BrahMos Storage Complex Under Construction in Halwara

[JamD]

We need to develop the same insecure mindset of the Indians to be able to fight them. So, I would never assume they wouldn't use all of their stocks as soon as possible. Like @SQ8 said, India's planners want to decimate us as rapidly as possible. Therefore, Pakistan must fight on those terms. Basically, if India looks like it's intending to conventionally end a war within hours of it starting, Pakistan must match that, if not exceed it. Unfortunately, our fiscal capacity and industrial infrastructure does not allow for that parity.

I know I keep bringing in conventional and nuclear conflict but let me just emphasize my point:
Very obviously India would like to decimate Pakistan's war fighting capability without going nuclear. The risk with that is that Pakistan says it will use nukes if its integrity is threatened even if no nukes have been used against it. Now with Indias (increasingly) aggressive posturing (surgical strikes, balakot, whatever is next) they are hoping to either:
1. Call our bluff
2. Die in a nuclear armageddon

Here's the new problem on our end. It appears India is more and more risk averse to possibility number 2. And it goes without saying that Pakistan does not want South Asia to burn. So we need to have a nonnuclear response that you have just talked about. Swift Retort was one such response. A bigger action from India will require a bigger response from our side.

We can expect India to launch a nuclear counterstrike to pull us into a nuclear war even if we launch nonnuclear CMs at them. India has been destabilizing South Asia by appearing to act irrationally. That is the problem.

I know I keep bringing in conventional and nuclear conflict but let me just emphasize my point:
Very obviously India would like to decimate Pakistan's war fighting capability without going nuclear. The risk with that is that Pakistan says it will use nukes if its integrity is threatened even if no nukes have been used against it. Now with Indias (increasingly) aggressive posturing (surgical strikes, balakot, whatever is next) they are hoping to either:
1. Call our bluff
2. Die in a nuclear armageddon

Here's the new problem on our end. It appears India is more and more risk averse to possibility number 2. And it goes without saying that Pakistan does not want South Asia to burn. So we need to have a nonnuclear response that you have just talked about. Swift Retort was one such response. A bigger action from India will require a bigger response from our side.

We can expect India to launch a nuclear counterstrike to pull us into a nuclear war even if we launch nonnuclear CMs at them. India has been destabilizing South Asia by appearing to act irrationally. That is the problem.

If we blunt Indias massive strike in a certifiably nonnuclear manner then India will have no other options other than nuclear first strike

 

[Windjammer]

We need to develop the same insecure mindset of the Indians to be able to fight them. So, I would never assume they wouldn't use all of their stocks as soon as possible. Like @SQ8 said, India's planners want to decimate us as rapidly as possible. Therefore, Pakistan must fight on those terms. Basically, if India looks like it's intending to conventionally end a war within hours of it starting, Pakistan must match that, if not exceed it. Unfortunately, our fiscal capacity and industrial infrastructure does not allow for that parity.

With all efforts to make Pakistan's Triad capability operational while others suggest it's very much in place, can't say how can India decimate Pakistan without suffering the consequences, as the late Dr AQ Khan once said, unlike Pakistan, most Indian cities are densely populated and Indians know well how a full blown conflict can pan out.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

With all efforts to make Pakistan's Triad capability operational while others suggest it's very much in place, can't say how can India decimate Pakistan without suffering the consequences, as the late Dr AQ Khan once said, unlike Pakistan, most Indian cities are densely populated and Indians know well how a full blown conflict can pan out.

This is the problem here.

Pakistan is threatening nuclear MAD. Well, India wants to see if we'll actually go there, or if it's just a bluff.

Whether we are bluffing or not is irrelevant, the problem now is that India believes otherwise.

Therefore, we need an additional deterrence layer.

The advantage of 'conventional deterrence' (i.e., the ability to destroy through the use of only conventional assets) is that the threat of using it is now real. Pakistan can simply say, "if you touch us, we'll destroy you without even using nukes." It's not a bluff or even a threat, but a consequence.

Pakistan can simply tell the world, "If India does X, we will do X+1" and with "X+1" being non-nuclear, no one can guilt us into not engaging that way. Moreover, there's a chance (however slight) that "X+1" can push India towards the nuclear option, thus flipping the entire conversation and making India seem like a technical threat to world stability (as opposed to a moral one).

Unfortunately, achieving "X+1" is actually more expensive and complex than attaining nuclear weapons. Interestingly, to achieve "X+1" you need a strong economy to (1) bankroll the purchases, (2) enable the local design and manufacturing of weapons and (3) get other countries to invest in. India has all 3 elements, thus it can invest in conventional dominance. Not only that, but the scenario I painted above is what Pakistan is facing, i.e., we are the "technical threat" to stability. Thus, the world sees us as AK-47-toting sandal-wearing clowns, and not the cultured, democratic society India is largely viewed as. These factors all build upon and interoperate with each other.

 

[KaiserX]

We need to develop the same insecure mindset of the Indians to be able to fight them. So, I would never assume they wouldn't use all of their stocks as soon as possible. Like @SQ8 said, India's planners want to decimate us as rapidly as possible. Therefore, Pakistan must fight on those terms. Basically, if India looks like it's intending to conventionally end a war within hours of it starting, Pakistan must match that, if not exceed it. Unfortunately, our fiscal capacity and industrial infrastructure does not allow for that parity.

1. Brahmos are atleast x10 more expensive compared to the babur. Due to its size India will be significantly limited in how many Brahmos they could launch at once due to the size of their launchers. Only a few SU30mki until now has been structurally modified to carry Brahmos.
2. Also due to its size Radars will be able to identify launch sites. Counter battery artillery/missile/airstrikes would be initiated.
3. Pakistan has been producing the babur since 2005 at around 300k USD per unit
4. Pakistan has a stock of thousands of baburs/raads/nasrs/fateh/A100 and other short range rockets
5. I doubt the Brahmos reliability as its made out to be. Its a remade Soviet Era Yakhont anti ship missile
6. Having a launch site with this many Brahmoses in storage I believe shows the idiocy of indians. A single decent missile from a UCAV would be enough to set that whole place is SMOKE

It would have been much much smarter to have underground bunker sites with underground tunnels/storage facilities. Have a few spread out across the front. Similar to what Iran/China have done.

India has not shown to the guts to escalate the conflict beyond a certain threshold. The next conflict will 99% likely also pan out that way. The last time Pakistan got the last word, the next time the Indians would want to get the last word.

In either case, Pakistan has the options to decimate IAF forward operating bases in the whole North Western front via missiles/rockets alone. From there it will shift to command nodes/SAM sites/Supply bases via a combination of army incursions/ air strikes/UCAVs and armored units. From a strategic point of view even if India were to strike first it would mobilize the majority of pakistans population to take action. Pakistan could exceed India in having more equipment/troops to the front lines at a much quicker rate.

 

[kursed]

This is the problem here.

Pakistan is threatening nuclear MAD. Well, India wants to see if we'll actually go there, or if it's just a bluff.

Whether we are bluffing or not is irrelevant, the problem now is that India believes otherwise.

Therefore, we need an additional deterrence layer.

The advantage of 'conventional deterrence' (i.e., the ability to destroy through the use of only conventional assets) is that the threat of using it is now real. Pakistan can simply say, "if you touch us, we'll destroy you without even using nukes." It's not a bluff or even a threat, but a consequence.

Pakistan can simply tell the world, "If India does X, we will do X+1" and with "X+1" being non-nuclear, no one can guilt us into not engaging that way. Moreover, there's a chance (however slight) that "X+1" can push India towards the nuclear option, thus flipping the entire conversation and making India seem like a technical threat to world stability (as opposed to a moral one).

Unfortunately, achieving "X+1" is actually more expensive and complex than attaining nuclear weapons. Interestingly, to achieve "X+1" you need a strong economy to (1) bankroll the purchases, (2) enable the local design and manufacturing of weapons and (3) get other countries to invest in. India has all 3 elements, thus it can invest in conventional dominance. Not only that, but the scenario I painted above is what Pakistan is facing, i.e., we are the "technical threat" to stability. Thus, the world sees us as AK-47-toting sandal-wearing clowns, and not the cultured, democratic society India is largely viewed as. These factors all build upon and interoperate with each other.

India seems to be genuinely thinking about, and from the looks of some of their recent reveals (canesterized weapons) strategizing using counterforce against Pakistan. They seem to believe that they can take out in one first giant nuclear strike all of Pakistan’s strategic capability, and that whatever capability is left with Pak - India can withstand a few hits.

 

[Pak Nationalist]

If I were a planner I would prefer the newly inducted UCAV strike option since it has no possibility of being misconstrued as a nuclear strike (unlike CMs that we have stated can carry nuclear warheads).

UCAVs can be taken out with more ease than projectiles and CMs, couldn't they? I mean even if Indian ground-based ADS couldn't take these out, IAF jets sure can. The solution is the maintenance of large stocks of cruise and ballistic missiles that grow in technological sophistication with time as stated above by @Bilal Khan (Quwa) and banda e nacheez in a less articulate manner. Given the economic disparity and no possibility of achieving industrial scale due to not taking the private sector on board (trust issues) and developing its capacity, we can look at enhancing the capabilities of our MBRL series as an inexpensive option for quid pro quo strikes short of using dual-use strategic platforms.

Has anyone done the math here vis a vis the destructive capacity (conventional payload's explosive power) of say a barrage of Fatah 1 rockets directed at 1 sq km area versus that of a supersonic Brahmos or our own subsonic Babur, etc?

 

[Pak Nationalist]

In all likelihood, India will have forward-deployed those BrahMos missiles in the lead-up to a conflict. They won't wait for the start of hostilities to get things moving. For what you're suggesting to work, Pakistan would have to strike first before there's any sense of conflict happening. In other words, we would have to be the aggressor. This is completely out of what our decision-makers want (i.e. to de-escalate tension and only respond to aggression).

If anything, the focus isn't on neutralizing the BrahMos, but rather, inflicting the same type of damage India is aiming to level on Pakistan.

So, to your point re: Fatah-1, the Army will station those in proximity to its designated targets (such as radar or GBAD assets, fuel stores, hangars, etc). However, I think the bigger point here is for Pakistan to invest in large supersonic (and in the future hypersonic) cruising missile stocks plus expanding the Babur / Harbah inventory. Perhaps even look into developing a GL-SDB-type solution that pairs Fatah-1 to a 113 kg gliding-PGB so that the Army can carry out precision air-strike-type attacks.

Ideally, Pakistan's response mechanism would be disproportionately large relative to its size and that of India's. So, we would aim for a 1:1 match-up in cruise missile stocks of every type, for example. However, we can't bankroll that type of expansion, nor do we have the innate industrial base to support it indigenously. Say "hello" to decades of economic and developmental neglect biting us in the rear.

BTW, they appear to be constructing the storage facility so near to IB to ensure Brahmos can fully utilize its range envelop (of about 120-140 kms?) in a thick atmosphere when it is fired in terrain hugging mode.

 

[JamD]

UCAVs can be taken out with more ease than projectiles and CMs, couldn't they? I mean even if Indian ground-based ADS couldn't take these out, IAF jets sure can.

Of course easier than CM and BM. Not easier than a manned jet. A UCAV is usually smaller, with a much smaller radar and heat signature. Furthermore, a swarm/formation of a large number of UAVs also confuses tracking algorithms, making things even more difficult for interception. And the idea is to use a large number of attritable assets. Let India launch their missiles at Uqaabs if they must. One less missile against the JF-17.
@kursed

The solution is the maintenance of large stocks of cruise and ballistic missiles that grow in technological sophistication with time as stated above by @Bilal Khan (Quwa) and banda e nacheez in a less articulate manner.

I already stated the problem with that. CM and BM especially MAY be considered as nuclear tipped/excuse by India. Look at it this way. Our planners will hesitate to use a CM or BM against India fearing that it may be viewed as a tactical nuclear strike. There is no such danger with UCAVs.

Given the economic disparity and no possibility of achieving industrial scale due to not taking the private sector on board (trust issues) and developing its capacity, we can look at enhancing the capabilities of our MBRL series as an inexpensive option for quid pro quo strikes short of using dual-use strategic platforms.

MBRL are part of the solution but not THE solution. They are limited by range and how much disruption they can cause. MBRL can deliver a lot of explosive over a somewhat short range. And an MBRL will not illicit an air defense response. Recall how the Indians thinking that there was a Pakistani UCAV in the area made them shoot down their own helicopter. A UCAV formation will:
1. Illicit an air defense response - scrambling of jets, launching of SAMs - this is good for many reasons.
2. deliver payloads much deeper into enemy territory
3. will be cheaper than a strike by a similar class CM - per vehicle at least
4. will not be thought of as nuclear tipped - since we even have Nuclear tipped Nasr so even MBRL could be used by India as an excuse.

Has anyone done the math here vis a vis the destructive capacity (conventional payload's explosive power) of say a barrage of Fatah 1 rockets directed at 1 sq km area versus that of a supersonic Brahmos or our own subsonic Babur, etc?

I'm sure people have done this. I haven't. I would like to compare how many kgs of bombs I can deliver 200 km inside India per dollar using:
1. Fleet of UCAVs
2. CMs
3. MBRLs

 

[Pak Nationalist]

Of course easier than CM and BM. Not easier than a manned jet. A UCAV is usually smaller, with a much smaller radar and heat signature. Furthermore, a swarm/formation of a large number of UAVs also confuses tracking algorithms, making things even more difficult for interception. And the idea is to use a large number of attritable assets. Let India launch their missiles at Uqaabs if they must. One less missile against the JF-17.
@kursed



I already stated the problem with that. CM and BM especially MAY be considered as nuclear tipped/excuse by India. Look at it this way. Our planners will hesitate to use a CM or BM against India fearing that it may be viewed as a tactical nuclear strike. There is no such danger with UCAVs.


MBRL are part of the solution but not THE solution. They are limited by range and how much disruption they can cause. MBRL can deliver a lot of explosive over a somewhat short range. And an MBRL will not illicit an air defense response. Recall how the Indians thinking that there was a Pakistani UCAV in the area made them shoot down their own helicopter. A UCAV formation will:
1. Illicit an air defense response - scrambling of jets, launching of SAMs - this is good for many reasons.
2. deliver payloads much deeper into enemy territory
3. will be cheaper than a strike by a similar class CM - per vehicle at least
4. will not be thought of as nuclear tipped - since we even have Nuclear tipped Nasr so even MBRL could be used by India as an excuse.



I'm sure people have done this. I haven't. I would like to compare how many kgs of bombs I can deliver 200 km inside India per dollar using:
1. Fleet of UCAVs
2. CMs
3. MBRLs

//

I feel we read too much into the Armenia-Azerbaijan war. India has an integrated ADS and a much more potent AF compared to what Armenians had. Would our drones be able to penetrate so deep into enemy territory proliferated by layered airdefence? I remain skeptical. PS. even for this to work, a large number of drones would be required. Again, we do not have the numbers. domestic (designed and license-produced) products have either not matured yet or are very limited in numbers.

 

[kursed]

//

I feel we read too much into the Armenia-Azerbaijan war. India has an integrated ADS and a much more potent AF compared to what Armenians had. Would our drones be able to penetrate so deep into enemy territory proliferated by layered airdefence? I remain skeptical. PS. even for this to work, a large number of drones would be required. Again, we do not have the numbers. domestic (designed and license-produced) products have either not matured yet or are very limited in numbers.

This isn’t about Armenia vs Azeris. It’s hard to shoot down a slow moving UAV by a jet.

 

[JamD]

//

I feel we read too much into the Armenia-Azerbaijan war. India has an integrated ADS and a much more potent AF compared to what Armenians had. Would our drones be able to penetrate so deep into enemy territory proliferated by layered airdefence? I remain skeptical. PS. even for this to work, a large number of drones would be required.

Not reading into the Armenia Azerbaijan war. Most UCAVs have very small RCS and IR signatures making them very hard to detect and track. They are also detected much closer. The same reasons that make a CM hard to detect make a small UCAV hard to detect. I would argue a CM has a much higher IR signature than a UCAV. OTOH a UCAV will fly higher, but then it doesn't need to get to target since it carries its own standoff munitions. I'm not saying India will not detect our UCAVs and shoot them down. I am saying that you can overwhelm their ADGE and cause enough confusion for enough munitions to get through. Just because some UCAVs will be shot down does not mean that all of the other points that I raised above are invalid. They are an attritiable asset - sometimes getting shot down is their job.

Again, we do not have the numbers. domestic (designed and license-produced) products have either not matured yet or are very limited in numbers.

Our planners have been inducting a large number of UAVs/UCAVs since before Armenia Azerbaijan war. They are clearly thinking something. Not sure exactly what but I am guessing. I think we do have the numbers and are building them up - considering how every arm is buying every decent UCAV they can get their hands on.

 

[SQ8]

//

I feel we read too much into the Armenia-Azerbaijan war. India has an integrated ADS and a much more potent AF compared to what Armenians had. Would our drones be able to penetrate so deep into enemy territory proliferated by layered airdefence? I remain skeptical. PS. even for this to work, a large number of drones would be required. Again, we do not have the numbers. domestic (designed and license-produced) products have either not matured yet or are very limited in numbers.

While they do have a much better IADS than Armenia - the costs of using the expendables are still the same. The flight cost for a UAV is barely $500 for some of the ones in service and at the end even the most expensive ones top out at $1 million per unit. Nobody keeps SAMS ringing the border and the front line of troops other than MANPADs or SHORADS such as Tungskas or others which are outranged by everything on the UAVs. CAS is a very hostile environment because the target is moving which requires visual ID in many cases or putting an aircraft in harms way - compared to that using these systems.

 

[GiantPanda]

Brahmos will be air launched, sea launched, surface launched and submarine launched

it is a real headache for Pakistan and can cause allot of devastation

a pre-emotive strike on the storage facility should not be ruled out

because once its launched there are few options

Spoken like a true Indian.

Credibility Of India’s Supersonic BrahMos Missile: Recent Failure – OpEd

During a test firing on Monday, July 12, 2021, India’s BrahMos supersonic cruise missile fell quite shortly after the takeoff on Odisha coast. The missile can target up to the range of 450km. the t…

www.eurasiareview.com

 

[KrimesKaster]

BrahMos missiles are reported to have a standoff advantage with ranges of upto 300 kilometres.

Brahmos is a copy of P-800 Oniks with no Indian development. Its range should be treated as 600-800 KM. After signing MTCR, I am sure India will be using it beyond 300 KM range. They tested few missiles for 450 KM already. I think, its a matter of more fuel (liquid fuel) and some software setting.

Brahmos Displays Its 450-Km Reach - Read this story on Magzter.com

Read this exciting story from Geopolitics April 2017. <p>The revelation that the BrahMos supersonic missile can and does reach targets far beyond the 400-km range has finally established the long unspoken truth about its capability. This can become a game-changer in the South Asian security...

www.magzter.com

 

[SQ8]

Spoken like a true Indian.

Credibility Of India’s Supersonic BrahMos Missile: Recent Failure – OpEd

During a test firing on Monday, July 12, 2021, India’s BrahMos supersonic cruise missile fell quite shortly after the takeoff on Odisha coast. The missile can target up to the range of 450km. the t…

www.eurasiareview.com

That is a Pakistani - and I too assess the Brahmos as a threat and I am certain so does senior PLA command as well. That is why they plan for it and prepare countermeasures for it. It is characteristically Non-Chinese to underestimate a threat and not prepare and respect it. When this was not done you have your own history to looks for lessons learnt.