This point was raised during the bilateral meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Paris recently. I can tell you that France is only selling Pakistan equipment that can be used for electronic interception to fight terror," the French defence minister, who wound up his two-day visit to India, said. "In fact, heavy military equipment is not being sold. We have discouraged any request from Pakistan for heavy equipment," he added.

Read it all:

France puts sale of heavy military hardware to Pakistan on hold

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 27 May 2011 17:06

abhishek_sharma wrote:S - 2: Options for the Pakistan Navy
Commander Muhammad Azam Khan, Pakistan Navy (Retired)

The question for the Indian Government to ask its French counterpart is whether the original 1991 sale purchase agreement for the Agostas allowed their product to be modified and to carry nuclear armaments any time in the future.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 27 May 2011 17:59

Can we ask french as a part of negotiation of either for M2k ugrade or Rafale, to stop supplying spares of Agosta to Pak. One of the either deal will go thru and French will be more than happy to help expecting further pie in the multi billion Indian defense market based on this gesture of theirs.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 May 2011 18:26

breaking an existing contract might be difficult under international law, but new contracts need not be made or renewed...

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 27 May 2011 18:32

Why so? What happened when we did not get spares for sea kings? or US put delivery of F 16 to TSP on hold? I mean we just need to find an excuse and recent incidents of OBL and attack on naval installation of TSP is more than enough along with the generic excuse of Nukes getting into hands of terrorists

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 May 2011 18:49

we didn't get spares as a result of US law kicking into our contracts. french law has rarely had such obscure clauses... but i am no legal expert.. so who knows

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 May 2011 20:00

Interesting that the retired PN officer suggests a strategic role for the Onions. Its different than what I thought but still quite germane. Now the whines by Rehman Malik about strategic assets means something.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 May 2011 00:08

ramana wrote:Interesting that the retired PN officer suggests a strategic role for the Onions. Its different than what I thought but still quite germane. Now the whines by Rehman Malik about strategic assets means something.

This guy has done a detailed assessment of Indian global security requirement and also defence posture as if he is an Indian. Very interesting.
He quotes from all leaders.

“Any attempt by a foreign
power to interfere in any way with India is a thing that India cannot tolerate, and
that, subject to her strength, she will oppose. That is the broad doctrine I lay
down.”
22
Nehru’s statement was in fact a veiled warning to all external powers
against any action anywhere in the region that New Delhi might perceive as imperiling the Indian political system. His injunction against outside interference
laid the intellectual groundwork for a policy of regional primacy, without meddling by or influence of external powers. Though at the time it was impossible
for India to confront the imperial powers militarily, each succeeding generation
in India has interpreted and applied this foundational principle, according to its
own appraisal of the country’s surroundings, interests, and power.
While the success or otherwise of India’s Monroe Doctrine can be debated, it
has remained an “article of faith for many in the Indian strategic community”
and now seems to have entered the Indian foreign-policy lexicon.
23
The Monroe
Doctrine itself being an intensely maritime concept

arun · Post by **arun** » 28 May 2011 15:09

X Posted from the Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan thread.

Inevitable.

An organisation that adopts a motto of “Iman Taqwa Jihad Fi Sabilillah” or translated “Faith, Piety and Jihad in Path of Allah”, as the Army of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has done, is fertile ground for infiltration by Jihadi Islamic Terrorists of the Un-uniformed variety.

The Washington Post :

Pakistan’s top military officials are worried about militant collaborators in their ranks

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 May 2011 08:12

Expert warns India on Pak's N-tipped missile

Hans Kristensen told TOI that a nuclear-tipped NASR seemed more like a weapon intended for use against Indian forces advancing into Pakistani territory.

"While that wouldn't threaten Indian survival in itself, it would of course mean crossing the nuclear threshold early in a conflict, which is one of the particular concerns of a short-range nuclear weapon,'' said Kristensen, who is also Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project director.

While the 60-km short range of the nuclear capable missile doesn't threaten the security of any major Indian city, it certainly makes the Indian army and security forces vulnerable in case India does try to implement its much talked about Cold Start Doctrine, which entails making deep and precise incursions into Pakistani territory in the event of another Mumbai-like attack. Pakistan clearly seems to be raising the game considering that India will indeed be under pressure to destroy terror camps in Pakistan in the event of another state sponsored terror attack on India.

"A NASR would have to drive all the way up to the Indian border to be able to reach important targets in India. Amritsar would be one candidate, as would several smaller cities along the border. But that would also expose the missile to counter attack,'' Kristensen said as he emphasized that with its range of only 60 kilometres, the multi-tube NASR system is not intended to retaliate against Indian cities but be used first against advancing Indian Army in a battlefield scenario.

Kristensen had earlier described Pakistan's production of Hatf-9 as a worrisome development for South Asia and for efforts to prevent nuclear weapons from being used. He said it was time for Pakistan to explain how many nuclear weapons, of what kind, and for what purpose are needed for its minimum deterrent. Pakistan announced earlier that NASR "carries nuclear warheads of appropriate yield with high accuracy, shoot-and-scoot attributes" and that it was developed as a quick response system to add deterrence value to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

arnabh · Post by **arnabh** » 29 May 2011 08:15

Stable Pakistan NOT in India's interest

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/IDR- ... erest.html

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 29 May 2011 09:14

Quote:

Hans Kristensen told TOI that a nuclear-tipped NASR seemed more like a weapon intended for use against Indian forces advancing into Pakistani territory.

"While that wouldn't threaten Indian survival in itself, it would of course mean crossing the nuclear threshold early in a conflict, which is one of the particular concerns of a short-range nuclear weapon,'' said Kristensen, who is also Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project director.

While the 60-km short range of the nuclear capable missile doesn't threaten the security of any major Indian city, it certainly makes the Indian army and security forces vulnerable in case India does try to implement its much talked about Cold Start Doctrine, which entails making deep and precise incursions into Pakistani territory in the event of another Mumbai-like attack. Pakistan clearly seems to be raising the game considering that India will indeed be under pressure to destroy terror camps in Pakistan in the event of another state sponsored terror attack on India.

"A NASR would have to drive all the way up to the Indian border to be able to reach important targets in India. Amritsar would be one candidate, as would several smaller cities along the border. But that would also expose the missile to counter attack,'' Kristensen said as he emphasized that with its range of only 60 kilometres, the multi-tube NASR system is not intended to retaliate against Indian cities but be used first against advancing Indian Army in a battlefield scenario.

Kristensen had earlier described Pakistan's production of Hatf-9 as a worrisome development for South Asia and for efforts to prevent nuclear weapons from being used. He said it was time for Pakistan to explain how many nuclear weapons, of what kind, and for what purpose are needed for its minimum deterrent. Pakistan announced earlier that NASR "carries nuclear warheads of appropriate yield with high accuracy, shoot-and-scoot attributes" and that it was developed as a quick response system to add deterrence value to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Be that as it may, It is but to be expected. Am sure that we would have something up our sleeve too. And would retaliate with all the force at our command.

During WWII, if the Japanese had nuclear weapons and a delivery system, the US would not have used them at all, unless they were sure that the Japan was going to strike first. Our "No First Use" policy would be based on a similar proposition.

During war, a lot of dogma (if I can use that word), is thrown out of the window.

If you read the review (by Marrof Raza) of Lt. General Jacob's book, An Odyessy in War and Peace - An Autobiography, of the 1971 war (India Today 6 June 2011). He went behind Sam Maneckshaw's back and sent troops to the outskirts of Dhaka. No politicians were consulted and he was supported by the then DMO, General Inder Gill who gave him additional troops!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 May 2011 12:10

Pakistan has no nukes that can be delivered by Nasr. Its a bluff. My reasons for saying so are written in detail in the Paki nukes thread of the strat forum.

The main post is here, but let me quote a relevant bit

The real point to me here is that ~ 11 inches appears to be the lower limit for small yield devices and 12 for higher yield devices. The design appears to be pretty sophisticated - requiring fancy engineering and it is worth noting the following info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54
By this time, the XW-51 / XW-54 design had been test fired more times than any preceding US nuclear weapon prior to its successful introduction in service, indicating the difficulty of successfully making this small and low yield design work reliably and safely.
The info below is also relevant here:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/N ... #Nfaq4.2.2
Minimum Size

A low yield minimum mass or volume weapon would use an efficient fissile material (plutonium or U-233), a low mass implosion system (i.e. a relatively weak one), and a thin beryllium reflector (thickness no more than the core radius). Since volume increases with the cube of the radius, a thick layer of anything (explosive or reflector) surrounding the fissile core will add much more mass than that of the core itself.

Referring to the Reflector Savings Table 4.1.7.3.2.2-3 we can see that for beryllium thicknesses of a few centimeters, the radius of a plutonium core is reduced by 40-60% of the reflector thickness. Since the density difference between these materials is on the order of 10:1, substantial mass savings can be achieved. At some point though increasing the thickness of the reflector begins to add more mass than it saves, this marks the point of minimum total mass for the reflector/core system.

In general, minimum mass and minimum volume designs closely resemble each other. The use of a hollow core adds negligibly to the overall volume.

At the low end of this yield range (tens of tons) simply inducing the delta -> alpha phase transition in a metastable plutonium alloy may provide sufficient reactivity insertion. In this case a classical implosion system is not even necessary, a variety of mechanisms could be used to produce the weak 10-20 kilobar shock required to collapse the crystal structure.

Since the fissile core would be lightly reflected, and weakly compressed, a relatively large amount of fissile material is required: perhaps 10 kg for even a very low yield bomb. The efficiency is of course extremely poor, and the cost relatively high.

The absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb is determined by the smallest critical mass that will produce a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-25% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector will reduce this, but the necessary high explosive and packaging will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 10-15 kg.

The W54 warhead used in the Davy Crockett had a minimum mass of about 23 kg, and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 kt in various mods (probably achieved by varying the fissile content). The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The W-54 probably represents a near minimum diameter for a spherical implosion device (the U.S. has conducted tests of a 25.4 cm implosion system however).

The test devices for this design fired in Hardtack Phase II (shots Hamilton and Humboldt on 15 October and 29 October 1958) weighed only 16 kg, impressively close to the minimum mass estimated above. These devices were 28 cm by 30 cm, Humboldt used PBX-9404 as the explosive.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 May 2011 18:26

That is correct.

Pakistan does not have any nukes that will fit a Nasr.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 29 May 2011 19:01

Gagan wrote:That is correct.

Pakistan does not have any nukes that will fit a Nasr.

What about the Chinese? We can never discount the possibility of Pakistan getting it from them....

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 May 2011 22:24

sourab_c wrote:What about the Chinese? We can never discount the possibility of Pakistan getting it from them....

All this talk about them using nukes is all hogwash. They know if they cross the Lakshman Rekha, nothing of Pakistan will be left. They know India's No-First-Use-But-Massive-Retaliation policy very well. Unlike the Taliban, these guys actually wanna live and they have not bought into the 72 virgins story. This Nasr talk is to placate their own people into believing that it will deter India from launching surgical strikes into Pakistan.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 May 2011 22:43

sourab_c wrote:
Gagan wrote:That is correct.

Pakistan does not have any nukes that will fit a Nasr.
What about the Chinese? We can never discount the possibility of Pakistan getting it from them....

Unfortunately "Chinese will give it to Pakis" has become an excuse for covering ignorance on this forum.

I think you are underestimating
1) the technical difficulty fo even the Chinese to achieve that
2) the technical difficulty of even copying designs
3) The fact that these designs need a huge amount of Pu - where is that going to come from?

If you have the time and interest please read the abundant material available as open source about this - or if you want a tickle please look at the Pakistan nukes thread in the other forum. The material is out there. There are people who have read it an summarized it. No need to read summaries - read the actual stuff and then say how the Chinese can provide this to Pakis.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 30 May 2011 00:44

shiv wrote: Unfortunately "Chinese will give it to Pakis" has become an excuse for covering ignorance on this forum.

I think you are underestimating
1) the technical difficulty fo even the Chinese to achieve that
2) the technical difficulty of even copying designs

While I do my best to do my research, I do believe that it is extremely hard for anyone to determine the depth of technology that the Chinese have achieved in the field. Anybody here claiming that they know exactly what China is up to is fooling himself. The technical difficulty of achieving such a design has been discussed in depth on this forum; however, I have not came across any hard evidence to discount the possibility that the Chinese have the design. I would doubt that such critical information would be available in the public domain in the first place.

shiv wrote: 3) The fact that these designs need a huge amount of Pu - where is that going to come from?

There is a reason Pakistan is ramping up its Pu production. The Chinese nuclear program is fully Pu based and we all know why the Khushab plant has been put in place in Pakistan. So, unless I really screwed up the math or am totally brain-dead, it is merely connecting the dots...

shiv wrote: If you have the time and interest please read the abundant material available as open source about this - or if you want a tickle please look at the Pakistan nukes thread in the other forum. The material is out there. There are people who have read it an summarized it.

I guess what prompted me to pose the question that I did was how many members here decided to simply write off this threat. Call me a dhoti-shivering SDRE, but I do like to have a balanced argument about such matters. Merely claiming that China and Pakistan dont have it because it is a difficult design just doesn't cut it for me.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 30 May 2011 00:59

Even assuming that TSP does get it's hand of nukes that could fit into NASR, I still fail to understand the standing logic behind lowering the nuke threshold and bombing ones own territory. Couple of aspects about this which I don't understand

a) TSPA will not come out to face the advancing IA divisions as that will rule out the use of NASR .

b) What if the area of our advance is in Lahore Sector or POK + NA. Will the Pakistanis risk using nukes so close to a major city or in the mountains of Kashmir which host several terror camps as well as source of all their freshwater (which will be toxic for years).

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 30 May 2011 06:08

Behind the Pakistan F-16 deal, a tale of many wheels

The sale by the United States of F-16 military aircraft to Pakistan, announced in 2005, was celebrated as a sign of deepening strategic ties between Islamabad and the Bush administration in Washington. Described by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as an attempt to “break out of the notion that [India and Pakistan are in] a hyphenated relationship,” the decision was met with anguish in New Delhi. But leaked U.S. diplomatic cables suggest that the sale was used only to further America's broad strategic interests, with Pakistan standing to gain little from the deal.

The despatches, from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, indicated that the deal was, among other things, meant to assuage Pakistan's fears of an “existential threat it perceived from India.” The diplomatic cables, accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks, suggested that the purpose of the sale was to divert Pakistan's attention from “the nuclear option,” and give it “time and space to employ a conventional reaction” in the event of a conflict with India ( 151227: confidential). Privately, however, the U.S. acknowledged the “reality” that the F-16 programme would not change India's “overwhelming air superiority over Pakistan.” In fact, the cables bluntly assert that the F-16s would be “no match for India's proposed purchase of F-18 or equivalent aircraft.”

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 30 May 2011 07:23

VinodTK wrote:Behind the Pakistan F-16 deal, a tale of many wheels

A few interesting snippets from the article--

But leaked U.S. diplomatic cables suggest that the sale was used only to further America's broad strategic interests, with Pakistan standing to gain little from the deal.

reminding condom

In fact, the cables bluntly assert that the F-16s would be “no match for India's proposed purchase of F-18 or equivalent aircraft.”

(already uncle scheming on India for the mrca)

Given India's “substantial military advantage,” one cable ( 197576: confidential) even surmised that the F-16s would at the most offer “a few days” for the U.S. to “mediate and prevent nuclear conflict.”

(already gaming the scenario for intervention)

Do not think there is a better deal out there if this one expires,” was one of Ambassador Crocker's suggested bargain lines for Washington to use ( 77877: confidential/noforn). The agreement was inked two weeks after the cable was sent.

At the time of signing the LoA, Major General Tariq Malik, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Defence Production, had expressed reservations about the payment schedule as an “immense strain on Pakistan's fiscal and foreign exchange reserves…, jeopardising growth.” But Mr. Malik's memo was dismissed by Mr. Crocker as “separate from the valid, legal contract

( uncle screws pakis with a condom)

The U.S. was more interested in the use of F-16s by Pakistan for counter-terrorism purposes along the Af-Pak border

really

Now the following part is classic

A year after the agreement was concluded, Pakistan learnt that mid-life updates for the F-16s could only be performed in a third country. Since the LoA did not bear any references to “cryptokeys” for the aircraft, officials were also worried that the U.S. would withhold the capability of the F-16s. When these concerns were raised by President Pervez Musharraf and Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mehmood, the U.S. response was hardly comforting.

“We know many in Washington are dismayed by what they consider a juvenile reaction on Pakistan's part. The Pakistanis do not fully understand our requirements for sharing encrypted devices and need to be reassured that the aircraft will still fly without the cryptokeys.” ( 122429: secret)

Eventually, it was agreed that Pakistan would pay $80 million to perform the updates in Turkey. The U.S. also expressed concerns about basing the F-16s in Pakistan due to “concerns about potential technology transfer to China.” The outcome? Pakistan was made to fork out another $125 million to “build and secure a separate F-16 base” ( 197576: confidential).

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 May 2011 08:10

VinodTK wrote:Behind the Pakistan F-16 deal, a tale of many wheels

X Posted from the Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan thread.

Links to the leaked US diplomatic cables dealing with the sale of F-16’s to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

151227: Pakistan's F-16 program — at risk of failure?

197576: Saving the F-16 program

77877: Embassy recommendation on engaging GOP on F-16 sale

80337: F-16 LOA signed at last

189129: The way forward for Pakistan's F-16 program

122429: Reassuring Pakistan on the F-16 sale

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 May 2011 08:25

AGM-84 Harpoon anti ship missiles supplied to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan do not have a land attack capability:

3. (C) While we understand New Delhi's opposition to the program, the reality is that this program will not degrade India's overwhelming air superiority over Pakistan. Reducing the munitions package will not significantly affect either costs or regional stability. We have and will deny arms sales that we believe would upset the regional balance of power, as we have with the recent GOP request to buy the Coastal Targeting Suppression System, which enables Harpoon missiles to be fired at land or near-land targets using GPS technology.

14. (C) We do deny Pakistan requests for arms sales that could upset the regional balance of power. Post on February 20 recommended that Washington disapprove Pakistan's request to buy the Coastal targeting Suppression System, which gives AGM-84 Harpoon ship missiles the capability of hitting land targets; this acquisition would have given Pakistan an overt offensive capability to threaten India and served no COIN purpose.

From one of the leaked cables posted by me in my immediately preceding post:

197576: Saving the F-16 program

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 May 2011 08:58

^^ So the harpoons were specifically for the Al-Qaeda naval ships then!!

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 May 2011 09:12

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s decrepit financial health seems to have had some (past?) impact on its weapon purchase programmes.

US diplomatic cable dated back to Jan. 28, 2009 leaked by Wikileaks states that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was “behind in payments” for nearly all of its major weapon acquisition programmes. These programmes include the purchase of the F-16 Block 52 from the US, the JF-17 from P.R China and the Erieye AEW&C from Sweden.

Entirely fitting that those who have been criminally stupid enough to arm a nuclear weapon proliferating and terrorist supporting Islamic Republic of Pakistan be afflicted with some small pain:

In 2006, the GOP signed a five year contract to purchase 18 new Block 52 aircraft. The first delivery is scheduled for 2010. As of September 2008, Pakistan had paid $388 million in national funds, leaving a balance due of $1.04 billion. The GOP is over 30 days behind schedule on its December 2008 payment; its September payment was made almost three months late and only after Pakistan received the first tranche of its IMF Standby Agreement payment. The next payments due are: $113M in December 2008 (now overdue), $99.5M in March 2009, and $301M in June 2009.

Finance Minister Tareen confirmed to Ambassador January 28 that Pakistan would make the overdue December payment "soon," but he asked for three-four months grace period on the next two payments, so that they could be included in the GOP's next budget cycle, which begins in June 2009. Both Tareen and Defense Minister Mukhtar have admitted they are not sure if Pakistan can continue to pay. Post firmly believes that the GOP cannot afford to continue to make these payments, and we do not expect this situation to change. The GOP is also reportedly behind in payments to China, Sweden and other countries for JF-17s, Erieye Airborne Early Warning And Control(AEW&C) radar and other aircraft/programs.

From one of the cables earlier posted by me:

189129: The way forward for Pakistan's F-16 program

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 May 2011 10:30

So, TSP pays for weapon systems with money from IMF Programme? Great......and then, they wonder why their nation has become synonym for sh*t-pot!!! Go pakisatan, go!!!

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 May 2011 11:48

^ Boss what takes donkey cake is despite knowing this Unkil gives it more AIDs.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 30 May 2011 12:02

negi wrote:^ Boss what takes donkey cake is despite knowing this Unkil gives it more AIDs.

Donkey cake indeed....its fascinating though the extent to which Porki land is going to try and maintain the equal equal knowing fully well that its impossible to do so simply put. I guess the aam abdul and ayesha should really start learn to eat bullets literally because at this pace the country will simply have no money left over to buy food!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 May 2011 12:06

^^^negi-ullah, Uncle is clever.....a true baniya!

He gives aid to pakisatan and takes the same money back for weapons that it supplies.....the arms that it gives for free are from its own companies, so that is more money routed into the local economy. But the biggest joke is that it weighs on the IMF to release money to pakisatan and then, pakis being pakis, they buy toys for their retarded boys from the US with the same money....uncle is the cat here which is making money. The pakis, as usual, are too dumb to understand that they are being screwed.....(or may, after so much GUBO sessions, they can't feel these 'smaller' stings)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 May 2011 12:07

bhat are you doing here hain ? head to paki orbat thread, questions for you there.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 May 2011 14:13

Does pak manufacture the M113 troop carrier under license or it imports them used from Ukil's boneyard or some other large user like say turkey? how many of these are they estimated to have?

with light anti-HMG armour , very little if any sensors for night they are not the best kit around but definitely quite mobile due to tracked config and would be reliable given their long history and austere design.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 30 May 2011 14:28

Singha wrote:Does pak manufacture the M113 troop carrier under license or it imports them used from Ukil's boneyard or some other large user like say turkey? how many of these are they estimated to have?

with light anti-HMG armour , very little if any sensors for night they are not the best kit around but definitely quite mobile due to tracked config and would be reliable given their long history and austere design.

Especially off road mobility (unlike motor vehicles). IA need to seriously look to mirror this with tracked, mine resistant wheeled vehicles and appreciable number of ALHs.

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 30 May 2011 15:16

Former PN commander arrested for PNS Mehran Seize ... Wonderful Link