niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
I have this thinking that we need to have a strong navy we cant be defensive all the time
In case of war with india we should be able to attack on indian navel installment ( all of them )it will be difficult for us to only defend as they are huge in number and they have large number of miltary and civilian bases they can block us easily we should have stratgy and equipment to block their main ports
army can only do the damage near the border areas 100 or 200 miles( messiles does not give you the control) in side the enemy teritory but with strong navy we can send forces or deploy subs from arabian sea and bay of bangal and they can inflict greater damage
Don’t know why we keep coming up with wishful thinking as if Pakistan had unlimited resources. IMO we should always keep some sense of proportion in our discussions. It is absurd to ignore ground realities. Ground reality is that Pakistan needed $7.5-billion loan from the IMF to avoid going bankrupt.
One needs physical presence on the ground to occupy captured territory that is why priority should be and is correctly, on the land forces. WW2 showed that in the absence of appropriate air defence, ground forces are an easy prey to the air based weapon systems. Thus second on the priority list come air defense assets and the Air Force for counter attack.
If we were an island nation such as UK or and had an archipelago such as southern Greece, a strong navy was also essential. But with Pakistan with land links with friendly countries such as China and Iran; Navy quite rightly comes third on the priority list.
Finally, primary task of the Navy is to keep see lanes clear. Therefore acquisition of a squadron of mine hunters, a fleet of LMR planes plus a squadron of missile firing land based attack aircrafts comes before the funds should be allocated to major surface vessels. Next in list come stealth weapon systems such as submarines which can ambush enemy ships trying to blockade Pakistani ports. All of the above factors have already been taken into consideration in the Pakistan’s strategic naval planning.
Pray tell me; have you considered the assets requirement before even attempting to think of attacking all Indians ports! FYI, according to Indian ports association website India has 11 major sea ports and total number of major and non major Indian ports number about 200! Besides, Indians are not going to stand still, your ships are going to come under attack from the enemy sea going vesels as well as land based aircrafts and guns. Argentinean Air Force sunk 8 major UK vessels in the Falklands war and they were attacking 400 miles away from the bases! Thus PN must have sufficent number of ships that PN remains a deterrent force even after absorbing the loss of many expensive naval vessels which is almost certain.
IMO even the mighty US Navy would think ten times before embarking on such a bold venture.
Wouldn’t it be far more cost effective to attack all major Indian cities by land based missiles?
Last edited:
. IN didnt dare engage PN during Kargil or in 2001; if i remember correctly during 2001 an Indian fish boat was in Pakistan's water due to a technical failure and could not be moved, the IN didnt dare enter Pakistan's water and requested the US Navy to tow the vessel away.
