After the defeat

Re: FerozK (reply#54)

Thanks for your info. yes i was referring to

indo-pak war scenario.

My question was very generic because I did not have a clear understanding of AWACS.

Now that I have an idea of what AWACS is, let`s consider a scenario where ( in a full blown indo-pak war) india is trying to use it`s navy to attack Karachi and a group of MIG`s to attack lahore. In such a scenario how can an Indian AWACS help achieve the objectives. Given the assets of two navies, what assets ( missile boats or destroyers or aircraft carrier) are best suited for indian navy, and what counter attack mechanisms could pakistan employ in this scenario? given the range of AWACS (200 miles) where would it be placed?

I was of the impression that AWACS is just like a passive listener and would not radiate any emissions. That seems to be wrong. Doesn`t sending commands mean becoming susceptible to enemy detection?

thanks

Sri

Re: Sri

Detailed functions of an AWACS in a battlefield situation?????

First of all, the correct designation for an AWACS, which stands for Airborne Warning And Control System, is E-3 Sentry. The aircraft is designed for a surveillance radius of 200 miles on land and over water and its main purpose is to command, control and direct an Air-Land-Sea battle by intergrating the various forces into one combined operational framework.

It has sub-systems, which moniter navigation, communications and can process data from multiple sources, weapons control, battle management, tracking information on friendly and hostile forces; for reason of interdiction, reconnaissance, close air to ground support missions. In short, it can manage an entire theater of operations or a war zone.

As to the detailed functions of an AWACS, that would depend on the mission being assisted or the flight profile being maintained. What you have asked is too broad an area and if you can narrow your battlefield to a specific region, I can give you a better answer. Unless I know what battlefield scenrio might be, I can not tell you an AWACS function, because I have no idea what assets might be employed in that environment. A detailed scenrio has to be based on a specific example.

I am assuming that you might be referring to the India-Pakistan theater of operations and role of an AWACS within that environment? Am I correct?

Kashmir issue will end if one of the following happens:

1) India is able to successfully suppress the Kashmiris, and break their will using their present tactics.

2) India acts morally, and allows the Kashmiris to vote for their own future, as prescribed by the U.N. resolutions, and by common decency.

3) The Kashmiris continue with their freedom struggle, and the Kashmir operation becomes too expensive for India.

4) Pakistan`s economy improves to such an extent that it is able to bleed India dry economically, by turning Kashmir into an economic battle.

I do not think there is a military solution to Kashmir.

SideNote:

Feroze: could you go into more detail on your following statement.

First of all, I admire the Israeli Defense Forces, including their air force, because they have a lot in common with the Pakistan Air Force in terms of tactics and war doctrine than is commonly thought of.

Also, I think you have made way too many assumptions in the scenario for an attack by Israel on the Pakistani nuclear installations. It is not that easy for aircraft to carry out attacks with so many air to air refuelings. It is also not that easy for aircrafts to avoid radar coverage over such a large range (speaking from personal experience). Also the pilots after such a long flight would be mentally, and physically exhausted, by the time they reached Pakistani airspace. Finally, Kahuta is too well guarded for someone to just fly in, and take out. Even friendly PAF aircraft that get too close, are considered hostile.

Anything can happen, however your scenario has way too many variables to be considered tactically correct. Compared to Pakistan, Iraq is very close to Israel. Also, there is a big difference between Iraqi air defences and Pakistani air defences.

The best scenario for Israel would be to ingress through India (with Indian cooperation), and egress the same way. However, due to the air defences at Kahuta, and around Pakistan in general, this would have very little chance of success. Otherwise, India would have tried it, already.

Any replies are encouraged...

Re: FerozK ( #49)

you have a very good military knowledge. Hats off to that. I actually started my career with Indian military and was involved in one of their Radar systems (software part of it). I never had a good understanding of the military systems and different types of hardware though. Could you explain me the importance and detailed functionality of AWACS in a battefield scenario.

Thanks in advance for your info...

SRI

``You can`t separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom`` (-Malcom X).

now thats how i see the kargil affair:

An insect falls into a mug of beer....

- Englishman: throws the mug away and walks out.

- American: takes the insect out and drinks the beer.

-Chinese: drinks the beer and eats the insect..

- Israeli: saps the beer from the insect before throwing the insect away and drinking the beer.

- Pakistani: accuses the Indian of throwing the insect into his drink and vows to reply in kind.



- Indian: accuses the Pakistan of infiltrating the insect in the mug, supplying it with nourishment to continue swimming in the beer, blames it as a long term intelligence undercover (ISI) operation, terms the insect as an Islamic militant, then Afghan mercenary, then Pakistan army regular and finally a Pakistan Army Special

Services commando in an undercover operation, and presents the identity card of the bug to prove that indeed it is a Pakistan army person in an undercover operation to change the Line of Control, and vows to defend every inch of its

land.

Re: OMAR1974 # 47

First of all, I admire the Israeli Defense Forces, including their air force, because they have a lot in common with the Pakistan Air Force in terms of tactics and war doctrine than is commonly thought of.

Omar, the possibilities are not far fetched. All it requires is about four or five mid-air refuelings. Lets say, the aircraft take off from Israel and are immediately refueled. They then are refueled over Iraq and over the Persian Gulf prior to ingressing into Pakistan. After a final refueling, the aircraft drop below 500 feet and get lost in the ground clutter of Persian Gulf.

Or, they can fly in tight formation in one of the international air corridors, which civilian air liners use, and echo the flight pattern of a large jet liner, including its radar signiture and Pakistani Orions, without actually eye-balling the contacts, would have no reason, but to believe their instruments!

Pakistani Orions or Brequet Atlantique will not be able to spot them because, all they have to do is rely on GPS for navigation and turn off their radars so that they are not emitting. In the mean time, the Americans who fly E-2 and E-3 AWACS can flood the airwaves with enough enegry to blind the Pakistani surveillance aicraft for only a few minutes to let the Isrealis enter Pakistani airspace. The Israelis use the western mountain ranges in Pakistan to mask from the PAF and Army ground radars till they are on target. About a hundred klicks away, they release their payloads, which have already been pre-programmed with target coordinates. How difficult will it be for a couple of men, disquised as just another bunch of tourists to aim a laser beam from across the street for the bombs to home in on the target?

By the time PAF scrambles, the bombs would be on their way and the Israelis can just cross over into Afghanistan and from thence, meet another re-fueling tanker (The Afghan Air Force does not exist and thus, can not protect its own air space) and then just head home. Omar, what I was trying to say is that because, it will not be attempted, does not mean it can not happen. It is just a simple excerise in logistics and once that is done, an operational plan of attack can be easily formulated.

Yes, they can fly over all the nations you listed and not be noticed if no one wants to notice them! As to destroying the PAF, all is needed is a well timed raid by ALCMs or SLCMs on the PAF airfields. As a military planner, my immediate concern would be to deny the PAF the ability to ``turn around`` their aircraft by destorying their storage facilities etc. I do not have to destroy all the PAF planes, just take out enough of their airfields that there are some gaps through, which the striking force can fly through.

As to the Pakistani subs, in order to approach the American aircraft carriers and sink them, they would have approach within a 100kms of the target to launch their weapons. They would have to sail past all the ASW sonar of the Americans and past the Los Angles 699 class attack submarines, which ``sniff`` around a carrier task force for any threats.

Omar, such an attack can be planned and executed with the current assets, in IDF and American inventory, and is not too far fetched! If you want Omar, lets find a map and I can walk you through it; all it needs is a correlation of assets in the right place and the right time and this will work!

Re: Iqbal Chand #46

Read Rehan Oberoi`s article `India`s failure of imagination,` for a point by point rebuttal to all your silly propaganda generazlizations of India intitating a `peace process` on the sub-continent and being rebuffed by Pakistan.

Peace on whose/what terms i ask you? There was no concrete/specific deal on Kashmir even proferred by India. We in Pakistan never wanted a so-called peace dictated on Indian terms at the cost of Kashmir. Keep such a `peace` and sell it to your own gullible ill informed illiterate electorate please, your comments are best directed towards them.

Omar

Re:Feroz #42

I just think that the possibilities you have come up with are too far fetched, and probably nothing more than the product of your fertile imagination. I just don`t see the U.S attacking Pakistan, nor do i see the Israelis attacking Pakistan. This is all ridiculous, in the realm of mythical fairytales. Iraq is a lot closer to Israel, yep, now they are buying F-15s which might concievably have the range to fly this kind of mission, but could they cross over either Turkey and Iran, or Jordan and Iraq w/o being noticed? I doubt that it would be possible to maintain the element of surprise. Also, what would their objectives be? Take out Paki nuclear Capability? Sorry, too late, genie is already out of the bag, unlike Iraqi position in 1981. Situation will soon be more like the strategic bombing of Iraq in the Gulf War, i.e you can`t take our capability out in one strike with 50 odd planes, or even with 2 American aircraft carriers attacking us for days. Guess what, back in the 1980s Paki Subs used to conduct exercises with the Americans in the waters off Paki coast/Indian Ocean (a misnomer, the world`ll rename it the Paki ocean soon). Anyway Paki subs kept sinking American ships repeatedly because of the nature of the muddy waters etc. I do think we might actually have a shot at seriously damaging or sinking a U.S Carrier like the Enterprise if it came to that. That would probably bring the U.S back to its senses. Inflict a couple of thousand casualties on Uncle Sam, and the American public can`t take it. Frankly you forget that the Pres. alone cannot make this type of decision (unlike an Israeli P.M), congress must be consulted if it continues for much more than a raid or two. Deaths of American servicemen carry political consequences. Pakistan has around a dozen nukes today, i`d hazard a guess to say, but probably has not yet maunfactured hydrogen bombs yet. I also doubt that our nukes are capable of delivery by missiles yet, unless Pakistan really got a pre-tested chinese n-warhead design. Yes, Pakistan is in the early stages of establishing its deterence, but far, far ahead of where Iraq was in 1981 or even 1991. Too far to be turned back now w/o risk of precisely the kind of nuclear retaliation any surprise attack might be meant to forestall. Given 5 more years i expect to see the number of nukes at least double, with at least a few hydrogen bombs added, in 10 years Pakistan will probably have upto 50 nukes at a minimum, with at least 70% deliverable by missiles with extended ranges. Extending the range of our missiles with nuclear warheads on them will only lead to more (not less) IMF aid when we want it, after all who wants fundos running the nuclear weapons policies of the country, a people`s revolution, populist Islam etc? Certainly not the Americans. In conclusion, your hypotheses are just a little too far fetched this time, with nothing more substantial back them up but mere speculation based on a specious analysis, quite unlike some of your better work Feroz. You also seem overly touchy about Israel. Why?



regards,

It remains obvious that Pakistan is incapable of reining in its maverick army. In such a situation, Pakistan must give up the hope of being respected as a democracy in the comity of nations. What happened in the last month is sufficient proof of that.

India came forth with a brilliant peace plan and sealed it at Lahore. It was a golden oppurtunity for Pakistan. But all Pakistan could come up with was a half-hearted attempt at peace. And Kargil has shown the treacherous side of Pakistan. Again, a half-hearted attempt at war.

Pakistanis should realise that India is a superior nation in every sense of the term. We are broad-minded and magnanimous. In 10 years, India will be the single biggest power in the region, perhaps equalling/surpassing China. Spurning our peace initiatives is downright stupid.

I predict the next Indo-Pak war to be purely economic. Maybe a trade war.

Hallo! - Each time I hear about the Kashmir issue, someone throws out the Two Nation Theory. I just can`t be bothered to look 50 plus years behind, when in front of me I see such unwise decisions by incapable politicians! What on earth were the Pakistani politicians thinking?

Recently, a friend called me up and said, ``Oh, you have to come over and meet this big shot Pakistani politician who is in town and let`s give him a tour of the city...``

I went and drove him around the city, and as time progressed I said to the chap, ``So, as a politician do you have a plan for your people? Do you have some goals in mind?`` I swear, he looked at me as if I was nuts and eventually said, ``You must know, in Pakistan, politicians never work! It is not what you do, it is how many voters you can get!``

A zillion replies popped into my head and I wanted to fire back, but I just said to myself, ``Just drive Mariam drive... the sad fate of Pakistan is sitting beside you!``

re: OMAR1974

Omar, lets dispense with these veiled references!

First Pakistan claims that its missile program and its weaponization with nuclear warheads was necessary to combat Indian agressions. Fine, I have nothing against that and in fact, I supported Pakistani decision to explode nuclear weapons in response to India`s.

Now you are suggesting that Pakistani missiles should cover eastern Med and one country specifically in that region. If that was not an ill-logical statement, you compound the problem by suggesting that Pakistan can take on the United States with its nuclear weapons and it need not pay heed to American security concerns in the region!

Do you really think that the Americans will just sit and do nothing, while Pakistani missiles threaten Israel? What about the Israel Air Force? If they could bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactors, Pakistan nuclear can easily be targeted. All the Israelis have to do is fly out of Turkish air space and cross over into northern Iraq and into the Persian Gulf and from there enter Pakistani air space. They would not have to make the long flight like they did in 1981! If you think that the Israelis do not have a plan to attack Pakistan, think again and think intelligently!

It is statements like yours, which are slowly convincing me just what the American concerns might be about the proliferation of Pakistani nuclear weapons. I do not really need documentation to prove what Zinni was doing in Pakistan, because all I have to do is extrapolate your logic and I can quite easily deduce what the factual reality might be.

Why are you so keen on making more enemies for Pakistan to deal with? Omar, an intelligence analysis has more to do with intentions of your enemy than it does with merely counting the number of tanks or planes or ships he might have. Yes, you are right. I can not prove what Zinni might have said, but I know what he did not say!

Omar, the key to good analysis is objectivity without any notions of prejudice or hate and to respect your adversary like you would wish to be respected by him. You never underestimate your enemy`s capabilities, because if you do that, you are merely overestimating your response to him in any given situation and by the same token, you never tell what your next move might be by being unpredictable.

Re: anilsharma (#40)

hear, hear! it is pretty sad that after 50 years of ``independence`` from colonial rulers, we still look up to them for handling our disputes. we are like kids who have never grown up and learnt to deal with each other.

india and pakistan should be one economic unit, which is bound by tradition and by political and military pacts. this will allow this historic region to truly realize its potential. after all the same people have created multiple truly impressive civilizations in the past, and have such a rich history of achievement. why should they waste their talents and resources in self-destruction?

Re: ferozk (#32)

Yep, there may be an internal rift in the army. The conflict is simmering, and it appears that the Pakistani strategy has been to have a long-term low-level conflict. It seems that someone somewhere is counting on this strategy to cause a permament irritation to India. It`s not a very smart strategy though, because it makes the resolution of the Kashmir issue even more distant. Plus no one seems to care that India can easily cause multiple long term and low level conflicts in Pakistan also ...

The issue of the control of nuclear weapons is an interesting one too. There are plenty of people on both sides of the border who would not hesitate in using these weapons if they could. Pakistan poses an interesting problem in this regard. If there is large scale turmoil in Pakistan, then these weapons could fall into anyone`s hands, not a welcome development as you hinted. India also, I am not sure has the requisite level of sanity in terms of the use of weapons, especially given the fact that everyday it seems to slip bit more towards the right.

Regardless of who is to blame at a particular time, I think both Indian and Pakistani masses (like all masses) react in the same ways. I could see no difference between the jubilous rejoicings on the streets of Lahore or Dehli on the eve of nuclear tests. Despite what they claim, I think Indians and Pakistanis are much more similar to each other in terms of their capability of fanaticism than they think they are. What will the end result of a conflict between two states with similar mentalities and weapons on their hands?

Peace between India and Pakistan is difficult to attain because they are based on two very different assumptions. Throughout its history, India has been a country with a lot of inertia. It has always been hesitant to invade its neighbours and take up more territory. That is why, even after the resounding victory of 1971, no attempt was made to take land from Pakistan, including Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

This continues even today. When India says that it wants peace with Pak, what is means is that status quo should be maintained in Kashmir and both countries should divert their attention to more peaceful activities.

Pakistan`s understanding of peace is different. It can accept peace with India only after Kashmir is won over. It sees Kashmir as rightfully belonging to them (it is an obvious truth that Kashmiri Azadi is not want pakistan wants!) Return to normalcy, for Pakistan, does not mean a status quo - it means acquiring Kashmir first, everything else later.

This is why India keeps making repeated overtures of peace to Pakistan hoping that it will accept a status quo and live peacefully. This is why all such overtures fail miserably.

i really do not see any victors in this kargil war. both india and pakistan lost this war. if anyone gained anything, it was america. so long it was just controlling pakistan, now it will control india as well. i have a suspicion that the whole kargil operation was planned by the cia operatives, and the pakistanis dutifully carried it out. we indians may cry ourselves hoarse against the internationalisation of kashmir, but the crude fact is that vajpayee has already accepted clinton`s mediation. or else why would he talk to clinton? besides, let us (both indians or pakistanis) not fool ourselves anymore. the withdrawal of the intruders in kargil came at the explicit directives of the americans. if sharif was relieved to execute clinton`s diktat and save his skin, so was vajpayee a relieved soul. he knew that without the withdrawls the number of indian casualties would mount and this would hurt in the september polls. americas concern about the nuclearisation of south asia is a sham. it is difficult to believe that the americans are worried about the loss of lives in india or pakistan. all that they are interested in is a controlling power of india and pakistan. this has been very smilingly provided to them by vajpayee and sharif. so let us realise that both of us are losers. moreover, we shall continue to lose, if we do not behave as sensible neighbours. others get a chance to intervene in our matters only when we are unable to resolve these between ourselves. for me the more tragic aspect of the kargil conflict, which is a setback to both india and pakistan is that once again it has proved that we are unable to discuss our affairs in a mature manner. this has been the continuing tragedy of our two great nations, and there is no hope that in the near future we shall adopt a different course.