Pakistan’s maritime compulsions

[Secur]

What use is the proximity to the gulf to a Navy who spends a major part of its meager assets to defend its home port (s) ?

PN is not in a position to influence anything in the gulf in a hot war situation. In any case , in such a situation it shall be torn between defending its sea lanes & port. Loss of one undoes the other.

I think you understood it wrong , Pakistan can ensure continuity of supplies during the war from Gwadar port via Gulf countries which are in close proximity - hence short time to transit and given that our strategy is " sea denial " , it isn't that hard to accomplish with the assets PN is planning to field in the next 5 years ... The recent integration of CM400AKG points to that direction that navy isn't being overlooked like it was in the past ...

 

[Gentelman]

Yep! that problem normally occures when you have brains

Why these Indians always spit up in a serious diacussion with their negative remarks and low mentality....??
think positive and good

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Notwithstanding all that may be said of the advantages its location I feel the greatest drawback for the PN shall always remain its small coastline.

It offers little or no options and runs the risk of blockade with few options to ease out of. Gwader is an option but PN will have to earmark considerable resources to attempt to ensure that its sea lanes remain open, leaving little for offensive actions.

Its for PN to devise its war plans but they do not look good for want of options. The safety of ports like most pieces of land lies more from outside than within. Hence options are needed.

For the record..Andhra Pradesh has a coastline of 972 kms , Gujarat is 1600 km & Kerala is 1014 kms .

nice "PSYOP" try mate

sir India is peninsula so its only natural that at 12,40,000 sq mi it has a 7500 km coastline thats huge, but that does not negate the fact that Pakistan at 339,000 sq mi has a 1046 km coastline which is more then sufficient enough for a strong navy. I mean size only matter to a certain degree, in the case of countries like say which are only 10,000 sq mi with a 80-100 km coastline then i can understand, but when you have any thing above the 32,000 sq mi with a 250-300 km coastline mark & above then thing starts to get easier, & here we are talking about country which is
339,000 + sq mi with a 1000 km coastline that's more then sufficient enough to build a "green water navy" ( & for that an expansion of naval assets are needed & "NOT" coastlines ! history is full of such example the "Netherlands" which has only
451 km coastline was a naval power, at present lets take the example of U.A.E with a 650 km coastline it is standing quite strong against Iran which has a coastline of 3000 + km ! from north to south , another shining example is the South Korean navy with a 2,413 km coastline it is standing TALL right next to China's PLAN which has a 14,000 km coastline ! (just imagine how many gujrat,kerela, andhara pradesh it has ? ) just like that in the case of India & Pakistan its not the matter but the materials which counts ! in another words its not the size of the coastline but the number of ships which counts so if you talk about numerical superiority then yes India has the upper hand & the only counter to this is an increase of vessels & "NOT" coastline just because Indian has a huge coastline does not makes Pakistan's coastline insignificant or small as i said its not the size of the coastline ( & certainly not if its a 1000 km coastline ) rather its the number of naval assets which counts in another words "NOT" MATTER BUT MATERIAL'S

 

[araz]

To be frank first it should take care of solving internal problems and then dream of countering India and NATO in IOR . Until then investing in offensive naval power would be waste of resources .

Our dream is one off survival. We are put in a position where because of our location we have been repeatedly involved in international intrigue. Governance is an issue but outside interference has certainly not helped. Internal problems need to be looked at in that scenario rather than a simple "you need to do more!!"
Araz

To be frank lozzz on you. Pakistan Armed Forces does not think like Indian Army, okay amigo. They always plan for the future not for the nex day or so, the future, ok amigo.

Tarrar
You have an uncanny nack for name calling which is not nice. Please refrain from it. A post needs to be answered civilly.
Araz

 

[araz]

Well , it seems highly unlikely now given the latest downhill in US-Pak relations ... Besides that , I do not think OHP Types are good choices for the PN unless of course they are coming free of cost ... Besides that , the downgrading of its SAM and other systems means that it is more suitable for anti-piracy role than in naval warfare ... However , these retired frigates are in service with a couple of navies around the world and with a few retiring every year , there's no shortage of them to supply to US allies , which we aren't considered one now ...

You have to look at the OHPs as a bonus. If we do get them it would be fine, but if we dont it is not the end of the world as we now have alternates. As to the OHPs being stripped down ,we can upgrade them with the help of Turkey as there was a news at the time of IDEAS in 2012. So options are always there. Whether the money is there is another problem altogether.
Araz

 

[OrionHunter]

The India-Pakistan rivalry already implicates the United States because it is a critical if constrained partner with both countries. For half a century, the United States has played a role in nudging along the bilateral dialogue process between us two antagonists, and, on occasion, has engaged more actively to defuse acute India-Pakistan tensions.

In recent years, and particularly since the end of the Cold War, India and Pakistan have both sought to restrain the other by eliciting pressure from Washington—thereby “outsourcing” to Washington their respective coercive diplomacy. The United States may now also be implicated in the India-Pakistan maritime rivalry in the Arabian Sea. The main reason is that all three countries have increased their naval presence and activities in the area.

The expanded U.S. presence and role in the area stems from the 9/11 attacks, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the growth of Somali piracy and dangers posed by Iran. The increased U.S. role and activities in the Arabian Sea since 2011 have created asymmetric engagements with India and Pakistan in the Arabian Sea.

With the US having an eye on Balochistan due to the strategically located Gwadar deep water sea port, a future conflict cannot be ruled out. Due to the asymmetric nature of naval forces Pakistan would be hard pressed to defend itself from an American adventure by its combined naval and land forces to overwhelm Baluchistan.

Pakistan therefore needs to augment its naval forces considerably to deter and thwart any aggressive designs of the U.S. What better way than to sort out Indo-Pak disputes and smoke the peace pipe together that could result in mutual defence cooperation especially in the Arabian Sea to thwart the aggressive designs of the Americans to establish a foothold in South Asia.

 

[Contrarian]

nice "PSYOP" try mate

sir India is peninsula so its only natural that at 12,40,000 sq mi it has a 7500 km coastline thats huge, but that does not negate the fact that Pakistan at 339,000 sq mi has a 1046 km coastline which is more then sufficient enough for a strong navy. I mean size only matter to a certain degree, in the case of countries like say which are only 10,000 sq mi with a 80-100 km coastline then i can understand, but when you have any thing above the 32,000 sq mi with a 250-300 km coastline mark & above then thing starts to get easier, & here we are talking about country which is
339,000 + sq mi with a 1000 km coastline that's more then sufficient enough to build a "green water navy" ( & for that an expansion of naval assets are needed & "NOT" coastlines ! history is full of such example the "Netherlands" which has only
451 km coastline was a naval power, at present lets take the example of U.A.E with a 650 km coastline it is standing quite strong against Iran which has a coastline of 3000 + km ! from north to south , another shining example is the South Korean navy with a 2,413 km coastline it is standing TALL right next to China's PLAN which has a 14,000 km coastline ! (just imagine how many gujrat,kerela, andhara pradesh it has ? ) just like that in the case of India & Pakistan its not the matter but the materials which counts ! in another words its not the size of the coastline but the number of ships which counts so if you talk about numerical superiority then yes India has the upper hand & the only counter to this is an increase of vessels & "NOT" coastline just because Indian has a huge coastline does not makes Pakistan's coastline insignificant or small as i said its not the size of the coastline ( & certainly not if its a 1000 km coastline ) rather its the number of naval assets which counts in another words "NOT" MATTER BUT MATERIAL'S

I think you completely misunderstood what he meant, along with those who thanked you.

The point about having a small coastline is not related to the assets you field, but what you have to defend. Because Pakistan has a small coastline, and a couple of ports - it is that much easier for India to destroy those.

Thus in India's case, even if a couple of ports get destroyed - the traffic of goods will never be stopped because we have many alternate ports and thousands of kilometers away. It is thus absolutely impossible to put a maritime blockade on India except for maybe the US - and that too when the entire USN is put to it.

In Pakistan's case, regardless of the Naval assets Pakistan fields, it would be more than easy to destroy all the port infrastructure of Pakistan - thus invoking an automatic blockade on movement of goods - goods that are crucial for Pakistan to function - from oil to arms. Thus even a huge Navy would be very very hardpressed to defend such a small coastline - and it is that much harder if you dont have a huge navy.

Thus, Pakistan's greatest vulnerability remains its small coastline.

 

[ice_man]

I think you completely misunderstood what he meant, along with those who thanked you.

The point about having a small coastline is not related to the assets you field, but what you have to defend. Because Pakistan has a small coastline, and a couple of ports - it is that much easier for India to destroy those.

Thus in India's case, even if a couple of ports get destroyed - the traffic of goods will never be stopped because we have many alternate ports and thousands of kilometers away. It is thus absolutely impossible to put a maritime blockade on India except for maybe the US - and that too when the entire USN is put to it.

In Pakistan's case, regardless of the Naval assets Pakistan fields, it would be more than easy to destroy all the port infrastructure of Pakistan - thus invoking an automatic blockade on movement of goods - goods that are crucial for Pakistan to function - from oil to arms. Thus even a huge Navy would be very very hardpressed to defend such a small coastline - and it is that much harder if you dont have a huge navy.

Thus, Pakistan's greatest vulnerability remains its small coastline.

yes you are correct smaller costline is harder to defend but cheaper to fund its defence! india having such a huge coastline makes it spend much more inorder to field larger naval floatilla!

PN as long as it can deny indian navy supremacy & total blocakde of its port it would have done its job!

HOWEVER, WITHOUT NEW SUBS & BETTER BOATS we are really no match to IN. but sadly all Pakistan spending goes to army & rest into pockets of corrupt politicans! nothing goes to Navy & airforce!

 

[Contrarian]

yes you are correct smaller costline is harder to defend but cheaper to fund its defence! india having such a huge coastline makes it spend much more inorder to field larger naval floatilla!

PN as long as it can deny indian navy supremacy & total blocakde of its port it would have done its job!

HOWEVER, WITHOUT NEW SUBS & BETTER BOATS we are really no match to IN. but sadly all Pakistan spending goes to army & rest into pockets of corrupt politicans! nothing goes to Navy & airforce!

No mate. Its not cheaper to defend. Its cheaper if your opponent is lightly armed. Its cheaper if you have a big coastline and maybe you can allow for a couple of ports to get destroyed. But in Pakistan's case, you have neither luxury.

To absolutely make sure that under no circumstances that a few missiles pass through unintercepted to your ports would mean a port that is out of heavy landing equipment needed to land oil or arms. That initself is a quasi blockade!

Secondly, your opponent is armed to teeth and is not showing any signs of reducing spending on military.

So in Pakistan's case, its much more expensive to defend a short coastline than a longer one.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

I think you completely misunderstood what he meant, along with those who thanked you.

The point about having a small coastline is not related to the assets you field, but what you have to defend. Because Pakistan has a small coastline, and a couple of ports - it is that much easier for India to destroy those.

Thus in India's case, even if a couple of ports get destroyed - the traffic of goods will never be stopped because we have many alternate ports and thousands of kilometers away. It is thus absolutely impossible to put a maritime blockade on India except for maybe the US - and that too when the entire USN is put to it.

In Pakistan's case, regardless of the Naval assets Pakistan fields, it would be more than easy to destroy all the port infrastructure of Pakistan - thus invoking an automatic blockade on movement of goods - goods that are crucial for Pakistan to function - from oil to arms. Thus even a huge Navy would be very very hardpressed to defend such a small coastline - and it is that much harder if you dont have a huge navy.

Thus, Pakistan's greatest vulnerability remains its small coastline.

I have acknowledged the numerical superiority of the Indian navy in my post & nowhere did i mentioned of blockading Indian ports thats just too immature for me to write , plus yes when there is a naval conflict in an area its only natural that traffics are going to be disturbed, however what i have a disagreement is your argument of a Small coastline cannot be defended, against a larger one & no matter what the the build up of Pakistan navy the Indian navy can destroy it which i find is too confident a statement to make in an academic & strategic discussion, where as my point is that it might be difficult but can be done note the examples which i have given like U.A.E viz-e-viz Iran , south Korea viz-e-viz PLAN & that too only after the necessary buildup of Pakistan navy to a green water navy not @ present, south Korean navy is a recognized full fledged "Green water navy" & a naval power to reckon with in the Pacific while china has a large coastline south Korea doesn't the equation is similar to the Indo-Pak scenario in the coastline debate but different in the capability level south Korean navy is strong yet it has all the vulnerabilities as you mentioned against the PLAN but can PLAN afford to pull a scenario like that no it cant because it is a universal fact that force counters force, strength counters strength, after all you will need navel power to overwhelm, but what happens when you are confronted by another naval power from doing that ? what happens when the approaching ships are met by adequate ships ? the answer lies in the age old theory of whoever objectives are met so for example if the PLAN's objective are of overwhelming south Korean navy , destroy its ports & impose a full fledged blockade & is able to do that then PLAN wins, on the other hand if the the south Korean navy's objective is to stop its rival from doing that & it can hold of the PLAN's onslaught & is able to keep the fight away from it shores then its wins the same goes for the Indo-Pak scenario if & only if the Pakistan navy strengthened to a "Green water navy"

 

[Contrarian]

You still didnt get what i said. Nevermind.

 

[wakapdf]

To be frank first it should take care of solving internal problems and then dream of countering India and NATO in IOR . Until then investing in offensive naval power would be waste of resources .

''To be frank'' India should take care of its poor before dreaming of building a blue-water navy. Investing in blue water navy for India is a waste of resources. Resources that can feed and provide sanitation to its poor population... DONT EVEN TRY TO TROLL!

Pakistan military needs to make a massive investment and progress in the naval sector. Navy is the life-line of this country that ensures a flow of our resources through sea

 

[fatman17]

we are not going to match indian navy boat for boat etc. we are looking for 'force multiplyers' like increasing the sub fleet, which is the leading edge of PN, maritime assets, shore defences and replacing the mirage maritime strike squadron with the JFT which can fire the C802A and the newly acquired 'carrier killer' supersonic ASM. PN is also working on the nuclear tri-ad option. what is the success of this option is to early to say. we dont have any 'blue water' ambitions but to ensure that our 'sea lanes' remain open.

 

[wakapdf]

we are not going to match indian navy boat for boat etc. we are looking for 'force multiplyers' like increasing the sub fleet, which is the leading edge of PN, maritime assets, shore defences and replacing the mirage maritime strike squadron with the JFT which can fire the C802A and the newly acquired 'carrier killer' supersonic ASM. PN is also working on the nuclear tri-ad option. what is the success of this option is to early to say. we dont have any 'blue water' ambitions but to ensure that our 'sea lanes' remain open.

I think its about time that we started matching them ship for ship. Having a sub fleet is a good option but i fear they will suffer the same fate as Germany during world war 2. We need to induct a few more surface ships to augment our sub fleet. Somewhere along the lines of South Korea or Japan. They have massive navies. Big enough to send chills down spines of even the massive PLAN. The point that i am trying to make is, Army is good for the land but the land is limited. Its the oceans that give you freedom of movement. Throughout history, it has repeatedly showed that whoever controls the seas, controls the battle.

 

[niaz]

I think its about time that we started matching them ship for ship. Having a sub fleet is a good option but i fear they will suffer the same fate as Germany during world war 2. We need to induct a few more surface ships to augment our sub fleet. Somewhere along the lines of South Korea or Japan. They have massive navies. Big enough to send chills down spines of even the massive PLAN. The point that i am trying to make is, Army is good for the land but the land is limited. Its the oceans that give you freedom of movement. Throughout history, it has repeatedly showed that whoever controls the seas, controls the battle.

All well and good in theory, how are we going to finance this expansion? Let us assume that we suddenly strike it rich, who is going to sell us modern naval vessels, especially matching the INS aircraft carriers Vikrant & Vikramaditya? Let us not forget we would also need aircrafts to equip these ships!

Hon. Fatman17 has correctly pointed out that PN planners have to find ways for optimum utilization of the limited resources that can be spared for the Navy. Submarines, Maritime Patrol aircrafts and land based missile firing JF-17 appear to be the best bet.