I would like to invite everyone to think about Pakistan's strategy in light of the recent altercation between a US Navy ship and the Houthi rebels. For me, the lesson learnt (and the reason I am posting this here), is that security requirements must be viewed in the full context of enemy capability... but more on that later. First, let me copy appropriate bits of the news (sorry I am not allowed to post links)
*Start News* -------->
After being targeted by two missile launches off the coast of Yemen, the USS Mason, a guided missile destroyer, fired two missiles in defense.
The USS Mason fired missiles defending itself and the USS Ponce, an amphibious dock ship, after it detected inbound cruise missiles presumably fired from Houthi militants on shore in Yemen.
This follows an October 1 incident where a former US Navy ship, the United Arab Emirates' HSV Swift, sustained severe damages from a guided missile fired from Yemen. In the case of the HSV Swift, the Houthis claimed responsibility.
The Mason launched two Standard Missile-2s (SM-2s) and a Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) to intercept the two inbound missiles, also deploying a Nulka-class anti-ship decoy, at around 7 pm local time, sources told USNI News.
While the Mason did fire defensive missiles and the incoming missiles didn't hit their target, it's not clear if the SM-2s did their job, or if the incoming missile, likely a 1990s vintage Chinese-made cruise missile supplied to Houthi militants by Iran, simply sputtered out and hit the water of its own accord.
The Pentagon confirmed to Business Insider that they were investigating the incident at sea, but would not confirm the firing of the SM-2 missiles.
Instead, the Pentagon only said that "defensive countermeasures" had been taken.
SM-2s, in service with the US Navy for more than 20 years, cost nearly $1 million each.
<--------- *End News*
There is a lot to be learnt here. First, the Houthis, basically a rag tag group as compared to the US, had the temerity to fire a missile at the world's superpower. Secondly, there are questions around the old technology being able to actually work. The choice of words in the article: 'it's not clear if the SM-2s did their job, or if the incoming missile, likely a 1990s vintage Chinese-made cruise missile supplied to Houthi militants by Iran, simply sputtered out and hit the water of its own accord.' is very interesting. And this leads to the third insight: a million dollar missile developed over 20 years couldn't do the job it was supposed to do.
Bringing the conversation back to Pakistan:
1. Would a solid land based naval defence suffice?
2. How much augmentation does the land based system need from ships and submarine assets?
3. All this talk about VLS etc. to attack land targets is fine, but what about defending the ship itself? If 1 ship came under attack by 5 Indian ships at the same time, it would be a sitting duck! I would like more discussion on technologies that can be used to protect the ship itself.
4. Given the realities of naval warfare as reflected by the article above, do small navies stand any chance against larger opponents? What are some naval force multipliers that Pakistan could gain which India couldn't?
To provide some answers, I'll throw this fundamental challenge: If we are going to invest literally billions of dollars in naval assets, it must be mandated that these assets should have stealth technology. Yes, it sounds far fetched, but a nation that can develop nukes against all odds, and now we are hearing about a miniaturized nuclear reactor as well, such a nation can definitely master stealth.
Perspectives, opinions, comments plz.
