ISPR press conference

[Jango]

So either a dumb bomb had a trajectory with that kind of range, or a standoff weapon forgot its target. Right.

Weapons systems fail all the time, do they not?

Toss bombing is a tactic which has been employed in the past to get sufficient range from an otherwise short range missile (bomb) (and to let it go on a ballistic trajectory).

At this moment, we cannot say it definitively. Maybe they did come inside until Balakot after all, maybe they came in 10 NM, maybe only 4 NM as said by ISPR. Can't say for certain, we're all just guessing here.

So you can keep those smirks to yourself.

 

[VCheng]

Weapons systems fail all the time, do they not?

Toss bombing is a tactic which has been employed in the past to get sufficient range from an otherwise short range missile (bomb) (and to let it go on a ballistic trajectory).

At this moment, we cannot say it definitively. Maybe they did come inside until Balakot after all, maybe they came in 10 NM, maybe only 4 NM as said by ISPR. Can't say for certain, we're all just guessing here.

So you can keep those smirks to yourself.

I am not smirking, merely amused at the explanations in Point #3. The situation itself is serious, but the proper response here is de-escalation.

There is realtime surveillance of that entire region 24/7, that is all I will say. In order to de-escalate this thread, I will keep quiet.

 

[Jango]

I am not smirking, merely amused at the explanations in Point #3. The situation itself is serious, but the proper response here is de-escalation.

There is realtime surveillance of that entire region 24/7, that is all I will say. In order to de-escalate this thread, I will keep quiet.

That would be wise.

Unless we get to see the radar tracks, all we can do is believe whichever side we want to.

 

[VCheng]

That would be wise.

Unless we get to see the radar tracks, all we can do is believe whichever side we want to.

Fair enough. This post is only to tag @Vibrio to read the above several posts.

 

[IceCold]

On Pakistani retaliation options: Regardless of any damage, violating Pakistani airspace and releasing explosive payload on Pakistani soil is considered an act of aggression. However, the retaliatory options for Pakistan are somewhat limited. Since Pakistan denies anybody or anything being hit, its hard to decide a careful response. The options can be theoretically as follows:
-No significant response, since nothing was hit. Military retaliation by PA using artillery across LoC. Diplomatic retaliation for the act of releasing bombs over Pakistani soil.
-Covert response, of a larger scale via Kashmiri militants.
-Proportionate response, i.e. intrusion over Indian airspace, with no intention of engagement unless challenged.
-Escalatory response, by targeting the closest IAF base (e.g. Awantipora), using standoff weapons. The entire armed forces will have to be mobilized before such an event, including the SFCs.

India enjoys height advantage therefore artillery response by PA does not hold any weight in this scenario and is used regularly by both sides. It will not be considered a response at all.
Covert response i think will happen but not via Kashmiri Freedom fighters but by our BAT however will it be enough to cater the public anger in Pakistan, i doubt it.
Proportionate response will still require us dropping bombs on the Indian side which brings us to your fourth point, hitting the closet Indian base whether IAF or IA. I might be wrong but the tone used by DGISPR, I am inclined towards this. Indian base will be hit but before that a session of Strategic command called is to deliver a potent message that is Pakistan is not afraid to higher the stakes and If India again responds or decides to go for war on IB, Pakistan will not hesitate to push the button.

 

[The Deterrent]

So either a dumb bomb had a trajectory with that kind of range, or a standoff weapon forgot its target. Right.

Both things are actually possible. I merely put what the DG said in text, that they released weapons on a trajectory and left.

Many theories can be floated here. For example it is also possible that IAF had a lasing asset on the ground, to light up the said target, so that the Mirages could strike from a standoff ranges with LGBs in a tossing manner.

Its just a matter of time before a third party releases the images on twitter. Everything should be clear after that.

 

[VCheng]

Both things are actually possible. I merely put what the DG said in text, that they released weapons on a trajectory and left.

Many theories can be floated here. For example it is also possible that IAF had a lasing asset on the ground, to light up the said target, so that the Mirages could strike from a standoff ranges with LGBs in a tossing manner.

Its just a matter of time before a third party releases the images on twitter. Everything should be clear after that.

I promised @Jango not to post here any further, but I did not want to be rude and ignore your post. Thank you for it, but I would request not to respond as agreed above.

 

[valkyr_96]

So either a dumb bomb had a trajectory with that kind of range, or a standoff weapon forgot its target. Right.

Adding up all the mix match results in PGMs -basically dumb bombs with PGM kits for standoff delivery

 

[Jango]

I promised @Jango not to post here any further, but I did not want to be rude and ignore your post. Thank you for it, but I would request not to respond as agreed above.

Hey, who am I to stop you? It's a free world!!!

 

[VCheng]

Hey, who am I to stop you? It's a free world!!!

Nah, it's okay. My re-calibration permits me to voluntarily stop. You are kind to say that, though.

 

[ptltejas]

https://zeenews.india.com/india/key...ed-in-iaf-strikes-in-balakot-2183625.html/amp

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

3. IAF Mirages intended to hit a target, but were challenged by PAF and forced to deploy the bombs on a trajectory against unpopulated area, and returned immediately.

@VCheng
Or, IAF never intended to hit a target since the JeM presence there is no longer training camps, but a Madrassa. The whole exercise would have been more of a PR statement, with uninhabited areas deliberately a target.

Alternately, the IAF had faulty intelligence that led them to targeting the forests/mountainside with the belief that there were camps there.

 

[VCheng]

@VCheng
Or, IAF never intended to hit a target since the JeM presence there is no longer training camps, but a Madrassa. The whole exercise would have been more of a PR statement, with uninhabited areas deliberately a target.

Alternately, the IAF had faulty intelligence that led them to targeting the forests/mountainside with the belief that there were camps there.

Please see below:

I promised @Jango not to post here any further, but I did not want to be rude and ignore your post. Thank you for it, but I would request not to respond as agreed above.

 

[The Deterrent]

@VCheng
Or, IAF never intended to hit a target since the JeM presence there is no longer training camps, but a Madrassa. The whole exercise would have been more of a PR statement, with uninhabited areas deliberately a target.

Alternately, the IAF had faulty intelligence that led them to targeting the forests/mountainside with the belief that there were camps there.

Somehow I'm inclined to disagree. For the sake of DG ISPR's (and the Armed Forces') reputation and integrity, I sincerely hope that there is no rubble at the points of impact, in the satellite images.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Somehow I'm inclined to disagree. For the sake of DG ISPR's reputation and integrity, I sincerely hope that there is no rubble at the points of impact, in the satellite images.

If the Madrassa was an actual target that the IAF missed, it would reflect poorly on India, authorizing a strike on what is essentially a school with children in it, even if it was run by the JeM.

Unless there were training camps in the forests/mountainside (we'll wait to see additional information confirming any such presence of militants), I don't see the point of striking around Balakot.