Vikas, you meant MKK I presume ? the MKM is very similar to the MKI, as its a Malaysian MKI variant with some French/SA avionics in place of Israeli avionics. the MKK (Chinese variant) is inferior to both the MKI, MKM and MKA.

Thanks for pointing out the error Ankush. I did mean MKK.

CAT1, would Minimum Credible Deterrence (MCD) against a nuclear attack or a conventional attack. There were a few articles which stated that the nuclear posture of Pakistan is an active one, meaning Pakistan would go ahead and use a Nuke first ie a first use policy which I doubt can be called as an MCD in its usual term.

Jimmy, MCD is different from FUP (first use policy). As someone pointed out earlier that (even with FUP) one does not start tossing nukes into the opponent country with the first jets from the latter striking. Nukes are the absolute last option (for any country), and this is why a country (even with FUP) tries to maintain MCD in conventional terms as well. Pakistan’s stated nuclear thresholds (available from public domain) are;

-A large part of Pakistani territory is conquered
-A large part of Pakistan’s land or AF is destroyed (the latter would obviously result in establishment of air superiority)
-A blockade of Pakistan to strangle it economically-read naval blockade
-Pakistan is pusdhed (by India) into political destablisation/internal subversion

Having said the above, I think Pakistan wishes to maintain some ambiguity in terms of its FUP (possibly) due to Indian conventional superiority. This has its own advantage in the sense that it would keep the opponents guessing about the thresholds.

From what I understand, Indian strategy of Cold Start is (primarily) the thinking of those (in IA) who consider a ‘limited conventional war’ between Pakistan and India to be a viable option. Whether it is or not that remains open to debate. For example, some think that Pakistan’s logical response to Cold Start type of war (which in a sense asks for the massing of fire power instead of manpower) would include counter-offensives into Indian terrority (bypassing Indian Battle Groups striking into Pakistan), which in other words would mean a large scale conventional war, and this could lead to nuclear war in no time. You might have a different opinion, and others would have their own. As for the Indian strategy, it seeks (and needs to) to establish Indian forces’ superiority over their Pakistani counterparts in a matter of days (to achieve strategic goals), so that Pakistan is (in a sense) ‘cornered’ by the time foreign power can effectively (politically) intervene, and India then would have the leverage on the negotiations table.

Coming back to the AF, an article from International Security (32:3) analysing some of the recent Indian war game from 2004-2007 (Divya Astra, Vajra Shakti, Desert Strike, Sanghe Shakti, Ashwamedh) highlighted the deficiencies in the conduct of joint operations, and remarked that Indian armed forces require more time and exercises (at smaller unit level) to be able to achieve the level of joint operational ability require for the Cold Start.

As I have said before, no doubt IAF seeks to increase its capabilities over the years, and it would do so. However, PAF plans over the coming few years (BVR, refuellers, AEW&C, SAMs) would creat difficulties for the Indian cold war strategy, and this is something Indian planners would have to take into consideration.

back in 2006, there were reports that Pakistan was going to buy 3 refurbished excess P-3C Orions with the E-2C suite..did that sale go through ? if it did, that would indicate that Pakistan would operate 3 different types of AWACS !

The sale was approved, though it seems that Pakistan decided against it for the time being at least.

Surely Selex would be best of doing this? Besides, do we have a light enough missile in house?

PAC have gained considerable experience in terms of weapons integration/evaluation. Most of this stuff for JF-17 is being done in Pakistan. As for what weapon, I think its likely to be an LGB, probably of chinese origin.

Vikas I agree with you on the WS-10/derivative opinion. Though I doubt the RD-93 would be overhauled in China – more likely, Pakistan has a contract with China and China has outsourced it to Russia… Russians at this point will sell to the PAF through China, specially after the latest SCO round. Or so I think 🙂

RD-93 or WS-13? In Russia or China? I guess we are talking about murky waters here. A great many things are not clear for the time being. But yes, it would all be through China. So, in a sense, it is not really PAF’s headache how China gets them done as long as they are done. However, considering the numbers of JF-17 that PAF is planning and as long as they retain the engine (RD-93/derivative), I think PAF would prefer to get them done at home.

Long range AD ships are vital but can barely compare with the buildup of the IN, or so I think 🙂 Particularly if the British career buy goes through, it would be a major double leap ahead, given that the career is already well underway… thus significantly shortening delivery dates for the IN.. That is a major concern for me. I doubt just buying 2-3 AD ships will solve the problem at all. I think that a good partial solution would be to have a dedicated naval air arm whether under the PAF or under PN and you would need more than the JF-17 or Mirages for this.. Ideally navalized J-11s or at least (bare minimum) navalized J-10s. Aerial refueling and AWACs dedicated for the naval role – looks unlikely but equally as important.

In terms of build up, PN could never compete with INs. IN has totally different aims (for the future) than PN. PN’s primary aim is and would remain coastal defence and prevention of a naval blockade (for which subs are and would remain their primary asset). Right now, PN’s surface combatants only have terminal point defence capabilities, and these would be enhanced to area defence (most likely) through Chinese acquisitions. PN would enhance its anti sub capability through further inductions of P-3Cs/Harpoon, and I guess more advanced Chinese antiship missiles are only a matter of time. I can’t really imagine PN having a separate naval arm, but PAF would provide them with aerial cover. May be this is why PN has not bough hawkeye 2000 when that was offered?

Alternatively Pakistan could allow China to have a naval base somewhere along the coast.. that would also help. So would having anti-ship ballistic missiles if that can be gotten. Would be an awesome weapon against IN careers. Or so my thoughts would indicate 🙂 Of course, you could always just nuke’em out at sea in case things go too far against the PN… nuclear devices are highly effective at sea using certain tactics.. and of course no civilian casualties. But the danger is that could escalate from both sides.

Well, we all know about chinese involvement in Gwadar project and defence relations between Pak/China would only grow in the forseeble future. As for the use of nuke, unless Im mistaken a complete naval bloackade of Pakistan is one of the threshold (for the use of nukes) in Pakistani nuclear doctrine.

Yes. The same politics that delayed the rd-93. The ws-10 would offer a solution with less strings attached.

Delay in RD-93? True, over the years we kept hearing quite a bit about ‘RD-93 associated issues’ involving Russia/India/China/Pakistan, but the real point is that any delay in signing the RD-93 deal did not cause any delay in the FC-1/JF-17 project. Pak/China officials always maintained there were ‘no problems’ and that ‘Russia will deliever’, and even if there were any delays that is what happened.