COAS Gen Bajwa intends to cut army strength of 5,38,000 substantially over next 5 years

[JX-1]

Good move if true. Army needs to downsize substantially to manage its funds and equipment better. A smaller, better trained, better armed force is much more useful in today’s conflict scenarios where an all out war is much less likely than a smaller, contained conflict in a selected area. We don’t need the forces to be as big anymore as we need them to be technologically and tactically prepared.

India is seven times larger than Pakistan in population. At a certain point, quantity can overpower quality. PA's adversaries and large frontage which needs to be covered means it must be a large force. And I'd advise against reliance on the cyber domain when every few months we hear of state secrets being compromised because of ridiculous reasons like pirated software.

Owing to economical constraints, Pakistan will also be at or below India's technological level for the next 5-15 years. So in the end nothing changes but Pakistan's already smaller army has shrunk even more.

Pakistani nation is armed to the teeth and they just need a military guy among them to channelize their full potential

Reliance on irregular militants in 1947 is the reason Srinagar was not captured by Pakistan. The tribals chose to loot Baramulla for days instead of advancing. By this time India could airlift its regular army into the valley, and after this AJK forces were only in retreat.

Pakistan's present day irregular arsenal includes civilians, TLP, the same tribesmen from 1947, 5000Rs target killers, kneecap drilling specialists, The Diesel Division, and burgers who are too scared to fire their dad's $4000 gun. I'd rather trust trained, professional soldiers.

 

[waz]

That 1.4 million is exactly why they are underequipped, underfed and undertrained. All modern armies have movies towards downsizing to increase capability, equipment and technology, including the largest standing army in the world; China. India has also been downsizing for the same reason, it’s high time Pakistan follows the trend.

The average Pakistani soldier can be much better equipped if there’s less of them. Yes we do need to keep Our reserves up, for both war and natural disasters and such. for that we need a different sort of reserve training and maintenance program, but the active army definitely needs to be made smaller.

I'd like to think they are but that's not the case. Yes you have sections but it doesn't take into account the vast majority of them. The modern armies you state have no where near the level of armed conflict Pakistan is dealing with and will have to deal with. They can afford to experiment with numbers and have significant resources to do so. China and India both can invest more, Pakistan can't as per the economy.
Regarding there being less and therefore the remaining can be better equipped should be the case, but when I see regular troops rolling around in below par vehicles that says a great deal.
Reserves can't fill the gap regulars can not in war and not during times of natural disasters which Pakistan suffers from a great deal.
I for one don't agree with this downsizing. For a nation of its size and the threats apparent it should go up.

 

[blain2]

Please define firepower in this scenario
Technologically advanced weaponry?
Strength in numbers?
Or both?

Simply stated, the CoAS is talking about reducing head count and associated operational expenditures of the army for manpower (which include pay, pensions, upkeep of the troops under command) and putting that money into capital expenditures (buying of fixed assets like weapon systems, technology etc.).

It also has an implication for the army's tooth to tail ratio whereby through induction of technology, smart acquisitions, the army reduces the number of troops needed in non-fighting arms to support the fighting arms.

What you ideally want is the right balance between the two. Think what armed UCAVs do for PAF's fighter sqns and manpower. In the coming years, PAF too would leverage more hi-tech unmanned systems thus reducing certain dependency on manpower. The same goes with introduction of automation and artificial intelligence/machine learning based capabilities across the three services. Using the technology to reduce dependency on manpower.

So all in all this was already happening. The CoAS simply voiced it at the ISD.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Army needs modern equipment but there is no need for downsizing. India is on war path and here we are thinking about down sizing wtf!

This is exactly the issue, people don’t understand the modern war and think downsizing somehow means we’re going to get rid of all our manpower. That’s not how this works. If the entire worlds military experts have agreed that downsizing in the favor of modernization is the way forward, then how are you going to justify your stance against it?

Do you know how much of the Pakistani army is simply sitting idle, doing absolutely nothing? Hundreds of thousands of soldiers. All of them poorly equipped (comparatively) to handle a major conflict. If instead we downsized, and equipped the smaller army with much better equipment, we would be much better off. You keep saying the forces need to modernize, but where will we get the money for that if it just keeps growing in size?

What do you mean india is on a warpath? I mean absolutely no offense but this is such a baseless statement Pakistanis keep repeating over and over to justify needless defense spending. There has been no such indication apart from the emotional outburst Pakistanis often show.

An all out war between india and Pakistan is less likely now than it has been in decades due to the geopolitical situation of the world and how war has evolved.

An india Pakistan war, if it occurs now (but is highly unlikely to occur in the world of political, economical and guerrilla warfare), is not going to be a massive conflict this time, it will be small, concentrated skirmishes in the air, on the the land, and in the sea, that will be confined to these areas and not all over the borders. Both countries have shown this is the case time and again. We saw it on 27th Feb, we saw it in Indias fight with China. We saw it in the last two standoffs we had with india, we saw it in 1999 in Kargil.

Pakistan at the moment is woefully unprepared for such a war because india is outdoing us in technology, they have more money and can equip their troops and forces with better and more modern equipment, so in the case of a small scale war, where both sides have equal numbers, india will have the edge due to technology, because they’ll have downsized and will have spent that money in better tech, meanwhile us with our lumbering 500 thousand troops that are under equipped will lose because we can’t use them effectively.

Downsizing is the way forward, a smaller force equipped with modern rifles, optics, radios, IFVs, UCAVs, tanks, covered by modern fighters, helicopters and artillery.

I'd like to think they are but that's not the case. Yes you have sections but it doesn't take into account the vast majority of them. The modern armies you state have no where near the level of armed conflict Pakistan is dealing with and will have to deal with. They can afford to experiment with numbers and have significant resources to do so. China and India both can invest more, Pakistan can't as per the economy.
Regarding there being less and therefore the remaining can be better equipped should be the case, but when I see regular troops rolling around in below par vehicles that says a great deal.
Reserves can't fill the gap regulars can not in war and not during times of natural disasters which Pakistan suffers from a great deal.
I for one don't agree with this downsizing. For a nation of its size and the threats apparent it should go up.

I still disagree, Even with all threats Pakistan is facing, we have hundreds of thousands of troops sitting idly. Taking up money that is better spent on equipping the troops that are actually deployed with better equipment. I’m not saying we should downsize massively, but certainly enough to where we have a better balance of reserves to quality of equipment, right now we’re fairly biased towards manpower instead of quality of equipment and this needs to change as the type of threats we face change. Even for insurgencies, do we have all our forces deployed? Or just a very minor part of them? Now what if we got rid of a portion of the manpower that’s not deployed to better equip the small amount of troops that are deployed to fight insurgency? We’d get better results instantly. That’s what we need to do. Everyone keeps saying our boys need UCAVs or Modern IFVs or new rifles, but the truth is due to our economy, equipping such a massive army with modern equipment is simply impossible, it can only be done by decreasing the amount of troops we have.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Simply stated, the CoAS is talking about reducing head count and associated operational expenditures of the army for manpower (which include pay, pensions, upkeep of the troops under command) and putting that money into capital expenditures (buying of fixed assets like weapon systems, technology etc.).

It also has an implication for the army's tooth to tail ratio whereby through induction of technology, smart acquisitions, the army reduces the number of troops needed in non-fighting arms to support the fighting arms.

What you ideally want is the right balance between the two. Think what armed UCAVs do for PAF's fighter sqns and manpower. In the coming years, PAF too would leverage more hi-tech unmanned systems thus reducing certain dependency on manpower. The same goes with introduction of automation and artificial intelligence/machine learning based capabilities across the three services. Using the technology to reduce dependency on manpower.

So all in all this was already happening. The CoAS simply voiced it at the ISD.

Exactly. We need this downsizing not because we’re trying to be more biased towards a smaller force with better equipment, but because we’re too biased towards manpower right now instead of technology, we need to regain the balance, every force in the world is downsizing to regain this balance, we must not fall behind.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

The standing army of India is 1.4 million professional men, and he wants to cut things down....

Leave aside fighting a war the army is the only organisation able to fight natural disasters, deliver aid, ensure total security etc. No amount of technology can make up for boots on the ground for this.
He hasn't got long in the job I hope this doesn't come to pass.

Pakistan Military Size 1985-2024

Armed forces personnel are active duty military personnel, including paramilitary forces if the training, organization, equipment, and control suggest they may be used to support or replace regular military forces.

www.macrotrends.net

I don't know the intent and how many... however, I don't think it is all bad. It depends on what is the goal and how it is executed.
For example, if Pakistan increases the number of strike corps from current 2 to 4 and substantially increases quality and quantity of their fire power, equipment and protection... Army aviation is improved, CAS and logistics are done via drones(air and land based)... and finally reserves are increased and better trained... it makes sense.

That being said, Navy can simultaneously increase it's marines as well.

The world is moving towards a more nimble yet better equipped force and it is not all bad. In fact China itself is moving towards a similar direction.

Remember at the end of the day Pakistan has no shortage of military age men willing to keep and maintain their freedom irrespective of political and economic hand they've been dealt with...

 

[iLION12345_1]

India is seven times larger than Pakistan in population. At a certain point, quantity can overpower quality. PA's adversaries and large frontage which needs to be covered means it must be a large force. And I'd advise against reliance on the cyber domain when every few months we hear of state secrets being compromised because of ridiculous reasons like pirated software.

Owing to economical constraints, Pakistan will also be at or below India's technological level for the next 5-15 years. So in the end nothing changes but Pakistan's already smaller army has shrunk even more.

Reliance on irregular militants in 1947 is the reason Srinagar was not captured by Pakistan. The tribals chose to loot Baramulla for days instead of advancing. By this time India could airlift its regular army into the valley, and after this AJK forces were only in retreat.

Pakistan's present day irregular arsenal includes civilians, TLP, the same tribesmen from 1947, 5000Rs target killers, kneecap drilling specialists, The Diesel Division, and burgers who are too scared to fire their dad's $4000 gun. I'd rather trust trained, professional soldiers.

It’s again a matter of how warfare will happen in the modern day, an all out war is highly unlikely given both india and Pakistan cannot afford it and the international community will not stand for it, but smaller skirmishes are a very realistic threat. We cannot rely on manpower alone, we need a better balance of technology and manpower and right now we’re far too biased towards manpower over technology.

 

[Indos]

Good move if true. Army needs to downsize substantially to manage its funds and equipment better. A smaller, better trained, better armed force is much more useful in today’s conflict scenarios where an all out war is much less likely than a smaller, contained conflict in a selected area. We don’t need the forces to be as big anymore as we need them to be technologically and tactically prepared.

Current situation between Russia and Ukraine speak the importance of having large professional troops. Ukraine also has large reserve around 500.000 people and I believe all of them have been used in the war. Ukraine professional soldiers are also around 500.000 men/women.

Not to mention men cannot leave the country and many have been used to defend the country.

Indonesia will add around 30.000-50.000 professional soldiers, currently we have 395.000 military personnel.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Current situation between Russia and Ukraine speak the importance of having large professional troops. Ukraine also has large reserve around 500.000 people and I believe all of them have been used in the war. Ukraine professional soldiers are also around 500.000 men/women.

I’ve discussed before how the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is a poor example to apply to other countries because of how surprising it was. Russia, despite having much larger numbers and much better technology Is on the losing end, so it’s definitely an outlier. And the Ukrainian forces would have never held out this long if the west hadn’t supplied them with the most modern weaponry they had. Just Ukrainian numbers alone would not have accomplished anything without this weaponry.

 

[Indos]

I’ve discussed before how the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is a poor example to apply to other countries because of how surprising it was. Russia, despite having much larger numbers and much better technology Is on the losing end, so it’s definitely an outlier. And the Ukrainian forces would have never held out this long if the west hadn’t supplied them with the most modern weaponry they had. Just Ukrainian numbers alone would not have accomplished anything without this weaponry.

Much larger troops ? Ukraine defender has larger troops than Russian invading troops, Russian hasnt used all of their soldiers there

 

[waz]

I still disagree, Even with all threats Pakistan is facing, we have hundreds of thousands of troops sitting idly. Taking up money that is better spent on equipping the troops that are actually deployed with better equipment. I’m not saying we should downsize massively, but certainly enough to where we have a better balance of reserves to quality of equipment, right now we’re fairly biased towards manpower instead of quality of equipment and this needs to change as the type of threats we face change. Even for insurgencies, do we have all our forces deployed? Or just a very minor part of them? Now what if we got rid of a portion of the manpower that’s not deployed to better equip the small amount of troops that are deployed to fight insurgency? We’d get better results instantly. That’s what we need to do. Everyone keeps saying our boys need UCAVs or Modern IFVs or new rifles, but the truth is due to our economy, equipping such a massive army with modern equipment is simply impossible, it can only be done by decreasing the amount of troops we have.

That's fine it is a discussion after all. Yes we have tends of thousands sitting idly but we also have thousands engaged in anti insurgency on the western borders which I'm afraid are worse in one region better in another.
I hear your argument regarding more funding rather than forces eating up money but the answer to this is a better economy. I'm a citizen of a nation (UK) that went down the 'troop/cost cutting' route and now faces severe inefficiencies regarding deployment and fighting capabilities. So much so now they're begging people to join the reserves to make up the shortfall which is a terrible joke. Pakistan can ill afford that with a principle adversary which is stronger.
With economic growth we will see more funding and investment to the forces, there's only so much downsizing can do regarding freeing up funds. In actual fact we would probably lose economies of scale we do have with numbers.
I'd ordinarily been in favour of this but with the sanghis next door making regular statements regarding taking AJK and other Pakistani territory, and they've shown with the Balakot strikes they're wiling to up the ante I just don't think this is wise.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Much larger troops ? Ukraine defender has larger troops than Russian invading troops, Russian hasnt used all of their soldiers there

Russia has a much larger armed forces, I was not talking about what they used In Ukraine only, that was my entire point. They have much larger forces yet can only use a portion of them, so having a massive army is not helping them, but better planning and technology would have helped them (they already have better technology, but I guess nothing makes up for incompetence).

That's fine it is a discussion after all. Yes we have tends of thousands sitting idly but we also have thousands engaged in anti insurgency on the western borders which I'm afraid are worse in one region better in another.
I hear your argument regarding more funding rather than forces eating up money but the answer to this is a better economy. I'm a citizen of a nation (UK) that went down the 'troop/cost cutting' route and now faces severe inefficiencies regarding deployment and fighting capabilities. So much so now they're begging people to join the reserves to make up the shortfall which is a terrible joke. Pakistan can ill afford that with a principle adversary which is stronger.
With economic growth we will see more funding and investment to the forces, there's only so much downsizing can do regarding freeing up funds. In actual fact we would probably lose economies of scale we do have with numbers.
I'd ordinarily been in favour of this but with the sanghis next door making regular statements regarding taking AJK and other Pakistani territory, and they've shown with the Balakot strikes they're wiling to up the ante I just don't think this is wise.

I get where you’re coming from too, a very fair argument, I’ve seen the issue you’re talking about all over European armies where they downsized and relied on technology so much that they’ve run woefully short on manpower, but I think that also has to do with the fact that those are developed nations where the military does not pay much compared to what jobs people can get instead, that’s not an issue with Pakistan, the army will always have a healthy supply of volunteers. I’m of the opinion that some downsizing is definitely needed, but not to a point where the forces become too small, a balance of sorts, it’s true that we still need a massive army, just how massive is where that balance lies.

 

[waz]

I don't know the intent and how many... however, I don't think it is all bad. It depends on what is the goal and how it is executed.
For example, if Pakistan increases the number of strike corps from current 2 to 4 and substantially increases their fire power, equipment and protection... Army aviation is improved and CAS and logistics are done via drones(air and land based)... and finally reserves are increased and better trained... it makes sense.

That being said, Navy can simultaneously increase it's marines as well.

The world is moving towards a more nimble yet better equipped force and it is not all bad. In fact China itself is moving towards a similar direction.

Remember at the end of the day Pakistan has no shortage of military age men willing to keep and maintain their freedom irrespective of political and economic hand they've been dealt with...

Agree with the above but it's external environment which is very concerning, China can do so because it is an immense power.
As for military age men that's true but they and will always be a poor substitute to men who make their living from living the art of war their entire life.

 

[FuturePAF]

Good move if true. Army needs to downsize substantially to manage its funds and equipment better. A smaller, better trained, better armed force is much more useful in today’s conflict scenarios where an all out war is much less likely than a smaller, contained conflict in a selected area. We don’t need the forces to be as big anymore as we need them to be technologically and tactically prepared.

Should former soldiers move into the Police forces, to raise the standard of the police? The police could form a kind of reserves for the nation, and in fact work to create a defense in depth; a second line of defense similar to Ukrainian troops in urban areas.

 

[Rafi]

Cut will in support troops that will be replaced by technology and automation, more will be spent on individual soldiers training, equipment, and pay and benefits.

There will be in increase in reserve troops who will be called up when needed for 6 month tours, vast majority of which will be experienced guys.

Some reorganisation, on the tactical level will also occur, nuff said.