Thank you, this is the most balanced view in the 20 pages so far.I dont want to speak for the original member, but what he/she might be stating is that Subs that dont want to be detected stay submerged and don't snorkel. The purpose of this act might be more political. I also agree that snorkeling in this manner is not prudent. PN ASW systems likely dropped hydrophones and picked up as much as they could. So unless sub was forced to snorkel to avoid getting blown out, that act of snorkeling is a bit strange, unless it was deliberate.
If the vessel is in our EEZ normal action (in non-war scenario) is to engage and guide asset out or give permission for navigation through. This requires the vessel to show itself and state its purpose. However under International Maritime Navigation Law a vessel is allowed to traverse EEZ if its intention is purely navigation (from one point to another) and no one can stop that, nor is permission required. I have no way of confirming this, but my sense is that the sub snorkeled to allow it to navigate the EEZ, or conversely it was given a forceful knock to surface "or else" upon detection.
It likely did not get permission to navigate the EEZ so prob made a small ingress and then moved out, or was detected well into its act of ingress or act of traversing the EEZ (and probably surfaced to make a point, we did what we needed to and you should know it). So detection was not something big here (if sub had already surfaced), outside of the fact that ASW assets were there to begin with. Or if the sub was detected outside of EEZ and given a knock as soon as it came into or close to EEZ - that would be a solid win. Given the limited nature of information we cannot be certain how this played out and I for one will not have happy ears or extend false platitudes. Something is not right here and more information is needed to make a good assessment which we all our unlikely to get. I am certain many such ingresses do go completely undetected as the expanse of open sea in our EEZ is too large to effectively monitor. I doubt PN has hydrophone based sensor network deployed across the EEZ. That is a possibility and if so that would be awesome! Though again complete conjecture on this capability.
I think India is also sending a message. It is putting out there for the world and shipping channels the real threat it poses to Pakistani water navigation. It will leverage these very images to make shipping insurance impossible and difficult in a state of hot war or some pre-war tension. Which also speaks to the importance of PNSC, because few will venture these waters in the case of war outside of our owned flagged operations. This aggressive submarine patrolling speaks to the aggression of India. I for one would be comfortable if Pakistani subs were detected off Indias' coast every week. It is a psychological jolt to any nation of subs operating so close to its waters.
My other concern is Indian sub being used to make coastal drops of weapons and people especially in Baluchistan. That is my biggest concern here, which is why Pakistan needs to elucidate a policy of greater aggression and make our Coastal areas hot fire zones for non-detected / sub-surface vessels.
This should put the identity discussion to rest. From someone who does submarines scope for a living:
Last edited:
