Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 21 Sep 2010 13:17

It is not that easy. Else, by now there would have been a fleet of agosta copies in the chipanda navy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Sep 2010 19:51

per TOI the pakis have asked china to provide more submarines and ships now that PRC is in a position to produce in excess of its own needs. and with these will come supersonic ASMs and SLCMs.

pakistan is becoming the "UK" for china - a unsinkable a/c carrier anchored near mouth of persian gulf and protected by chinese funds and nuclear umbrella.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 10:13

What kind of indiginous supersonic ASM do the Chinese have ?AFAIK they have just bought extended range sunburn from Russia.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 22 Sep 2010 15:56

Old habits die hard. On one hand the great international bhikhari wants aid from the world for the floods, on the other they are talking of buying more arms.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 23:01

^ Business as usual from Porxistan

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 23 Sep 2010 04:18

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 23 Sep 2010 04:55

Craig Alpert wrote:

India should build one for Vietnam and one for Malaysia.

JVKrishnan · Post by **JVKrishnan** » 23 Sep 2010 05:57

Thomas Kolarek wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote:
India should build one for Vietnam and one for Malaysia.

India Offers Small-Mid Sized Nuclear Reactors for Sale

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4548

It's just the beginning.......

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Sep 2010 07:58

DCNS Wins Sub Contract With Pakistan
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =MID&s=TOP

French naval company DCNS won a contract this summer its supply two Subtics combat management systems for Pakistan's Agosta 70 diesel-electric submarine fleet, industry executives said.

DCNS signed in June a contract for modernization of Agosta 70 boats, described as "very old subs," for an Asian country, Alain Cursat, DCNS marketing manager for submarine combat systems, told journalists. Cursat declined to identify the country. But other industry sources said Pakistan was the customer. One industry executive said the prospect of selling new submarines to Pakistan had gone cold as the Navy was modernizing its existing Agosta fleet, while a second executive said Pakistan was the only operator of the Agosta boat in the region.

Pakistan bought the Agosta diesel-electric submarine, built by DCNS, in the mid 1990s and had been looking to add to its fleet with more modern boats.

DCNS had pitched the Marlin, a submarine derived from the Scorpene boat co-developed with Spain, but the Pakistan Navy favored the rival U214 boat from German archrival Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW). The Pakistan Navy has not signed with HDW.

DCNS is expecting other contract wins for the Subtics system, notably among the fleet of U209 boats operated by South American navies, as operators look to implement a midlife upgrade of their conventional (SSK) submarines, Cursat said.

DCNS expects to capture about 10 more modernization contracts for its Subtics system over the next 10 years, he said.

A sale to Pakistan of new submarine technology is a sensitive issue as DCNS sold six Scorpene submarines to India for $3.9 billion in 2005. The boats are being built locally by Mazagon Docks but the program has fallen behind because of technical problems.

Subtics stands for submarine tactical integrated combat system. The system, which integrates sensors and weapons, can be retrofitted on boats of different manufacture, including Russian build, Cursat said.

DCNS last year signed a deal for the supply of four Scorpene type submarines to Brazil, and is helping the Brazilian Navy to design and build the non-nuclear parts of a nuclear powered submarine. The Brazilian submarine deal, including construction of a shipyard and naval base with the local joint venture partner Oderbrecht, is worth 6.7 billion euros, of which four billion goes to DCNS.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 23 Sep 2010 13:08

That is what happens if one doesn’t have capabilities of own. After they arm the pukes with this stuff, they will come back to us offering something that may be slightly better.

They are playing with us and we are allowing it due to lack of our own capabilities. This may not be the picture 15 years from now but as of now, this is the ground reality.

If they are reliable suppliers for us, same hold true for their relationship with the international beggars.

R Nathan · Post by **R Nathan** » 24 Sep 2010 15:37

Clicky - 23rd Sept 2010

Pakistan defence budget has been quietly hiked by an astonishing 25 per cent, from the budgeted figure of Rs442bn to over Rs550bn.

..at the same time India donate 20 + 5 million $ to TSP flood relief, Kerala donate 1 million $ to TSP flood relief.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 Sep 2010 21:20

And in the name of helicopters for flood relief and rescue, they will buy more Bell 412EP helis from the US. These can be jury rigged to carry machine guns as they've done in the past.

WASHINGTON, September 15, 2010 -- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on 14 September of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan of BELL 412EP Helicopters as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $397 million.

The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of up to thirty BELL 412EP Helicopters, spare and repair parts, support equipment, ferry services, air worthiness certification, publications and technical data, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 28 Sep 2010 05:33

US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror camps?

WASHINGTON: The United States has a secret "retribution" plan to bomb more than 150 terror camps in Pakistan in the event of another major terrorist attack originating from that country.

This startling disclosure about Washington's "all bets off" policy towards an ostensibly dubious ally in the war on terror is contained in Bob Woodward's opus " Obama's War," which details an evolving US approach in the region.

The plan pre-dates the Obama presidency, going back to the Bush White House, but elements of policy, aimed at wiping out terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, is evident in the current administration's ruthless bombing by unmanned drones of terrorist targets inside Pakistan, which far surpasses the Bush approach in terms of frequency and intensity.

The US threat also places in context secretary of state Hillary Clinton's dire warning to Islamabad earlier this year that there would be severe consequences for Pakistan if another 9/11-type attack were traced back to that country.

According to Woodward, then President Bush did not see much difference between 9/11 and 26/11; a foundation of his presidency was zero tolerance for terrorists and their enablers and he was extremely proud of the hard-line doctrine.

Although plans for punitive strikes against Pakistan was initially linked to another 9/11 type attack on US, it evidently evolved after the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, when Bush asked his aides for contingency plans for dealing with Pakistan.

He called his national security team into the Oval Office and told his advisers, "You guys get planning and do what you have to do to prevent a war between Pakistan and India." The order suggests that the US would undertake the bombing to prevent India from retaliating against Pakistan leading possibly to an all-out war.

"This is like 9/11, he (Bush) said," Woodward writes. "The United States military did not have "war" plans for an invasion of Pakistan. Instead, it had and continues to have one of the most sensitive and secret of all military contingencies, what military officials call a "retribution" plan in the event of another 9/11-like attack."

In fact, such is the anger within the US administration about Pakistan's double-faced approach that the plan calls for a no-holds-barred approach. "Some locations might be outdated, but there would be no concern, under the plan, for who might be living there now. The retribution plan called for a brutal punishing attack on at least 150 or more associated camps," Woodward writes.

click the link to read more......

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 28 Sep 2010 13:16

The plan B from US is not entirely unexpected.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Sep 2010 14:05

all these revelations are interesting
the US appears to be raising the temperature on Pak or atleast the jarnails

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 28 Sep 2010 14:22

^ Yes the plan is not unexpected but the timing sure seems to carry some hidden message.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Sep 2010 14:25

Now fiazaa will claim how they aggressively flew caps with this latest radar less chinese frontline planes fresh out of crates and deterred the mighty superpower.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 30 Sep 2010 21:35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuqjqvCvDnY

video
TSPA extra judicial executions.

Warning: Rated content

P.S.: Sorry of the confused link earlier..

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 05 Oct 2010 19:09

Craig Alpert wrote:US ready to bomb 150 Pak terror camps?
WASHINGTON: The United States has a secret "retribution" plan to bomb more than 150 terror camps in Pakistan in the event of another major terrorist attack originating from that country.

This startling disclosure about Washington's "all bets off" policy towards an ostensibly dubious ally in the war on terror is contained in Bob Woodward's opus " Obama's War," which details an evolving US approach in the region.

The plan pre-dates the Obama presidency, going back to the Bush White House, but elements of policy, aimed at wiping out terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, is evident in the current administration's ruthless bombing by unmanned drones of terrorist targets inside Pakistan, which far surpasses the Bush approach in terms of frequency and intensity.

The US threat also places in context secretary of state Hillary Clinton's dire warning to Islamabad earlier this year that there would be severe consequences for Pakistan if another 9/11-type attack were traced back to that country.

According to Woodward, then President Bush did not see much difference between 9/11 and 26/11; a foundation of his presidency was zero tolerance for terrorists and their enablers and he was extremely proud of the hard-line doctrine.

Although plans for punitive strikes against Pakistan was initially linked to another 9/11 type attack on US, it evidently evolved after the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, when Bush asked his aides for contingency plans for dealing with Pakistan.

He called his national security team into the Oval Office and told his advisers, "You guys get planning and do what you have to do to prevent a war between Pakistan and India." The order suggests that the US would undertake the bombing to prevent India from retaliating against Pakistan leading possibly to an all-out war.

"This is like 9/11, he (Bush) said," Woodward writes. "The United States military did not have "war" plans for an invasion of Pakistan. Instead, it had and continues to have one of the most sensitive and secret of all military contingencies, what military officials call a "retribution" plan in the event of another 9/11-like attack."

In fact, such is the anger within the US administration about Pakistan's double-faced approach that the plan calls for a no-holds-barred approach. "Some locations might be outdated, but there would be no concern, under the plan, for who might be living there now. The retribution plan called for a brutal punishing attack on at least 150 or more associated camps," Woodward writes.

click the link to read more......

This should be real music to all Indian ear's ! In fact this might be a smarter way to bomb paki's with American tax payer's money !!

SandeepS · Post by **SandeepS** » 06 Oct 2010 20:10

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 10,00.html - Gen. P. Musharraf's interview with Der Spiegel on 04-Oct wherein he unambiguously admitted that Pak forces have been training militants to fight in J&K. He seems to be losing his media-savviness.

I'm sure this interview must have killed quite a few forum-based discussions on Pak's role in J&K militancy:-)

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Oct 2010 08:10

Our H&D Rambos were firing at ISAF helicopters when they were shown their place.

Pakistani soldiers were firing in warning before NATO helicopters fired back : Report

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 07 Oct 2010 08:12

Pakistan deploys air defense missiles in Afghan border?
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-ma ... z11deyNTmn

Pakistan installs anti-missile system at Orakzai Pak-Afghan border
http://www.samaa.tv/News26152-Antimissi ... akzai.aspx

This was revealed by MNA Munir Orakzai while speaking on SAMAA's program, 'Mohaaz' (to be aired on Saturday morning at 11:30 am).

Orakzai said that additional troops would be deployed to monitor the newly installed defense system.

“Now no helicopter will be able to escape after entering Pakistani territory,” he claimed. SAMAA

Not sure if this is the correct thread to post this in..

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Oct 2010 16:00

^^^I really wish that Ghazi sitting at the controls of these AD Missiles and rises up to the occasion of safe guarding jehaarrrd and Islam and fires couple of them thingies at the NATO helicopters......what fun and games it will be.........

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 07 Oct 2010 16:40

That will be really interesting. Can anyone predict what will be the nato reaction to it? We all know the obvious but, what I want to know is the extent of damage that may be inflicted.

Having said that, this actually happening is a very remote possibility. It will mark a serious escalation and amount to self strangulation. If at all it happens, it may be due to rogue elements down the ranks.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Oct 2010 16:59

Saar Ji,

TSPA has no rogue eliments. It will be non state state actors onlee who will show the Ghazi spirit.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 07 Oct 2010 17:05

Why can't NATO troops find a route for supplies, that doesn't cross TSP.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 07 Oct 2010 17:06

P Chitkara wrote:That will be really interesting. Can anyone predict what will be the nato reaction to it? We all know the obvious but, what I want to know is the extent of damage that may be inflicted.

Having said that, this actually happening is a very remote possibility. It will mark a serious escalation and amount to self strangulation. If at all it happens, it may be due to rogue elements down the ranks.

Ten billion dollars of AID relief will be instantly announced along with more F16s.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 07 Oct 2010 19:00

sanjeevpunj wrote:Why can't NATO troops find a route for supplies, that doesn't cross TSP.

You may need to have a look at the map, USA has excellent

relation with Russia and Iran that makes the search for alternate route easier.

Also consider the cost difference for transport via sea & land vs air.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 07 Oct 2010 20:41

JimmyJ wrote:
sanjeevpunj wrote:Why can't NATO troops find a route for supplies, that doesn't cross TSP.
You may need to have a look at the map, USA has excellent relation with Russia and Iran that makes the search for alternate route easier.

Also consider the cost difference for transport via sea & land vs air.

They'll actually probably start to deliver supplies from Riga in Latvia via Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan using railway and enter Afghanistan from the north, probably by Mazar e Shariff.

Nevertheless, while ignoring the Pakistan demand for payment of compensation charges, the Centcom high command has decided to open an alternate supply route to Afghanistan via Russia and central Asia.

The diplomatic sources say the alternate supply route starts in the Latvian port of Riga, the largest all-weather harbour on the Baltic Sea, where container ships offload their cargo onto Russian trains. The shipments roll south through Russia, then southeast around the Caspian Sea through Kazakhstan and finally south through Uzbekistan until they cross the frontier into north Afghanistan. The Russian train-lines were in fact built to supply Russia’s own war in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. It was actually in July 2010 that the Americans had finally convinced the Russians to let them use the said supply route. Previously Russia had only allowed the United States to ship non-lethal military supplies across its territory by train. The diplomatic circles say the development is important because it signals Russian willingness to indirectly support the US-led Nato/Isaf forces stationed in Afghanistan.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/06-10-2010/Top-Story/1113.htm

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 07 Oct 2010 20:59

US better withdraw from Afghanistan or make peace & nuclear agreement with Iran.

Now Russians might be laughing at US

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Oct 2010 21:11

kazakhstan has a oil pipeline to china and azerbaijan (baku) is a center of oil. perhaps a swap trade in which americans send oil to baltic or siberia and kazakhstan ships oil to afghanistan is an option for oil.

if the americans had not been stupid enough to get into a bad relation with Iran , none of this mess would have happened. but mention "iran" and its a pavlovian reaction in america, egged on by the yahudi lobbies.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 07 Oct 2010 21:33

Singha wrote: if the americans had not been stupid enough to get into a bad relation with Iran , none of this mess would have happened. but mention "iran" and its a pavlovian reaction in america, egged on by the yahudi lobbies.

Despite severe posturing and regardless of recent bungles in West Bank, the yahudis are a pragmatic lot. The trouble might lie somewhere else.

It is the RAPE class of Iran, that jumped ship and settled in khanland after Shah's overthrow, that whispers sweet nothings into the waxy ears of the duffers in DC. When they came ashore khanland in '78, a lot of them had liquidated their assets, so it wont get usurped by bearded gentry. These folks seem to have invested wisely around (eg: Beverley hills apparently have a rather high percentage of these guys, who bought good properties in the early 80s) and have significant clout in campaign funding. A lot of them were western educated professionals and you can spot a few of the creative types in hollywood movie credits. So they are well embedded and yeah, pretty bitter about situation back home. Some swear they will never go back until the current beards are gone, despite the current beards being widely perceived as British backed ("grab a mullah by his beard and jerk it up, thou shalt see a "Made in England" branding under his beard" is a common saying in these circles

).

Situation seems same as the RAPEs progeny of Paki military who are close to the five cornered building due to past defense aid, but in this case their relation is even more broad based across khan establishment, as the Iranians of that type appear far smarter than jihadi minded paki RAPEs. Another such influential diaspora, who makes DC cling on to dated and cliched cold-war rivalries are the rich Cuban expats of Miami area, who wait for Castro clan to disappear before they can openly snip the smuggled Cohibas

.

All these three groupings create a ton of trouble for the govts of Iranians, Israelis, Indians and Cuba by constraining DC's room to negotiate.

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 08 Oct 2010 06:49

Singha wrote: if the americans had not been stupid enough to get into a bad relation with Iran , none of this mess would have happened. but mention "iran" and its a pavlovian reaction in america, egged on by the yahudi lobbies.

Weren't Americans in good terms with Iranians during Shah's regime? The islamic revolution was fulled by anti-western + anti-shah sentiments.There was no ways Americans could have mended its relationship with those savages in charge of Iran.They did try the 'carrot approach' which led to the Iran-Contra affair, and honestly,who could have foreseen the Afghanistan war in the 80s? Israeli lobby or no Israeli lobby, it is meaningless to reason with nutjobs like Mahmoud Imightstartajehad. US policies in middle-east went terribly wrong in the 90s,in Saddam Hussein they had a strong,nationalistic leader who was not led by Mullas and was desperate for help, instead,he was crushed making Iran the most powerful nation in the neighborhood.

About the supply route, i just don't see any other alternative sea route other than through Karachi. Post 9/11,instead of hitting Iraq,had US freed Balochistan it would have solved multiple problems.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 08 Oct 2010 07:08

If our political class is capable of leadership, we could initiate a limited agreement between Iran and the U.S. This has been argued by Nitin Pai (Acorn/Pragati/Takshashila Institute). America has been pragmatic (for the most part). If they could work with the Chinese after the Korean war, why would Iran be an untouchable?

However is Iran willing to play ball? I don't know. We can try it out. What's in it for Iran? Quite a lot to be honest.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 08 Oct 2010 07:13

Here is the original piece by Nitin: http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2009/0 ... e-of-iran/

An all-American dogma the size of Iran
01.09.2009 · Posted in Foreign Affairs

The solution is staring at Barack Obama’s face—if he has the audacity to grasp it

It is good to hear General Petraeus acknowledge that Iran “had common interests with the United States and other nations in a secure Afghanistan.” Although he hinted that such interests might make talks with Iran feasible, he said he would leave the topic to diplomats and policy makers.

“I don’t want to get completely going down that road because it’s a very hot topic,” General Petraeus told a conference…Nonetheless, he said, “there are some common objectives and no one I think would disagree.”

Like the United States, Iran is concerned about the narcotics trade in Afghanistan and the resurgence of extremists there, he said. “It doesn’t want to see Sunni extremists or certainly ultrafundamentalist extremists running Afghanistan any more than other folks do,” he said, while acknowledging that the United States and Iran have “some pretty substantial points of conflict out there as well.” [NYT]

And the most substantial point of conflict is Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Yet, it may well be that the best way to convince Iran to temper its quest for nuclear weapons might well be for the United States to engage it politically. After all, hostility with the United States and Israel is one key reason why Iran seeks those weapons (the Saudi Arabia-Pakistan nuclear nexus is another).

In fact, it is amazing how the US foreign policy establishment is thinking up options and throwing up names for special envoys without questioning whether the holy cow, or rather the holy taboo, of not engaging Iran is a position that has run its course (if it was ever tenable in the first place). If intellectual blinkers and dogma prevent US policymakers from considering the merits of engaging Iran, what prevents countries like India that would benefit from a US-Iran rapprochement from lubricating it? There is a need for strong, credible voices to support the likes of General Petraeus in helping the United States break the ice with Iran.

Aside: The word “ultrafundamentalist” now enters the lexicon thanks to General Petraeus. As for “ultrafundamentalist extremists”, now, there’s way too much redundancy built into that phrase.

In case you're not already familiar with this, I strongly recommend the following:
-- The Acorn by Nitin Pai
-- Pragati - The Indian National Interest Review
-- The Takshashila Institution

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 08 Oct 2010 14:53

Even if we or somebody else tries to get uncle and Iran talk to each other pukes will try their best to throw a spanner.

Iran opening up to uncle will reduce the importance of pukes for uncle quiet drastically. This in turn will have a major impact of the bakhseesh they get and the amount they can milk form uncle.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 08 Oct 2010 18:43

Guys you are missing the most important point,

the easiest way for USA to access Afghan is not by appeasing Iran or Russia but by creating the Republic of Baluchistan

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 08 Oct 2010 19:02

JimmyJ wrote:the easiest way for USA to access Afghan is not by appeasing Iran or Russia but by creating the Republic of Baluchistan

Heh.. I doubt the U.S. has the stomach for such a fight. It would mean waging a full scale war and the completely dissolution of Pakistan.

Not a realistic scenario without Indian involvement. And I doubt China will just sit idle.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Oct 2010 21:15

SriSri... the times they are a changing...

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 08 Oct 2010 23:10

is this still a pakistan military discussion thread.