Could India block Pakistani ports in case of a war?

[jupiter2007]

I see where you are coming from now. You took my first post in the literal meaning although I thought I was pretty obvious with my sarcasm. To clarify I meant things are quite the opposite to what is in those words.

Stay cool! Pakistan Zindabad!

Some people take sarcasm as literally, and I am one that of them.
The only reason my response was somewhat civilized because you used AJK and not Pakistan occupied Kashmir. I could have been more harsher and rude had you mentioned Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

 

[syed_yusuf]

How many thousand kms is Pakistan away from India, blue water or not thats irrelevant in context of Ind-Pak. Tell us more about 'the other assets that will add to over all pictures.' what, you have other assets and resources but we dont? IN can block Pakistan in case of war, but will it have desired results, i will defer that to experts here.

a brown water navy cannot do blockade that is why i said new blue water for Indian navy. Pakistan have enough assets to defend any IN misadventure. just read about it carefully .

You have 10 major surface combatants and 5 subs. That's it. Compare your PN to our coast guard and be happy.



The single biggest reason to not attack that country is the plethora of headache we will have to deal with. If they disintegrate due to us, we will have to deal with the nutjobs to their west. Better to fight a war with people who want to live than with nutjobs who want to die.

in pure military term you don't count 1 vs 1 assets but as to what complete picture can give you a blow. IN surface warships will be decimated if they come closer to threaten Pakistan. land based, sea based, air and sub assets will be deployed in cohesion. you do not know about art of warfare. yes In have 1:3 advantage on major surface vessels. and could have batter quality ships. but IN do not have enough to pose blockade threat. indian navy sub is also 1:3 advantage but in naval war you do not concentrate subs in smaller areas of operation. PN is fully equipped to counter any sub threat near its shores. you need to get your self educated first. the only navy that can effectively blockade Pakistan is US Navy. hypothetically Chinese can do it using numbers but that is it.

 

[$@rJen]

Ok so do you think we keep all our navy parked at the Karachi port waiting for your navy to show up? What a joke

Why is not possible for a nuclear sub to attack your country from eastern cost?

Building coast guard... ... ....
We building navy... ... ....

All your Navy !!
K...

What do you think??? Except the subs non of them are going to come out on a offensive... and certainily they're not coming down towards with no air cover and with no resuply..... you just don't have the capability and numbers to do so.... What PN will do is send out the subs and the rest of the ships for defence.

 

[Pyara9]

All your Navy !!
K...

What do you think??? Except the subs non of them are going to come out on a offensive... and certainily they're not coming down towards with no air cover and with no resuply..... you just don't have the capability and numbers to do so.... What PN will do is send out the subs and the rest of the ships for defence.

You can't know for sure what strategy pak navy will go with. For that reason you will need to protect your coast line its a just in case...
And for that reason you won't send all your navy at once straight to karachi.
Even 1 sub armed with nukes is deadly. Subs dont need air cover specially if they are deep. They can stay down deep under for up to a month.. Subs are the F-22 of navy stealthy, sneaky but deadly.

 

[$@rJen]

You can't know for sure what strategy pak navy will go with. For that reason you will need to protect your coast line its a just in case...
And for that reason you won't send all your navy at once straight to karachi.
Even 1 sub armed with nukes is deadly. Subs dont need air cover specially if they are deep. They can stay down deep under for up to a month.. Subs are the F-22 of navy stealthy, sneaky but deadly.

of course i can't... but one can predict the moves with the capabilities of Enemy. can Somalia blockade Gulf of Aden ??? No.... becasue they've no numbers or capablities to do so... look at the map... Except attacking the coasts in Gujarat, you can't really do anything.. maybe a fring missiles from Subs within the safe distance will work... but again sub is only going to fire at the strategic loctions and it will be covered by SAMs (SAMs are not 100% effective)

if PN going to attack the Parts in Southern India then PN will have to sail long distance with air covers and tankers (depends on the mission) both are not possible.. and PN will won't take such a risk (ship may never return)... only option is defensive.

Why are you bringing Subs with nukes??? Why do a navy have to cover entire coast from a sub that's going to fire nukes???

 

[Zarvan]

In my opinion the current difference is big between both Navies that we can't hold and stand our ground for long. Not only India can block our sea routs but also destroy Karachi even from a safe distance

 

[Cool_Soldier]

Well, with current development, it is not that much easy for IN to blockade Pakistani waters.
PN is now in well defensive form and possessed capability to hit any offensive ship including carriers from IN .

So, do not underestimate our defensive power.

Yes, in offensive doctrine, PN still lag behind as our current assets don't support to undertake any long range mission.

But IA, in coming decade, visible change could be seen in PN offensive power as along with defensive ships more

More Subs are coming in
More Bigger ships are planned to purchase with multiple role missions
NAval Air Arm will get dedicated THANDER Planes.

 

[GriffinsRule]

What most of the posters here are failing to understand is that a naval blockade doesn't have to be a physical one in the terms of IN sending out its vessels to stop any merchant ships from coming to Pakistani ports that would in turn cause the PN to retaliate.
India can effectively blockade Pakistan just with the threat of hostilities, that will cause Pakistani ports being designated as areas requiring increased war risk premiums, rendering them cost prohibitive to import goods (insurance premiums are paid by the receiver of the goods, not the merchant ship owners). Many shipping companies might just delay or refuse to ship to Karachi or Gwadar during period of hostilities.
Of course same would happen to India, but given the size of their coast lines and the number of ports available to them, as well as the size of the GDP, they would be in a better position than us.
How long the country could ride out without imports or exports would determine the real winner or loser in any conflict. Therefore, it would be in Pakistan's interest to bring end to any hostilities faster then perhaps India. And if any war ends up just being a stalemate anyways, we might consider it a military victory, but in economic terms we will be the bigger losers.
There is a reason why Pakistan nor India want an all out conflict despite trading fire across the LOC and pin pricking each other via spy agencies etc... it puts both countries back while they really need to be moving up with economic ladder. Cost of destroyed infrastructure in Pakistan and India, even in a short war, would set us back a decade easily especially now with smart weapons that offer long ranges of engagement with pinpoint accuracy.

 

[Tumba]

What most of the posters here are failing to understand is that a naval blockade doesn't have to be a physical one in the terms of IN sending out its vessels to stop any merchant ships from coming to Pakistani ports that would in turn cause the PN to retaliate.
India can effectively blockade Pakistan just with the threat of hostilities, that will cause Pakistani ports being designated as areas requiring increased war risk premiums, rendering them cost prohibitive to import goods (insurance premiums are paid by the receiver of the goods, not the merchant ship owners). Many shipping companies might just delay or refuse to ship to Karachi or Gwadar during period of hostilities.
Of course same would happen to India, but given the size of their coast lines and the number of ports available to them, as well as the size of the GDP, they would be in a better position than us.
How long the country could ride out without imports or exports would determine the real winner or loser in any conflict. Therefore, it would be in Pakistan's interest to bring end to any hostilities faster then perhaps India. And if any war ends up just being a stalemate anyways, we might consider it a military victory, but in economic terms we will be the bigger losers.
There is a reason why Pakistan nor India want an all out conflict despite trading fire across the LOC and pin pricking each other via spy agencies etc... it puts both countries back while they really need to be moving up with economic ladder. Cost of destroyed infrastructure in Pakistan and India, even in a short war, would set us back a decade easily especially now with smart weapons that offer long ranges of engagement with pinpoint accuracy.

Indian navy will not be interested in blocking as it can do much more... naval blockade in definition means long war which will invite international scrutiny based on human sufferings as pakistan is dependent on medical supplies from imports...
Indian Navy will instead try to clear coastal military installations and fuel/military/ammunition installations...
ports will not be targeted if war is short as it comes with humanitarian angle.

But not sure Indian Navy is even needed to take care of military targets from sea might be an option but all pakistani naval facilities and targets can be targeted from ground also.

 

[thinkingcap81]

Yes.

So you think that there is considerable mismatch between the military strength of both sides. For how many days do you think that Pakistan can hold India back using conventional means? After 4-5 days will not outside powers intervene diplomatically?

The single biggest reason to not attack that country is the plethora of headache we will have to deal with. If they disintegrate due to us, we will have to deal with the nutjobs to their west. Better to fight a war with people who want to live than with nutjobs who want to die.

Before such a thing happens will there be nuclear exchange?

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

What most of the posters here are failing to understand is that a naval blockade doesn't have to be a physical one in the terms of IN sending out its vessels to stop any merchant ships from coming to Pakistani ports that would in turn cause the PN to retaliate.
India can effectively blockade Pakistan just with the threat of hostilities, that will cause Pakistani ports being designated as areas requiring increased war risk premiums, rendering them cost prohibitive to import goods (insurance premiums are paid by the receiver of the goods, not the merchant ship owners). Many shipping companies might just delay or refuse to ship to Karachi or Gwadar during period of hostilities.
Of course same would happen to India, but given the size of their coast lines and the number of ports available to them, as well as the size of the GDP, they would be in a better position than us.
How long the country could ride out without imports or exports would determine the real winner or loser in any conflict. Therefore, it would be in Pakistan's interest to bring end to any hostilities faster then perhaps India. And if any war ends up just being a stalemate anyways, we might consider it a military victory, but in economic terms we will be the bigger losers.
There is a reason why Pakistan nor India want an all out conflict despite trading fire across the LOC and pin pricking each other via spy agencies etc... it puts both countries back while they really need to be moving up with economic ladder. Cost of destroyed infrastructure in Pakistan and India, even in a short war, would set us back a decade easily especially now with smart weapons that offer long ranges of engagement with pinpoint accuracy.

same could be done with my India.
whole country under nuclear war threat. Not only ships will stay away but investors and foreigners will leave India too.

 

[Gurjot.S]

what wud be the benefit of the naval blockade ? why not destroying ports of each other ?

Naval blockade wont give an inch of benefit to any nation.

 

[That Guy]

LOL first look at the size of your PN & our coastal guard, then talk about our IN

The fact that you think what you said has any real meaning, really shows your lack of understanding. Size matters little, if you're incapable of effectively deploying and using those troops. As it is, PN is a defensive force, and its size is decent enough to protect Pakistani shores from India. PN doesn't need to have offensive capabilities like India, it just needs to be a big enough deterrent against Indian aggression.

As the Russians say, you don't have to be good, you just have to be good enough.

 

[Pyara9]

of course i can't... but one can predict the moves with the capabilities of Enemy. can Somalia blockade Gulf of Aden ??? No.... becasue they've no numbers or capablities to do so... look at the map... Except attacking the coasts in Gujarat, you can't really do anything.. maybe a fring missiles from Subs within the safe distance will work... but again sub is only going to fire at the strategic loctions and it will be covered by SAMs (SAMs are not 100% effective)

if PN going to attack the Parts in Southern India then PN will have to sail long distance with air covers and tankers (depends on the mission) both are not possible.. and PN will won't take such a risk (ship may never return)... only option is defensive.

Why are you bringing Subs with nukes??? Why do a navy have to cover entire coast from a sub that's going to fire nukes???

So why only the subs good question brother. Here is the reason Pak navy is buying more subs then ships, we will have more subs then ships and it's pretty obvious we won't be sending any ships to attack any part of India. It will be subs doing the attack if at all but u can't be sure so you need to protect your coast line regardless.. it should always be protected because what if a third nation tries to take advantage of the situation??

So the new carrier killer missiles that china has, some of which Pakistan also has would be interesting to watch how they perform to what ever your navy brings to the blockade.. if they have U.S worried you should be too.

So a diesel electric sub can stay under water for 30days.. Do you know where our subs are at the moment? not all are parked near karachi atm gurantee u that same goes for yours. One could be chilling near sri lanka waiting for something to happen and you wouldn't know about it. Do you think navy's park all their assets in a garage until something happens? No. Most navy assets are mobile all the time. For the sake of it some of your ships could be near Antarctica vise versa thats just how they operate.

Now your missile defences.. like you mentioned not 100%. Against a nuclear capable cruise missile which we recently tested from a sea based platform chances get really low.. would you take that risk?

So all those problems means you will need to keep 50% of your navey at bay just in case. The rest 50% we can easily handle.

Golden rule for winning a war specially on attack mode is you need 3:1 ratio. 2:1 ratio isn't ideal for attack mode. because we have the home advantage. So 3:1 Which i don't think you have yet.

 

[Neptune]

Just for the record.

*PN cut by half
*PAF is capped. Limited purchases for next decade until 5th gen Chinese fighter becomes available. Then go for small but potent force.

However we need a large army. Not so much for India. That country is covered by nuclear deterance. The army is needed for internal security. Pakistan is a fragile state and it could easily go the ay Syria, Libya or Iraq have gone. Break up into ethnic/sectarian/tribal entities fighting each other. We already have a lower form of this going in the non state actors engaged in sectarian conflicts etc.

Therefore Pakistan needs a strong military to anchor the nation. However PA needs to be pruned. Large chunk of it needs to be re-configured to provide dedicatred internal security. Something like Turkish Jandarma needs to be developed by even asking for Turkish help.

Pak Jandarma

* 400,000 men strong
* 2,000 plus 8 wheeled AFVs ~ MRAP standard
* 2,000 plus 4 wheeled AFVs ~ MRAP standard
* 50 helicopters for close air support
* 10 C-130s for fast transport
* All troops provide top quality personal body armour

This force is then deployed across Pakistan to get proper writ of the state in every nook and corner. The stability that it would create would help Pakistan and encourage foreign investment. A ideal place for CPEC LTP.

Wars cost money. After a month Pakistan will be bankrupt. What are you going to fight with? Sticks and stones? Please do tell how you would finance a war longer than one month?

Rob Bank of America?

Hey.
It is worth mentioning that structurally and on practice, the Turkish Gendarmerie (JGK) is different than many gendarmerie forces in Europe which it was modeled after at late Ottoman period. Today this difference is still visible. At first, I must mention that (hence idk the case in Pakistan), security institutions in Turkey, excluding the armed forces, is highly centralized. Therefore JGK is the primary national law enforcement agency in the country's administrative regions outside the metropolitan areas (basically towns, villages and borderlines). What is not known by non-Turkish readers is that during the initial years of the Republic till late 1990s, JGK was the mother, teacher, doctor and everything of the villages and towns in Turkey through the initiative taken by the officers. When someone was sick at winter, at a mountainous village, with the request of local gendarmerie officer, JGK dispatches air evacuation for the sick civilian to a city hospital when the health sector was not developed; or when education on far villages was rough and female children were often not sent to school by their families one or two decades ago, the commanding officer of the local Gendarmerie post takes a platoon and a teacher then kicks in the house and makes sure that small children regardless of gender and ethnicity were provided their very own right of compulsory education as stated by the Constitution. The point is, apart from being a huge nightmare for PKK, Gendarmerie not only brought the reforms to the unreachable points of the country, it also maintained it till today and so on. Basically where there is Gendarmerie, there is the State.

Its functions are:
- Military Duties (Counter-terrorism; deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Kosovo, Bosnia; and border security).
During the counter-terrorism missions the following units are employed: Gendarmerie Special Operations and Public Order Command (JÖAK), Gendarmerie Special Operations (JÖH), Gendarmerie Commando Battalions stationed at southeastern Turkey, Gendarmerie Public Order Corps headquartered in far eastern Turkey, Hakkari Gendarmerie Mountain and Commando Brigade, and the Provincial Gendarmerie Commando Regiments. These units, Land Forces Commando units and the National Police's own special operations unit PÖH all operate under the command and control of the Gendarmerie 23rd Border Division which oversees the counter-terrorism operations throughout southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq.

- Law Enforcement Duties (in conjunction with its law and the Law on the Duties and Powers of the Turkish National Police)
- Other Duties (Security of courts and prisons)