Why does our Navy fail so horribly?

[Mav3rick]

Naval assets have always been most expensive units. It takes a lot of trained manpower and economic resources to operate and maintain a single warship than any other item in the army or the air force. Additionally one needs even more assets to safeguard naval assets. For example an aircraft carrier is sitting duck and needs a fleet of escorts for protection.
Other surface vessels such as cruisers and destroyers are vulnerable to mines, to air and submarine attacks and dedicated anti-aircraft frigates, minesweepers and anti-sub frigates/corvettes for protection.

However, one must have Navy to protect the sea lanes vital for receiving supplies and also to safeguard economic zones. Additionally navy is the only means thru which military power can be projected far beyond the country’s shores to safeguard national interests.
Pakistan has a relatively small shore line and unlike an island nation, has land route access to the military and oil supplies thru Iran, China and Afghanistan. Additionally, ever since the Midway battle o WW2, Naval Air Power is considered the deciding factor in the major conflicts at sea. Thus when defence are funds allocated; PN always comes last. In the light of the above, before we criticize PN, we have to ask ourselves did our Navy perform below expectations given the resource constraints.

Based upon 1971 showing, answer will be definitely yes. For example, was it prudent to send Ghazi on a wild goose chase to the Indian East coast and thus leave Karachi undefended? Why did we not foresee capabilities of the Ossa FAC and did not plan any counter measures? Why there was no air arm to speak of? This is probably down to the Defence High Command as well as calibre of the PN Command more than anything else.

I put down failure of the PN in 1971 to many factors, most of all incomptent leadership and manpower resource of Pakistan’s military machine in general and of the Navy in particular.

Don’t think we in Pakistan have the habit of an objective self-analysis and devising ways and means to make optimum use of our resources. A very minor incident such as bombing of Dwarka was made into a huge success story in 1965 giving a false sense of invincibility to an inefficient naval force. Indians learnt from the lessons of 1965 and took corrective measures. Whereas it appears that the nation has not learned anything from the debacle of 1971 be it regarding military or regarding politics.

In the place of the Bengalis, we are now targeting Shias. Do you think that Shias of Gilgit or the Hazara of Quetta or Shias of Parachinar can remain loyal to Pakistan when their members are dragged out of the busses and shot? The very sectarian parties now call themselves Defence of Pakistan Council! Defence against what?

On the other hand; despite the technological prowess of the US military demonstrated during the Abbottabad Osama incident, popular TV personalities such Zaid Hamid openly advocate fighting US and prophesize victory! Many of my naïve countrymen believe it totally forgetting what happened to Saddam with his invincible army.

What we lack is the top class human resource with foresight and with ability to realize what we can do and fortitude to accept what we cannot. Thus act in the best possible interest of the nation.

This applies to all branches of the military as well as the navy. The reason why PN failed was more to do with paucity of capable leadership and less with scarcity of the resources.

There has to be a paradigm shift in the national thinking, else Pakistan is going nowhere.

Well......Brother, Saddam did not have Nuclear Weapons and their delivery systems. A weapon that can wipe out a whole city. Only when your enemy is absolute about your resolve to defend yourself with 'all' means necessary or die trying would you be protected against the bully.

 

[niaz]

Well......Brother, Saddam did not have Nuclear Weapons and their delivery systems. A weapon that can wipe out a whole city. Only when your enemy is absolute about your resolve to defend yourself with 'all' means necessary or die trying would you be protected against the bully.

Honourable Mav3rick,

Understand US had implied elimination of our nuclear weapons using cruise missiles with their naval ships standing 300 miles of Pakistan coast that is why Musharraf agreed to support US in WOT. On the other hand Pakistan has no means of hitting US mainland. We may be able to destroy a few US naval vessels but nothing much will be left of Pakistan after US retaliatory strike with their nukes.

Our nukes are good only as defence against India where the ‘Mutually assured destruction’ concept applies; not against a Super power.

Think about time we stop relying too heavily on the nuclear weapons. I sincerely hope that our defence planners don't exhibit such naivety.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Naval assets have always been most expensive units. It takes a lot of trained manpower and economic resources to operate and maintain a single warship than any other item in the army or the air force. Additionally one needs even more assets to safeguard naval assets. For example an aircraft carrier is sitting duck and needs a fleet of escorts for protection.
Other surface vessels such as cruisers and destroyers are vulnerable to mines, to air and submarine attacks and dedicated anti-aircraft frigates, minesweepers and anti-sub frigates/corvettes for protection.

However, one must have Navy to protect the sea lanes vital for receiving supplies and also to safeguard economic zones. Additionally navy is the only means thru which military power can be projected far beyond the country’s shores to safeguard national interests.
Pakistan has a relatively small shore line and unlike an island nation, has land route access to the military and oil supplies thru Iran, China and Afghanistan. Additionally, ever since the Midway battle o WW2, Naval Air Power is considered the deciding factor in the major conflicts at sea. Thus when defence are funds allocated; PN always comes last. In the light of the above, before we criticize PN, we have to ask ourselves did our Navy perform below expectations given the resource constraints.

Based upon 1971 showing, answer will be definitely yes. For example, was it prudent to send Ghazi on a wild goose chase to the Indian East coast and thus leave Karachi undefended? Why did we not foresee capabilities of the Ossa FAC and did not plan any counter measures? Why there was no air arm to speak of? This is probably down to the Defence High Command as well as calibre of the PN Command more than anything else.

I put down failure of the PN in 1971 to many factors, most of all incomptent leadership and manpower resource of Pakistan’s military machine in general and of the Navy in particular.

Don’t think we in Pakistan have the habit of an objective self-analysis and devising ways and means to make optimum use of our resources. A very minor incident such as bombing of Dwarka was made into a huge success story in 1965 giving a false sense of invincibility to an inefficient naval force. Indians learnt from the lessons of 1965 and took corrective measures. Whereas it appears that the nation has not learned anything from the debacle of 1971 be it regarding military or regarding politics.

In the place of the Bengalis, we are now targeting Shias. Do you think that Shias of Gilgit or the Hazara of Quetta or Shias of Parachinar can remain loyal to Pakistan when their members are dragged out of the busses and shot? The very sectarian parties now call themselves Defence of Pakistan Council! Defence against what?

On the other hand; despite the technological prowess of the US military demonstrated during the Abbottabad Osama incident, popular TV personalities such Zaid Hamid openly advocate fighting US and prophesize victory! Many of my naïve countrymen believe it totally forgetting what happened to Saddam with his invincible army.

What we lack is the top class human resource with foresight and with ability to realize what we can do and fortitude to accept what we cannot. Thus act in the best possible interest of the nation.

This applies to all branches of the military as well as the navy. The reason why PN failed was more to do with paucity of capable leadership and less with scarcity of the resources.

There has to be a paradigm shift in the national thinking, else Pakistan is going nowhere.

Niaz Sahab, while your posts may be less frequent- as always they are very meaningful and constantly focussed on the "larger picture"; hence always pleasure to read.

Having seen the events that you have touched upon (albeit from a different vantage point) I do understand the import and significance of your bigger narrative.

The generic points that you have made in your post have in fact been the underlying principles that actually was responsible for the success or lack thereof in many of the actions that have taken place. But be that as it may be, it is deliberate attempts to obfuscate plain facts that can be far more damaging to a nation. The people at the helm of affairs (the establishment) have a constant need to resort to such subterfuge, if only to conceal their incompetence. I consider that to be understandable. However, what is not acceptable is if the people are willing to overlook or set aside their ability to seek out and analyse the facts; then they are the ones who will pay the ultimate price for their negligence. That is borne out by history.

Hopefully, you may be able to galvanise at least some members of this audience to constructive actions by your earnest endeavors on this forum.

 

[Storm Force]

The Pakistan Navy is the achilles Heel and weakest of its 3 services when compared to india.

In any war strategy india will almost certainly look to exploit this huge weakness to TRY AND ATTEMPT to influence the overall course of the TOTAL WAR campaign on land air & sea

 

[airmarshal]

Don’t think we in Pakistan have the habit of an objective self-analysis and devising ways and means to make optimum use of our resources. A very minor incident such as bombing of Dwarka was made into a huge success story in 1965 giving a false sense of invincibility to an inefficient naval force. Indians learnt from the lessons of 1965 and took corrective measures. Whereas it appears that the nation has not learned anything from the debacle of 1971 be it regarding military or regarding politics.

In the place of the Bengalis, we are now targeting Shias. Do you think that Shias of Gilgit or the Hazara of Quetta or Shias of Parachinar can remain loyal to Pakistan when their members are dragged out of the busses and shot? The very sectarian parties now call themselves Defence of Pakistan Council! Defence against what?

On the other hand; despite the technological prowess of the US military demonstrated during the Abbottabad Osama incident, popular TV personalities such Zaid Hamid openly advocate fighting US and prophesize victory! Many of my naïve countrymen believe it totally forgetting what happened to Saddam with his invincible army.

What we lack is the top class human resource with foresight and with ability to realize what we can do and fortitude to accept what we cannot. Thus act in the best possible interest of the nation.

This applies to all branches of the military as well as the navy. The reason why PN failed was more to do with paucity of capable leadership and less with scarcity of the resources.

There has to be a paradigm shift in the national thinking, else Pakistan is going nowhere.

More recent example being attack on naval base in Karachi in May 2011. The PN chief was blaming PAf for not providing security while navy should have taken prime responsibility for security.

After such incidents, its only chest thumping and no critical analysis. The public is generally fed jingoistic, nationalistic rhetoric and no critical analysis takes place. The same thing happened after Osama raid.

The people in decision-taking places are not willing to take the responsibility of blame but they definitely do enjoy perks and privileges of the high position. This I think is the basic flaw of our leadership training.

 

[The SC]

Indian navy is powerful in quantity not in quality, this why it is doing all it can to modernise its fleet, be it surface or subsurface.
it can not be compared to Pakistan's navy at all since Pakistan has but limited sea shores and India is what we call an almost Island or a peninsula surrounded with waters from 3 sides east, west and south.
So the needs are totally different, hence the comparison is out of place (space).

 

[Abingdonboy]

Indian navy is powerful in quantity not in quality, this why it is doing all it can to modernise its fleet, be it surface or subsurface.
it can not be compared to Pakistan's navy at all since Pakistan has but limited sea shores and India is what we call an almost Island or a peninsula surrounded with waters from 3 sides east, west and south.
So the needs are totally different, hence the comparison is out of place (space).

You are somewhat correct about quantity/quality of IN but in the past the IN has always maintained a quantities and qualitive edge in the region. Now however, the IN is looking beyond the IOR and is dramatically increasing the size and capability of the IN, not only are new assets being acquired in a greater than 1:1 fashion (meaning the fleet is actually growing) but each new system coming online is dramatically more advanced than the oneit replaces meaning the IN is set to be easily 5/6 more powerful by 2022.


However just, @thread- I think this is the wrong question to be asking, the PN performs admirably with what feels funds/resources they have available to them. It is only a lost battle if you compare the PN to say the IN and trying to get on similar terms with IN would only bankrupt the Pakistani economy. However something seriously does need to be done to reduce the stranglehold the PA generals have in defence spending and allocation, if the PN is unable to meet basic security needs on the maritime borders then national security is seriously jeopardised.

 

[Mav3rick]

Honourable Mav3rick,

Understand US had implied elimination of our nuclear weapons using cruise missiles with their naval ships standing 300 miles of Pakistan coast that is why Musharraf agreed to support US in WOT. On the other hand Pakistan has no means of hitting US mainland. We may be able to destroy a few US naval vessels but nothing much will be left of Pakistan after US retaliatory strike with their nukes.

Our nukes are good only as defence against India where the ‘Mutually assured destruction’ concept applies; not against a Super power.

Think about time we stop relying too heavily on the nuclear weapons. I sincerely hope that our defence planners don't exhibit such naivety.

Respected friend,

I appreciate your kind response but I do not agree with it. Simply because of the argument "What is the point of a super weapon that can be eliminated by an enemy?". I also must disagree on the possibility of the US being able to wipe out our Nuclear arsenal standing 300 miles off our shore as we have the ability and means to hit any enemy in that range......even the US! WoT was quite honestly, a financial decision as per my own conclusion.

Ofcourse we do not have the ability to strike mainland USA, using our BM technology, however, I am hoping that the acquisition of 6 Qing class submarines will solve that problem. I also, quite seriously, wonder whether we have Chinese ICBM's or not......even if the number is only 5-10. People have been ignorant enough to challenge me with treaties that do not allow such transfer but my response has always been "Hey, if the US can transfer Trident ICBM's to the English, why can the Chinese not do the same?".

So, my friend, I hope that our defence planners have the guts (or grow them in time) to stare the enemy in the eye and to tell them that if we go down, we go down fighting (using all 'resources' at our disposal). After that, we can safely rely on the fact that the US will never push a country to the point where there is even a negligible possibility of a Nuclear retaliation on her cities. They just won't take the chance unless they can totally annihilate our Nuclear Weapons/delivery system.....which is almost impossible

 

[Mav3rick]

The Pakistan Navy is the achilles Heel and weakest of its 3 services when compared to india.

In any war strategy india will almost certainly look to exploit this huge weakness to TRY AND ATTEMPT to influence the overall course of the TOTAL WAR campaign on land air & sea

In the next war, God forbid if it happens even though I think it is inevitable because of water issues, PN would be looking to counter exploit the fact that IN will be exploiting. I know PN is not sitting hand on hand simply thinking that it is a lost cause, there are a few surprises up her sleeve which will be revealed in time.

 

[Penguin]

Well......Brother, Saddam did not have Nuclear Weapons and their delivery systems. A weapon that can wipe out a whole city. Only when your enemy is absolute about your resolve to defend yourself with 'all' means necessary or die trying would you be protected against the bully.

Unfortunately, those with the nukes often are the bully, or turn into them once acquired.... as arming only works if there is a willingness to use violence. Besides, there are other protections against a bully than arming oneself to the teeth.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

In the next war, God forbid if it happens even though I think it is inevitable because of water issues, PN would be looking to counter exploit the fact that IN will be exploiting. I know PN is not sitting hand on hand simply thinking that it is a lost cause, there are a few surprises up her sleeve which will be revealed in time.

It could be as you say or.....................?

But with the present state of affairs, it certainly looks like there is'nt even "much cloth" to make the proverbial "sleeves" that you think that some "surprises" will tumble out of.

 

[Mav3rick]

It could be as you say or.....................?

But with the present state of affairs, it certainly looks like there is'nt even "much cloth" to make the proverbial "sleeves" that you think that some "surprises" will tumble out of.

Whatever makes you sleep easier at night

 

[airmarshal]

Strong economy complements nuclear capability. If its just nuclear capability, the country is perceived as dangerous. It compares to a man standing on the ledge with the gun pointed at the temple. If you try to convince the man, he would jump or accidentally fall over. If you force him, he might shoot himself.

Its important we understand that we need a strong economy. Politics or strategy we can argue on but economy, it cant only be strong. We need to separate politics from economy.

If we have strong economy, buying any type of weapon is affordable and hence we will not be looking at the limitations.

 

[LeGenD]

Respected friend,

I appreciate your kind response but I do not agree with it.

Your assumptions are unrealistic. What part of 'prepared to be bombed back to stone age' statement did you not get? You think that US leadership would not have done its homework before issuing such BOLD threats and to 'a nuclear power' no less?

Simply because of the argument "What is the point of a super weapon that can be eliminated by an enemy?". I also must disagree on the possibility of the US being able to wipe out our Nuclear arsenal standing 300 miles off our shore as we have the ability and means to hit any enemy in that range......even the US! WoT was quite honestly, a financial decision as per my own conclusion.

Do not take the '300 miles' statement like gospel. You and I both know that US have much longer range weapons.

Musharraf joined WOT to safeguard 'Pakistani interests' and national security was his primary agenda.

Ofcourse we do not have the ability to strike mainland USA, using our BM technology, however, I am hoping that the acquisition of 6 Qing class submarines will solve that problem. I also, quite seriously, wonder whether we have Chinese ICBM's or not......even if the number is only 5-10. People have been ignorant enough to challenge me with treaties that do not allow such transfer but my response has always been "Hey, if the US can transfer Trident ICBM's to the English, why can the Chinese not do the same?".

And you assume that our submarines will never get detected or that China will be too naive to help Pakistan in a (hypothetical) Pakistani-US nuclear showdown? I mean seriously?

US knows that Pakistan does not have ICBM capability. And if Pakistan fires an ICBM towards US (which I highly doubt) - US will not notice this development and will do nothing about the country which gave Pakistan this weapon?

And what about ABM systems of US? Do you think a few missiles will be able to do anything?

You need to come out of this 'false sense of security' from China. Pakistan can only be secure with its own ICBM capability. However, MAD with USA cannot be guaranteed with a few ICBM due to its ABM capabilities in place. Large inventory will be required.

And you have no idea of destructive power of nuclear weapons of US. Overwhelming nuclear firepower can be used to nuetralize the nuclear threat of opponent in the first attempt on land. This is why USA and Russia maintain second strike capability.

So, my friend, I hope that our defence planners have the guts (or grow them in time) to stare the enemy in the eye and to tell them that if we go down, we go down fighting (using all 'resources' at our disposal).

Our defence planners are as much patriotic as we and they likely also have thought on these lines at one time at least. But then they have to focus on 'ground realities' and make decisions according to 'available resources' of this country.

After that, we can safely rely on the fact that the US will never push a country to the point where there is even a negligible possibility of a Nuclear retaliation on her cities.

Then you do not know Americans. They are more headstrong then us. I know this because my family members and some relatives have lived there. Explode one nuke in USA and see what happens in response.

They just won't take the chance unless they can totally annihilate our Nuclear Weapons/delivery system.....which is almost impossible

US can easily annihilate our nuclear capability with its nuclear capability - if not with conventional capability.

There are different kinds of nuclear weapons. Some can be exploded in the air and some can be send right in to caves where blast doors are located. US have such variety.

 

[Mav3rick]

Before I even begin, I must say that we both have taken quite a bit of liberty with 'assumptions', so blaming just me is unfair. Your post, too, is full of assumptions.

Your assumptions are unrealistic. What part of 'prepared to be bombed back to stone age' statement did you not get? You think that US leadership would not have done its homework before issuing such BOLD threats and to 'a nuclear power' no less?

Let see, was the US able to stone Afghanistan back to the stone age? Don't take the word too literally, even Iraq could not be bombed back to the 'stone' age. Besides, if it was the responsibility of the US to complete her homework, was it not our responsibility to complete ours? Having said all that, I never said that Musharraf's decision was incorrect, I totally agree to it. I merely said that the reason at that time was more specifically financial as the US had the power to punish us severely politically & financially.

By the way this is your assumption that the US would have carried out any homework on Pakistan as their arrogance would have posed us as nothing more then an annoying fly.

Do not take the '300 miles' statement like gospel. You and I both know that US have much longer range weapons.

Well, the only weapons that can hit Pakistan all the way from America are american ICBM's that will have to fly over 'China' or 'Russia' to strike us. None of these countries would allow that. That leaves only the Naval BCG's which would be well within our reach as well. So are most of the American bases around us.

And your assumption that the US would have used ICBM's.

Musharraf joined WOT to safeguard 'Pakistani interests' and national security was his primary agenda.

Since I am personally an avid Musharraf supporter, I agree to this point but I stick to my point that Musharraf did that only because he knew how the US could have hurt us financially.

And you assume that our submarines will never get detected or that China will be too naive to help Pakistan in a (hypothetical) Pakistani-US nuclear showdown? I mean seriously?

US knows that Pakistan does not have ICBM capability. And if Pakistan fires an ICBM towards US (which I highly doubt) - US will not notice this development and will do nothing about the country which gave Pakistan this weapon?

And what about ABM systems of US? Do you think a few missiles will be able to do anything?

You need to come out of this 'false sense of security' from China. Pakistan can only be secure with its own ICBM capability. However, MAD with USA cannot be guaranteed with a few ICBM due to its ABM capabilities in place. Large inventory will be required.

And you have no idea of destructive power of nuclear weapons of US. Overwhelming nuclear firepower can be used to nuetralize the nuclear threat of opponent in the first attempt on land. This is why USA and Russia maintain second strike capability.

And your assumption that all our submarines will be detected and destroyed. Pakistan/US Nuclear showdown would be detrimental to the whole world, especially China & India because of the Nuclear fallout and ensuing consequences. My most important assumption is that the US would not want a Nuclear showdown.

Again your assumption that a) we have no ICBM & b) that the US is aware of all our technological achievements and acquisitions. My friend simply put, if the US can transfer the Trident ICBM's to England so can China transfer them to Pakistan. The only reason the US & Russia have not engaged each other in a war is because of the possibility of a Nuclear attack....Nuclear weapons are the most important deterrence any country can have.

Yet again you assume that the American ABM systems are 100% foolproof despite the fact that PAC systems failed miserably whenever used. No wonder the US had to purchase an S-300 system to study. No system in the world is fool proof.

We were in the process of development of an ICBM 'Taimur', it's progress was supposedly halted by Musharraf but nobody is certain at which stage the process it. We may have ICBM's already but unlike India we do not have the habit of bold claims before actual achievements. Even in 1998, India and the rest of the world was quite certain we did not have the technology to test a Nuclear weapon.....but we had it for a long time even before that.

We may not have 'true' second strike capability as in Nuclear Missile Subs but we do have silos deep underground, scattered and mostly hidden from the world. Nobody knows how many Nuclear Weapons we actually possess and where they are stored so how can the US ensure destruction of them all? I mean detonation of even a single device on mainland US in retaliation for an attack on us would mean a major and unbelievable setback for the US. This reminds me of a scene in the movie '300', when King Leonidas throws a spear at the false god 'Xerxes' and it scratches his cheek.....all it proves is the fact that only a human can bleed and not a true God. Would the US accept the possibility of realisation in the rest of the world that even the US can bleed?

Our defence planners are as much patriotic as we and they likely also have thought on these lines at one time at least. But then they have to focus on 'ground realities' and make decisions according to 'available resources' of this country.

Well my friend, my patriotism does not allow me to accept any collateral damage of my countrymen from any power of the world so maybe the translation and lateral meaning of 'patriotism' is different fundamentally in our dictionaries!

Then you do not know Americans. They are more headstrong then us. I know this because my family members and some relatives have lived there. Explode one nuke in USA and see what happens in response.

Fortunately I can tell you that a Nuclear strike would not be the first option, it would most certainly be the last option that we commit before our annihilation but......but the resolve itself, if firm enough to get through to the other side, would send shivers down the spine of the boldest and the badest of enemies! They send in a drone we shoot it down, they send in Jets we take out the airfield where they take off from, they stike us with missiles, we take out their bases within our range and so on........

Your statements are lighter because you haven't yet lifted the pieces of a beloved one murdered in a drone strike, however the murder of my fellow countrymen is bearing down on my conscience and this is the only way I can fight this war, for the time being!

US can easily annihilate our nuclear capability with its nuclear capability - if not with conventional capability.

Yet another assumption to which I won't even bother posting a reply.

There are different kinds of nuclear weapons. Some can be exploded in the air and some can be send right in to caves where blast doors are located. US have such variety.

Such overconfidence in the achievements and abilities of the enemy and such pessimism in our own ability is disheartening. A Nuclear Pakistan is unacceptable to the whole world especially USA & Israel. If such a task was possible, it would have been achieved a long time back.