US commander stresses need to foster ties with Pakistan

[muse]

Jliu

Pakistan has and ought to have zero interest in a a 1000 ship navy that does not serv it's interest - that such a navy serves the interests of the US is fine for the US, but is a mistake for Pakistan.

No one will attack Chinese shipping unless ofcourse in the pay of the US.

About unsubstantiated claims - fair enough, however you will note that a US makes claims that Pakistan trains Taliban, that it provides safe havens to terrorists, you will also note that it's airforce today killed 13 to 20 pakistani uniformed personnel - and you will be aware that providing substantial evidence will carry with it political and military ramifictions, that is to say action will have to be taken and Pakistan are not in a position to do so - that the US is the patron behind acts of sabotage in Pakistan, that the malovalence of it's influence over it's client in the region, to ensure it's footprint in Balouchistan is common knowledge to all, other than some who image that evidence as in a court is to be presented, perhaps these persons remember the evidence presented to justify the attack on Iraq?? Maybe that was flaming as well

Unfortunately, today the US is a most dangerous and out of control outlaw, it must be dealt with over a long term to bring it to some semblence of sanity.

Then perhaps the State dept can take over diplomacy and leach those who think that because all they have is ahammer therfore all problems in the world are nails.

 

[Jliu]

Jliu

Pakistan has and ought to have zero interest in a a 1000 ship navy that does not serv it's interest - that such a navy serves the interests of the US is fine for the US, but is a mistake for Pakistan.

No one will attack Chinese shipping unless ofcourse in the pay of the US.

About unsubstantiated claims - fair enough, however you will note that a US makes claims that Pakistan trains Taliban, that it provides safe havens to terrorists, you will also note that it's airforce today killed 13 to 20 pakistani uniformed personnel - and you will be aware that providing substantial evidence will carry with it political and military ramifictions, that is to say action will have to be taken and Pakistan are not in a position to do so - that the US is the patron behind acts of sabotage in Pakistan, that the malovalence of it's influence over it's client in the region, to ensure it's footprint in Balouchistan is common knowledge to all, other than some who image that evidence as in a court is to be presented, perhaps these persons remember the evidence presented to justify the attack on Iraq?? Maybe that was flaming as well

Unfortunately, today the US is a most dangerous and out of control outlaw, it must be dealt with over a long term to bring it to some semblence of sanity.

Then perhaps the State dept can take over diplomacy and leach those who think that because all they have is ahammer therfore all problems in the world are nails.

I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. But please read my posts above as to why it is in the national interest of Pakistan in keeping the SLOCs open by partnering with the USN in the "Thousand Ship Navy"-reinforced by the fact that Pakistan has decided to participate in TF150 off Somalia.

In addition, stop resorting to further wildly unsubstantiated counter claims that prove NOTHING in defence of your earlier claims which I openly challenge as being mere conjecture. Instead provide reputable sources that back up your claims should you wish to have them verified.

Regards

 

[muse]

Laugh and cry - you are free to do both - Unfortunately for US and it's agencies, it has zero credibility in the eyes of most Pakistanis and most of this world - this should also make you laugh and cry.

Us imagines that1000 ship navy thatit can no longer afford and wants others to support can be built on fears - in fact the last 8 years of US "diplomacy" is nothing but the propagation of "fears" - and in the guise of those fears it has terrorized the world.

I understand that as a Naval officer this will not go down well with you, ut it is not a personal attack you - no one wants to see the kind of US we have seen in the last 8 years with all the harebrained ideas, a US determined ot be at war with entire populations of the world, a US that threatens the Muslim world at large, that uses it's client states to threaten stability in neigboring countries. But this is a fact, everywhere the Us is involved, Muslims must die.

Still crying? cheer up, soon there will be a opportunity to attack Iran and if that does not materialize, pakistani uniformed personnel can be offered to US bombs on hilltops in the provinces of Pakistan that border the US client.



Lets just agree to disagree. You see a US as a force of good and constructive power, and I... I wish that one day the view you have will be reality.

 

[Jliu]

Laugh and cry - you are free to do both - Unfortunately for US and it's agencies, it has zero credibility in the eyes of most Pakistanis and most of this world - this should also make you laugh and cry.

Us imagines that1000 ship navy thatit can no longer afford and wants others to support can be built on fears - in fact the last 8 years of US "diplomacy" is nothing but the propagation of "fears" - and in the guise of those fears it has terrorized the world.

I understand that as a Naval officer this will not go down well with you, ut it is not a personal attack you - no one wants to see the kind of US we have seen in the last 8 years with all the harebrained ideas, a US determined ot be at war with entire populations of the world, a US that threatens the Muslim world at large, that uses it's client states to threaten stability in neigboring countries. But this is a fact, everywhere the Us is involved, Muslims must die.

Still crying? cheer up, soon there will be a opportunity to attack Iran and if that does not materialize, pakistani uniformed personnel can be offered to US bombs on hilltops in the provinces of Pakistan that border the US client.



Lets just agree to disagree. You see a US as a force of good and constructive power, and I... I wish that one day the view you have will be reality.

Now exactly what does that have to do with the Pakistan's interest in keeping the SLOCs open by participating in joint operations with coalition forces?

Nothing at all. You are completely off topic.

Not only are you off topic but you deliberately ruin discussion threads with conjecture and unsubstantiated claims that you refuse to back up despite multiple requests to do so. In short you are a troll. I have exhausted all patience with you, will ignore you in the future and advise anyone interested in a balanced and objective discussion of the Pakistani Navy to do the same.

Good Day.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Gentlemen,

I think tensions and emotions are a bit high after the deaths of 13 Pakistani security forces in a NATO bombing inside Pakistan.

The details of this are still to emerge, but I would request you to put this acrimony behind and move onto discussing the subject of the thread in a dispassionate manner.

I am sure in other circumstances this would not have taken place.

 

[Comet]

The point, Jliu, is that why US is so much interested in this region? well perhaps US wants to be the sheriff or infect US thinks it is sheriff. Pakistan is not wealthy enough to think about such interests. PN is struggling for better weapon system to tackle IN. In these circumstances fighting a war ( or just patrolling for someone ) is not feasible.

 

[Jliu]

Gentlemen,

I think tensions and emotions are a bit high after the deaths of 13 Pakistani security forces in a NATO bombing inside Pakistan.

The details of this are still to emerge, but I would request you to put this acrimony behind and move onto discussing the subject of the thread in a dispassionate manner.

I am sure in other circumstances this would not have taken place.

I thank you for the message and offer my condolences to the families of those killed. I have been in contact with colleagues in Afghanistan and can assure you that it was not a deliberate act of hostility on the part of the US, most likely a friendly fire incident in 'hot pursuit' of insurgents crossing over back to their bases where ordinance was mistakenly dropped on friendly personnel as has happened in Afghan and Iraq. That said, we still have to wait for a full disclosure of facts to validate exactly what happened.

 

[Jliu]

The point, Jliu, is that why US is so much interested in this region? well perhaps US wants to be the sheriff or infect US thinks it is sheriff. Pakistan is not wealthy enough to think about such interests. PN is struggling for better weapon system to tackle IN. In these circumstances fighting a war ( or just patrolling for someone ) is not feasible.

For the answer to why the US and Pakistan have interests in ensuring the safe flow of crude through the Indian Ocean please read my post #14 throughly. It's all about economics.

Well as to your second point Pakistan better be wealthy enough to afford naval patrols to make sure nothing happens to those oil tankers-even at the expense of maintaining deterrence against India simply because if any pirate attack pushes up the price of oil guess what will happen to your nation's economy? In very simple terms the price of petroleum will shoot through the roof (inflation) and so will the price of your bread and essentials the majority of the population need to survive.

Looking for platforms to "tackle" the IN is pure rubbish. Pakistan like all other countries with quality armed forces seek to procure platforms and systems that achieve policy objectives and I can assure you that facing off against the IN is not one of those objectives while maintaining deterrence is.
The PN is incapable of matching the IN in either qualititative or quantitative terms and for that you may thank the Pakistani Army for consuming most of the defence budget for the last two decades as well as the last three governments of Pakistan for failing to allocate funds effectively.

Most estimates indicate that the PN would cease to be a fighting force in two weeks of sustained operations by the IN which is extremely regrettable given my respect for the officers of the PN. Indeed one of my primary duties while in Pakistan was to "enhance the operational effectiveness" of the PN surface fleet

 

[Comet]

I got your point about economics. But having a navy that is not capable of defending us is useless. of course it is a small navy thats why we need every last of nuts and bolts of our navy to maintain minimum deterence in case of aggression by IN.

 

[vish]

I got your point about economics. But having a navy that is not capable of defending us is useless. of course it is a small navy thats why we need every last of nuts and bolts of our navy to maintain minimum deterence in case of aggression by IN.

You must realize that defence does not alone mean squaring off and holding the enemy. Tha PN won't be able to hold on the IN in a straight fight; this does not imply that it is "entirely incapable of anything."

PN's goal is to ensure that Pakistan's sea lanes remain open and that it should be in a position to somewhat deter IN's actions to a certain extent by means of a competent, though small, sub-surface arm.

I think it is doing a rather okay job if you ask me, especially given the limited scope of its funding.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

You must realize that defence does not alone mean squaring off and holding the enemy. Tha PN won't be able to hold on the IN in a straight fight; this does not imply that it is "entirely incapable of anything."

PN's goal is to ensure that Pakistan's sea lanes remain open and that it should be in a position to somewhat deter IN's actions to a certain extent by means of a competent, though small, sub-surface arm.

I think it is doing a rather okay job if you ask me, especially given the limited scope of its funding.

your analysis is correct on this matter, PN hardly had any funding at all, or spotlight for that matter. there is no comparison between the IN and PN, as of right now. as for the carrier, I just wanted to mention that the aircraft carrier is most likely for power projection beyond the scope of the sub-continent. even if it was to head off to pakistan, we do have an air arm for the navy.

however, Gwadar changes everything. you are now starting to see a lot more focus on the navy. building more and and expanding current dockyards, about 9 SSK subs, 4 F-22P on ToT, 4 FFG, AWACS, air arm consisting of mirages and possibly JF-17 in the future, Corvettes, SLCM, development of SSN subs and mini-reactor, midget subs, marines and special forces creation and expansion.

you're looking at a four dimensional navy and hopefully that will include second strike capability. we also have good relations with Sri Lanka/Maldives and we can also base our aircraft in Oman. best of all, we sit right at the mouth of the Gulf, Gwadar.

 

[vish]

however, Gwadar changes everything. you are now starting to see a lot more focus on the navy.

Gwadar is more defensive than offensive; the primary purpose of Gwadar is to make it difficult (it isn't impossible) for the IN to carry out a blockade of Pakistan.

building more and and expanding current dockyards, about 9 SSK subs, 4 F-22P on ToT, 4 FFG, AWACS, air arm consisting of mirages and possibly JF-17 in the future, Corvettes, SLCM, development of SSN subs and mini-reactor, midget subs, marines and special forces creation and expansion.

PN is a frigate and submarine centric navy. If my knowledge is correct, one of PAF's AWACS will be based in Karachi and will be shared with the PN. PN's air arm does not feature a strike component; I have no idea with regard to its future plans. Maritime strike roles are a responsibility of the PAF.

There is no evidence to suggest that the PN is attempting an SSN; the primary reason being there is no nedd for it. AIP SSKs suit the PN's demands well and are cheaper to operate.

PN will continue to remain a frigate and submarine centric navy in the foreseeable future, and a defensive one at that.

you're looking at a four dimensional navy and hopefully that will include second strike capability. we also have good relations with Sri Lanka/Maldives and we can also base our aircraft in Oman. best of all, we sit right at the mouth of the Gulf, Gwadar.

If you're implying that the PN plans to operate SSBNs, I'm affraid that you're mistaken. If you want to suggest a SLCM based nuclear strike option; then, yes, it can happen. But we'lll have to wait and watch.

Maldives and Sri Lanka won't offer the PN any bases.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

I just wanted to mention that the aircraft carrier is most likely for power projection beyond the scope of the sub-continent

Gorshkov can do more than power projection
1. Fleet air dominance
2. Long range anti shipping and theatre denial role etc

The next two carriers IAC 1 and IAC 2 will play the role of power projection.

Currently and even after Gorshkov comes into play the primary shore bombing and shore attack will be taken care of by Airforce fighters and not Navy's untill IAC 1 and 2 become operational.

however, Gwadar changes everything.

Actually it is counter productive for IN as Pakistan has to divide its assets to protect two ports rather than focussing on single one.

building more and and expanding current dockyards, about 9 SSK subs, 4 F-22P on ToT, 4 FFG, AWACS, air arm consisting of mirages and possibly JF-17 in the future, Corvettes, SLCM, development of SSN subs and mini-reactor, midget subs, marines and special forces creation and expansion.

At best will provide good defence and still you have to divide these assets between Gwadhar and Karachi and yet also perform sea denial roles. You are comparing these aquisitions with current IN capabilities, you will have to compare them with future aquisition plans of IN. Also PN will retire several older ships and platforms .

you're looking at a four dimensional navy and hopefully that will include second strike capability

Will require another nuclear test(cannot be done in the near future) or complex computational capabilities(which you dont have) for performing simulation tests before the warhead can be meniaturesied without reduction in yeild to fit into cruise missile.

we also have good relations with Sri Lanka/Maldives and we can also base our aircraft in Oman

Srilanka: Forget it , will never happen having good relations is one thing and opposing IN for your sake is another, SL has too much to loose from providing you with berthing facility. Sl has one of the best natural harbours in the world and guess who wanted to establish a base there and was denied the option? I ll give you clue, Some call it a super power, while some call it the big bully and some call it the worlds police man..

Maldives: Ever heard of India setting up listening posts there.

Oman: Dude Oman is one of the countries that has best relations with India, their officers are trainedin India, Their doctors are trained in India, their students attend Indian universities. I hope Energon can explain to you this in detail.

Alas I want you to ask, why do you want to deploy you navy to these parts of the world, so that they can become peacemeal without any proper aircover and protection, so that you dont have enough assets to protect your own seaboard thus allowing IN to walk right into your water because you had diverted your assets to oather bases and they were destroyed by IN since they did not have proper aircoved and protection and were small because they were fragmented.

best of all, we sit right at the mouth of the Gulf, Gwadar.

Err wht advantage does that provide you

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Gwadar is more defensive than offensive; the primary purpose of Gwadar is to make it difficult (it isn't impossible) for the IN to carry out a blockade of Pakistan.

true, but the expansion of the navy hints at the fact that our higer-ups have realized the potential of being at the mouth of the Gulf.

here's an article quoting the indian naval chief, i'm sure india's real worries are from China, but he still mentions pakistan.

Pak's new port has strategic implications for India: Navy chief
22 Jan 2008, 1425 hrs IST,PTI

CHENNAI: The Gwadar port being built by Pakistan with Chinese assistance in its Baluchistan coast has "serious strategic implications for India", Naval Chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta has said.

"Being only 180 nautical miles from the exit of the Straits of Hormuz, Gwadar, being bulit in Baluchistan coast, would enable Pakistan take control over the world energy jugular and interdiction of Indian tankers," he said delivering T S Narayanaswamy Memorial lecture in Chennai on Monday night.

The challenge for India was to balance relations with China in such a manner that competition for strategic significance of space in the Indian Ocean leads to cooperation rather than conflict, he said

"The pressure for countries to cooperate in the maritime military domain to ensure smooth flow of energy and commerce on the high seas will grow even further," he said speaking on "Oceanic Influence on India's Development in the next Decade."

Talking about "Chinese designs on the Indian Ocean," Mehta said China had a strategy called `String of Pearls,' as per which it seeks to set up bases and outposts across the globe, strategically located along its energy lines, to monitor and safeguard energy flows. "Each pearl in the string is a link in a chain of the Chinese maritime presence," he said.

"Among other locations, the string moves Northwards up to Gwadar deep sea port on Pakistan's Makran coast. A highway is under construction joining Gwadar with Karachi and there are plans to connect the port with the Karakoram Highway, thus providing China a gateway to Arabian Sea," he said adding that


Pak's new port has strategic implications for India: Navy chief-India-The Times of India

PN is a frigate and submarine centric navy. If my knowledge is correct, one of PAF's AWACS will be based in Karachi and will be shared with the PN. PN's air arm does not feature a strike component; I have no idea with regard to its future plans. Maritime strike roles are a responsibility of the PAF.

my claim that PN is expanding in hopes of achieving its strategic goals is legit. PN was offered the E-2 Hawkeye and wants to put an order.
it's true the air arm is provided by the PAF, but it's specifically designated for the navy.

There is no evidence to suggest that the PN is attempting an SSN; the primary reason being there is no nedd for it. AIP SSKs suit the PN's demands well and are cheaper to operate.

please go through the threads in the naval section, I'm sure you can find something on our nuclear sub program which we already have discussed a while ago. there is mini-reactor research going on at PAEC.

If you're implying that the PN plans to operate SSBNs, I'm affraid that you're mistaken. If you want to suggest a SLCM based nuclear strike option; then, yes, it can happen. But we'lll have to wait and watch.

SLCM is already being planned out. most likely, pakistan has the capability to launch babur from a tube. why are we waiting for the tests for so long now? we still have an order that needs to come through from Germany, the U-214. we can't risk testing a nuclear-capable cruise missile right now, that would be foolish.

it is pakistan's long term goal to have SLBM's, but that won't be possible anytime soon. SLCM will do the same job for right now.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Actually it is counter productive for IN as Pakistan has to divide its assets to protect two ports rather than focussing on single one.

uhmm.. no not really. i don't think news about Gwadar and the relief it provides to the navy in case of blockade, could be disastrous for the navy.

At best will provide good defence and still you have to divide these assets between Gwadhar and Karachi and yet also perform sea denial roles. You are comparing these aquisitions with current IN capabilities, you will have to compare them with future aquisition plans of IN. Also PN will retire several older ships and platforms .

PN is currently seeking more ships, frigates, corvettes, etc. some of these acquisitions will just be interim solutions to fill in the gap. there will more acquisitions even after these.

Will require another nuclear test(cannot be done in the near future) or complex computational capabilities(which you dont have) for performing simulation tests before the warhead can be meniaturesied without reduction in yeild to fit into cruise missile.

what? why do we require another nuclear test to have a second strike capability?

pakistan can already miniaturize its warheads to fit cruise missiles, otherwise i don't think we would make the claim that they're nuclear capable. cruise missiles will most likely use plutonium weapons for higher yeild.

and how do you know that pakistan does not have any simulation mechanisms, software, or computational capabilities for nuclear weapons? can you provide a specific source that pakistan does not have these? i'd be happy to learn more.

Srilanka: Forget it , will never happen having good relations is one thing and opposing IN for your sake is another, SL has too much to loose from providing you with berthing facility. Sl has one of the best natural harbours in the world and guess who wanted to establish a base there and was denied the option? I ll give you clue, Some call it a super power, while some call it the big bully and some call it the worlds police man..

Maldives: Ever heard of India setting up listening posts there.

true, Sri Lanka is not possible, but Maldives apparently has a chinese naval base.
LankaWeb News

Oman: Dude Oman is one of the countries that has best relations with India, their officers are trainedin India, Their doctors are trained in India, their students attend Indian universities. I hope Energon can explain to you this in detail.

ever heard of the large balochi population in Oman? we practically share the same culture. pakistan has many agreements with the middle east, Oman is just another one on the list.

Alas I want you to ask, why do you want to deploy you navy to these parts of the world, so that they can become peacemeal without any proper aircover and protection, so that you dont have enough assets to protect your own seaboard thus allowing IN to walk right into your water because you had diverted your assets to oather bases and they were destroyed by IN since they did not have proper aircoved and protection and were small because they were fragmented.

what are you trying to say here? that india can easily wipe out pakistan's navy without any trouble and that it's worthless to expand? the navy is going through an expansion, there's no denying that.

as for estabilishing bases in other countries, China is pretty good at doing that even though their naval presence is hardly a threat. why should Pakistan not do the same? pakistan can defend itself, whether it has bases abroad or not.

Err wht advantage does that provide you

think