After the defeat

Feroze:

We seem to be attracting a crowd. How about creating a separate thread for this discussion? Perhaps you could write a brief article on your plan, and we could discuss it over there.

Feroke:

I must sympathesize with you, becuase you are attempting the near impossible :). But all the same, here are some more points.

First of all, everytime the US has actively participated with another country in combat, the justification given has been the self-defence of that country, i.e. VietNam. The only surgical operations the US has carried out have been by its own defence forces, e.g. against Qaddafi, Osama bin Laden etc. The US does not actively assist other countries in surgical strikes.

You seem to be underestimating the Pakistan military. It is still a very professional organization, with very professional people in its leadership. They may not be the best civilian administrators in the world, but when it comes to strategic and tactical military affairs, they are quite good. It is not a coincidence that the Pakistan military has been able to hold its own against an Indian army with resources ten times those of Pakistan. India has not been able to do the same against China. The only time the Pakistan has failed is because of poor political decision making. The ISPR has nothing to do with the decision making of the military.

I have met a lot of American officers, from the lowest to the highest rank, and they all hold the Pakistan military`s war-fighting capabilities in high regard. So I doubt the Pakistan military`s high command is going to let Pakistan get militarily isolated to an extent where anyone can just come in and attack Kahuta. It is almost comical to read people`s comments about Pakistani military leadership making decisions on whims.

A good strike plan does not allow for any assumptions. You should base your plan on not what could happen, but what is happening. A strategic alliance of all these countries, with such different ideologies, may (a very very big may) happen, but has not happened yet. So you cannot assume it will happen. Thus you cannot base you strike plan on it. Otherwise, why not just have the US sell the Israelis a couple of ships, and have them fire Tomahawks from the Arabian seas, at Kahuta, with US and Israeli air cover. No Pakistani aircraft can break through a US air defence system. Isn`t that what the US did against Osama Bin Laden.

Also, why are you so interested in the pilots carrying out such a long flight. That can be extremely exhausting. Why not just have Israeli pilots land in one of the countries, have a change of crew, and fly off from for the attack.

Again, too many assumptions, that have not occured yet. Base you attack on the facts, as of right now.

Re: temporal # 68

Okay........

Lets discount the American angle for awhile.
What by-standers and minor headches did you have in mind?

An Israeli solo effort will be difficult without Uncle Sam helping out little David logistically.

The prefered route of attack would be through the Red Sea, with the planes departing from Tel Aviv, Israel and using an international air corridor and call signs of a major airliner, but without refueling, it will only get them as far as the Horn of Africa.

There is always a possibility for Israeli C-141 Starlifter cargo planes to fly ahead of them and use some remote landing area in either Somalia or nearby to re-fuel the aircraft, but even still that would only bring them as far as Pakistan and the aircraft would have to re-fuel prior to attacking their targets.

Like I said before, KC-10s will be required for this mission. I wonder..... I wonder if the Indians have any planes for mid-air re-fueling and those aircraft can meet the Israelis and refuel them prior to entering Pakistani airspace?

Let me think about this.

Feroz:

The present state of Russia is a bottomless pit. No amount can be put in that can revive it. Have you seen an old farce ``Weekend at Bernie`s``? Boris is Bernie. He is clinically dead, believe me. All those photo ops are an illusion. It is not possible to count them in.

Now, let us continue this at the risk of becoming an ``academic`` exercise.

Two players and some minor bystanders. Be creative.

regards

Re: temporal # 65

I am not assuming that Pakistani military is a club of idiots!!! About the politicans, on the other hand, I am not so sure. The critical problem is that without the American logistical aid, this op is nothing more than an academic discussion. Temporal, the sine qua non is that I need those KC-10s, because of the distences involved and that means American help. Or, the Israelis can take a few KC-10s on loan from the USAF and it would work also! Hence, it is crucial to enlist their aid while giving them all the plausible denability they may want. The Indian option is debatable and may not be so attractive after all.

The use of old Russian airfields in Afghanistan is a good option and makes for less headaches, but the problem is transiting their airspace and whether they will ``green light`` American presense given the nationalistic nature of their domestic politics. On the other hand, massive American loans to bale out the Russian economy and an unlimited supply of vodka for Boris Yeltsin might just work!!! There is another card, which the Israelis might play.....

The Israelis taking over a Pakistani base, via a seaborne attack, and using it as a base of ops for attack is a logical plan, but the problem would be sustaining and resisting Pakistani counter-attacks.

A Pakistani military personel selling out for money is an exteremely realistic option and interestingly, people who do ``turn`` to the other side do, because of their own sense of patriotism! In such a case, if it happens, the money will not be an issue as much as the person`s reasons for betrayal and invariably, they would be one, which the person thinks are in the best interest of Pakistan itself! For example, a pro-western Pakistani individual concerned about a possible tilt towards Hezbulallah, as you mentioned, might do it to in order to protect Pakistani interests and ties with the west!!!

Temporal, the pysche of espionage and the people who turn against their nations is facinating. I think, this could be parleyed, but the problematic question is whether MOSSAD or the CIA have any HUINT (Human Intelligence) operatives in Pakistan, because of ISI`s paranoia. Such a person can be easily cultivated, but it is a long term prospect and then the question is, how much time are you willing to invest and can you wait for a final pay off?

An excerpt from an Indian writer,

``One day, a police party from Calcutta landed up in

Bombay and raided Dilip Kumar`s house. He was a Pakistani spy, the

police said, and they were about to arrest him. Dilip Kumar a spy? How

could that make sense? And, anyway, what secret information was he in

a position to communicate to the Pakistanis? The vital statistics of

Vyjayantimala?

It turned out that the Calcutta police had arrested

a suspected Pakistani spy. In his diary, they had

found the names of many well-known people. In

the finest traditions of the Indian police, they

promptly concluded that all the Hindus listed in

the diary were contacts while the Muslims were

enemy agents. One such Muslim was Dilip

Kumar.

It is a measure of how deep prejudice runs in our society that India`s top

star -- a friend of Nehru who was then still prime minister -- was

accused of espionage on the basis of such flimsy evidence only

because he was a Muslim. If Dev Anand`s name had been in the diary, it

is extremely unlikely that anyone would have bothered to raid him.

After several traumatic months, the police gave up for lack of evidence.

But rumours swept the city. Dilip Kumar had confessed. The police had

recovered a radio transmitter under his floorboards. He was a leader of

a gang of Muslim spies within the film industry. And so on.

It is to Dilip Kumar`s credit that he bore no bitterness or ill-will despite

such appalling mistreatment. Instead he was there, as always, ready to

support our troops in the war against Pakistan in 1965.

I mention all this lest you think -- as many people with short memories

or of a certain age do -- that Dilip Kumar is being absurdly sensitive

about Bal Thackeray`s campaign against him. To understand why Dilip

Kumar has reacted with such passion and force, you need to

understand that he feels that no matter what he does to prove his

patriotism, there will always be those who believe that it is not enough.

The problem with Thackeray has a historical origin. In 1967 when Dilip

Kumar was campaigning for V K Krishna Menon in North Bombay,

Thackeray was busy founding the Shiv Sena in its first avatar as a gang

of Congress stooges who beat up Malayalis who dared vote for Menon.

Later, Thackeray revealed himself to be India`s filmi groupie number

one. Movie stars flocked to the Senapati`s residence and told him he

was their Fan-apati while the old boy stared goggle-eyed. Only Dilip

Kumar had the dignity to remain aloof.

Thackeray never forgave him and by the time he had

launched the Shiv Sena`s Muslim-hating avatar, he

seized on Dilip Kumar as a representative of all that he

loathed -- a successful secular Muslim who saw no

reason to pay court to fascism, even when it was

dressed up as groupiedom.

This explains why the Shiv Sena picks on Dilip Kumar

again and again. During the Bombay riots, it criticised

him for daring to help resettle some of those it had

made homeless. When he said that he did not find the movie Fire

obscene, it sent a contingent of thugs who stripped down to their

underwear outside his house. A Shiv Sena MP even said in Parliament

that he thought Dilip Kumar was a traitor. And now, Thackeray wants him

to return the Nishan-e-Imtiaz, the highest civilian honour in Pakistan. ``

HELLO, DR. STRANGELOVE

Feroz:

Interesting thinking aloud about various possibilities in what you call ``mind games``. Some thoughts on the subject.

Pakistan has to be seen supplying bombs and technology to the Hezbullahis ------ that will perhaps be the only excuse for ANY direct or indirect USintervention in taking out Kahuta. Pakistanis in military and politics may be corrupt and mad BUT they are no fools! Therefore, in this `war game` I would keep the Excited States out till after the deed is done.

I would keep India out of it, too. They would suffer the consequences whether they are part of it or not. By being out of it they would hope to minimise the fall out, sorry for the pun.

So now let us start with our brothers in Israel and brother Pakistanis and perhaps one or two minor sheikhs. Between you and UR you have already discussed some scenarios.
Here are some other possibilities. (----give me a moment to don my Israeli cap).

REMOTELY PROBABLE: Using some abandoned airfield the Russians built in northern Afghanistan, have a go at Kahuta. Neat, surgical in and out. Remotely probable, because of the logistics involved in getting the equipment dellivery and retrieval. Wonder where Dostam is? Wasn`t AbdulRashid Dostam a Maj Gen in Air Force, a communist to boot?

MILDLY PROBABLE: Israelis monitor carefully a PAF base at or near the sea, possibly in southern Baluchistan. They sail out of Aqaba with commandos, pilots and ground crew. Take over the base, silently, ruthlessly, quickly. Adapt the planes available for a surgical strike on Kahuta. (Heck, now there is a script for a Hollywood blockbuster. All the elements are there except sex. Well, they can invent some). And sail back to Sharm el Sheikh.

EXTREMELY PROBABLE: Get some Pakistani military type to do it for them. ( Yeah, yeah. yeah I know. They are loyal, patriotic, efficient, truthful, organised you know-- all the attributes that angels have plus some! But, ignoring these angles, there must be some ``Pakistanis`` in the military forces too. I mean them Pakistanis that are branded as the most corrupt or second most corrupt in the entire world?)

Safe conduct, immigration and passports, for themselves and their third cousins, and 300-500 millions dollars in the bank can do wonders for their ``eemaan``.

FALLOUT: No matter what scenario is adopted in these exercises, it is impossible to destroy ALL the bombs Pakistan has on the ground. A knee jerk reaction is bound to envelope Indian cities: one, at the least, or several, at the worst. And then...............


MORE FALLOUT: You`d certainly make it to the ECL.

Apologise for this rather longish response. Will now sit back and look forward to your really long analysis.

regards

Re: UR # 63

Sorry for this being a long post......

The United States did provide intelligence and battlefield logistical help to sustain the French garrision of Dein Bein Phu in 1954, before it fell to General Giap`s North Vietnamese forces. American air force pilots were flying actual combat missions during the siege of Dein Bein Phu and ten years later, American Army`s I Corps was activily engaged in combat operations, in support of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, in the Ia Drang Valley to push North Vietnamese forces north. This was an offensive action to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail, and create a security buffer around it, at the point it entered South Vietnam. They failed, because a part of the trial was in Laos and in 1972, the United States, on behalf of South Vietnam, would invade Laos to finally cut off the trial.

The United States was waging the Vietnam War, an offensive military action, on the behalf of South Vietnam in order to aid Saigon to resist communism.

The United States pilots did not engage in combat ops during the 1973 war, because the Soviet Union had send a demarché to Washington suggesting that it would not tolerate American intervention. Why do you think the Israeli armor halted its drive outside of Cario after destroying the Egyptian Third Army and Sadat was crying and begging for Moscow`s help? The Soviets had dispatched an airborne regiment to fight, if necessary, with the advancing Israeli forces and we all know that that would have meant!

Pakistan is, sotto voce, considered as a rouge state by the United States intelligence community, because of its ties and the support it gives to terrorist movements, i.e. the right to use Paksitani territory as sanctury from reprisals and risk of it proliferating its nuclear technology and the danger of that technology falling into the hands of an Islamic militant movement. The recent Pakistani gambit in Kargil has strongly suggested, to the American intelligence analysts, that Pakistani possesion of nuclear weapons has a de-stablizing influence in the region, because it has a perchant for advocating policies of adventurism and risk.

Why do you think that the international opinion was so strongly in favor of India and even Pakistan`s traditional allies, Saudi Arabia and China, refrained from openly associating with the Pakistani action and in private were cautioning Islamabad to re-think the consequences of its actions.

You are right in saying that Kahuta is a R&D facility and that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, but Pakistan lacks a delivery platform for those weapons. It may have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead in the next few years, but at the present time it does not and it has to soley rely on its aircraft, modified for the purpose, to deliver them. Pakistani nuclear weapons delivery system, even including Shaheen IIs, do not have range or the sophistication of warhead design, which would lessen the warhead weight to increase fuel capacity for attaining altitude neccesary to effectivly target United States.

The only country, which they could target would be Israel and Israel has a defence treaty with the United States that mates Israeli security concerns with American security interests in the region. Any threat to the national security of Irael would be seen as a direct threat to the interests of the United States and hence, creating a clear and present danger to the security of the United States itself.

Therefore, the United States has a very narrow window of opportunity to tacitily and overtly seek the destruction of Pakistani R&D facilities, which enable Islamabad to target American shoreline with nuclear weapons. Pakistan can not retailiate, because it is depends on American waivers to get monetary assistence from IMF, the Paris Club et al. It can always make up the difference by proliferating its nuclear technology by becoming a rouge state, but that would only invite a massive military strike by the United States and a ``presidential authorization`` to contract MOSSAD to assasinate Pakistani nuclear scientists.

The United States has only to agree to provide Israel with the logistical support and it does not need to get involved. It just has to ``green light`` the Israeli plan and facilitate its success by ``encouraging`` other nations to allow the transit of Israeli aircraft through their airspace. Once the right to transit is allowed, there is no need to fly 200 AGL the entire route to the target and there will no concern of avoiding SAMs till the actual ingress into Pakistan.

UR, this is where the United States diplomacy would use the ``carrot`` approach to intice these nations and co-opt their sub-rasa (below the table) approval to allow the strike aircraft to proceed. What could America offer these nations in return for their ``understanding`` ? A better question is, what do these nations want? America could make them a offer they could not refuse!

UR, all the United States has to do is promise India a seat on the United Nations` Security Council and a new bi-lateral relationship and access for Indian nuclear scientists to work in its top secret labs and increased American investment in joint defence ties in India to off-set the Chinese dimension. In return all India has to do is feint an attack in Kargil or elsewhere to draw the Pakistani attentions and keep them occupied while the Israelis try to attack them.

You do not think that the Indians would jump at the possibility? If you do not believe me, ask the Indian Chowkwallahs on this site!

As to China, do you really think that China wants to give its chances for a seat on the World Trade Organiztion and American tilt in its affairs with Taiwan for Pakistan`s benefit?

In case of Turkey, it would do well to remember that the Turkish military, unlike its Pakistani counter-part, is non-religious and it wants to keep the Turkish political scene free from religious influences and it shares and has more in common with the American and pro-western ideals than it does with the regressive Islamic politics of Pakistan and its military.

What does Turkey want in exchange for allowing its airspace to used against Pakistan?

For starters, the United States could ``pledge`` its support behind Turkey`s bid to accquire memebership in the European Union, which it has been trying for the last 15 years. The American can increase their levels of commitment to Turkish Army in its struggles against the Kurdish Liberation Army and openly call it a terrorist organization and refuse to aid the Kurds in their demands for a seperate homeland. It could tell Turkey that it understands and supports Turkish concerns over the issue of Cyprus and will ask the Greeks to moderate their anti-Turk stand on the issue.

Do you really think that the Turks will forsake all of these inticements for Pakistan`s sake? Turkish self-interests, in these issues, would suggest that Ankara would have more to lose by not helping the Americans and Israelis than it could gain by standing next to Pakistan.

As to Saudi Arabia, do you really think that Pakistan is so important to the Saudis that they would be willing to ruin their ``strategic`` friendship with Washington? Remember, all the Americans have to tell the Saudis is they are not the only ones with oil and that the Americans can get oil from Mexico, Venezula, from the North Sea oil fields and from oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and Texas and Oklahoma to make up its enegry needs. Do you really believe that the Saudi princess will want to risk their easy life styles and all their wealth for Pakistani nuclear facilities?

UR, the same ``self interest`` approach can be applied to Oman and any other nation to enable their ``agreement`` to allow the use of their air space. Nations act on the principle of self interest and self-preservation and they will forget about Pakistan. Pakistan has no friendly nations for support; it has only donar nations, who dicate its national and foreign policies from offices in Paris, London, and Washington. Pakistan as a sovereign nation is a facade and it exists under such an illushion, because those who ``own`` it merely allow it to day-dream that it is one!

So, you see, my friend, just how easy this whole thing could be in reality!!! Like the old saying, ``truth is stranger than fiction``, this is the reality in which Pakistan finds itself today, because of its own policies and its own bad choices. As an ex-Pakistani military officer, you need to quit believing the press releases from ISPR and take a hard look at the security environment, which surrounds Pakistan.

Feroze:

You have asked for some comments, so here they are:

Directly aiding one country to attack another is a very big issue. Can you name one incidence where the US has directly aided another country in an attack (not self-defence, but in attack)? They only do that through an alliance, like NATO, or through the UN.

The only help the US may provide is intelligence. They will never directly aid Israel with refuelers. If my recollection is correct, even when Egypt was about to run over Israel, in 1973, the US pilots did not get involved directly. They only flew cargo missions to ferry supplies to Israel. What makes you think they will help in attacking Pakistan? This is a very incorrect assumption you are making. Please keep in mind, that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, so Kahuta in now a R&D facility. The last thing the US wants to do is to piss off a country with nuclear weapons, by attacking it for no reason.

Saudia Arabia, Oman and Turkey will never help Israel in attacking Pakistan. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Their help would cause Pakistan to ally with Iran and Iraq against them. Also, the Islamic parties/groups/organizations in SA, Oman and Turkey, would really put their govts to the test. What could America offer to these countries that would be worth taking on such a headache? Please let me know.

Also, flying over so many countries, at low level to avoid radar detection is not easy (in fact impossible, if you ask me). Do you realize how difficult it is to fly over even a small island without being detected, much less the whole Middle East.

Try flying at 200 feet AGL for even an hour in a fighter. It is like running a marathon. I do not know anyone who has done it for 9 hours. If you know someone who has done that, please let me know their name. I would like to meet them. And even with LANTRNs, the aircraft will have to climb to get refueled. Some country will detect these aircraft.

Even if all the countries that the aircraft have to fly through co-operate, and assuming the US is in on it (both these things are impossible, as far as I am concerned), and the aircraft make it to the Pakistan border, what happens then. You are assuming that Kahuta`s main line of defence is the PAF. It is actually the radars, and SAMs ( a whole bunch of them). Will four (extremely tired) F-4E pilots be enough to handle the Pakistan air defence system (which is pretty good, by the way).

Any plan that involves coordination of more than one country, has too many variables. The only time more than one country can work together successfully is if they have trained together in an alliance, like NATO. Even then they have political and military problems.

A good plan of attack is one that has a very high chance of success. Not one that might succeed if so many things can be worked out.

Your plan sounds good for a fictional book, but has too many assumptions for a realistic chance of success.

Again, I could be wrong, and you could be right. So let me know what you think........

Re: UR # 61

UR, the point you make is a good one, but not when no one wants to detect those aircraft!!!!!

There are two elements to my plan: logistical and political. If you know what the Russian word ``maskirova`` means, you will have an idea of what I intend to do with the political aspects.

Oman, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia may be pro-Pakistani nuclear programmes, but they all share something with the Americans and the key is to exploit this ``common understanding`` and forge a consensus, which would enable the transit of the aircraft. The PAF personnell deputed to airforces of Saudi Arabia, Oman and Tukey will not be a problem, because they do not need to know what is going on and they can easily kept outside the information loop!!!!

USAF will lend its aircraft if the right arguments are made for faciliting the mission and if a critical link can be established between its national security interests and the mission intent. All that needs to be done is to establish the fact that Pakistani nuclear research complex, targetted, presents ``a clear and present danger`` to the security of the United States itself.

There is already a strong argument for establishing this fact for the issuance of a ``presidential finding``, which could tacitily authorize American support for such a mission.

As to the Wild Weasels being effective over such an extended mission, there is some serious concern on this issue. However, I am not anticpating any hostile reactions till prior to an ingress into Pakistan.

Remember, this is supposed to take place during the night and PAF has a limited inventory of FLIR HUDs or LANTRIN pods to mount CAPS at night and that limits the number of PAF fighters up at night and even if they are, they will be near the Indian border, which leaves the back door open!!!!

The ingress from the Indian side is too predictable and given the location of the target near the Agfhan border, it makes for a ``balls to the wall`` approach and then there is the question of the egress. By the time the strike aircraft turn around, PAF will ready for them and it would eat them for lunch on their way back to the Indian airspace!!!!

Appreciate your thoughts......keep sending them.....keeps me on my toes!!!!!

Feroze:

Are you sure you know how Wild Weasels work... You seem to be over estimating their capabilities. You might want to look into it again.

I think it is impossible for aircraft to fly for such a long time over foreign lands, and not get detected. There is only so much Wild Weasels can do.

US tankers taking off from Saudia Arabia, Oman, and Turkey to help Israeli aircraft in their attack on a Pakistani nuclear site. That will never happen. The people in these countries are very pro-Pakistan nuclear program. Also, I believe Saudia Arabia, and Oman still have a significant presence of PAF officers in their Air Forces. Also, USA will never lend its aircraft for an attack on another country. They may not stop Israel, but they will never directly help.

The planes will be detected well before they enter Pakistani airspace.

You need to enter from the Indian border.

Just some thoughts........

re: UR

So far, I have decided on a strike force comprising of ten aircraft: 4 F-16Ds, 4 Kfir C-7s and two F-4Es. The -16s will be the lead aircraft and will be armed with a single GBU Paveway Laser Guided Weapon, four Sparrows and two external drop fuel tanks. The Kfirs will provide top cover to the -16s and will be designated as the lasing pod, directing the laser beam upon whose glide path the -16s will release their weapons on and they will armed with AIM-9O missiles and two drop tanks. The -4Es will act as Wild Weasel anti-radar aircraft and will fly ahead of the -16s to clear a ``path`` and will be armed with Shrike and HARM anti-radar missiles.

The operational designation for the mission is Gideon`s Hammer and the point of departure is Ramat David Air Base in Israel. From there the package will fly to Turkey; via Iraq into the Persian Gulf past the Straits of Hormuz and will ingress Iranian territory, some 200kms from east of Bandar Abbas and enter Afghanistan. The attack on Katuha will be from the west, from inside Afghanistan, because it offers the shortest distence to the target and fewest risk for an easy egress. The total mission time will be around 9.1 hours (one way)and will cover about 6,000 kms (one way). There will four mid air refuelings: one near Mosul in northern Iraq, one 300kms south of Kuwait City, one 150kms north of Oman and a final one, inside Afghanistan. The refueling will be done by KC-10 tankers of USAF; flying out of from Incirlik, Turkey; Saudi Arabia, and from Oman.

I will post a more detailed breakdown, by the hour, upon final completion of the plan and a description of the assets and how they wll correlate with each other. This is just a rough draft and there are more details to be sorted out. I have agonized over the locales of Pakistan SAMs and radars and the flying path of PAF CAPs, but due to a lack of hard evidence, there is nothing I can do about that invariable and have to just chance it!!!! There will be an element of deception to allow the UASF KC-10s to ingress into Aghanistan via Iran.

Would appreciate if you would hold your questions till the finalization of the plan and then we can discuss the operational parameters of the idea! Will post new developments as they are rationalized!!

Re: UR # 57

Sounds good to me.....I would love to have someone who is familiar with the operational routine of the PAF! I just picked Kahuta as the primary target and presently, I getting intel on Pakistan air defences and PAF and army SAM sites. So far, it seems like it is going to be like trying to thread a needle wearing blind folds!!!!!

Anyway, I am looking at this idea as a brain teaser and a mental challenge to be solved!

My e-mail is ferozrk@hotmail.com

Re: Sri # 55

Your impression was correct. A E-3 does transmit emissions, but commands are send on encryptic channels and on modulating pulse frequencies. That is not its greatest Achilles Heel, but the radardome, which puts out enough enegry to microwave a small bird in flight and is really hard to mask it! Once, you have identified that, tracking an E-3 is not hard. E-3 does not have any defensive measures, but it does have fighters guarding it. So even though it is easy to track, it is hard to kill.

Okay....in your scenrio, I am assuming that PAF and IAF both have AWACS.

In that case, an IAF AWACS can track and identify PAF planes in the air by their speed, altitude and heading and it can steer the Indian MiGs clear of any PAF planes. It can use its suite of ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) to blind PAF radars and it can do the same for the Indian Navy. I would assume that you meant Indian Navy`s Sea Harriers for attacking Karachi, because Indian ships can not come any closer than 200 miles to Pakistani coast since that would put them under Pakistani missiles like Exocet AM-39s and under threat from PAF`s Mirage V naval strike aircraft, based in bases from Karachi to Pasni.

It can tell the Indian ships, where Pakistani missile boats are; their distence, range and course headings, so the Indians can take preventive measures against them and are fully aware of their threat environment.

On the other side of the street, a PAF AWACS can act as ``trip wire`` and warn about the in-coming Indian raid. A PAF E-3 can use its radar to track the Indian MiGs as soon as they take off from their bases and judging from their flight profile (attacking aircraft have a very specific formation, called the Alpha formation. The best way to explain this would be to think of your hand with fingers evenly spaced out and your thumb and little index fingers at 45 degrees from the base of your palm), it could vector any PAF CAP to intercept and interdict their flight path, thus saving both time and fuel and increasing the time factor by which the Indians could be detected and engaged.

In the case of the naval scenrio, it could track the flight of the Indian Sea Harriers and pin point the location of the Indian carrier. This info then would be tranmitted to PAF Mirages, who feed the data into their computers and head towards the Indian carrier on the vector provided by the E-3. Even if PAF does not have an E-3, it does have Orion P-3C maritime surveillance aircraft, which can do pretty much the same thing.

The only difference would be that they would have to ``guess`` the Indian carrier`s location, whereas an AWACS could ``see`` it on its radar. A carrier during combat flight ops also transmits large amonts radar emissions, which can be triangualated!!!

Also, in case the PAF does not have an E-3, the success of Indian raid over Lahore would increase, because the PAF CAPS would have to directed to the MiGs by PAF Forward Air Controllers or radar sites and only after the Indian aircraft have been airborne and that limits the reaction time of PAF to intercept the Indian raid. Hence, the suprise element would be with the IAF, but for a limited time.

Another thing to consider is that during a full scale Indo-Pakistan Stupidity (war) #4, Indian AWACS would be the prime target of PAF, because since PAF wants to achieve air superiority, it can can not afford to ignore the threat of
an AWACS. The IAF can protect them by flying behind the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area), but that would limit their tactical utility.

An AWACS does not confer a huge advantage; it merely increases the tactical options available to a commander by providing him with an accurate ``map`` of the battlefield. An E-3 is more of a force multiplier than an actual weapon. Also, it costs around 300 million dollars, that puts it within the buying power of both India and Pakistan, if they really, really want to buy it. The real problem is the issue of technology transfer and the Americans are paranoid about sharing the technical specifications of AWACS with any other nation and hence, for political reasons their deployment with either PAF or IAF is highly unlikely.

The only other air force, other than the United States Air Force, which uses the E-3 is the Royal Saudi Air Force. How did the Saudis get it? Money.....lots of it and effective lobbying, which mooted the concerns of pro-Israeli lobby in Washington, but that is another story.....

Hope this info helps!!!

Omar,

Most pakistanis will be happy that you exist, who can see the victory in kargill while the entire pak nation believes that something terrible has happened. See the pak news papers, the perception of loss is pervasive, from mujahideen to elite diplomats.

There was a great break through, Lahore process. Now after kargill pakistan is requesting for talks and india is putting forth conditions. That is some success.

Most of these details about costs are just numbers without much significance. If the aircraft are not lost in war, they are lost in flight accidents or are scrapped. The same with ammunition. All the costs of procurement and maintenance are losses to begin with, money could have been better spent on infrastructure and education. From an economic point of view, one has to look at the marginal cost of kargill operation. Other than the cost of moving the troops all other expenses are already committed. Specifically, instead of flying and drpping a few bombs in the deserts of Rajestan as part of training, the bombs have been dropped on pak troops. So what, where is the additional cost.

Any how please do take time to articulate your success story, a lot of pakistanis are eager to hear from you.

Re: UR #53

I am sorry, but had I seen your comments, I would have posted a reply to you with Sri`s post.

The mission of the Israeli Air Force is similar to Pakistani Air Force and that is to gain air superiority over the battlefield and to assit the ground elements in resisting an attack. Both Israel and Pakistan lack what can be termed as ``a critical depth`` and consequently, the concept of a tactical retreat does not exist, in either airforces` way of thinking, in face of a determined attack. Israel and Pakistan do not have land that can be traded for time and like the PAF, Israeli Air Forces` main operating bases are within 400-500 kms of their adversaries. Therefore, both air forces are dedicated to winning air superiority, because if they lose that edge, the enemy can effectivily neutralize their bases by over running them with his ground troops.

Both Pakistan and Israeli pilots are highly trained to fight against huge odds and both understand fully well that they are the first and last line of defense for their respective nations. This sense is further reinforced by a warrior corps d` espirit in their own training, aggressiveness and combat skills that neither pilot, Pakistani or Israeli, thinks that he will lose in an air engagement. Coupled with this, both airforces place stringent emphasis on Dissimilar Air Combat Tactics (DACT) and they learn to fight like their adversary might by having aggressor squadrons, which mimic their adversaries war doctrine and air combat tactics based on the flight characterists of enemy fighter aircraft.

This is just the obvivious similarities.....

As to the scenrio of an Israeli air attack on Pakistan, that was just an example. Your points are valid and I would have to look at them in detail. I think Omar has hooked me on to this idea, because I am seriously thinking about formulating a plan of attack on Pakistani nuclear facilities. Right now I am in the recon state and I am gathering ``intelligence``. After that, I will chose the ``attack package`` and a time frame. Right now, I am opting for F-16D and the Kfirs, because of their similar radar characterists with PAF`s F-16s and Mirage fighters. This is just a pre-lim determination, but attack will likely occur at around 0400hrs, Pakistani Standard Time, and hopefully on a moonless night.

You are right! I still have to work out the logistical wrinkles of the plan; route, flight time, fuel consumption, weapons payload, pilot fatique, PAF airbases within intended flight path, PAF and PAK army radar sites and their max range of coverage, PAF CAPs and BARCAPs over target, time on target and the egress routes out the ``kill box``

Just give me some time.......!!!!!!!!

Feroze:

This is getting interesting. I am looking forward to your scenario, for an Israeli attack on Kahuta. I have a scenario of my own. I am familiar, in detail, with how the PAF works. I have also been a student of military history, and military studies, for quite sometime. We should exchange notes.

Personally, I think it is very very difficult (if not impossible) for someone to carry out a successful surgical strike against Kahuta. If my information is correct, Israel attempted one in 1983/84 (I cannot remember the exact time).