Sarjen29
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2015
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Assessing our defence needs : Retd lieutenant colonel Pakistan Army
Published August 13, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: The Express Tribune
The Express Tribune, on July 24, published a report titled “Defence Deal: Pakistan to buy eight submarines from China”, believed to be “the largest-ever defence deal China has agreed to with any country”. Two sources are quoted in the report, the UK-based Financial Times, which cites a retired senior official claiming that the contract could be worth $4 billion to $5 billion, and Pakistan’s finance ministry that has stated that payments to China will be made in four installments, with the submarines being delivered to Pakistan in the coming years.
Pakistan Navy’s 10 per cent share in this year’s defence budget of Rs700.2 billion is a reflection of the country’s geography which is primarily not maritime, explaining the continued low percentage allocated for the navy in the defence budget over the years. Pakistan shares and defends 6,774kms of land borders with its neighbours, whereas it has only 1,064km of coastline to safeguard and protect. In contrast, India has to defend 7,515km of coastline. This highlights the kind of military threat there is, which in the case of Pakistan, has always been considered to be ‘landscape and not seascape specific’. Why, then, is there a need for purchasing these ‘submerged offensive war machines’ when our military fights and is most likely to continue to fight, both with regular and irregular forces, mainly on land?
Currently, India has one nuclear-powered submarine, Chakra-Akulla 2 (under 10 years lease from Russia since 2012) and 14 diesel electric submarines, one of which exploded and sank on August 14, 2013. Pakistan boasts of eight submarines — none of which are nuclear-capable in their naval services (French-supplied PNS Hashmat, Hurmat, Khalid, Saad and Hamza, as well as three midget submarines for shallow water attacks). Reportedly, India in an attempt to upgrade its navy, is expected to acquire six more submarines by the end of this decade. So is the likely Pakistani submarine purchase from China an attempt to balance naval power with India? And is this something that we need to do?
Ideally, Pakistan should also be seeking a nuclear-powered submarine on lease from China, on the same lines as India has acquired from Russia. The imbalance of naval power against our archrival is not in the fewer number of submarines that we have in service, but having none that are nuclear-capable.
With the American pivot towards Asia-Pacific, the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the coming days and years are likely to be cluttered with over- and sub-surface military machines. China plans to expand its submarine fleet to 78 by the year 2020, which will bring it on a par with the existing submarine fleet size of the United States. By 2050, China also plans to add nine aircraft carriers to its naval fleet. Do we need to enhance our naval offensive capability when the Indian Navy is apparently trying to maintain a military balance with China? We also give China the status of our ‘ultimate protector’ at sea, which maintains a two-ocean navy (Western Pacific and Indian Oceans). As we enjoy an informal but dependable military alliance with China, a great naval power, that vouches to defend our interests, should enhancement of our sub-surface offensive capability still be a military priority?
China provides us with a good example of how the type of naval battles it foresees has enabled it to arm and structure its navy with only the most essential and effective naval battle tools. Implementing an ‘anti-access strategy’, China, despite being a global naval power, showcases only one aircraft carrier that Americans describe as a “refitted Russian-Ukrainian piece of junk” that is “more of an amphibious war ship than an American size carrier”. But China has balanced this against the naval threat it faces from its enemies by investing in its land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles, threatening all the intruding surface warships at long ranges. It has also tested its prototype J-20 stealth fighter, which rivals the American F-22 Raptor (the world’s only operational stealth fighter). It’s not only by reaching out but also by planning a defensive shield that China plans to fight its future naval battles.
Battles at sea have never been our hot military frontline. All the previous wars that we fought with India were lost or stalemated into ceasefire on the ground as an extension of both countries’ efficient and effective land and air warfare. Naval engagements in the past have been small and insignificant when compared to the massive land engagements that took place and the losses suffered by both countries in terms of men and material.
In all likelihood, our military will continue to remain engaged in fighting small irregular battles, proxy wars, and at best, limited wars. In any case, there seems to be a very low probability of an India-Pakistan conflict dominated by or limited to the naval realm.
Shouldn’t the question of military purchases be answered by the type of wars that we are preparing ourselves to fight in the future? We could go ahead and acquire a new Gerald R Ford class aircraft carrier at the cost of $12 billion, but does the defence of Pakistan warrant such a purchase and at what cost? Backbreaking poverty that countries like India and Pakistan experience is a result of increased militarism. It’s only by prioritising our defence procurements and matching them with our vital defence needs that we can achieve a sound defence, as well as economic growth, which is so essential for poverty eradication.
Published August 13, 2015 | By admin
SOURCE: The Express Tribune
The Express Tribune, on July 24, published a report titled “Defence Deal: Pakistan to buy eight submarines from China”, believed to be “the largest-ever defence deal China has agreed to with any country”. Two sources are quoted in the report, the UK-based Financial Times, which cites a retired senior official claiming that the contract could be worth $4 billion to $5 billion, and Pakistan’s finance ministry that has stated that payments to China will be made in four installments, with the submarines being delivered to Pakistan in the coming years.
Pakistan Navy’s 10 per cent share in this year’s defence budget of Rs700.2 billion is a reflection of the country’s geography which is primarily not maritime, explaining the continued low percentage allocated for the navy in the defence budget over the years. Pakistan shares and defends 6,774kms of land borders with its neighbours, whereas it has only 1,064km of coastline to safeguard and protect. In contrast, India has to defend 7,515km of coastline. This highlights the kind of military threat there is, which in the case of Pakistan, has always been considered to be ‘landscape and not seascape specific’. Why, then, is there a need for purchasing these ‘submerged offensive war machines’ when our military fights and is most likely to continue to fight, both with regular and irregular forces, mainly on land?
Currently, India has one nuclear-powered submarine, Chakra-Akulla 2 (under 10 years lease from Russia since 2012) and 14 diesel electric submarines, one of which exploded and sank on August 14, 2013. Pakistan boasts of eight submarines — none of which are nuclear-capable in their naval services (French-supplied PNS Hashmat, Hurmat, Khalid, Saad and Hamza, as well as three midget submarines for shallow water attacks). Reportedly, India in an attempt to upgrade its navy, is expected to acquire six more submarines by the end of this decade. So is the likely Pakistani submarine purchase from China an attempt to balance naval power with India? And is this something that we need to do?
Ideally, Pakistan should also be seeking a nuclear-powered submarine on lease from China, on the same lines as India has acquired from Russia. The imbalance of naval power against our archrival is not in the fewer number of submarines that we have in service, but having none that are nuclear-capable.
With the American pivot towards Asia-Pacific, the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the coming days and years are likely to be cluttered with over- and sub-surface military machines. China plans to expand its submarine fleet to 78 by the year 2020, which will bring it on a par with the existing submarine fleet size of the United States. By 2050, China also plans to add nine aircraft carriers to its naval fleet. Do we need to enhance our naval offensive capability when the Indian Navy is apparently trying to maintain a military balance with China? We also give China the status of our ‘ultimate protector’ at sea, which maintains a two-ocean navy (Western Pacific and Indian Oceans). As we enjoy an informal but dependable military alliance with China, a great naval power, that vouches to defend our interests, should enhancement of our sub-surface offensive capability still be a military priority?
China provides us with a good example of how the type of naval battles it foresees has enabled it to arm and structure its navy with only the most essential and effective naval battle tools. Implementing an ‘anti-access strategy’, China, despite being a global naval power, showcases only one aircraft carrier that Americans describe as a “refitted Russian-Ukrainian piece of junk” that is “more of an amphibious war ship than an American size carrier”. But China has balanced this against the naval threat it faces from its enemies by investing in its land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles, threatening all the intruding surface warships at long ranges. It has also tested its prototype J-20 stealth fighter, which rivals the American F-22 Raptor (the world’s only operational stealth fighter). It’s not only by reaching out but also by planning a defensive shield that China plans to fight its future naval battles.
Battles at sea have never been our hot military frontline. All the previous wars that we fought with India were lost or stalemated into ceasefire on the ground as an extension of both countries’ efficient and effective land and air warfare. Naval engagements in the past have been small and insignificant when compared to the massive land engagements that took place and the losses suffered by both countries in terms of men and material.
In all likelihood, our military will continue to remain engaged in fighting small irregular battles, proxy wars, and at best, limited wars. In any case, there seems to be a very low probability of an India-Pakistan conflict dominated by or limited to the naval realm.
Shouldn’t the question of military purchases be answered by the type of wars that we are preparing ourselves to fight in the future? We could go ahead and acquire a new Gerald R Ford class aircraft carrier at the cost of $12 billion, but does the defence of Pakistan warrant such a purchase and at what cost? Backbreaking poverty that countries like India and Pakistan experience is a result of increased militarism. It’s only by prioritising our defence procurements and matching them with our vital defence needs that we can achieve a sound defence, as well as economic growth, which is so essential for poverty eradication.
