Does Pakistan Have a Sea-Based Second-Strike Capability?

[insight-out]

Does Pakistan Have a Sea-Based Second-Strike Capability?

Much about Islamabad’s sea-based nuclear deterrent remains a mystery, including its future submarine force.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
March 13, 2015

Back in 2012, Pakistan announced the creation of a Naval Strategic Force Command and hinted that the country now possessed a sea-based second nuclear strike capability.

Today, almost three years later, Pakistan’s alleged maritime deterrent continues to puzzle analysts. The overall consensus of opinion is that the country has not acquired a sea-based second nuclear strike capability just yet. Another thing that most experts agree is that the delivery vehicle of an ocean-launched Pakistani nuclear warhead would be a submarine-launched variant of the Hatf-7 (Babur) cruise missile.

According to a 2013 policy brief on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, Pakistan already indicated in 2005, when the missile was first tested, that the system was designed to deploy in submarines. The Hatf-7 is a medium-range subsonic cruise missile with a reported range of 700km (430mi).

Yet, the Washington Post notes, that Western experts, “are divided over whether Pakistan has the ability to shrink warheads enough for use with tactical or sea-launched weapons.” Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear and nonproliferation scholar is a skeptical: “They may have done so, but I can’t imagine it’s very reliable,” he states.

Shireen M. Mazari, a nuclear expert and the former director of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, a Pakistani-government-funded think tank, acknowledged that the 2012 announcement may have been too premature: ”We are on our way, and my own hunch is within a year or so, we should be developing our second-strike capability,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post in September 2014.

One expert notes that in order to achieve a sea-based second-strike capability, “Pakistan will require a significant expansion of its submarine fleet [surface vessels would be too easy to detect], which will impose an enormous burden on the struggling Pakistan economy.” In 2013, the Pakistani government had to agree to a $ 6.6 million IMF bailout with various strings attached to what the country is allowed to spend money on.

According to a December 2014 article in India Today, a Sino-Pak strategic submarine project launched in 2010 – and suffering from various setbacks according to other sources – will “transform the Pakistan Navy into a strategic force capable of launching a sea-based nuclear weapons strike.”

The article furthermore notes that,

“Pakistan will build two types of submarines with Chinese assistance: the Project S-26 and Project S-30. The vessels are to be built at the Submarine Rebuild Complex (SRC) facility being developed at Ormara, west of Karachi. Intelligence sources believe the S-30 submarines are based on the Chinese Qing class submarines-3,000-tonne conventional submarines which can launch three 1,500-km range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from its conning tower. A Very Low Frequency (VLF) station at Turbat, in southern Balochistan, will communicate with these submerged strategic submarines.”

According to globalsecurity.org, the Wuhan-based China State Shipbuilding Industrial Corp (CSIC) signed a contract in April 2011 to deliver six Type 032 Qing-class conventional attack submarines by 2016/2017. “Each can carry three CJ-10K submarine-launched, 1,500km-range land attack cruise missiles (LACM) capable of being armed with unitary tactical nuclear warheads,” the article notes. Yet, globalsecurity.org emphasizes that the reports on this Sino-PAK contract “must be taken with a grain of salt.”

To make matters more complicated, most reports note that the submarines purchased will be six Type 041Yuan-class vessels. Pakistan’s current submarine fleet consists of two upgraded French DCNS Agosta-70 and three Agosta 90Bs (equipped with air independent propulsion).

 

[Zarvan]

Does Pakistan Have a Sea-Based Second-Strike Capability?

Much about Islamabad’s sea-based nuclear deterrent remains a mystery, including its future submarine force.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
March 13, 2015

Back in 2012, Pakistan announced the creation of a Naval Strategic Force Command and hinted that the country now possessed a sea-based second nuclear strike capability.

Today, almost three years later, Pakistan’s alleged maritime deterrent continues to puzzle analysts. The overall consensus of opinion is that the country has not acquired a sea-based second nuclear strike capability just yet. Another thing that most experts agree is that the delivery vehicle of an ocean-launched Pakistani nuclear warhead would be a submarine-launched variant of the Hatf-7 (Babur) cruise missile.

According to a 2013 policy brief on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, Pakistan already indicated in 2005, when the missile was first tested, that the system was designed to deploy in submarines. The Hatf-7 is a medium-range subsonic cruise missile with a reported range of 700km (430mi).

Yet, the Washington Post notes, that Western experts, “are divided over whether Pakistan has the ability to shrink warheads enough for use with tactical or sea-launched weapons.” Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear and nonproliferation scholar is a skeptical: “They may have done so, but I can’t imagine it’s very reliable,” he states.

Shireen M. Mazari, a nuclear expert and the former director of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, a Pakistani-government-funded think tank, acknowledged that the 2012 announcement may have been too premature: ”We are on our way, and my own hunch is within a year or so, we should be developing our second-strike capability,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post in September 2014.

One expert notes that in order to achieve a sea-based second-strike capability, “Pakistan will require a significant expansion of its submarine fleet [surface vessels would be too easy to detect], which will impose an enormous burden on the struggling Pakistan economy.” In 2013, the Pakistani government had to agree to a $ 6.6 million IMF bailout with various strings attached to what the country is allowed to spend money on.

According to a December 2014 article in India Today, a Sino-Pak strategic submarine project launched in 2010 – and suffering from various setbacks according to other sources – will “transform the Pakistan Navy into a strategic force capable of launching a sea-based nuclear weapons strike.”

The article furthermore notes that,

“Pakistan will build two types of submarines with Chinese assistance: the Project S-26 and Project S-30. The vessels are to be built at the Submarine Rebuild Complex (SRC) facility being developed at Ormara, west of Karachi. Intelligence sources believe the S-30 submarines are based on the Chinese Qing class submarines-3,000-tonne conventional submarines which can launch three 1,500-km range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from its conning tower. A Very Low Frequency (VLF) station at Turbat, in southern Balochistan, will communicate with these submerged strategic submarines.”

According to globalsecurity.org, the Wuhan-based China State Shipbuilding Industrial Corp (CSIC) signed a contract in April 2011 to deliver six Type 032 Qing-class conventional attack submarines by 2016/2017. “Each can carry three CJ-10K submarine-launched, 1,500km-range land attack cruise missiles (LACM) capable of being armed with unitary tactical nuclear warheads,” the article notes. Yet, globalsecurity.org emphasizes that the reports on this Sino-PAK contract “must be taken with a grain of salt.”

To make matters more complicated, most reports note that the submarines purchased will be six Type 041Yuan-class vessels. Pakistan’s current submarine fleet consists of two upgraded French DCNS Agosta-70 and three Agosta 90Bs (equipped with air independent propulsion).

We are developing one and we would be there really very soon

 

[SipahSalar]

Short answer: Nope.

As the article rightly points out, you need more submarines for a viable second strike capability. At least three to be exact.

One is out hiding in the waters, one is at port and one under going repairs and maintenance. You should remember that submarine deployments in Pakistan usually don't last more than a month. You need at least 3 submarines exclusively for just one mission to maintain credible second strike capability. We only have 3 agosta submarines, now do we turn them into second strike submarines? Or do we employ them for dual-use?

Having a submarine armed with nukes perform attack submarine missions does not sound like a smart idea.

Also some leaked information is that Navy formed the Naval Strategic Command on it's own initiative due to competition between services. After all PAF and PA both are custodians of our crown jewels, and Navy feels left out and irrelevant.

 

[Zarvan]

Short answer: Nope.

As the article rightly points out, you need more submarines for a viable second strike capability. At least three to be exact.

One is out hiding in the waters, one is at port and one under going repairs and maintenance. You should remember that submarine deployments in Pakistan usually don't last more than a month. You need at least 3 submarines exclusively for just one mission to maintain credible second strike capability. We only have 3 agosta submarines, now do we turn them into second strike submarines? Or do we employ them for dual-use?

Having a submarine armed with nukes perform attack submarine missions does not sound like a smart idea.

Also some leaked information is that Navy formed the Naval Strategic Command on it's own initiative due to competition between services. After all PAF and PA both are custodians of our crown jewels, and Navy feels left out and irrelevant.

We need to go for Type 96 from China and few more AIP submarines

 

[HRK]

Just on the lighter note

Shireen M. Mazari, a nuclear expert and the former director of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, a Pakistani-government-funded think tank, acknowledged that the 2012 announcement may have been too premature: ”We are on our way, and my own hunch is within a year or so, we should be developing our second-strike capability,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post in September 2014.

In 2013, the Pakistani government had to agree to a $ 6.6 million IMF bailout with various strings attached to what the country is allowed to spend money on

According to a December 2014 article in India Today, a Sino-Pak strategic submarine project launched in 2010

“Pakistan will build two types of submarines with Chinese assistance: the Project S-26 and Project S-30

& this article is published in 'Diplomat'

 

[Kompromat]

The question is irrelevant.

 

[Aepsilons]

Back in 2012, Pakistan announced the creation of a Naval Strategic Force Command and hinted that the country now possessed a sea-based second nuclear strike capability.

What nuclear country, besides India, would strike Pakistan? There are none.

 

[ares]

The question is irrelevant.

It is absolutely relevant if Pakistan hopes for MAD scenario with India, or even the one of minimum credible deterrence.

Without having an assured second strike capability, enemy can carry out pre-emptive decapitation strikes(even nuclear strike) on Pakistan's land based nuclear arsenal, and significantly reduce it effectiveness, if not totally eliminate it all together.

A decapitated nuclear capability and India's fledging ballistics missiles shields, will ensure Pakistan will suffer much more losses nuclear terms than India and will altogether lose the nuclear war.

 

[Gufi]

It is absolutely relevant if Pakistan hopes for MAD scenario with India, or even the one of minimum credible deterrence.

Without having an assured second strike capability, enemy can carry out pre-emptive decapitation strikes(even nuclear strike) on Pakistan's land based nuclear arsenal, and significantly reduce it effectiveness, if not totally eliminate it all together.

A decapitated nuclear capability and India's fledging ballistics missiles shields, will ensure Pakistan will suffer much more losses nuclear terms than India and will altogether lose the nuclear war.

There has been careful study done on how to retaliate in case of any event. Do you think it is that easy to take out a country's capabilities, especially if there are a hundred nuclear weapons. There is a reason there has been no major wars after Pakistan has increased the number of bombs. Just 20 crossing into major Indian cities would push India back to a crippled state. Delhi is less then 20 minutes away from Lahore by a super sonic missile and if you calculate major cities of India one day you will realize how many are in close radius of Pakistan.Most of India will burn if there is ever a nuclear war because of the relative distance between cities. Add radiation fall out and the subsequent atmospheric changes and you are left with an India which is gone back a 100 years and certainly in no way capable of defending against other aggressors who will swoop in seeing an opening.
Fantasy world is a wonderful world where the opposition can do nothing but with an estimated stock pile of 100 weapons and early warning systems as well as ground intelligence it would be a foolish notion of thinking that there would be no reaction.
As for second strike capability from sea, that is an extra advantage which would make sure the Indian Navy is always patrolling it's own shores rather then expand outwards. It may already be present on certain ships in the form of cruise missiles which would not really be advertised. Or maybe it is not. The point being you underestimate your enemy at your own peril.
Also with Bangladesh on one side and Pakistan on the other, both willing to let China use their sea ports, Indian Navy will be troubled in a few years as the Chinese submarine program expands.

 

[ares]

There has been careful study done on how to retaliate in case of any event. Do you think it is that easy to take out a country's capabilities, especially if there are a hundred nuclear weapons. There is a reason there has been no major wars after Pakistan has increased the number of bombs.

Just 20 crossing into major Indian cities would push India back to a crippled state. Delhi is less then 20 minutes away from Lahore by a super sonic missile and if you calculate major cities of India one day you will realize how many are in close radius of Pakistan.

Most of India will burn if there is ever a nuclear war because of the relative distance between cities. Add radiation fall out and the subsequent atmospheric changes and you are left with an India which is gone back a 100 years and certainly in no way capable of defending against other aggressors who will swoop in seeing an opening.

Fantasy world is a wonderful world where the opposition can do nothing but with an estimated stock pile of 100 weapons and early warning systems as well as ground intelligence it would be a foolish notion of thinking that there would be no reaction.

As for second strike capability from sea, that is an extra advantage which would make sure the Indian Navy is always patrolling it's own shores rather then expand outwards. It may already be present on certain ships in the form of cruise missiles which would not really be advertised. Or maybe it is not. The point being you underestimate your enemy at your own peril.
A
lso with Bangladesh on one side and Pakistan on the other, both willing to let China use their sea ports, Indian Navy will be troubled in a few years as the Chinese submarine program expands.

A decapitating Nuclear strike is in no way easy, but it ain't impossible either, that is why countries like USA, USSR, went to such extreme lengths to ensure they have a viable nuclear second strike capability..despite having huge land masses to hide their nuclear weapons and a 20 minute warning in case of surprise nuclear attack.

eg 24/7 Airborne strategic nuclear bombers.
Huge SSBNs under arctic ice caps.
Deployment of majority of their weapons at sea.

Now these nations were 20 times as big as Pakistan and had 200 times as many nuclear weapons...even then they were not sure of their second strike capabilities.

A single Arihant class sub can pump 12 nuclear missiles into Pakistan, and Pakistan will not even get 30 second warning, before the first missile reaches its target.

Now Pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons, they would dispersed at dozen different locations, if India is able neutralize even 80 % of Pakistani nukes in first strike, the rest 20% will be fired against already deployed missile shield around primary cities, from a non existent command and control structure.

Clearly Pakistan can not expect much success, from these strike, of course India might lose a couple or more cities, but these losses are minute in nuclear terms.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

We need to go for Type 96 from China and few more AIP submarines

Type 096 is a nuclear ballistic missile submarine that can carry around 24 SLBM's which are capable of targeting most of the Earth from China's own waters.

I don't think Pakistan needs such a large range right now, also it will be difficult to transfer something like that.

A better short-term solution would be more AIP submarines that are capable of launching cruise missiles (that can be fitted with nuclear warheads). That should give Pakistan a very strong second-strike capability.

In terms of second-strike options on land, a good and cost effective option is to use a lot of "road-mobile" ballistic missile launchers.

 

[Gufi]

Clearly Pakistan can not expect much success, from these strike, of course India might lose a couple or more cities, but these losses are minute in nuclear terms.

maybe 2/3 of your major cities would be destroyed. The number of nuclear missiles in Pakistan will multiply when new nuclear reactors open. But again, your war planning is great. You would destroy most cities near Pakistan, as well as strategic cities like Mumbai for your victory. Wonderful victory that would be I guess. With Shaheen III in the mix I think you will find it hard to decapitate the nuclear program so easily.

Now Pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons, they would dispersed at dozen different locations, if India is able neutralize even 80 % of Pakistani nukes in first strike, the rest 20% will be fired against already deployed missile shield around primary cities, from a non existent command and control structure.

Again you act like this would not be a scenario taken into consideration.

A single Arihant class sub can pump 12 nuclear missiles into Pakistan, and Pakistan will not even get 30 second warning, before the first missile reaches its target.

Transporter erector launcher, study these and now imagine a few near the Indian border somewhere hidden in some small base where there missiles which are preprogrammed needing minutes to launch, do I need to really go on.
As for the example of Russia and America, the technology they employ is miles ahead of what either nation has and the interception is different because of the time between the countries. Consider the example given above, add other missiles which you know Pakistan has, and take a guess how this would end. Your theory of 80 percent of the nuclear missiles being so susceptible again is a joke. You think they are laying around with no protection. Consider bunkers and nuclear silos when you talk if you must debate do check up on things first. Like I said land of fantasy is getting you no where.

In terms of second-strike options on land, a good and cost effective option is to use a lot of "road-mobile" ballistic missile launchers.

Most of our missiles, whether cruise or ballistic have that option. But apparently Indian posters here think they can take out 80 percent in a pre emptive strike while the Pakistani army watches. It is funny you see....

A better short-term solution would be more AIP submarines that are capable of launching cruise missiles (that can be fitted with nuclear warheads). That should give Pakistan a very strong second-strike capability.

Those would be a welcome addition and our governments must be working on submarine deals after the Indian aircraft carrier I guess a few silent submarines would be heading our way.

What nuclear country, besides India, would strike Pakistan? There are none.

Yes apparently the notion that nuclear missile silos can be taken out is very easy here on this thread. As well as the belief that all the early warning systems Pakistan has invested in will go to sleep so these strikes mentioned by the posters here can happen quietly and unnoticed.

 

[Zarvan]

Type 096 is a nuclear ballistic missile submarine that can carry around 24 SLBM's which are capable of targeting most of the Earth from China's own waters.

I don't think Pakistan needs such a large range right now, also it will be difficult to transfer something like that.

A better short-term solution would be more AIP submarines that are capable of launching cruise missiles (that can be fitted with nuclear warheads). That should give Pakistan a very strong second-strike capability.

In terms of second-strike options on land, a good and cost effective option is to use a lot of "road-mobile" ballistic missile launchers.

I think the issue is money otherwise we would soon go for Type 95 or Type 96

 

[ares]

maybe 2/3 of your major cities would be destroyed. The number of nuclear missiles in Pakistan will multiply when new nuclear reactors open. But again, your war planning is great. You would destroy most cities near Pakistan, as well as strategic cities like Mumbai for your victory. Wonderful victory that would be I guess. With Shaheen III in the mix I think you will find it hard to decapitate the nuclear program so easily.



Again you act like this would not be a scenario taken into consideration.

Transporter erector launcher, study these and now imagine a few near the Indian border somewhere hidden in some small base where there missiles which are preprogrammed needing minutes to launch, do I need to really go on.
As for the example of Russia and America, the technology they employ is miles ahead of what either nation has and the interception is different because of the time between the countries. Consider the example given above, add other missiles which you know Pakistan has, and take a guess how this would end. Your theory of 80 percent of the nuclear missiles being so susceptible again is a joke. You think they are laying around with no protection. Consider bunkers and nuclear silos when you talk if you must debate do check up on things first. Like I said land of fantasy is getting you no where.


Most of our missiles, whether cruise or ballistic have that option. But apparently Indian posters here think they can take out 80 percent in a pre emptive strike while the Pakistani army watches. It is funny you see....

Those would be a welcome addition and our governments must be working on submarine deals after the Indian aircraft carrier I guess a few silent submarines would be heading our way.

The problem is not number of Pakistani missiles or their range, but limited space Pakistan has to disperse them.

If Pakistan hides them near Indian border, they are vulnerable to conventional strikes, if they are deep with in Pakistani landscape, hiding in mountains, they can be taken out with nuclear strikes, all one needs is actionable intelligence...both HUMINT and ELINT.

Not to forget EMP produced by use of these nuclear weapons will knock out electrical circuits and microchips over large areas of Pakistan, neutralising the Pakistani missiles which get exposed to this EMP.

Mobile launcher are soft skin targets and very vulnerable to enemy bombing, on top of it, if command and control structure is destroyed, as would be in case if nuclear war..and there is chaos and general indiscipline amongst the ranks.

 

[Gufi]

Not to forget EMP produced by use of these nuclear weapons will knock out electrical circuits and microchips over large areas of Pakistan, neutralising the Pakistani missiles which get exposed to this EMP.

EMP shielding, study the concept. Plus early warning systems would allow many missiles to be launched by the time your missiles reach their targets.

If Pakistan hides them near Indian border, they are vulnerable to conventional strikes, if they are deep with in Pakistani landscape, hiding in mountains, they can be taken out with nuclear strikes, all one needs is actionable intelligence...both HUMINT and ELINT.

Yes the intelligence that pinpoints 80 percent of our nuclear bombs is easier to gather then an imminent Indian strike on Pakistan. Be realistic please this is getting monotonous. You think the army in front of you is sleeping while you are invulnerable.

Mobile launcher are soft skin targets and very vulnerable to enemy bombing, on top of it, if command and control structure is destroyed, as would be in case if nuclear war..and there is chaos and general indiscipline amongst the ranks.

Like I stated there are command and control structures in place for such situations. Read basic military norms in nuclear strikes before you come to debate. Read different situations and their outcomes. There are many analysts who debated these very things in the Cold war and if you follow those you would understand these situations are planned for.

The problem is not number of Pakistani missiles or their range, but limited space Pakistan has to disperse them.

Limited space, do look at a map some time. Granted Pakistan is not as big as India but there are enough places and enough bombs to assure India suffers.
And by your logic Pakistan should line its missiles near the Indian border and finish India off while the ballistic shield can protect Pakistan from any retaliation and some small damage is received and India is no more then smoking pile of rubble. Because every early detection that India has is supposed to be sleeping and they are just sitting there with no quick response time and no bunkers and shielding. Sounds as smart as your logic. Think about it before you come up with what ifs again and again which sound more and more ridiculous.