Quantcast
Channel: TRISHUL
Viewing all 283 articles
Browse latest View live

S-400 Triumf LR-SAMs Arriving By 2018 For Limited TMD, Plus Six SSNs & Four Batch-3 Project 1135.6 FFGs

$
0
0
As per the IAF’s projections, there exists a requirement for 12 Batteries of the JSC Almaz-Antey-built S-400 (each Battery using four TELs each housing four cannister-encased LR-SAMs), plus five long-range early warning/tracking radars (LRTR). In other words, as per the IAF’s appreciation, a total of FIVE strategic sectors in northern, western and southern India are urgently required to be protected against conventionally armed inbound TBMs and IRBMs like Pakistan’s solid-fuelled single-stage M-11 (Hatf-3/Ghaznavi//DF-11) 280km-range TBMs, and liquid-fuelled single-stage Hatf-5/Ghauri-1/Nodong-1.
Next on the shopping list will be the five LRTRs which, in all probability, will be the EL/M-2090U UHF-band active phased-array systems from Israel Aerospace Industries’ ELTA Systems subsidiary.
It may be recalled that when the MoD-owned DRDO began R & D work in 1996 on a home-grown TMD system, it had ordered two EL/M-2080 ‘Green Pine’ active phased-array L-band LRTRs in late 1998 from IAI/ELTA for target acquisition-cum-engagement, plus a TMD simulation testbed from Israel’s Tadiran Electronic Systems.
Following their deliveries in 2001, the DRDO began co-developing the applications software for a terrestrial TMD architecture and its distributed command-and-control network at a laboratory in Yalavara, Karnataka. 
Another inter-governmental agreement (IGA) to be inked in Goa as part of a secret annexure of the contract for building Units 3 and 4 of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) concerns the in-country construction of six 5,000-tonne, single-hulled, fifth-generation attack submarines (SSN) designed by the St Petersburg-based FSUE Central Design Bureau RUBIN for Marine Technology. SSNs of this design, powered by 60mWt (about 25mWe) high-density integral pressurised water reactors (PWR), will also enter service with the Russian Navy in the following decade.
It may be recalled the IGA that India and Russia Atomstroyexport signed on November 20, 1988 for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) officially involved the construction of two 1,000MWe Russian VVER-1000-type light water reactors (at a cost of US$3.5 billion) at Kudankulam in Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu State. However, a secret annexure of this contract also called for Moscow to offer its ‘consultancy’ and ‘vendor-development’ services, along with the supply of two KLT-40C PWR mock-ups (built by Afrikantov OKBM and designed to deliver 23.5mWe from the 82.5mWt reactor and using 45% enriched uranium-aluminium alloy, clad in zircaloy), their related heat exchangers and steam generators, plus their detailed engineering drawings off-the-shelf—all for the double-hulled S-2/Arihant, S-3 and S-4 SSBNs, and similar military-industrial assistance for building the larger double-hulled S-5, S-6 and S-7 SSBNs, also designed by FSUE Central Design Bureau RUBIN for Marine Technology.
Of the four Batch 3 Project 1135.6 FFGs for the IN, the first two will be built by Kaliningrad-based JSC Yantar Shipyard, while the remaining two will be licence-built by Gujrat-based Reliance Defence and Engineering Ltd (RDEL), formerly Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Company Ltd (PDOECL).

Gloves Are Finally Off Against Those Irreconcilable, Compulsively Sulking Negativists!-2

$
0
0
On paper, to the north, those Pakistan Army (PA) battle formations that are LoC-specific and Chicken’s Neck-specific are the Mangla-based I Corps that comprises the Gujranwala-based 6 Armoured Division, Kharian-based 17 Infantry Division, the 37 Mechanised Infantry Division also in Kharian, and the 8 Independent Armoured Brigade; and the Rawalpindi-based X Corps that includes the Gilgit-based Force Command Gilgit-Baltistan, Murree-based 12 Infantry Division, Mangla-based 19 Infantry Division, the Jhelum-based 23 Infantry Division, and the Rawalpindi-based 111 Independent Infantry Brigade. Formations allocated for operations along the ‘Shakargarh Bulge’ are the Gujranwala-based XXX Corps comprising the Sialkot-based 8 Infantry Division and 15 Infantry Division; Lahore-based IV Corpswith its 10 and 11 Infantry Divisions, two semi-mechanised Independent Infantry Brigades (including the 212 Bde) and one Independent Armoured Brigade; and the Multan-based II Corps made up of the Multan-based 1 Armoured Division, and the Okara-based 14 Infantry Division, 40 Infantry Division and anIndependent Armoured Brigade. Thus far, no significant forward deployments of any of these formations have taken place.
Down south, the battle formations arrayed against Rajasthan include the Bahawalpur-based XXXI Corps with its 26 Mechanised Division, 35 Infantry Division, two Independent Armoured Brigades and the 105 Independent Infantry Brigade; and the Karachi-based V Corps with its Pano Aqil-based 16 Infantry Division, Hyderabad-based 18 Infantry Division, Malir-based 25 Mechanised Division, plus three Independent Armoured Brigades at Malir, Pano Aqil and Hyderabad. So far, only some elements of the 25 and 26 Mechanised Divisions have been deployed opposite an area stretching from Jaisalmer to Fort Abbas and the PA has begun flying relentless sorties of its Shahpar (CH-3) tactical UAVs that were acquired from China’s CATIC in 2012. 
This is probably a precautionary measure aimed at monitoring the IA’s upcoming Division-level armoured/mechanised infantry exercises that are held during wintertime. Along the Durand Line, formations that are deployed include the Peshawar-based XI Corps currently with its 7, 9, 14, 17 Divisions and part of 23 Division, along with two independent infantry brigades; and the Quetta-based XII Corpswith the 33 and 41 Infantry Divisions).
The PA, however, is most unlikely to attempt any form of escalation along either the LoC or the WB since it presently has a deployment ratio of 54.6%, while the resting and re-equipping ratio is 12.7%, and the remaining 33% is undergoing the training cycle. This trend will continue for at least another four years, since the defunct Durand Line too became active from mid-2014. 
It may be recalled that since March 2002, the PA has been forced by elements that later on went on to become the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) by 2006 to wage a three-front war against the TTP and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in South Waziristan (which also included Chechan and Uighur militants; against the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) and Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan in the sensitive Darra Adam Khel-Kohat area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or KPK (formerly NWFP) and the Shia-dominated Kurram Agency of FATA; and, against the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM), headed by Maulana Fazlullah, and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) in the Swat Valley of KPK. 
The TTP’s cadre base is more than 20,000 tribesmen and the Abdullah Mehsud group from the Alizai clan of the Mehsud tribe from South Waziristan commands about 5,000 fighters. Other militant groups within the TTP include Maulvi Nazir from the Kaka Khel sub-tribe of the Ahmadzai Waziri tribe (South Waziristan), Hafiz Gul Bahadur from the Ibrahim Khel clan of the Utmanzai Wazir tribe (North Waziristan), the Haqqani network using manpower from the Mezi sub-tribe of the Zadran tribe (North Waziristan), Mangal Bagh (Khyber), TNSM (Swat, Dir, Malakand), and Faqir Mohammad (Bajaur).
Some 35% of PA troops (about 180,000 out of an end-strength of approximately 550,000 active-duty personnel and another 500,000 reservists) were engaged in LIC campaigns since 2007 till 2014 and are still literally bogged down throughout the entire 27,200 square kilometres of FATA. 
Formations fully committed to LIC operations include the 37 Mechanised Infantry Division and 17 Infantry Division from Mangla-based I Corps in Swat, 19 Infantry Division from X Corps in northern Swat (based out of Jhelum), 7 Infantry Division from Rawalpindi-based X Corps in North Waziristan (based out of Mardan), 9 Infantry Division from Peshawar-based XI Corps in South Waziristan (based out of Kohat), 14 Division from Multan-based II Corps, Jhelum-based 23 Division  (with 7 infantry brigades) of the X Corps, and 40 Infantry Division. The Gujranwala-based XXX Corps and the Bahawalpur-based XXXI Corps lent one Brigade each. 
In all, there are approximately 17 infantry brigades or 45 infantry battalions, and 58 Frontier Corps (FC) wings now engaged in LIC operations. By mid-2011, 1,83,400 troops had a westward deployment orientation (it now stands at 206,000), while another 10,000 are now abroad on UN-related peacekeeping missions.
Clearly, therefore, the PA is most unlikely to stage large-scale land offensives involving manoeuvre warfare. Instead, the PA, whose MBT armoury presently comprises 550 Al Khalids, 320 Type 85IIAPs upgraded to Al Zarrar standard, 500 Type 59s upgraded to Al Zarrar standard, 380 Type 59s, 450 69IIAPs, and 320 T-80UDs, making for a total of 2,520 tanks, is likely to do what it did in both 1965 and 1971, i.e. use the combination of its armoured and mechanised infantry assets to swiftly transform Pakistan’s semi-urban and rural areas bordering India’s Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and Rajasthan states into impregnable fortresses for the sake of blunting the Indian Army’s (IA) expected shallow-depth land offensives that could be launched from southern J & K and northern Punjab through the Chicken’s Neck and Shakargarh Bulge areas.
Given Pakistan’s elongated geography, it is possible for the PA to use its interior lines of communications for deploying its warfighting assets to their forward concentration areas within 72 hours. To this end, the PA has since 2007 built a sprawling new central ammunition storage depot to the South of its Mangla Cantonment, and has also expanded the existing depot at Kharian.   
Therefore, the IA’s principal doctrinal challenge is to seek ways of enticing the PA to come out in the open so that its armoured/mechanised infantry formations are forced to engage in manoeuvre wars of attrition, during which the IA will be required to swiftly locate and destroy in detail the adversary’s warfighting assets and capabilities. Exactly how this can be achieved will be explained in the near future.  

(to be concluded)

WTF!
It appears that the NORINCO’s ZBD-08 tracked carrier carrying the AFT-10 CM-501G NLOS-ATGMs too has felt the need for a panoramic target acquisition/tracking system just like the IA had felt the need for its NAMICAs armed with Nag ATGMs! This new version of the ZBD-08/AFT-10 combination is now at the expo centre in Zhuhai for the forthcoming Airshow China 2016 event (starting November 1), which will be an aerospace event in name only and will play host to the complete range of land-based weapons developed by various military-industrial entities of China. Judging by external looks, especially the camouglage paint patterns, all such weapons platforms are being targetted for sales in the Middle East/North Africa regions.

11th China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition Highlights

$
0
0
More Highlights
The hapless sod from the Pakistan Air Force (below) was seen seeking Allah’s intervention for the availability of the elusive JFT-17 tandem-seat OCU trainer.
 Just behind the main expo centre at Zhuhai, NORINCO this time has organised daily mobility demonstrations of its range of armoured vehicles.
As a spinoff from the R & D on the Y-20 military airlifter, AVIC is now developing the civilian freighter version, known as the Y-20F-100.
And then, there were these exhibits...
Some More Highlights
Now meet the MOUNTAIN CAT family of ATVs
New-Generation SLRs From NORINCO

Never-Ending Torrent Of Unkept Promises

$
0
0
“Aim for the sky and try developing more-advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) despite being incapable of developing far less-advanced UAVs over the past 28 years.” That’s what best exemplifies the track record to date of the MoD-owned Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), notwithstanding the tsunami of congratulatory messages that start flowing in from the MoD and DRDO every time a ‘desi’ UAV’s experimental technology demonstrator takes to the skies. Below is a brief track record of the DRDO’s UAV R & D efforts.  
Following EX BRASS TACKS in 1986, there arose a requirement by the Indian Army for a tactical UAV capable of conducting battlefield surveillance. Consequently, it was decided in September 1988 that the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) would indigenously develop this 380kg UAV, known as Nishant.
The Army finalised its General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) in May 1990, following which the first Nishant UAV technology demonstrator made its maiden flight in 1995. It was rail-launched from a hydro-pneumatic launcher imported from Finland, while its powerplant was a VRDE-developed twin-cylinder RE-2-21-P piston engine developing 21hp and weighing 10.5kg. By 2002, the Army had placed an order for eight Nishants along with two ground control systems worth Rs.800 million (US$17.9 million). 
User-assisted trials commenced in late 2008 and the confirmatory user trials at Pokhran were conducted in February 2011, following which the first four UAVs and their launch vehicles were delivered. However, the Army in 2015 refused to place a follow-on order for eight Nishants (each costing Rs.22 crores) and two ground control systems after a spate of crashes involving the already-delivered Nishants.
Recovered by a parachute, the Nishants were invariably damaged structurally and rendered unusable for long periods.
A wheeled version of the Nishant, named Panchi, has been under development by ADE since 2013 and its first technology demonstrator, powered by a VRDE-developed  four-cylinder RE-4-38-P engine (developing 38hp and weighing 22kg), made its maiden flight on December 24, 2014. No orders for this UAV have been placed by any end-user so far.
The ADE-developed Rustom-1 tactical UAV is powered by a single imported Lycoming O-320 engine developing 150hp and it made its maiden flight on November 11, 2009. Its production deliveries were due to commence in late 2013, but to date that has yet to happen.
The Rustom-2 MALE-UAV, powered by twin imported Austro Engine AE300 diesel engines each rated at 170hp, made its maiden flight on November 15, 2016. Its design was completed by February 2012 and in September 2013 a Rustom-2 technology demonstrator without any mission payloads began full-power taxi trials.
To be co-developed by the MoD-owned DRDO, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) at a cost of US$46 million, ihe initial requirement for this MALE-UAV is for 76 for all three armed services. The 3rd and 4th airframes underwent a design validation phase that ended in January 2016 and are meant for technology demonstrations and technical trials by the ADE. The 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th airframes for user-evaluations have been ordered as well. 
Today, the Rustom-2 minus its mission payloads weighs 2,400kg and efforts are on to try to reduce it to 1,700kg ONLY AFTER delivery of the first 24 airframes to the end-users, which have mandated that the Rustom-2’s multi-sensor payloads must weigh no more than 360kg and its endurance should be 25 hours.
The DRDO has so far claimed that the Rustom-2 will be capable of undertaking surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations and will therefore be capable of carrying different combinations of payloads, such as medium-range electro-optic (MREO) sensors, long-range electro-optic (LREO) sensors, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), electronic intelligence (ELINT) sensors and communications intelligence (COMINT) sensors.
However, only R & D work by IRDE on developing MREO and LREO sensors and by LRDE on SAR have been launched to date. The Ku-band SAR employs a mechanically steered planar-array antenna, instead of an AESA antenna as is now the global norm. 
Thus far, no R & D work has been initiated on the development of either compact COMINT/ELINT payloads, or a Ku-band SATCOM-based data-link system for beyond-line-of-sight flight-/mission-control.
Homegrown Mini-UAVs & Micro-UAVs
Since the previous decade, the ADE along with NAL and CSIR have developed several types of mini-/micro-UAVs, but none of them have as yet entered service.
HAL on the other hand has taken a route of its own when it comes to developing or marketing UAVs.
Lastly, there are the UAVs being offered by private-sector entities.

Waging Retributive, Sustained Hyperwar

$
0
0
Despite all sanctimonious talk (about not retaliating with fire-assaults against ‘brotherly’ Muslim Kashmiris inside J & K’s Kashmir Valley) and bombastic bluster (about possessing full-spectrum strategic deterrence), all signals from across India’s western borders clearly point toward Pakistan being irretrievably bogged down by strategic and operational fatigue. And all this is due to—according to several retired senior Pakistan Army (PA) officers—India’s waging of multi-dimensional ‘Hyperwar’ against Pakistan on the psychological, military, economic and diplomatic fronts.
In fact, so lopsided is the present-day field deployment of the PA (with an alarming 57% now engaged in active LIC operations as against the peacetime norm of 33.33%) that hardly 11.6% of the PA is now being allowed rest & recuperation, again against the norm of 33.33%. Simply put, the PA even in the foreseeable future will be unable to go on the offensive in any theatre along Pakistan’s eastern front against India since, as per the PA’s own sequential OP-PLAN, it will be required to consolidate its gains along the Durand Line after the waging of the eight LIC campaigns (between 2004 and 2015) throughout the FATA badlands, while at the same time begin undertaking internal counter-terrorism campaigns all over Pakistan, to be followed by the launching of counter-extremism campaigns.
Clearly, therefore, the PA is neither capable of, nor is it equipped and stockpiled for waging any kind of LIC against its Indian counterpart, leave alone mulling any form of escalation at both the conventional and sub-conventional levels. Hence all the talk within Pakistan about the PA not retaliating in equal measure against India along both the LoC and the WB. But most importantly, since India late last September finally broke out of years of paralytic indecision and inaction on Pakistan’s 29 year-old proxy war, the aggressive Indian posturing backed up by actions on the ground have together produced two decisive results:

1) It has finally called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff and signalled that India’s armed forces will no longer be restrained from mounting punitive conventional or sub-conventional ground campaigns inside hostile territory with limited objectives in mind.

2) Throughout both the WB and LoC, India has seized and consolidated her moral ascendency, meaning that while India is free to take unrestrained retributive covert or overt operations against the PA, the PA on the other hand cannot do so due to its severely lopsided ground deployment footprint along its western and eastern borders.

This consequently has severely demoralised the civilian population residing within PoK, especially in areas adjacent to the LoC stretching all the way from Bhimber right up to Kel. While the IA today can do a repeat of what it did in 1993 (when through artillery fire-assaults it closed down the 200 mile-long Muzaffarabad-Kel Highway), the PA can no longer do what it did in early 1999 (when it interdicted the Srinagar–Kargil–Leh Highway by infiltrating its infantry forces over a frontage of 180km to a depth of 10km from Drass to Turtuk) under OP Badr because the IA is today sitting atop all dominating heights along the LoC and can therefore conduct artillery fire-assaults from no less than five different locations in order to bring all traffic along the Muzaffarabad-Kel Highway to a complete standstill.

Adding to the troubles of the civilian populace of PoK, especially those residing close to the LoC, are the apathetic responses of both Islamabad and the so-called AJK Government, all of which is glaringly illustrated in the two following video-clips:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn3jpkF4xk8


Headed For Financial Bankruptsy
The following three reports detail the extent of financial unsustainability of the country as it now exists:




The most glaring indictment, however, cam earlier from the United Nations Development Program in Pakistan’s outgoing country representative, Marc-André Franche, in the following interview:


The five main points of this interview were:

Pakistan's Progress on Development Isn’t Fast Enough
Franche is quoted as saying he is frustrated that a country full of “capable and intelligent” people isn’t making more progress on reducing poverty and modernising the state. “The fact that even in 2016, Pakistan has 38% poverty; it has districts that live like sub-Saharan Africa; that the basic human rights of minorities, women and the people of FATA [tribal regions in the northwest] are not respected; that this country has not been able to get its act together and hold a census; or that it has not been able to push for reforms in FATA, an area that is institutionally living in 17th century. It is extremely preoccupying,” he said.

The Country’s Political Class Uses Its Power to Enrich Itself
The UNDP official said that the country’s elites needed to change their lives to help Pakistan.  “You cannot have a political class in this country that uses its power to enrich itself, and to favour its friends and families. This fundamental flaw needs to be corrected if Pakistan is to transform into a modern, progressive developed country,” he is quoted as saying. He said that elites take advantage of cheap labour while partying in London, shopping in Dubai and investing in property abroad: “The elite needs to decide, do they want a country or not,” he is quoted as saying. Franche also had a word for the propertied classes: “I have visited some very large landowners, who have exploited the land for centuries, paid nearly zero money for the water, and how they almost sometimes hold people in bondage. And then they come to the United Nations or other agencies and ask us to invest in water, sanitation, and education for the people in their district. I find that quite embarrassing,” he is quoted as saying.

Local Governments Need Real Power
Franche said that provincial governments in Pakistan don’t have enough power.  “Only KP [the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province] has a decent law that gives real power and real money to the local government. Local government does not mean that you just elect them and deny them fiscal resources or power,” he said.

Pakistan’s Media Is Manipulated
He also said the media should be one of the pillars of democracy, but “unfortunately, the level of dependence of the government on military authorities, and the degree by which a lot of media in this country is manipulated by powerful sources, are sources of erosion of democracy and erosion of the institutions that are the foundations of this country.”

Country Needs More Opportunities

“The apartheid of opportunities in Pakistan is horrible, which is why so many young people are trying to leave the country,” Franche is quoted as saying. “Pakistan will not be able to survive with gated communities where you are completely isolated from the societies, where you are creating ghettos at one end and big huge malls for the rich at the other end. It is not the kind of society you want your kids to live in.”

(to be concluded)

A Tale Of Two Aircraft Carrier Construction Programmes

$
0
0
Keel-laying for Project 71 IAC-1 took place on February 28, 2009 and the hull was launched on August 12, 2013.
About 83% of the fabrication work and 75% of the construction work had been completed by August 2015. 90% of the hull body has been designed and made in India, about 50% of the propulsion system, and about 30% of the fighting capability is of Indian origin.
China’s first indigenously built aircraft carrier, known now as the Type-001A, is expected to be launched by the Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company (DSIC) in Liaoning province before June next year. Keel-laying took place in late 2013 and the 65,000-ton vessel is due for sea-trials by 2019.

India’s Cruise Missile Programme Updates

$
0
0
Re-inventing the wheel is a futile and time-consuming process for countries like India, especially when there are a select few friendly, highly industrialised countries that are more than willing to share their expertise with India’s military-industrial entities and co-developing re-engineered, customer-specific weapon systems that are required in large numbers by India’s armed forces. Such a business practice thus cuts short the gestation timeframe required for fielding advanced weapons on multiple platforms, since all their R & D challenges have already been overcome before, and all that is required to be done is to customise or re-engineer them for complying with the qualitative requirements of their respective Indian end-users. Three such weapons that are now under co-development comprise the Nirbhay family of land-attack cruise missiles (LACM) and the BrahMos-NG supersonic multi-role cruise missile (MRCM) being co-developed with Russia’s JSC MIC NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM), and the smart anti-airfield weapon (SAAW) being co-developed with Israel’s RAFAEL Advanced Defence Systems.
Nirbhay LACM Explained
The Nirbhay is a subsonic LACM designed to fly at subsonic speeds to neutralise targets of interest deep inside the adversary’s territory in the early days of a conflict. This project was conceived back in 2003 as a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) and air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and as a warship-launched/submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM) for the Indian Navy (IN). An inter-governmental agreement inked in mid-2005 between India and Russia saw the formalisation of industrial partnerships between India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation’s (DRDO) Bengaluru-based Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and Russia’s Novator OKB, and between India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Russian engine manufacturer JSC NPO Saturn. Subsequently, Novator OKB transferred the design data package of its 3M-14E LACM to ADE for re-engineering purposes, while JSC NPO Saturn began shipping 12 fully-assembled and ready-to-install 37-01E turbofans for the Nirbhay’s flight-test programme, and this was to be followed by the supply of an additional 600 turbofans in knocked-down condition to HAL for final assembly. Full-scale prototype development work commenced in early 2007, with the ADE being designated as the nodal systems house for R & D along with ASL (Hyderabad), RCI (Hyderabad), HEMRL (Pune), R & DE (E) (Pune), TBRL (Chandigarh), ITR (Balasore) and GTRE (Bengaluru) as sub-systems re-engineering partners. Phase-I of the project focussed on the development of Nirbhay’s ground-launched version.
Any cruise missile mission consists of pre-launch, launch, cruise and terminal phase. The pre-launch mission phase deals with mission planning, waypoint selection, on-board mission computer’s algorithm, complete missile system checkout, and the fire-control system. The launch phase starts with booster fire and shaping the trajectory with the help of thrust vectoring and ends with a configuration suitable for cruise phase. The cruise missile configuration is basically an aircraft-like configuration that flies along the various waypoints using autonomous waypoint navigation. At the end of the cruise phase, the missile performs a terminal manoeuvre to home to a target at the desired attack angle. 
The unique selling point of the LACM includes:
Long-range missions at very low altitudes
Autonomous mission and trajectory control through waypoint navigation
High degree of loitering capability
High degree of range scalability
Deployable from multiple platforms
Designed to carry desired warheads on targets of interest
A cost-effective weapon delivery platform
Ability to attack the target from any desired direction
The Nirbhay is configured to achieve various mission phase requirements. This bank-to-turn missile was designed with a low wing and four all-moving fins for stability and control. The missile, designed with a high degree of modularity, consists of seven sections to house the seeker, warhead, on-board avionics, fuel and air-intake section for the turbofan engine, and the expendable booster section. This configuration is optimised for low-altitude flights though it delivers desired performance for the full flight envelope. The airframe was designed by Novator OKB for modular fabrication and integration, predominantly with light aluminium alloy and composite materials. The airframe was designed considering the ‘g’ loads experienced in the boost and cruise phases. The airframe construction uses glass-fibre and carbon-fibre as reinforcements in fabric form, epoxy resin system as matrix, and acrylic foam (Rohacell) is used as a core material. Fabrication uses wet layup, pre-pregs and matched die-moulding process. The bulkheads and longerons are also made of aluminium alloy. The structural sizing of the airframe was carried out to satisfy strength, stiffness and stability criteria as well as dynamic and aero-elastic requirements as stipulated in applicable aircraft standards and military standards.
The Mobile Articulated Launcher is configured for transportation, emplacement, erection, activation and the launching of missiles. In addition, the launcher also houses the main and standby power-supply systems, the fire-control and checkout system for up to four missiles, intra-communication system for communications with the combat management system and other associated ground-support systems equipment. The launcher is built with a rail-guide, on which the missile-lugs travel to ensure safe clearance. The current launcher, fabricated by Larsen & Toubro, is a prototype to be used for development flights of the missile. The actual launcher will be developed against specific requirements of the users. The Fire-Control & Checkout System (FCCS) is intended for automatic checkout, preparation before launch and launch of the missiles. The FCCS consists of a launch console, which is the central controller that coordinates the activities of all the sub-systems. Interaction of the launch complex with the articles is facilitated via the missile interface unit. The launch complex can be also be operated from a remote console. Mission planning is an essential activity and it deals with the collection of relevant information on target, terrain, obstacles, threats, the missile’s capability, and the ground-support capability to achieve maximum kill probability.
The wing is folded and kept inside the fuselage, held by the initial locking mechanism. The wing shutter opens during the boost phase upon command and after the wing is deployed the door closing mechanism is initiated to close the cut-out provided in the fuselage, resulting in reduced missile drag during the cruise phase. The wing deployment systems is attached to the centre bracket of the wing and an attachment bracket has been welded with the fuel tank with a provision to fix a strut, which in turn receives the wing centre bracket. The basic mechanism is of single slider crank-type. The active force generated by a pair of pyro-cartridges is converted into torque for rotating the wing through 90 degrees. Damper is provided in the mechanism for energy absorption during deployment phase. The mechanism is provided with two types of locking mechanism and stopper to keep the wing in position after deployment. The submerged air-intake section consists of the air-intake duct, which starts as a hole in the belly of the missile and guides the air into the inlet section of the engine. The length, ramp angle and lip-radius of the submerged air intake is designed to meet the constraints on distortion levels and pressure recovery.
The requirements of long-range precision navigation are achieved using redundant satellite-aided navigation system using the IRNSS constellation. The primary navigation system is based on three sets of ring laser gyro and accelerometers (supplied by Israel Aerospace Industries’ TAMAM Division), which produces unaided and aided navigation information at regular intervals through a MIL-STD-1553B digital avionics databus. The secondary navigation system is based on three sets of MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers that produce similar information as that of the primary navigation system. In case of failure of on-board inertial sensors, the primary navigation system uses equivalent information from the standby system till the second failure. Upon second failure, the on-board control system uses the secondary navigation system’s information for its control loop closure. 
The redundant navigation systems ensure the desired nautical mile per hour accuracy at the start of the missile’s terminal cruise phase. The primary launch phase requirement of any cruise missile is to launch vertically through the mobile articulated launcher and to align at any desired direction, meeting the altitude and Mach number constraints at various instants of time. In this phase, the missile transcends four configurations, starting with missile then to a bomb (with fins only) and to a glider with wings deployed and finally an aircraft configuration powered by the turbofan. 
Accelerating the missile from zero speed to the desired speed is achieved by using an expendable solid propulsion booster, housed as a part of the booster section. This section is connected to the main missile using four pyro-bolts, which are initiated for stage separation after booster burn-out during launch. This section houses all the onboard systems essential for thrust vectoring and also a separation mechanism to ensure positive separation of the missile. The booster’s thrust axis is deflected as desired by the thrust-vector control system to generate necessary control forces to achieve the desired launch phase trajectory from vertical to horizontal. The thrust-vector control systems consist of a pair of actuators mounted on a flex-nozzle system to orient the thrust axis in both pitch and yaw planes. The on-board control system compares the state information as measured by the on-board inertial navigation system with desired trajectory, and generates steering commands to the thrust-vector control actuator.
When the missile reaches the desired speed and orientation, the solid propulsion booster is jettisoned using pyro-bolts and retro-motors. The pyro-bolts ensure physical separation of the booster section from the missile and the retro-motors ensure positive separation from the missile. In this phase, the missile is entering the no-thrust zone and it continues till the engine develops full thrust. After sufficient time separation, the wing is unlocked, deployed and locked into its final desired position that turns the missile to a glider configuration. In this phase, the missile is still in the no-thrust zone. After sufficient time separation, the turbofan is started in-flight, which turns the missile into powered aircraft configuration. 
When the turbofan develops the full thrust, the missile exits the no-thrust zone and enters into an unmanned vehicle configuration. The missile is designed to execute the mission autonomously without any external intervention and it also has the ability to reconfigure the flight-control system’s commands in response to different on-board events and failures. The FCSS uses body rates, liner accelerations, attitudes and positions obtained from the RLG-INS for all control loops. Baro-altitude obtained from an air data sensor is used by the navigation system for vertical channel damping and a radar altimeter is used exclusively for low-altitude flights. The four linear fin-actuators are located around the turbofan in a narrow annular space. The desired stability and control of the missile in the cruise phase is achieved using four fin actuators and are individually commanded by the flight-control computer (FCC). 
The FCC is the prime computational hardware that performs the main functions of flight and mission control such as sensor data acquisition, sensor computation, longitudinal, lateral and directional control law execution, and provides the drive signals for on-board discrete events and actuators through 1553B and RS422 databuses. All the flight-control laws, mission control laws and safety logics are coded in strict adherence to DoD-STD-2167A and implemented in the FCC. The cruise phase capabilities of the missile are achieved through autonomous waypoint navigation. In this mode, the missile exhibits its capability to control the trajectory in vertical and horizontal planes while maintaining the desired track. Also, this system is designed with no restriction on the heading change between the waypoints.
The maiden launch of Nirbhay LACM’s ground-launched version was conducted on March 12, 2013 during which it flew for 20 minutes and thereafter deviated from its flight path due to a failure of the on-board MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers, and consequently its on-board self-destruct mechanism was activated. The second launch was conducted on October 17, 2014 at ITR, Chandipur, and was a big success, with the LACM travelling 1,010km instead of the targetted 800km.These two launches demonstrated several new indigenously-built technologies like automated pre-launch checks, booster-assisted launch phase trajectory control, stage separation in near-horizontal attitude, in-flight wing deployment, submerged air intake for engine and in-flight engine start. The repeatability of these achievements has demonstrated the systematic approach and robustness of the design. 
The second launch also demonstrated complete autonomous mission mode, comprising of cruise phase based on waypoint navigation and the terminal phase. The third test-flight on October 16, 2015 was again a failure. After 70 seconds of its flight, the missile lost control and fell within the safety zone. The fourth flight-test on December 21, 2016 was an utter failure, caused by a wing-deployment problem. After liftoff, the missile started veering dangerously towards one side in less than two minutes. The missile started flying beyond the safety corridor and threatened to fall on the land. So the “destruct” mechanism in its first stage was activated and the LACM was destroyed. It was undoubtedly a hardware failure due to a reliability issue with a component.
BrahMos-NG Explained
BrahMos Aerospace Ltd was established in India through an inter-governmental agreement signed on February 12, 1998 between Russia and India. The DRDO from India and JSC MIC NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM) from Russia are the joint venture partners of BrahMos Aerospace, which was started with a capital of US$250 million with 50.5% from the Indian side and 49.5% from the Russian side. JSC MIC Mashinostroyenia comprises eight strategic companies: NPO Mashinostroyenia (Reutov, Moscow), JSC Production Association Strela (Orenburg), JSC Permsky Zavod Mashinostroitel (Perm), JSC Scientific and Production Association of Electro-Mechanic and JSC Makeyev State Rocket Center SKB-385 (Miass, Chelyabinsk), FSUE Avangard (Safonovo, Smolensk), FSUE Ural Research Institute of Composite Materials, or UNIIKM (Perm), NII Electromechaniki (Istra, Moscow) and Concern Granit-Electron (St Petersburg).
Unlike the ground-launched/ship-launched BrahMos-1 and its air-launched BrahMos-A version that can be carried only by the Su-30MKI H-MRCA, the BrahMos-NG (known earlier as BrahMos-Mini) will be lighter and narrower, enabling it to be launched by M-MRCAs like the Rafale, MiG-29UPG and carrier-based MiG-29Ks, and it will also be capable of being launched from a submarine’s 533mm torpedo-tubes.
The entire on-board avionics suite of the BrahMos-NG—which will have a high degree of communality with that on-board the Nirbhay family of LACMs—will be of Indian origin and it is now under development via the cluster of public-sector and private-sector industrial entities that are also involved with the Nirbhay’s developmental effort.
The SAAW Explained
The SAAW is a joint India-Israel project to co-develop an air-launched, standoff EMP-emitting missile, which, for all intents and purposes, will be India’s first operational precision-guided directed-energy weapon (DEW). It may be recalled that in the night of September 6, 2007 in the desert at Al Kibar, 130km (81 miles) from the Iraqi border and 30km from the northern Syrian provincial city Deir el-Zor, a fleet of ten IDF-AF F-15Is conducted OP Orchard, which involved the destruction of a heavy-water reactor then under construction with North Korean expertise and Iranian funding. In that raid, the IDF-AF had used a RAFAEL-developed precision-guided, standoff DEW to shut down Syria’s ground-based air-defence sensors—a move that would go on to be the optimum model for future surgical air-strikes. 
Israel offered to co-develop a variant of this DEW with India on July 7, 2008 during an official meeting in Pune with the DRDO. This was followed by two additional meetings held in Delhi with senior DRDO and IAF officials in August and September 2007. The joint R & D project officially began in mid-2010 and series-production of this DEW will commence later this year, with Indian industrial entities like Bharat Dynamics Ltd, ECIL and the Kalyani Group being involved in this undertaking.   This air-launched, fire-and-forget, expendable DEW, whose main role is to render electronic targets useless, makes use of the airframe of RAFAEL’s Spice 250 rocket-powered PGM, and will have a range of 120km. It is a non-kinetic alternative to traditional explosive weapons that use the energy of motion to defeat their targets. During a mission, this missile will navigate a pre-programmed flight plan (using fibre-optic gyros) and at pre-set coordinates an internal active phased-array microwave emitter will emit bursts of selective high-frequency radio wave strikes against up to six different targets during a single mission. The EMP-like field that will be generated will shut down all hostile electronics. Thus, the whole idea behind such a weapon is to be able to destroy an enemy’s command, control, communication and computing, surveillance and intelligence (C4SI) capabilities without doing any damage to the people or traditional infrastructure in and around it. In other words, it can eliminate a hierarchical air-defence network’s effectiveness by destroying the electronics within it alone, via a microwave pulse, without kinetically attacking the network itself.
For the IAF, this air-launched DEW will be a ‘first day of war’ standoff weapon that can be launched outside an enemy’s area-denial/anti-access capabilities, and fly a route over known C4SI facilities, zapping them along its way, before destroying itself at the end of its mission. Because of its stealthy design, long-range and expendability, it will fly where no other manned airborne assets could and because it does not blow anything up, its use does not necessarily give away the fact that the enemy is under direct attack in the first place. In that sense, it is also a psychological weapon, capable of at least partially blinding an enemy before it even knows that a larger-scale air-attack is coming. The IAF plans to arm its upgraded Mirage 2000Hs, Jaguar IS/DARIN-3 interdictors and the yet-to-be-delivered Rafale M-MRCAs with this DEW and also with RAFAEL’s Spice-1000 PGMs. Unguided test-launches of the SAAW from a Jaguar IS were first conducted at Pokhran in May 2015 to validate the weapons release/pylon ejection mechanisms, while the first powered test-flight was conducted on December 23, 2016. Both the IAF and IN have a stated requirement for 500 SAAWs.

Dissecting The RFQs Of HAL/ARDC For Tejas Mk.1A L-MRCA

$
0
0
By floating two separate restricted request for quotations (RFQ) on December 14 and 15 last year, the MoD-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd’s (HAL) Aviation Research and Design Centre (ARDC) finally won the contest to be seated in the driver’s seat when it comes to developing the projected Tejas Mk.1A L-MRCA—83 of which are required by the Indian Air Force (IAF). 
The first RFQ concerns the procurement of a suitable AESA-MMR while the second involves the procurement of an integrated EW suite comprising of a pod-mounted jammer, and internally-mounted passive sensors like radar warning receivers, laser warning system, missile approach warning system (MAWS) and the central processor.
The flotation of the RFQ now also proves that the MoD-owned Defence R & D Organisation’s Bengaluru-based Defence Avionics Research establishment (DARE) has completely failed to develop a ‘desi’ integrated EW suite despite 15 years of R & D activity. Furthermore, the RFQ flotation has also pit the final nail in the coffin of ill-informed reportage often resorted to by certain ‘desi’ bandalbaazes, such as these:


RFQ For AESA-MMR

RFQ For Integrated EW Suite

Inferences To Be Drawn
By specifying that the AESA-MMR’s operations must be synchronised with that of the integrated EW suite, HAL’s ARDC is in fact ensuring that the final bids must be presented as industrial partnerships between the OEMs of AESA-MMRs and OEMs of integrated EW suites. So, this is how the responses to the RFQs will be packaged by the OEMs.
In the case involving Israel, while Israel Aerospace Industries’ ELTA Systems subsidiary will offer the EL/M-2052 AESA-MMR and the ELL-8222WB EW pod, ELBIT Systems on the other hand will propose its ‘All-in-Small’ airborne self-protection suite EW controller that will include a digital radar warning receiver, laser warning system, the PAWS-2 MAWS, and a single digital processor.
The French offer from THALES and MBDA will include the RBE-2 AESA-MMR that will be integrated with the PAJ-FA pod, plus a digital radar warning receiver, laser warning system, the DDM-NG MAWS from MBDA, and a single digital processor.
From the US, Raytheon will offer its RACR AESA-MMR along with the ALQ-184 EW pod, ALR-69A radar warning receiver, a laser warning system and BAE Systems AAR-57 MAWS sensor.
From Spain, Indra Systems will offer its ALR-500 EW pod along with the Captor-E AESA-MMR from Airbus Defence Systems, while the Virgilius internal EW suite (derived from the Eurofighter EF-200’s ‘Praetorian integrated EW suite) will be offered by Italy’s Elettronica SPA. 
In another possibility, Elettronica SPA could offer the Virgilius internal EW suite along with a pod containing elements of the Praetorian jamming suite, plus the Vixen-850e AESA-MMR from SELEX ES.
From Russia, Phazotron JSC will offer its ZHUK-AE FGA-35 AESA-MMR along with the EW pod and internal EW suite sourced from either Elettronica SPA or from RAFAEL of Israel.
Finally, Saab Avionics’ is expected to offer the Vixen 1000es ES-05 Raven AESA-MMR from SELEX ES, along with its IDAS family of radar warning receivers, MAWS and laser warning systems. As for the EW pod, RAFAEL’s Lite Shield will be proposed.
Whichever AESA-MMR is selected, it will have to be interfaced with the I-Derby BVRAAMs that have been specified by the IAF for the Tejas Mk.1A L-MRCA. At least three flying prototypes of the Tejas Mk.1A will be involved in the airworthiness certification programme, involving close to 400 test-flights to be conducted between late 2018 and late 2020.  
However, the absence of an on-board IRST sensor will ensure that the Tejas Mk.1A L-MRCA remains a sub-optimal solution in the dissimilar air combat arena.

A Not-So-Silent War

$
0
0
The mystery surrounding the alleged interception of an Indian Navy (IN) diesel-electric submarine (SSK) on November 16 last year by a Pakistan Navy (PN) P-3C Orion LRMR/ASW aircraft can at last be resolved, thanks to the arrival in Malaysia of a Type 039G1 Song-class SSK (of the South Sea Fleet’s 32nd Submarine Flotilla located at Zhangjiang naval base in Guangdong province) and its accompanying ocean salvage & rescue ship, the Type 925-class Chang Xingdao 861 (of the North Sea Fleet’s 1st Combat Support Flotilla), which docked at the Royal Malaysian Navy’s submarine base at Sepanggar Bay in Sabah from January 3 till 7 for picking up perishable supplies and for their crew complements to rest after conducting anti-piracy patrols off the coast of Somalia.
From the above, it can safely be deduced that the Type 039G1 Song-class SSK left its homeport in the South China Sea sometime in mid-October last year accompanied by Chang Xingdao 861 and the Type 054A FFG Handan 579 (built by the Huangpu-based Wenchong Shipbuilding Co Ltd and commissioned on August 16, 2015 with the PLAN’s North Sea Fleet) . These three vessels would surely have been trailed first by the US Navy right up to the Indonesian archipelago, following which an Indian Navy Type 877EKM SSK hailing from either the 8th or 11thSubmarine Squadron (homeported at INS Virbahu in Visakhapatnam under the Eastern Naval Command) would have trailed them right up to the western part of the Indian Ocean, following which the trailing would have been continued by a  Class 209/Type 1500 SSK of the 10th Submarine Squadron (homeported at INS Bajrabahu in  Mumbai under the Western Naval Command). 
Interestingly, while the PN officially announced on November 16 in its official website that a PLAN Flotilla including the Chang Xingdao 861 and Handan 579 had arrived Karachi on a goodwill visit to Pakistan and would later take part in the 4th PN-PLAN bilateral exercise encompassing harbour and sea phases, the announcement kept quiet about the presence of the Type 039G1 Song-class SSK.
Instead, the PN made a big song-and-dance about an ‘unidentified’ IN SSK being tracked by a PN P-3C Orion since November 12 in international waters south of Karachi, and ultimately culminating in the IN SSJ ‘being forced to snorkel’ some 40nm outside Pakistan’s territorial waters. And this narrative was further spin-woven to showcase the PN’s mastery in undersea warfare against its Indian counterpart. In reality, what transpired was that the IN’s Class 209/Type 1500 SSK had already completed its assigned task (and therefore had no need to stay hidden) after handing over its flotilla shadowing tasking to another Class 209/Type 1500 SSK that had remained undetected in the same area and was subsequently successful (along with a P-8I LRMR/ASW aircraft) in monitoring the 4th PN-PLAN bilateral exercise in the northern Arabian Sea. 
Therefore, the presence of a PN P-3C Orion (which was sent to escort the inbound PLAN flotilla to Karachi) over the snorkeling IN Class 209/Type 1500 SSK in international waters was a mere coincidence, and was not by design by any stretch of imagination.   
(to be continued)

Second CM-2000 Scorpene SSK Of Indian Navy's Project 75 Launched

Mapping Out An Incredible Rollercoaster Journey

$
0
0
The period between October 2015 and January 2017 saw a bizarre process being played out that has now come back full circle to the point where it all originally started: 
On October 17, 2014 the Indian Army HQ’s Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF) had issued a Request for Information (RFI) for the comprehensive upgrade for 2,600 BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles (ICV).
This was followed by another RFI issued on March 2, 3016 that invited proposals for upgrading the fire-control system (FCS) of the BMP-2 ICVs.
Then came yet another RFI—issued on March 14, 2016—that invited proposals for upgrading the powerpacks of the BMP-2 ICVs.
On the very same day, another RFI was issued, calling for proposals for arming the BMP-2 ICVs with new-generation anti-armour guided-missiles (ATGM).
And finally, on June 23, 2016 came the final RFI, this concerning the comprehensive upgrade of 1,500 BMP-2 ICVs.
Why were all these RFIs issued in such a staggered manner and what made the DGMF revert back to square one, i.e. proposals for the comprehensive upgrade of BMP-2 ICVs being issued twice (in October 2014 and again on June 2016)? Where were the disconnects and why?
(to be concluded)

Aero India 2017 Highlights

$
0
0
Let us first browse through the site navigational aspects, shall we?
 Now to the outdoor exhibits.
The Rustom-2 MALE-UAV has been re-named (only God-knows-why) as TAPAS. Now to some of the prominent indoor exhibits.
This is a JDAM-type SAAW under development.
And now comes this bizarre poster being displayed at the Indian Air Force (IAF) booth, which claims that the Super Hornet is in service with the IAF!

Aero India 2017 Highlights-2

$
0
0
This year’s expo showcased two new-generation weapon systems that are expected to enter service by 2020 at best, these being the SR-SAM for the Indian Army’s Corps of Air-Defence Artillery (CADA), and the MPATGM for the Indian Army’s infantry battalions.
The QR-SAM will use a surface-launched version of the Astra-1 BVRAAM and it will use a Ku-band seeker developed by the DRDO’s Research Centre Imarat (RCI) and produced by VEM Technologies. The target detection and engagement radars are being developed by the DRDO’s LRDE laboratory, while overall systems integration is the responsibility of Bharat Electronics Ltd.
LRDE is also developing a new-generation target acquisition/fire-control system, called ATULYA, for the L-70 and ZU-23 anti-aircraft artillery guns used by CADA.
Another indigenous field artillery-specific solution developed by the DRDO’s LRDE lab is the L-band ‘Swathi’ weapon locating radar (WLR) at a cost of US$49 million. 
Under development since April 2002, this WLR was ready for series-production by Bharat Electronics Ltd by late 2011 and deliveries of 30 units are presently underway.
The IA had in September 2004 awarded a $300 million contract to Bharat Electronics Ltd to develop the Shakti ACCCS. Production deliveries commenced in 2008 and the system was commissioned on June 12, 2009. The ACCCS is a network of military grade tactical computers that automates and facilitates decision support for all the operational aspects of artillery functions from the Corps down to a Battery-level in a networked environment. It was jointly developed by the DRDO’s Centre for Artificial Intelligence & Robotics (CAIR), Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE) and IA HQ’s Directorate General of Information Systems (DGIS). ACCCS is the artillery component of the IA’s TAC-C3I grid. Shakti’s three main electronic devices are the enhanced tactical computer, gun display unit and the hand-held computer. With these, five critical functions are performed, including ‘Technical Fire Control’ for trajectory computations, and ‘Tactical Fire Control’ involving the processing of fire-assault requests and ammunition usage/supply management. It also ensures ‘Deployment Management’ for field howitzers and forward observation/fire direction posts for defensive and offensive operations, ‘Operational Logistics’ for assisting in the timely provisioning of ammunition and logistics support, and ‘Fire Planning’ to facilitate the production of interleaved fire-assault plans, tasking tables and automatic generation of gun engagement programmes.
Most of the bureaucratic decks have already been cleared for a landmark, long-awaited  agreement between India and the US that calls for the joint development and production of the Indian Army’s next-generation manportable ATGM (MPATGM) that will use thermobaric-HEDP and tandem shaped-charge warheads optimised for high-altitude warfare and anti-armour engagements. This ATGM has been the subject of much speculation, like it being the SAMHO, or a derivative of Raytheon’s third-generation FGM-148 Javelin fire-and-forget ATGM.
In reality, the MPATGM has been under development since 2009 by the DRDL, with VEM Technologies being responsible for product engineering development. Raytheonhas already secured US approval for 97% transfer-of-technology (ToT) for licence-producing the missile’s cooled mid-wave imaging infra-red (MWIIR) seeker, and will withhold only the target acquisition algorithms. Both Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) and Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) will be responsible for the joint development of thermobaric-HEDP and HE/FRAG penetration-cum-blast warheads, while the re-usuable launchers and missiles will be built by both VEM Technologies and BDL. A cooled MWIIR sensor can passively lock-on to targets at up to 50% farther range than an uncooled sensor, thus allowing the firing crew greater and safer standoff distance, and less likely to be exposed to counter-fire. An uncooled long-wave infra-red (LWIR) sensor on the other hand brings increased repairs, decreased operational availability, and dangerous vulnerabilities, while a cooled IIR sensor saves lives, lessens fratricide, minimises collateral damage, lowers risk, and protects its firing platforms/crew. Present plans call for equipping the Indian Army’s existing 356 infantry battalions of the 1.13 million-strong Indian Army and the projected 30 infantry battalions to be raised in the 13th five-year defence plan (2018-2022) with some 6,000 MPATGM launchers and up to 26,000 missile-rounds (including war wastage reserves).
A similar practice had earlier led to the development of the 4km-range Nag ATGM and its air-launched HELINA variant. Back in 2005, the IA had ordered 443 Nag missiles and 13 NAMICA tracked carrier/launch vehicles, and is expected to order another7,000 Nag missiles and around 200 NAMICAs. The 4km-range Nag uses a RCI-developed uncooled LWIR sensor containing an IR-CCD supplied by France-based ULIS/Sofradir. For the 6km-range HELINA, the DRDO has developed a two-way RF command-video data-link. The missile-to-helicopter down-link used to pass the LWIR seeker video works in the S band and the helicopter-to-missile up-link to pass steering commands works in the C band. In addition, a DS-SS modulation scheme is used for the command up-link while a conventional FM technique is used for video down-link, respectively.
Despite the fact that the LCA AF Mk.2’s (the term Tejas Mk.2 has now been discarded) final design has yet to be frozen, ADA nevertheless went ahead and released conceptual illustrations of this MRCA that can only serve to create further ill-informed confusion and false assumptions.

SpyDer-SR LL-QRM/QR-SAM Deliveries Have Begun, Aerostat-Mounted EL/M-2083s To Follow Next

$
0
0
Following a nine-year wait, both the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Army (IA) are now poised to replace their existing inventories of OSA-AKM and ZRK-BD Strela-10M SHORADS with the RAFAEL of Israel’s Spyder-SR system. The IAF refers to the Spyder-SR as a low-level quick reaction missile (LL-QRM), while the Army calls it quick-reaction surface-to-air missile (QR-SAM). First to deploy them will be the IAF, which will use the SpyDer-SRs to defend its six air bases spread throughout Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and Haryana.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had approved the IAF’s requirement in July 2008, and a US$293 million contract for the supply of an initial 18 launchers (making up one squadron) was signed in December 2008. Deliveries were to begin in early 2012 and were to be concluded by August 2012. However, the deliveries could not begin due to a last-minute decision by both the IAF and IA to use high-mobility trucks supplied by TATA Motors, instead of the BEML-supplied TATRA high-mobility trucks.
The IA had received the green light to procure four regiments of the Spyder-SR in August 2009, and a $900 million contract was inked later that year. The Spyder-SR is the culmination of joint R & D efforts undertaken by RAFAEL and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). It is a short-range (15km range), low-level (from 20 metres through to 9,000 metres altitude) integrated, all-weather air-defence system that makes use of the ground-launched Python 5 imaging infra-red guided and Derby radar-guided missiles, which complement each other in their target detection, tracking and pursuit profile . Both missiles are equipped with lock-on before launch (LOBL) and lock-on after launch (LOAL) modes for faster response time and improved engagement flexibility.
A Spyder-SR battery includes up to six missile launch vehicles (each equipped with four missile launchers), missile reloaders and a command-and-control Unit that also accommodates the IAI/ELTA Systems-built EL/M-2106NG ATAR 3-D surveillance radar and two operating consoles. The radar can simultaneously track and engage up to 60 targets at a range beyond 35km (depending on the terrain). The command-and-control unit interfaces with the missile launch vehicles via wireless data-link (for up to as distance of 100km) to enable optimal unit dispersion for effective area coverage, mutual protection and survivability. The system's high cross-country mobility offers quick deployment and operational agility. The Spyder-SR also has VHF/HF communications networks for internal squadron-level communication and to upper-tier commands. Once the operator decides to launch a missile, an automatic procedure begins. 
The command-and-control centre assigns the target to the appropriate launch vehicle and the selected missile will start to search for the target. If the target is within acquisition range the missile will be launched in LOBL mode. If the target is beyond seeker acquisition range the missile will be launched in LOAL mode. The seeker searches for the target and when it acquires the target it begins the terminal homing phase. Both LOAL and LOBL modes are available for the Derby and Python 5. Destruction of the target is achieved either by the warhead blasting upon impact or by proximity fuze.
Providing early-warning cues for the IAF’s plains-deployed SpyDer-SRs will be the DRDO-developed and BEL-built Ashwini LMRSRs.
To be delivered later this year will be six aerostats (supplied by Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp and procured by Reliance Defence Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd) that will all be fitted with IAI-supplied EL/M-2083 early-warning radars. The IAF already operates two such aerostat-mounted radars that were ordered in 2005 and were delivered in 2007.

Arjun Mk.2 MBT Now A Firm Reality

$
0
0
Contrary to widespread speculation, the Indian Army (IA) has not forsaken or given up on the Arjun Mk.2 main battle tank (MBT). Instead, for the past four years, the IA’s Directorate General of Mechanised Warfare has been overseeing a collective developmental effort involving the DRDO, and the MoD-owned defence public-sector undertakings and private-sector OEMs that will in the near future result in a fully-loaded 60-tonne MBT armed with a 120mm smoothbore cannon while retaining the existing 1,400hp powerpack.
Under the supervision and guidance of the DRDO’s Avadi-based Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE), and with the help of the MoD’s Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and the IA’s Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineers (EME), a number of key decisions have been to achieve a weight reduction of 8 tonnes in the existing design of the 68-tonne Arjun Mk.1A MBTs, 118 of which are now in delivery. 
For starters, the baseline hull of the Arjun Mk.2 will no longer be built with imported low-carbon, nickel-chromium-molybdenum rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) steel, but with lighter high-nitrogen steel (HNS) whose production technology has been mastered by the DRDO’s Hyderabad-based Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) and has been transferred to Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd (Hisar). HNS will also be used by TATA Motors Ltd for producing the 83 Kestrel 8 x 8 armoured personnel carriers already on order.   
HNS is produced in a four-step process: primary melting of the steel can carried out in either induction furnace or electric arc furnace by using appropriate raw materials; secondary melting can be carryout in by nitrogen gas-purging in to the metal; under ladle refining, ferro-nitrates are added to molten metal for obtaining final nitrogen content in the alloy if it is required and hot-rolling is carried out in a single heat, without reheating. Minimum percentage of reduction should not be less than 75% of the slab thickness. To be placed in strategic locations in both the hull and turret will be the DRDO-developed ‘Kanchan’ ceramics-based composite laminate armour tiles as well as indigenously-built explosive reactive armour (ERA) tiles developed by the DRDO’s High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) on the front and sides of the hull and turret sections.
To ensure optimal weight budgeting during the production engineering stage, the CVRDE has contracted Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, which specialises in complex, five-axis robotic machining, as well as in converting two-dimension paper blueprints into three-dimension computer model that are more precise, and have tighter tolerances. Digitising the drawings creates a baseline configuration for greater accuracy. This in turn streamlines manufacturing, since conventional manufacturing based on two-dimensional paper blueprints tend to leave tiny gaps between the different components of an assembly that were filled with shims, leading to increased weight. But by digitising blueprints, those tiny gaps can be entirely eliminated during the manufacturing process.
Under another weight-reduction exercise, the CVRDE has contracted the Alicon Group for building all-aluminium road-wheels and ventilators for not only the Arjun Mk.2, but also for the IA’s existing upgraded T-72CIA medium tanks. They will replace the all-steel road-wheels built by Sundaram Industries for the Arjun Mk.1A. Similarly, TATA Power SED has been contracted for producing all-electric turret stabilisation/traverse systems, in place of the existing electro-hydraulic system.  
Improvements have also been made to the 1,400hp powerpack (comprising the MTU 838 Ka-501 diesel engine and RENK’s RK-304S gearbox) through the usage of indigenously developed cooling systems.
However, the area that will see the Arjun Mk.2 emerging as a true new-generation MBT will be vectronics, and in particular the battlespace management system (BMS), which has been designed to operate at the unit-level and below, and which will synthesise the battlespace situational awareness picture for the unit commander, whether it be a mechanised infan­try regiment or an armoured regiment. The MBT and selected infan­trymen will thus become situational awareness platforms. 
This project, which was started only in 2008, has since been pushed at a faster rate as this constitutes the cutting edge of the IA’s theatre-level Command Information Decision Support System (CIDSS) programme that is being run by IA HQ’s Directorate of Information Systems. The Future Infantry Soldier as a System (F-INSAS), which is also a part of the CIDSS project, is being progressed by the IA HQ’s Directorate of Infantry but will be a part of the overall BMS and battlespace surveillance system (BSS) network of the IA.
The BSS and BMS are in turn being integrated by IA HQ’s Directorate of Signals with other components of the fourth-generation Tactical Command, Control, Communications and Information (TAC-C3I) system through the CIDSS channel. Through the BMS and BSS the IA wants to provide a Divisional-level command-and-control system spanning the entire tactical battle area (TBA) spreading across individuals, detachments, combat platforms, sensors, sub-units, units to the Brigade Commander/Regimental Commander; achieve faster reaction capability and flexibility in command and control by providing information automatically in the right place at the right time, thereby compressing the OODA loop; provide a strong foundation for making decisions based on near-real time situational awareness and battlespace transparency, providing consistent and well-structured information, thereby enhancing the information handling capability of commanders at all levels; and strengthening information exchange by having a strong messaging and replication mechanism.
The BMS will be a highly mobile and integrated system with high data transmission rates, comprising a tactical hand-held computer with individual soldiers, tactical computers at Battle Group HQ, and armoured vehicles employing application/database servers connected via a data-enabled TAC-C3I communications network, all of which generate a common operational picture of the TBA. The software-defined radio-based communications nets will optimally utilise the bandwidth available for military communications, and will not interfere with the legacy communications hardware. They will be fitted to MBTs, ICVs and APCs and will be scalable to ensure their availability to all elements ranging from man-portable SDRs to high-power SDRs for armoured vehicles.
The original proposed time-lines for implementation of the BMS and BSS were as follows:
Phase-1: Integration of the system, establishment of the testbed lab and field-trials at testbed locations (one Combat Group and three Infantry Battalion Groups) by 2012. However, this timeline was subsequently stalled for two years due to indecision in the delimitation between the BMS and the F-INSAS.
Phase-2: Equipping of all armoured and mechanised infantry formations commencing in 2017.
Phase-3: Upgradation of the system by 2022.
Both the BMS and F-INSAS will make use of a host of digitised GIS-based tools (pertaining to both friendly and enemy territories) that are now available (work on them began in 2009) for the IA’s South-Western, Western and Northern Command HQs and that can be readily uploaded on to any armoured vehicle’s autonomous land navigation system (ALNS) and BMS terminal. Military Geospatial Information System (MGIS) helps in generating terrain trafficability maps, commonly referred to as Going Maps (GM), when data pertaining to five thematic layers, viz., soil, slope, moisture, land use, and landform is fed into the system. It is then integrated to produce the GMs in a three-level hierarchical manner. Terrain Feature Extraction System (TFES) is used for extracting terrain parameters or themes (land-use/land cover, landform, and soil type) from satellite images and associated knowledge base in an automated mode. The land use, landform, and soil layer has 10, 28, and 12 classifications, respectively. For land-use classification, a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) is used for training and subsequent generation of corresponding themes. The landform classification uses a texture-based method for creating a database that is used for training MLP. Terrain Reasoner System (TRS) helps decision-makers (troop commanders, wargamers and mission planners) in a combat development setting for arriving at route alternatives that are largely determined by the threat capability of the obstacles and strategic nature of the regions to be negotiated for a pre-specified mission accomplishment risk factor (MARF). The problem of navigation and route planning of vehicles or troops is defined as the final behavioural outcome of a sequence of complex decisions involving several criteria that are often conflicting and difficult to model. A fuzzy inference system has been built to implement the perceive-reason-act decision cycle of a moving agent representing a vehicle or a foot soldier in a safety-critical tactically driven scenario. Terrain Matching System (TMS) is an intelligent decision-support system based on the integration of CBR and fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making.
The F-INSAS project will be implemented in three phases—Phase-1 includes weapons, body armour, clothing and individual equipment; Phase-2 is the target acquisition system and Phase-3 comprises the computer sub-system, SDR sub-system, and operating software integration. Since the Directorate of Infantry has been developing Phase-3 of F-INSAS on its own, rather than being part of the BMS project, this has amounted to re-inventing the wheel. Instead, what should have been done was to develop Phase-3 of F-INSAS as part of the overall BMS developmental effort.
(to be concluded)

Updates On Pakistan's Air-Defence Artillery Force Modernisation Efforts

$
0
0
Pakistan being a national security/garrison state will obviously not want to share the critical operating parameters of its weapon systems, especially those pertaining to air-defence, even with its own citizens. Nor will the citizens dare reveal anything for fear of being labelled as traitors or being abducted and subjected to torture or even fatal decapitation by its state security agencies. Therefore, to spare such retards from such miseries, I am revealing below all the relevant information concerning the Pakistan Army’s CPMIEC-supplied FM-90 SHORADS (handed over on March 16, 2016), the LY-80E MR-SAM (handed over on March 12, 2017), and the FN-16 VSHORADS that will in the near future replace the Pakistan Army’s existing QW-1/QW-2 (shamelessly renamed as Anza Mk.1/Anza Mk.2) MANPADS. The contents of this thread will also hopefully benefit all war-planners of India’s armed forces. Bhaarat Maa Zindabaad! India Paindabaad!     
All three armed services of Pakistan are presently engaged in replacing legacy air-defence systems and sensors of US and European origin with China-supplied products. For instance, the YLC-2V High Guard 3-D S-Band high-power radars have replaced the PAF’s older FPS-89/100 radars at Sakesar, Badin, Skardu and Gilgit, while the Army’s 1980s vintage 68 SIEMENS-built SILLACS L-Band MPDR-45 (with 45km-range), MPDR-60 (with 60km-range) and MPDR-90 (with 90km-range) and now being replaced by the NORINCO-supplied CS-RB1 HGR-106 medium-power 210km-range gapfiller radars.
This will then leave the PAF with only four Northrop Grumman TPS- 63s and six Lockheed Martin TPS-77s for peacetime monitoring of the country’s air-defence identification zone.
Now being delivered are CEIEC-supplied JY-27A 280km-range VHF radars and related TS-504 multi-point troposcatter communications relay systems that will be used by the Army’s three CPMIEC-supplied LY-80E medium-range surface-to-air missile regiments and the three CPMIEC-supplied FM-90 SHORADS regiments.
In addition, the Pakistan Navy’s three Marine Battalions have inducted into service the CS-RB1 HGR-106 radars, along with NORINCO-supplied 6.8-tonne PG-99 35mm towed anti-aircraft guns and Sichuan Military Electronics Industries Group Company (SEMIC)’s Type 825 fire-control radars.
The PG-99, a re-engineered Oerlikon-Contraves GDF of early 1980s vintage, is gas-operated and comes with a rate of fire of up to 1,100 rounds/minute, and the muzzle velocity is up to 1,175 metres/second, together with high aiming speed, low recoil force and small dispersion. Its engagement range is 4km. The PG-99 is mounted on a cradle which is designed to carry guns and the mobile platform. It contains the hydro-mechanical recoil mechanism, which absorbs the recoil forces. 
The lower part of the cradle comprises the two-axle chassis and the outriggers with the leveling spindles for four-point support in the firing positions. Raising and lowering the levelling spindles and raising the wheels are done electro-hydraulically, or manually in the case of power failure. The gun can be traversed 360 degree and its elevation/depression angles are +92 degree/-5 degree.
The Type 825 fire-control system can acquire targets at a range of up to 40km, track them at a maximum distance of 32km, and identify them at ranges of up to 6km.

Setting The Record Straight

$
0
0
Till this day, the overwhelming majority of India’s citizens are ill-informed about the legal status of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (inclusive of PoK), i.e. whether it is legally a part of India or whether it is disputed territory. If asked, they tend to ASSUME that it is disputed territory. However, a careful reading of the UN Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) submitted jointly by the Representatives for Belgium, Canada, Republic of China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and United States of America and adopted by the Security Council at its 286thmeeting held on April 21, 1948 (Document No. 5/726, dated the 21st April, 1948), followed by a detailed account of how the Ceasefire Agreement was negotiated and finally inked on July 28, 1949, all prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is Pakistan that has consistently shied away from implementing the UNSC’s Reolution 47.
Reproduced below is the first-hand detailed account of the entire negotiating process and the benchmarks that were used for drafting the temporary ceasefire agreement. This should, once and for all, clear any doubts that anyone harbours about the legal status of undivided Jammu & Kashmir. 

From T-6/Bhim To K-9/Vajra-T: Tracing The Tracked SPH Merry-Go-Round

$
0
0
It was in March 1994, that Indian Army (IA) HQ formulated the GSQR for tracked self-propelled howitzers (T-SPH) SP by using the 152mm 2S19M1/MSTA-S T-SPH as the baseline performance parameter benchmark. In response to an RFI, proposals were received in December 1994 from five OEMs and subsequently, field mobility-firepower trials on a no-cost no-commitment basis of four different hybrid T-SPHs (from France, the UK, Russia and South Africa) were conducted between April and July 1995. During these trials, the option of using the T-72M hull for mounting the turret-mounted howitzer proved to be a failure due to powerpack-related mobility deficiencies and thus IA HQ rejected all four offers.
In mid-1996, Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp and Ekaterinberg-based Uraltransmash proposed to co-develop with the DRDO a hybrid 2S19M1/MSTA-S T-SPH that combined the hull of the T-90S MBT with a turret containing a 155mm/52-cal barrel that was to be jointly developed by Bofors AB and Volgograd-based Barrikady State Production Association. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) and IA HQ both ignored this offer due to its techno-economic complexities. In May 1997 it was decided by IA HQ that the AS-90 turret offered by UK-based VSEL and the T-6 turret of South Africa-based DENEL Land Systems  ought to be mated with the hull of the CVRDE-developed Arjun Mk.1 MBT and both these hybrid T-SPH options ought to be evaluated through fresh field-trials. 
Only DENEL accepted this offer, with VSEL declining to take part in the competition. In the meantime, IA HQ had amended its GSQR in March 1998 that now specified the requirement for both tracked and wheeled self-propelled howitzers of 52-calibre—the desired quantities being 120 and 814, respectively under the 10th Army Plan.
After conducting trial evaluations from July to September 1999, IA HQ in September 2000 recommended the induction of the hybrid T-6 T-SPH, known as BHIM, into service. In October 2000, the MoD’s Department of Defence Production & Supplies (DDP & S) nominated the MoD-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) as the nodal production agency for indigenous manufacture of the BHIM in collaboration with DENEL. However, in March 2002 this decision was reviewed and the MoD-owned Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) was nominated as the nodal production agency even though BEML had no expertise in the field. As such, BEML was not even prepared for submitting its production plan within the stipulated time. The Cabinet Committee on National Security (CCNS) in June 2002 accorded  approval in principle for the acquisition of 120 BHIM T-SPHs. Thereafter, in the same month, RFPs were issued to DENEL and BEML. Based on their commercial proposals, the MoD’s price negotiations committee (PNC) began negotiating with both between August 2002 and December 2003. In December 2004, the MoD decided to submit the BHIM’s procurement plan for CCNS approval. However, due to the blacklisting of the entire DENEL Group by the MoD in June 2005 due to the former’s alleged involvement in making illegal payments to certain agencies as commissions relating to another procurement (that of DENEL-built NTW-20 anti-materiel rifles), all contracts and negotiations with DENEL were abruptly cancelled.
In June 2006 the MoD’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) cancelled the earlier hybrid T-SPH solution and instead approved the procurement of an integrated T-SPH system under the ‘Buy Global’ category with the stipulation that various T-SPHs be trial-evaluated in-country on a no-cost no-commitment basis. The RFP was issued in May 2007 to 29 OEMs worldwide, but finally only one OEM (South Korea’s Hanwha Techwin, formerly Samsung Techwin) offered a techno-commercial offer and thus the RFP was retracted as it was a single vendor situation. In February 2008, the DAC once again reiterated its preference for an integrated T-SPH system, following which an RFP was issued in August 2008 to 11 OEM s for submitting techno-commercial offers. Yet again, only Hanwha Techwin responded in March 2009 and hence the RFP was again withdrawn. However, on the request of some OEMs, the date of submission of bids was extended by eight weeks i.e. up to June 25, 2011.
Four companies, including TATA, the OFB and the BEML, bid for yet another new RFP that was issued in January 2011. Along with Hanwha Techwin teamed with Larsen & Toubro (L & T) that offered the K-9 Vajra-T, an upgraded version of OFB’s offer—the 152mm 2S19M1/MSTA-S—participated in the field evaluation trials held from March to August 2013 at the Pokhran Field Firing Range in Rajasthan. Subsequently, the K-9 Vajra-T (Thunderbolt) was shortlisted for acquisition in late September 2015 following extended field0trials that were concluded in early 2014. The MoD thereafter began price negotiations with L & T. On December 22, 2015 the MoD opened the techno-commercial bid of L & T as it was found to be the only T-SPH to comply with all the specified techno-operational parameters of the IA.
However, it was only on March 30, 2017 that the CCNS accorded its approval for the Rs 4,875-crore ($750 million) contract (to be inked next week) that now calls for the procurement of four Regiments each with 18 K-9s and four K-10 tracked ARV/ammunition re-supply vehicles (88 vehicles), plus 10 K-9s and two K-10s, with an option for procuring another three K-9 Regiments and 12 K-10s. The first 10 K-9s and four K-10s will be supplied within 18 months of contract signature, with the balance following in the next two years. 
L & T will licence-build 13 major sub-systems (including the fire-control system, ammunition handling system, muzzle velocity radar, and the NBC filtration system) of the K-9 Vajra-T at its facilities in Talegaon and Powai, with final-assembly of the semi-knocked-down kits supplied by Hanwha Techwin taking place at Talegaon. 
L & T will also procure (from Russia’s JSC V. A. Degtyarev Plant) and install the NSV 12.7mm heavy machine guns on the K-10s, and will also equip all vehicles with the BEL-supplied  FOG-based autonomous land navigation system, IRDE-developed driver uncooled thermal imagers, and STARS-V Mk.3 radios for communicating with the IA’s DRDO-developed ‘Shakti’ artillery fire-assault direction system.
To be attached to each K-9 Regiment will be an OFB-supplied Carrier Command Post Tracked (CCPT), plus BEL-supplied motorised medium-range battlefield surveillance radar (BSFR-MR) and its motorised communications vehicle. 
It is very likely that the K-9 Vajra-Ts will be operated by the IA Western Command’s Ambala-based 40 Artillery Division, which in turn will come under the command of the Ambala-based II Corps (which includes the Patiala-based 1 Armoured Division, Dehra Dun-based 14 RAPID Division and the Meerut-based 22 Infantry Division). This is because the IA believes that even though it will make serious attempts to ensure that the next round of high-intensity conventional hostilities remains confined to the mountains of Jammu & Kashmir and PoK, there could well be a spillover to the plains of northern Punjab. In any future limited high-intensity war that India’s armed forces will be called upon to fight in the mountains, gaining, occupying and holding territory and evicting the enemy from Indian territory occupied by the enemy (i.e. PoK) will continue to remain a critical military aim in both mountains and the adjoining plains along southern Jammu (i.e. the 116 sq km Chicken’s Neck area). And consequently, only massive asymmetries of manoeuvre warfare backed up by pulverizing fire-assaults in-depth through a joint Air-Land campaign will possibly achieve the desired military objectives within a 72-hour period. A combination of rocket-based and tube-based field artillery assets, accompanied by survivable airborne reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition (RSTA) force-multipliers will enable the IA to simultaneously fight the contact, intermediate and deep battles. In offensive operations on future battlefields, the IA’s field artillery Divisions will therefore be required launch fire-assaults through ‘attack by firepower’ concepts in conjunction with other ground combat echelons (armoured and mechanised infantry formations backed up by Army Aviation-operated attack helicopters—all consolidated into Integrated Battle Groups, or IBGs) to shape the battlefield and, ultimately, create suitable conditions for the decisive defeat of the enemy. Precision field artillery firepower will therefore be required to systematically degrade the enemy’s preparations for the attack from the concentration area onwards by undertaking effects-based operations (EBO). The concentrated application of massed tube/rocket artillery firepower will thus seek to disrupt the enemy’s combat cohesion throughout the defensive battles. 
In theory, mechanised infantry, self-propelled tube/rocket artillery, and armoured forces are mutually supporting: while artillery rains destruction to the front and flanks as ICV-mounted infantry protects main battle tanks (MBT) from hostile guided/unguided anti-armour weapons. Simultaneously, the MBTs protect the ISVs and the follow-on APCs from hostile armoured forces and static, dug-in strongpoints. In practice, though, both ICVs and APCs will have problems keeping up with the fast-moving MBTs during the main attack; their armour protection will be insufficient to survive at the point of the attack (thanks to the availability of tandem warheads for ATGMs whose engagements ranges keep on increasing; and consequently all the battle drills between friendly armoured forces and mechanised infantry (practiced in peacetime) will frequently break down if there is a lack of sufficient team-training prior to combat. The solutions therefore have to be technological, tactical, and structural.
In order to provide a lethal, integrated combat team whereby each system (armour, mechanised infantry, field artillery and army aviation) provides mutual support, any offensive by an IBG will have to be a highly orchestrated and synchronised lethal ballet built around a manoeuvred firepower schedule where fire-assaults will have to be fired in pre-determined phases, with the T-SPGs advancing behind a wall of sizzling shrapnel precisely in accordance with those phases. The T-SPHs will accompany the combined armoured/mechanised infantry attacks and provide direct fire-support on resisting enemy strongpoints. Here, even multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) like the Pinaka-2 equipped with terminal-guidance sensors for precision strike will be used in direct fire-support against a particularly stubborn enemy.
In order to develop mature IBGs that excel in mutually supportive combined-arms warfighting and that never slows down and loses the momentum of the attack, the need of the hour now is to acquire few select force-multipliers (the weakest existing links in the chain) that will enhance the IA’s real-time RSTA capabilities, as well as ensure the survivability of MBTs through armed armoured vehicles that are built like MBTs and which can provide mutual close-combat support for infantry-laden ICVs. In other words, they should provide protection against hostile ATGMs, dismounted infantry, static strongpoints, attack helicopters and fixed-wing combat aircraft. They will need to be an integral part of the armoured formation, but at the same time it should not be a vehicle with five turrets and multiple weapons. 
To be concluded

L’Affaire De Kulbhushan Jadhav: A Case Of PARVAZ-E-WAHIYAT (Unmitigated Flight Of Nonsense)

$
0
0
If the public administration motto of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is ‘maximum governance, minimum government’, the exact opposite holds true for his Pakistani counterpart Mian Mohd Nawaz Sharif, i.e. maximum government, near-zero governance’. And that is because the Pakistan Army (PA), while not being in the driver’s seat, is very much so the sole provider of driving cues, i.e. it is 100% involved in Pakistan’s national governance. Only this can explain the volte face on April 14, 2017 by Sartaj Aziz, the Pakistani Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs and Pakistan’s de facto Foreign Minister. For, it was on December 7, 2016 that Aziz had told the Pakistani National Assembly’s Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs chamber that the dossier on alleged Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav contained mere statements, and that additional evidence needed to be collected. “So far, we have just statements about the involvement of this Indian spy in terror activities in Pakistan…now it is up to the concerned authorities how long they take to give us more matter on the agent,” Aziz had said, adding that “more evidence was needed, and that the United Nations had been given a dossier about the Research & Analysis Wing’s (R & AW) involvement in Pakistan”.
And this was the very same Aziz who shared Pakistan’s charge-sheet against Kulbhushan Jadhav and a timeline of his trial in a media briefing on April 14, 2017. Aziz also asked why Jadhav, who was handed the death sentence on April by an in-camera Field General Court Martial (FGCM) for his involvement in espionage and sabotage activities inside Pakistan, had been carrying official documents under an alias at the time of his arrest. “I would like to ask India why he Jadhav was using a fake identity and masquerading as a Muslim. Why would an innocent man possess two Passports—one with a Hindu name, and one with a Muslim name? Since India has no credible explanation about why their serving naval commander was in Balochistan, it has unleashed a flimsy propaganda campaign,” he said. Aziz also condemned India’s “baseless allegations”, adding that India’s lack of cooperation and refusal to provide Pakistan legal assistance were the reasons Jadhav had not been granted consular access. “Inflammatory statements and rhetoric about pre-meditated murder and unrest in Balochistan will only result in escalation, serving no useful purpose,” he added. Aziz further said that steps had been taken to ensure transparency during the trial of Kulbhushan Jadhav under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act 1923’s Section 3 and the Pakistan Army Act 1952’s Section 59. Elaborating on these steps, Aziz revealed that Jadhav’s confessional statement had been recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Pakistan’s Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), whereas the proceedings had been conducted under the Law of Evidence. Jadhav was also appointed a qualified legal officer to defend him in court proceedings. Witnesses recorded their statements under oath in front of the accused, who was allowed to question them. It should be clear from these details that Kulbhushan Jadhav was tried under the law of the land in a fully transparent manner,” Aziz said. “His sentence is based on credible, specific evidence proving his involvement in espionage and terrorist activities in Pakistan. A Letter of Assistance requesting specific information and access to certain key witnesses was shared with the Government of India on January 23, 2017. There has been no response from the Indian side so far. Kulbhushan Jadhav still has the right to appeal within 40 days to an appellate court. He may also lodge a mercy petition to the PA’s Chief of the Army Staff within 60 days of the decision by the appellate court and may file a mercy petition to the President of Pakistan within 90 days after the decision of the COAS on the mercy petition”, Aziz added.

Aziz revealed that Jadhav had been held responsible for the following terrorist activities in Pakistan:
· Sponsored and directed Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and grenade attacks in Gwadar and Turbat.
·  Directed attacks on a radar station and civilian boats in the sea opposite Jiwani Port.
· Funded subversive secessionist and terrorist elements through hawala/hundi for subverting the Pakistani youth against the country, especially in Balochistan.
·  Sponsored explosions of gas pipelines and electric pylons in Sibi and Sui areas in Balochistan.
·  Sponsored IED explosions in Quetta in 2015, causing massive damage to life and property.
· Sponsored sectarian attacks on Hazaras in Quetta and Shias en route to and back from Iran.
· Abetted attacks through anti-state elements against law enforcement agencies, the Frontier Corps (FC) and Frontier Works Organisation (FWO) in areas of Turbat, Punjgur, Gwadar, Pasni and Jiwani during 2014-2015, killing and injuring many civilians and soldiers.

Aziz also provided a timeline of the trial and proceedings against Jadhav:
· Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested on March 3, 2016, 21 days before his arrest was officially announced by Balochistan’s provincial Home Minister Sarfaraz Bugti on March 24, 2016
· Confessional video statement recording of Kulbushan Jhadav—March 25, 2016
· Initial FIR filed with the Counter-Terrorism Department in Quetta—April 8, 2016
·  Conduct of initial interrogation—May 2, 2016
·  Conduct of detailed interrogation—May 22, 2016
·  Joint Investigation Team constituted—July 12, 2016
·  Confessional statement under Section 164 of the CrPC—July 22, 2016
·  Recording of summary of evidence—September 24, 2016
·  1st proceeding of FGCM—September 21, 2016
·  2nd proceeding of FGCM—October 19, 2016
·  3rd proceeding of FGCM —November 29, 2016
·  4th proceeding if FGCM—February 12, 2017
· Death sentence endorsed by FGCM—April 10, 2017

Aziz’s press-briefing 24 hours ago raises several questions about the veracity of his revelations due to the changing Pakistani narratives on L’Affair Kulbhushan Jadhav over the past 13 months. For instance, Pakistani says that when Jadhav was apprehended inside Balochistan, he was in possession of an Indian Passport, E6934766, identifying him by the pseudonym of Hussein Mubarak Patel, born in Sangli, Maharashtra. This Passport had been issued on May 12, 2014 from the Thane Regional Passport Office (RPO) and was valid until May 11, 2024. Pakistan also alleges that Jadhav is concurrently serving with both the Indian Navy (IN) and the Indian Union Cabinet Secretariat’s R & AW, and that he will be retiring from the IN only in 2022. While Aziz also disclosed on April 14 that Jadhav was nabbed while trying to cross the border from Saravan city (the capital of Saravan County in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan province) into Mashkail in Balochistan, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director had on March 29, 2016 claimed that Jadhav was picked up by Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies in Balochistan’s Chaman Border Crossing Point near the shared border with Afghanistan, and that Jadhav had entered Balochistan from Afghanistan a total of 12 times, and that he had been in Balochistan for 15 days distributing millions in cash of different denominations among Baloch insurgents, and that he was carrying Pakistani and Afghani SIM cards and navigational maps. In a crowded hour-long military-civil press conference held in Islamabad on March 29, the ISPR released a ‘confession’ video of what it alleged was an Indian spy in Pakistan’s custody. In the 6-minute video, Kulbhushan Jadhav, 46, ‘confessed’ to launching covert operations against Balochistan province while operating from Chah Bahar port in southeastern Iran.

Earlier, on March 25, the then Pakistani Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhary summoned the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad, Gautam Bambawale, and handed over a Démarche over the arrest of Jadhav, describing Jadhav as someone who was indulging in “subversive activities in Balochistan and Karachi”. On March 26, a day after the start of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s first official two-day visit to Islamabad, the then Director General of ISPR, Lt Gen Asim Saleem Bajwa, had tweeted that when the PA’s then COAS Gen Raheel Sharif met President Rouhani, he had raised the issue of R & AW’s involvement in Pakistan’s internal affairs, especially Balochistan. A subsequent statement issued by the ISPR said: “There is one concern that R & AW is involved in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan, and sometimes it also uses the soil of our brother country Iran.” On March 27, the very next day, the President Rouhani at a press-conference in Islamabad denied having discussed any matter with Gen Sharif, saying that “there was no discussion about Indian spy during my meeting with Gen Raheel”, and adding that “whenever Iran comes close to Pakistan, such rumours are spread”. Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan, Mehdi Honardoost had then slammed the leaking of the details of Jadhav’s arrest instead of the issue being discussed between the security agencies of both countries.

When news of Jadhav’s arrest broke, the well-connected Afghan journalist Malik Achakzai tweeted to report that Jadhav had been abducted. On the same day, in Karachi, a former and very knowledgeable German ambassador to Pakistan Dr Gunter Mulack, said “that the Indian spy recently arrested in Balochistan was actually caught by Taliban and sold to Pakistani intelligence.”

Questions that arise from the above-mentioned Pakistani narratives are:

1) If Sartaj Aziz on April 14 stated that when Jadhav was apprehended inside Balochistan, he was in possession of an Indian Passport, E6934766, identifying him by the pseudonym of Hussein Mubarak Patel, why did he contradict himself in that very same press-conference by asking: Why would an innocent man possess two Passports—one with a Hindu name, and one with a Muslim name? Where is the second Passport and why has it not yet been shown by Pakistan?

2) Why should anyone carry two Passports at all when it is a well-known rule that any person found in possession of two Passports—even showing identical identities but of different nationalities or differing identities with the same nationality—is a criminal offence?

3) Why is Pakistan not disclosing the material evidence which shows that Jadhav is still employed with the IN and R & AW? Does Pakistan possess Jadhav’s naval service records which say that Jadhav will retire in 2022?  

4) If indeed Jadhav was apprehended while trying to cross the border from Iran’s Saravan city into Mashkail in Balochistan, why did the ISPR on March 29, 2016 claim that Jadhav was picked up by Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies in Balochistan’s Chaman Border Crossing Point near the shared border with Afghanistan?

5) If Jadhav had indeed been ‘entrapped’ by Pakistan inside Balochistan, then why is it that the ‘Kaminda’—3,500-tonne Dhow that he owned, had also disappeared at the same time as Jadhav and remains untraceable? Is it possible for this Dhow to be operated by a single person, or did it have an on-board crew complement? If the answer is yes, where is it now?

6) Is is really possible for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate and its proxies to pull off a successful ‘enforced abduction’ and smuggle the entrapped target over land from Iran’s restive Sistan-Baluchestan provinceinto Balochistan when that entire Iranian province is crawling with covert operatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (Pasdaran), the Basij Mostazafan, and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (Vezarat-e-Ettela’at Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran)?

7)  If Jadhav’s ‘confessions’ have enabled Pakistan to destroy the underground networks of several Pakistan-based separatist and terrorist networks, then why is there no news about any such Pakistani citizen or citizens being tried along with him as co-accused/co-conspirators via the FGCM route?

8) Was it possible for the ISI to monitor Jadhav’s cellphone conversations between Chah Bahar and any other place in India? If not, then what was the most probable area-location for the ISI to use its COMINT capabilities for listening to Jadhav’s cellphone-based communications?  
The above-mentioned questions can only be answered AFTER one examines in detail 1) the business activities of Kulbhushan Jadhav; and 2) the operating environment in and around Chah Bahar FTIZ. Born on April 16, 1971, Jadhav is the son of Sudhir Jadhav, and a resident of B-502 Silver Oak Point, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai, in Maharashtra. He secured admittance into the Khadakwasla-based National Defence Academy in 1987 (Charlie Squadron, 77th Course), following which he was commissioned into the engineering branch of the Indian Navy in 1991 (Commissioning Number 41558Z). According to the Govt of India’s statement made on March 27, 2016, Lt Cmdr Jadhav took premature retirement from the Navy in 2003 and thyereafter went into business as a merchant marine entrepreneur. Jadhav sank his life’s savings into his company, named Kaminda Trading Pvt Ltd and struggled to make ends meet, stumping up only meagre business ferrying scrap-metal, gypsum, tractor parts, bitumen, rice and wheat between the ports of Kandla and Porbandar in India, and Bandar Abbas and the Chah Bahar FTIZ in Iran. These were all transported by the‘Kaminda’—a 3,500-tonne Dhow that Jadhav’s company owned. All this while, Jadhav was apparently using a Passport registered in his true name. Jadhav’s maritime freight business picked up steam from 2012 onwards after Iran was slapped with crippling UN-mandated trade sanctions by the US and EU member-states. In fact, Iran during this very period dramatically increased its exports of commodities and crude oil-related downstream byproducts to India, while at the same time proportionally increased its imports of finished agricultural and chemicals-related products from India, which led to an annual bilateral trade of US$4 billion by 2014. In 2014, following the expiry of validity of his Passport, Jadhav decided not to renew the validity and instead chose to obtain a new Passport, this time giving his name as Hussain Mubarak Patel (born on August 30, 1968 in Sangli, Maharashtra), whose certified address was that of a flat in Thane owned by his mother, Avanti Jadhav. He also succeeded in obtaining an Iranian business residency permit (valid till June 2016) for entering and residing in Chah Bahar FTIZ, located just 75km west of the Pakistani deep-sea port of Gwadar in Balochistan province.

The reason why Jadhav had to give the Thane address of his residence was for the sake of identity verification by the Thane Police’s Special Branch and the District Intelligence Bureau (DIB), which is a mandatory process whenever any Indian citizen applies for a Passport for the very first time. In Jadhav’s case, since he was assuming a new identity then, the earlier security authentication carried out by the Mumbai Police’s Special Branch and the DIB when Jadhav had acquired his first Passport in his original identity was now no longer valid.
The question that arises here, and which has not yet been explained either by Jadhav’s next-of-kith-and-kin or by the Govt of India, is what made Jadhav assume a new identity and that too at a time when his marine freighter business was doing quite well? Was it because it was brought to his attention by some authorities of either India or Iran that there was a high possibility of him being kidnapped in the high seas in an act of piracy—this probability being based on certain SIGINT/COMINT chatter of Pakistani origin that had been picked up by either Iran or India? After all, the waters between Balochistan province and Oman are the favourite operating areas of Baluchi smugglers like the notorious Baloch drug smuggler Haji Wali Mehmood Baloch, who operate in these waters and have close links with the ISI as they are always used to ferry consignments of compressed heroin (that are produced in Pakistan from the raw opium originating from Afghanistan) to various Arabian ports in the Persian Gulf. In fact, it is this drug trafficking business that sustains the Afghan Taliban’s Pakistan-supported guerrilla warfare inside Afghanistan. It is perhaps this possibility that prompted India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to state on March 29, 2016 that Jadhav was most likely kidnapped. However, for obvious reasons, The MEA stopped short of identifying the most likely location where the kidnapping took place.   
But this much is sure: Jadhav WAS NOT kidnapped from Chah Bahar or anywhere else inside Irannian territory. His last cellphone conversation was on February 29, 2016 in Chah Bahar, following which it was left unanswered. It is therefore highly probable that as he along with the Kaminda was heading back eastwards toward India, his vessel was stealthily boarded by some highly skilled Pakistanis (who had definitely rehearsed this act of piracy a few times in advance, probably between July 2015 and January 2016) at nighttime in international waters just outside Iran’s territorial waters in such a manner that neither Jadhav nor any of his crew-mates had absolutely no time to respond by transmitting an SOS distress signal from the vessel’s bridge. After forcibly commandeering the Kaminda and taking its crew complement hostage, the sea-assaulters then set sail for the nearest Pakistani coastal belt of Jiwani (34km east of the Iran-Pakistan maritime boundary) where Jadhav and his crew complement were offloaded. Thereafter, either the Kaminda was scuttled, or was repainted for assuming a new identity. This is the only plausible explanation for the continued disappearance of the Kaminda. So what became of the Kaminda’s crew complement? Have they too been tried by the Pakistan Army’s FGCM as co-conspirators or facilitators? If yes, then is Pakistan waiting for a suitable opportunity to reveal their fate?

There is some reason to infer that this could well happen since Balochistan’s Chief Minister Sanaullah Zehri had subsequently claimed in 2016 that at least 15 more ‘operatives’ of R & AW had been arrested from his province,  based on the leads provided by Jadhav.

In addition, the mere fact that despite specific provisions in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, India has been denied access to Jadhav 14 successive times only confirms beyond any doubt that Pakistan does not want the truth to be revealed about the place and manner of Jadhav’s forced abduction. Consequently, the prospect of Jadhav securing his release from captivity and returning back to India too has now become an impossibility.
Coming now to the operating environment in and around Chah Bahar FTIZ, it needs to be noted that the Iranian province of restive Sistan-Baluchestan province is Iran’s most securitised area. This is because it is the favourite hunting ground for Pakistan-based extremist Baloch Sunni tanzeems like the Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice), the Jundullah (Soldiers of God), the Sipah-e-Sahaba or Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (which was traditionally dominant in South Punjab but is now also ascendant in Parachinar, Kurram Agency) and of late the Jamaat-ud-Dawa headed by Hafiz Saeed. These rabidly anti-Shia tanzeems have since the late 1980s engaged in several barbaric sectarian massacres of Shias residing in both Pakistan and  Sistan-Baluchestan, and are also known to be in cohorts with the Quetta Shura of the Afghan Taliban. Together, they all are active throughout the 936km-long Iran-Afghanistan border and the 909km-long Iran-Pakistan border. Consequently, these two today constitute of the world’s most heavily fortified land borders. The already-constructed Iran-Pakistan Barrier (built by Iran from 2007 till 2013) features a three-foot thick, ten-foot high concrete wall extending across 700km of forbidding desert terrain. The actual wall, however, is merely one part of an elaborate system of barriers that include several parallel structures running along much of the border, which evidently consist of deep canals, linked embankments and ditches. Fortress-like garrisoned observation towers too exist in several areas, as are extensive road and track networks. Since the barbed-wire fences, walls, berms, dry moats, and other fortifications are all built on the Iranian side of the border, Pakistan has voiced no objections to such projects.
The official purpose of the Iran-Pakistan Barrier is two-fold: to stop illegal border-crossings and to curtail the flow of narcotics into Iran. The latter issue is certainly serious, since Iran has the world’s highest rate of opiate addiction by a substantial margin, with an estimated 4 million regular users in a population of roughly 73 million. Afghanistan is the ultimate source of narcotics entering Iran, but Afghan opium is often processed in, and exported from, Pakistan as compressed heroin. As there is only one legal crossing-point between the two countries—at the small oasis town of Taftan—Teheran has banked on hopes to gain control over the flow of narcotics and other smuggled commodities by hardening the Iran-Pakistan border.
The issue of illegal border-crossings by Pakistanis is more complicated. Iran is a much more prosperous and less densely populated country than Pakistan—circumstances that often result in a large flow of surreptitious immigrants. And indeed, the westward movement of undocumented migrants is substantial. It is also apparently increasing, despite the Barrier stretching from Taftan to Mand. But most of the people illegally crossing the border evidently aim to pass through Iran on their way to either Europe—a region with substantially higher wages and benefits—or to Iraq, Syria or Turkey in order to join the ranks of ISIS. The illegal movement of drugs and people, however, is not the main reason for the construction of the extraordinarily expensive barriers by a cash-strapped Iran. More important is the desire to quell the Baloch rebellion. The boundary between Iran and Pakistan also divides the land of the Baloch people, a distinct ethno-linguistic group some 9 million-strong. The bulk of the Baloch, a Sunni Muslim people, live in Pakistan, but as many as 1.5 million reside in southeastern Iran, with another 500,000 or so in southwestern Afghanistan. The Baloch in Pakistan have been engaged in a low-intensity insurgency for decades, while those of Iran have become increasingly restive in recent years. In 2003, Iranian Baloch separatists along with their Pakistani counterparts formed a violent tanzeem called Jundullah (Soldiers of God), dedicated to fighting on behalf of Sunni Muslims against the Shi’ite regime of Iran. Pakistan, by the way, just does not bother about narcotics trafficking by the Afghan Taliban and their Baloch facilitators, but is highly concerned about smuggling from Iran, but of a different kind: alcohol. 
To curtail such activities, Pakistan’s FC has built the highly securitised ‘Pakistan Gate’ at Taftan in Balochistan’s Chagai district and it went operational on August 14, 2016). Iran has already constructed a parallel securitised gate inside its border at Mir Java in Zahedan, capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province.
In light of the above, it is therefore impossible for anyone to abduct/entrap/kidnap a person inside Iranian territory and then have him smuggled into Pakistan. Any such action that promises 100% success and 100% plausible deniability can only be conducted in international waters along the Pakistani coastline. 
Why Is Iran Paranoiac About Sindh & Balochistan?
In response to the alarming spread of Wahabism/Salafism throughout Pakistan during the civil war in Afghanistan between 1980 and 1988—when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) along with Pakistan’s then military dictator-cum-Army COAS Gen Mohd Zia-ul-Haq went on to create anti-Shia cults like the Sunni Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith inside Pakistan to counterbalance the threat of Shiism—the Islamic Republic of Iran, since the mid-1980s, has been engaged in waging proxy wars against the KSA-financed Pakistani Sunni adherents of Wahabism/Salafism throughout Pakistan.This in turn has, over the years, led to complex relationships of opposing extremist ideologies, cross-border smuggling networks, and alliances based on religio-ethnic faultlines and among several militant Pakistani tanzeems.

The Sunni-Shia sectarian divide is 1,400 years old worldwide, with adherents of Shi’a Islam in Pakistan making up 25% of the country’s population, while the remaining 75% practice Sunni Islam. This makes Pakistan the country with the second-largest Shia community after Iran by number of adherents (India hosts the world’s third-largest Shia community). Globally, Shia Islam constitutes 15% of the total Muslims, while the remaining 75% practice Sunni Islam. Sunni militant tanzeems inside Pakistan include the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba (now known as the Ahle-Sunnat Wal Jama’at or ASWJ), Jundullah and its the Jaish al-Adl/Jaish al-Nasr offshoots, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (affiliates of Al-Qaeda and supporters of the Afghan Taliban), Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and the Khorasan chapter of ISIS (Daesh). On the Shia side, Maulana Mureed Abbas Yazdani formed the Sipa-e-Muhammad Pakistan in the early 1990s. This is the armed wing of Tehreek-e-Jafria Pakistan and has been involved in the assassinations of Sunni Ulama and violence against Pakistan’s Sunni community in Shia-dominated areas of the country. It was banned in Pakistan by President Gen Pervez Musharraf in 2002. It is accused of killing the central leadership of the Sipa-e-Sahabah, starting from Haq Nawaz Jhangvi to the subsequent assassinations in Karachi and Rawalpindi. Its headquarters is in Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore, and its leader is Syyed Ghulam Raza Naqv,i who was imprisoned in 1996 and released in 2014. It is also alleged to be behind the massacre of students of a Sunni madrassa and the burning down of Madrassa Taleem-ul-Quran in Rawalpindi in 2013.

According to Pakistan’s Federal Ministry of Interior, Punjab province alone has 122 Saudi-funded madrassas and 25 Iran-backed ones. In Balochistan and Peshawar, funding is mostly flowing from KSA, while in the Shia-dominated northern territory of Gilgit-Baltistan inside PoK, money comes almost exclusively from Iran. Pakistani cities like Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Multan are also home to large Shia communities. The majority of Pakistan’s Shia community adheres to the Twelver cult, while other sub-sects/cults are the Ismailis, Khojas and Bohras. Most of these are not easily distinguishable by either name or identity. Among Twelver Shias, however, the most vulnerable is the Hazara community in Quetta region as its members are easily recognisable due to their ethnicity and language. Quetta is home to nearly 6,00,000 Shi’ite Hazaras, whohave been the victims whenever extremist Sunni tanzeems have gunned down buses packed with pilgrims heading to Iran via the Pakistan-Iran border at Taftan ever since Pakistani Sunni clerics since the mid-1980s began issuing fatwas that declared the Shias as heretics and apostates. In Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the Bangash, along with the Orakzai and the Turi, are the only Pashtun tribes with significant Shia population and they are concentrated around the Parrot’s Beak area of Parachinar in the Upper Kurram Agency, as well as in Hangu and Kohat in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Opposing them is the Mehsud—a big Karlani Pashtun tribe based in South Waziristan Agency alongside the Ahmadzai Wazir tribe. The centre of Mehsud tribe’s population is the Makeen-Laddah-Tiarza-Sarwakai belt in South Waziristan. However, the Mehsuds also live in Dera Ismail Khan and Tank and it is they who have provided support for the Iranian Baloch cadres of the Jundullah, almost all of whom are from the Rigi tribe and are also graduates of madrasses located in Karachi and interior Sindh. Between 2003 and 2016, 2,558 Pakistani Shias were killed, while around 600 Shias were killed between 1999 and 2003 and approximately 500 Shia doctors fled the country as a result of the assassination of more than 50 of their colleagues in Karachi alone.  In 2012, more than 400 Shias were killed in target killings and bombings, making it possibly the bloodiest year in living memory for the Shia population of Pakistan.

The Jundullah (the name in Arabic stands for ‘soldiers of God’) was created in 2003 by an Iranian Sunni Baloch named Abdol Malek Rigi in Sindh. This tanzeem was also known as the People’s Resistance Movement of Iran He had a Pakistani national identity card by the name of Saeed Ahmed, son of Ghulam Haider. He and his deputy Hamzawere arrested by Pakistan (with US help) on February 23, 2010 while on a flight from Dubai to Kyrgyzstan, and were subsequently extradited to Iran where they both were executed on June 20, 2010. Abdol Malek Rigi had been educated at Karachi’s Binori Town madrassa and all his murderous activities were focussed on Sestan-Baluchistan, which is Iran’s only Sunni-majority province. Since the previous decade, Jundullah has carried out a number of high-profile terrorist attacks in Iran.  These include a 2005 attack on then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s motorcade in Sestan-Baluchistan (one of Ahmadinejad’s bodyguards was killed); a 2006 attack on a bus in Sestan-Baluchistan that killed 18 members of the IRGC (Pasdaran); the abduction and execution of 16 Iranian policemen in 2007; a car-bomb attack on a security installation in Sestan-Baluchistan in 2008 that killed at least four people; a 2009 ambush in Sestan-Baluchistan that killed 12 Iranian policeman; a 2009 bomb-attack on a mosque in Sestan-Baluchistan that killed 25 people and injured 125; and a suicide-bomb attack on October 18, 2009 in Sestan-Baluchistan that killed 42 people, including several senior IRGC officers. All in all, Jundullah since 2003 was responsible for the killing of 154 members of Iranian security forces and other innocent people and wounding of 320 people, Abdol Malek Rigi’s younger brother, Abdol Hamid Rigi, was captured in Pakistan in June 2008 and after being extradited to Iran, he was executed in May 2010 in Zahedan. Abdol Sattar Rigi, another brother of Abdol Malek Rigi, along withAbdol Salam Rigi (who is the cousin of Abdol Malek Rigi)bwas arrested by Pakistani authorities in March 2015 following a tip-off about his movements and consequently the bus they were travelling in was intercepted some 50km south of Quetta. While Abdol Salam Rigi used to head the Jaish al-Adl, Abdol Sattar Rigi headed the Jaish al-Nasr. In February 2014, Jaish al-Adl had abducted five Iranian border-guards outside Sarbaz, a town in Sestan-Baluchistan. The guards were taken to Pakistan and one of them was reportedly killed in captivity while the remaining four were released two months later. Although Iran has since March 2015 been demanding the extradition of both Abdol Salam Rigi and Abdol Sattar Rigi, Pakistan has yet to respond positively and has privately insisted that Teheran curb the activities of India’s Consulate in Zahedan, which it suspects is extending moral, financial and political support to separatist Pakistani Baloch movements like the Baluchistan Liberation Front.

In light of the above, it is not surprising at all that Iran has a multitude of field operatives operating throughout Pakistan, and especially inside Sindh and Balochistan, on various information-gathering and counter-intelligence missions. One such example is a 39 year-old Pakistani Baloch national called Uzair Baloch. On December 28, 2014 Uzair was detained by INTERPOL in Dubai as he was travelling by road to the United Arab Emirates from Muscat, Oman. He was later deported back to Pakistan (prior to this Iran was demanding his return since Uzair was travelling on a genuine Iranian Passport but another an assumed identity) within 30 days where arrest-warrants had earlier been issued for his involvement with targetted killings and extortion. Uzair was formally arrested by Pakistan’s Sindh Rangers on January 30, 2016 on the outskirts of Karachi and was subsequently charged with spying and anti-state activities. On April 12, 2017 he was taken into military custody under the Pakistan Army [and] Official Secrets Act.

The gangster was born on October 10, 1977, to an Iranian Baloch family in a neighborhood of Lyari, outside Karachi. During judicial investigations in 2016, Uzair disclosed that one of his aunts was permanently settled in Iran and was a dual-nationality holder of Iran and Pakistan. In 1987, she had obtained photographs of her nephew (Uzair) in order to make his fake birth certificate under the name of her deceased son, Abdul Ghani, who had died seven years ago at the age of 14. This was a time when it was not mandatory for Iranian birth certificates to have a picture; therefore, forged documents could be easily made by a simple cut-and-paste. In 2006, during on-going operations by the Sindh Police against the criminal gangs of Lyari, Uzair along with his cousin Jalil fled from Pakistan to Iran via Oman. There he applied for and acquired an Iranian National Identity Card and Passport, which was again managed by his aunt. It was in 2011 when the validity of Uzair’s Iranian Passport expired, he along with his associate Abdul Samad, Baloch returned to Iran via road and was able to renew his Passport’s validity through the help of an Iranian friend, Sabir alias Sabri. By 2012 Uzair had been declared a proclaimed offender and a Pakistani court had ruled that proceedings against the offender would be conducted in absentia under Section 19 (10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. In 2014, after the Sindh Rangers initiated full-fledged anti-crime operations in Karachi, Uzair was living with his friend Malik Baloch near Chah Bahar, Iran. There he reportedly came into contact with an individual named Haji Nasir. Uzair has allegedly revealed that Nasir was a resident of Tehsil Mand of Balochistan’s Kech district and was a dual-national of Pakistan and Iran. He was settled in Teheran and owned business and property there. Haji Nasir offered Uzair to relocate to Teheran where he would be provided with a bungalow to reside in. He also told Uzair about his close ties with Iranian intelligence officers and offered to make an introduction. With Uzair’s consent, Haji Nasir arranged a meeting with the Iranian intelligence officials, who asked him for information about Pakistan’s armed forces. He was also asked to brief them about the general security environment of Balochistan and Sindh. Haji Nasir’s name popped up again in a multi-agency joint investigation team (JIT) report of Ahmad Saeed alias Saeed Bharam, an MQM political activist arrested by the UAE’s in March 2016. During investigations after his arrest, Bharam confessed to his connections with Nasir and of interactions with Iranian intelligence officials.

The JIT report, signed by representatives of the Sindh Police, Sindh Rangers, ISI and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), was sent to the Federal Ministry of Interior’s Home Department on April 29, 2016 for “perusal and necessary action”. According to the JIT report, Uzair was involved in “espionage activities by providing secret information regarding army installations and officials to foreign agents (Iranian intelligence officers) which is a violation of the Official Secret Act of 1923”. It was only after nearly 15 months of his detention-without-trial with different Pakistani law enforcement agencies that he was formally arrested and chargesheeted on January 30, 2016.

So, is there a connection between Iran’s on-going proxy wars inside Pakistan and its still undisclosed policy standpoint regarding L’Affaire Kulbhushan Jadhav? Is it in Iran’s and Afghanistan’s interests to keep Pakistan’s Balochistan province on the boil? If yes, will either Afghanistan or Iran even consider allowing anyone from India to use their soil for engaging in subversive activities inside Balochistan and Sindh? If not, then what were Pakistan’s intentions/motivations behind/for kidnapping Kulbhushan Jadhav?  And what did it hope to achieve through this incident? 
(to be concluded)

L’Affaire De Kulbhushan Jadhav-2: A Case Of PARVAZ-E-WAHIYAT (Unmitigated Flight Of Nonsense)

$
0
0
The International Border (IB) between India and Pakistan spans 2,175km. The Working Boundary (WB) spans 202km, the Line of Control (LoC) spans 797km, and the Line of Actual Contact (LAC)—which India calls the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL)—from map-grid reference NJ-9842 till Indra Kol—spans 108km. The LoC runs from a place called Sangam close to Chhamb all the way up north to NJ-9842 in Ladakh, following which the AGPL takes over. The WB lies in Jammu Division between Boundary Pillar 19 and Sangam i.e. between Jammu and Sialkot, which was part of the erstwhile princely state of J & K. It is this stretch that is known in India as the International Boundary (IB), while Pakistan refers to it as the WB, since it maintains that the border agreement (the so-called standstill agreement) was inked between the princely state of J & K and Pakistan, and not between India & Pakistan.

J & K has 734km of the LoC running through Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions from Kargil to Malu (Akhnoor) in Jammu district, while it has 190km of IB from Malu to Punjab belt running through Ramgarh, Jammu, Samba and Kathua districts. Of these, 550km of the LoC has been fenced with flood-lighting, along with 190km of fenced IB. Though a large portion of the India-Pakistan border on the 553km Gurdaspur-Jammu sector is fenced, there are several gaps (more than 40 vulnerable unfenced stretches) caused by the Ravi River and seasonal rivulets that cut into the IB. As much as 462km of Punjab’s 553km of border with Pakistan (districts include Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Tarn Taran, Ferozepur, Faridkot, Abohar and Fazilka) with Pakistan is fenced, and protected with electrified wire, sensors and floodlights. It is the other 91km for which a problem exists. Gurdaspur shares a long, zig-zagging border with Pakistan. Itis easy to infiltrate from this stretch as compared to the heavily-mined and guarded LoC as well as the IB in neighbouring Jammu. A dense fog in winters makes border surveillance an added challenge. As the border terrain is broken and forested, the rivulet beds provide an ideal cover for terrorists who can sneak in and reach the busy NH-44 highway that snakes along the border. This enables terrorists to hijack vehicles and mount rapid strikes. There are many gaps in the fencing on this stretch because of rivers flowing in and out of India. The Ujjh River enters and exits many times on this stretch. Some of the gaps are as wide as 30 feet. It is not difficult to cross this stretch as the rivers are shallow (with water reaching just above the knee) and large parts of the riverbed are dry. Quite a few times the terrorists were launched into India from Jalalabad village of Pakistan, which is close to the IB and faces Tash Lassian and Bhariyal villages in India. In addition cellphone connectivity signals from Pakistan are available on 33 patches along the Punjab border, making it easier for both terrorists and drug syndicates to communicate with one another through Pakistan-registered SIMs. In almost all terror attacks, Pakistani terrorists used snatched vehicles to attack the intended targets, mostly catching Indian security forces off-guard. The Gurdaspur-Pathankot-Jammu highway, which is dotted with a large number of defence installations including cantonments (including the 29 Infantry Division, based at Mamoon Army Cantonment), an air force base and ammunition dumps, have been the prime targets of the terrosists since 2013.

Within J & K, the Indian Army’s XV Corps, covering a frontage of 450km—which is more than half the LoC, has two Divisions—19 and 28. The 28 Infantry Division, which is the largest Division of HQ Northern Command, is responsible for four sensitive sectors along the LoC, namely, Tangdhar, Keran, Machhal and Gurez. Since the November 26, 2003 ceasefire, these sectors, at higher altitudes, have emerged as established infiltration routes. During winter months, when snow in these sectors is between 20 and 25 feet deep, the fence on the LoC gets washed away. To overcome this drawback, most of the stretch in 28 Division’s footprint has a twin-fence, one behind the other to cater for regular and intense infiltration along the deep ravines there. In simple terms, while 19 Infantry Division is crucial for operations during war, 28 Infantry Division is important for counter-infiltration. What should concern XV Corps and the HQ Northern Command are two major Pakistani objectives in 28 Infantry Division’s area of responsibility: Lipa Valley and the Bugina Bulge in PoK. Lipa Valley is surrounded by four mountain ranges: the Shamsabari, the Kafir Khan, the Kasinag and the Chota Kasinag. The most important is Shamsabari, which India dominates. If Pakistan manages to get a foothold on this range, it would then be looking into the Kashmir Valley from the top. This would help Pakistan provide better support to infiltration from this area. Moreover, if the Pakistan Army (PA) obtains a firm lodgement on the Shamsabari Range, its troops could easily roll down into the Valley at a time of its own choosing during wartime. Given the importance of the heights on the Shamsabari Range, if Pakistan indeed would intrude there and occupy the heights, the Indian Army will not hesitate to open its field artillery howitzerss in direct firing mode. Pakistani posts there have air-defence guns, and India has 105mm guns to hit the PA’s posts separated by 3km to 7km. The opening of Indian artillery fire-assaults will be the definitive indicator of an OP BADR-type operation by the PA. This will be the end of the November 26, 2003 ceasefire, something that the PA does not want for fear of alienating the Kashmiris. Similarly, Bugina is an attractive objective for the Indian Army and is less difficult to capture than the Lipa Valley. If the two PA Infantry Battalion positions, which overlook Bugina, can be captured, India will have visibility beyond the formidable Kafir Khan Range to threaten Pakistan’s Neelam-Jhelum Valley hydro-power project now being built with China’s help.

Given the fact that India maintains a near-foolproof anti-infiltration grid along the LoC, Pakistan has since mid-2013 focussed its terrorist infiltration efforts along the WB. For instance, in mid-2014, while an initial group of LeT terrorists pressed forward from Kel to Doga in PoK, and attempted to reach the Lolab Valley, a second group of six LeT terrorists was accompanied by a guide (resident of PoK) identified as Yusuf, and had pressed forward from Dudhnial to Thandapani in PoK. They aimed to reach Rajwar in Kupwara district. Another fidayeen unit had been stationed in the PoK town of Gharota, facing Bamiyal, in preparation for an attack. Large gaps torn by monsoon floods in the electrified fencing which runs along the IB in Punjab and along the IB/WB in Jammu helped the attackers infiltrate into India. Hundreds of metres of fence come down every year and the tall elephant grass (Sarkanda), which springs up after the rains, provides infiltrators plenty of cover. Cross-border firing had dropped from a peak of 5,767 incidents in 2002 to zero in 2004 and remained below 100 annual incidents through 2011. There were 57 cross-LoC violations in 2010, 61 in 2011, 93 in 2012. Infiltration attempts were 52 in 2011, 121 in 2012, 347 in 2013 and 583 in 2014.Ceasefire violations by Pakistan along the LoC India increased nine times from 2011 to 2014. Cross-border firing by Pakistani security forces from 2011 to 2013 was concentrated along the LoC.  2013 saw more than 195 ceasefire violations on the LoC. This trend saw a reversal in 2014, when 74% of the firing was concentrated along the WB. There were 583 ceasefire violations along the WB by Pakistan in 2014, a 158% increase.  The highest ceasefire violations were reported from the Jammu sector, with a bulk of them—440—in the August-December 2014 period. As many as 945 terrorist incursions from Pakistan were recorded between 2012 and 2014. Indian security forces killed 38 Pakistani terrorists in 2013 and 36 till October 31, 2014, as they attempted to cross the LoC. In all, during 2014, 174 ceasefire violations along the LoC were reported. There were 57 violations in 2010, 61 in 2011, 93 in 2012. Infiltration attempts were 52 in 2011, 121 in 2012, 347 in 2013 and 583 in 2014.

That’s why since June 2014, India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) had authosied the Border Security Force (BSF) to put into effect its ‘escalation dominance’ tactics under the ‘controlled and calibrated violence’ strategy, starting June 2014—meaning if Pakistan Rangers fired with 7.62mm rifles, then the BSF retaliated with 12.7mm and 14.5mm HMGs (the latter being extracted from decommissioned BTR-60 and BRDM-2 wheeled armoured vehicles). If the Chenab Rangers fired with 14.7mm HMGs, then the BSF retaliated with 81mm mortars. This is exactly what happened between August and October 2014. As a result, 18,000 villagers in India were displaced, while 20,000 Pakistani villagers were displaced as well. Firings were limited to two sectors (Charwa [12 villages] and Chapraar [one village]) spread along a 45km-long lateral frontage between Sialkot/Kasur and Poonch/Rawlakot straddling the WB. A total of some 31,000 rounds of 81mm air-burst mortar rounds were fired by both sides over a 10-day period inj those three months of 2014. Only burst rounds, not blast rounds, were fired. 

On January 14, 2014the then Indian Army COAS Gen Bikram Singh said that a strong reply had been given to last year’s cross-border raids by Pakistan, referring to reports that 10 PA soldiers had been killed in Indian action across the LoC. Asked what retaliatory action had been taken, Gen Singh the said that his soldiers “have reacted well as required” and that there is an endeavour “not to escalate the situation into operational or strategic arena”. In that very same month, Masood Azhar addressed a jihadi meeting in Muzaffarabad, the capital of PoK.“There are 313 fidayeen fighters in this gathering and if a call is given, the number will go up to 3,000,” he told the rally held by telephone.

On January 17, 2014, during the 5th SAARC Business Leaders Conclave,Pakistan’s Commerce Minister Khurram Dastgir Khan visited India and met his Indian counterpart Anand Sharma, and the two sides agreed to expedite the implementation of the Non-Discriminatory Market Access (NDMA) regime on a reciprocal basis. Both sides decided to intensify and accelerate the process of trade normalisation, liberalisation and facilitation and to implement the agreed measures. Pakistan had b y then moved from ‘Positive List’ regime to a ‘Negative List’ regime comprising of 1,209 tariff lines of import of goods not allowed from India. Both countries by then also had the Preferential Trading Arrangement under the South Asia Free Trade Area (SAFTA) process. But the benefits under the SAFTA process had been partially blocked by Pakistan through  the ‘Negative List’. The meeting between Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan on May 27, 2014 held that the two countries could move immediately towards full trade normalisation on the basis of the September 2012 roadmap worked out between Commerce Secretaries of both the sides. Major items of Indian export to Pakistan had then included organic chemicals, vegetables, cotton, plastics and processed food waste, like fodder. Items of Indian imports from Pakistan included cotton, fruits and nuts, mineral fuels, wax, sulphur, lime, cement and hides. India’s exports to Pakistan in 2014 amounted to US$2.17 billion, or 0.83% of total Indian exports, while imports were $497 million, or 0.13% of total inward shipments.

In mid-June 2014, Operation Zarb-e-Azb (whose military strategy was centered around the policy of ‘Seek, Destroy, Clear, Hold’) was launched by the PA, while Operation Khyber-1 began in September 2014 (Operation Khyber-2 in April 2015, whileOperation Khyber-3 was launched in August 2016). By then, 35% of the PA was fully engaged in LIC campaigns and hada deployment ratio of 54.6%, resting and re-equipping ratio of 12.7%, and the remaining 33% undergoing the training cycle. The PA had by then lost 2,795 soldiers since 2004. Another 8,671 were injured. The average officer-to-soldier ratio in combat fatalities is around 1:17 in most armies, while in the PA’s various LIC operations it had been 1:6. This was higher than the usual Pakistani average of 1:10.

Meanwhile, during the 126-day-long (August-December 2014) dharna by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the ruling Pakistan Muslim League–Nawaz (PMLN), there were murmurs of a coup d’état. The ISI and ISPR were both hard at work for manipulating Pakistan’s highly clientelised and politicised print/electronic.broadcast media outlets, which had received instructions from the PA’s Islamabad-based GHQ to support the ‘dissenting’ leaders and their sit-ins. The GHQ was using the media to add muscle and might to the anti-government movement in an attempt to cut Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif down to size. Other than Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the former DG of ISI, who is known to be a close friend and supporter of PTI Chairman Imran Khan, the other name that was repeatedly brought up by knowledgeable observers was that of Lt Gen Zaheer-ul-Islam, the then DG of the ISI. Allegedly, the two were conspiring to create a rift between PM Nawaz Sharif and the PA’s then COAS, Gen Raheel Sharif. In the past, the PM had acted against Generals whom he had differences with. It was expected that he would again act again in a similar manner, under the presumption that the dharna had the PA’s backing. But the events did not play out as expected. Not exactly. It was Federal Defence Minister Khawaja Asif who first stated that two Lt Gens were behind the political unrest that prevailed in 2014. Specifically, the Minister said, Lt Gen Islam had a “personal grievance” with the ruling party for siding with a particular media house (Jang Group & Geo TV). Asif was subsequently sidelined and snubbed at a dinner with the PA’s Generals and quickly made to learn a central lesson. Not everyone took from his experience. In an interview with the BBC in August 2015, Senator Mushahidullah Khan claimed that an audio tape obtained by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) was played during a meeting between PM Nawaz Sharif and Gen Raheel Sharif in the latter half of 2014, in which Lt Gen Islam could be heard giving instructions to raid the PM’s Office. According to the Senator, when questioned by Gen Raheel Sharif, Lt Gen Islam confirmed that the voice was his own. Senator Khan later clarified that he himself had not heard the tape. Never mind the fact that he kept referring to the ex-ISI DG as Zahirul Islam Abbasi–the Major General who had plotted to overthrow the Benazir Bhutto government in 1995, and who died six years ago–the damage had been done. Appointed on the recommendation of then President Asif Ali Zardari in March 2012, Lt Gen Islam had remained mostly out of the spotlight and yet, he had managed to cast a shadow over many major events in the last few years. The most significant of them was when GEO TV ran photographs of Lt Gen Islam alongside allegations by journalist Hamid Mir’s brother stating that a failed assassination attempt of the prime-time anchor-person was the handiwork of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. Lt Gen Islam had a strong military background; his father, brothers and brother-in-law had also served in the PA. His uncle, Shah Nawaz, was a Major General in the Indian National Army, led by Subhas Chandra Bose, and was captured and detained by the British briefly in the early 1940s. Lt Gen Islam belonged to the Punjab Regiment and he was in charge of a Division in Murree before being promoted to Lt Gen and being posted as a Corps Commander in Karachi. He was mentioned in Forbes magazine’s most powerful people list as the “new head of Pakistan’s notorious intelligence service” in 2012. “The ISI has played both sides in the war on terror and, as US troops draw out of Afghanistan, will be hugely influential in determining the region’s future,” the magazine went on to state. With the reputation of being an ‘honest’ officer and a close aide of Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, it was expected that Lt Gen Islam would continue Kayani’s policy of minimal interference in political matters.  In a subsequent TV interview, Defence Minister Asif said that the 2014 London Plan against the Nawaz Sharif government was the work of two former ISI Chiefs—Lt Gen (Ret’d) Shuja Pasha and Lt Gen (Ret’d) Zaheer-ul-Islam.In September 2014, weeks of mounting anti-government protests in Pakistan had been enough to convince five of the powerful Lt Gens (believed to have retired now) who then were Corps Commanders that it was time for them to step in and force the embattled Nawaz Sharif to resign.The five Corps Commanders had earlier met in Rawalpindi at the end of August as demonstrations raged in Islamabad.At that tense four-hour conclave, Pakistan’s democratic process was once again in peril, with the PA pondering another intervention in a country that has seen power change hands more often through coups than elections. But Gen Raheel Sharif decided that the time was not right to overthrow the civilian leadership, and moved to quell any disagreement in his ranks by overruling the hawks and declaring the crisis must be solved through politics, not force. 

However, the carefully constructed veneer of neutrality that the PA’s leadership had constructed through much of the national political crisis instigated by Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri was eventually torn apart. First came the PA’s statement on August 31, 2014—the third in a series of statements on the political crisis, which quite astonishingly elevated the legitimacy and credibility of the demands of Imran Khan, Tahirul Qadri, and their violent protesters above that of the choices and actions of an elected government dealing with a political crisis. Consider the sequence of events so far. When the PA first publicly waded into the political crisis, it counselled restraint on all sides—as though it were the federal government that fundamentally still had some questions hanging over its legitimacy simply because Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri alleged so. Next, the PA crept towards the Khan/Qadri camp by urging the government to facilitate negotiations - as though it was the government that was being unreasonable, and not Khan and Qadri. Next, staggeringly, the PA ‘advised’ the government not to use force against violent protesters and essentially told it to make whatever concessions necessary to placate Khan and Qadri. It was simply extraordinary that it was the PAT and PTI supporters who wanted to break into and occupy state buildings, but it was the government that was been rebuked. It was as if the PA was unaware—rather, unwilling—to acknowledge the constitutional scheme of things: it is the government that is supposed to give orders to the Army, not the other way around. The government had already issued its order: invoking Article 245 [empowering the Army to ensure law and order in the city]. As violent thugs subsequently attacked the Parliament building, it was surely the PA’s duty to repel them. But the soldiers stationed there did nothing and the Army leadership the next day warned the government instead of the protesters—which largely explains why the protesters were able to continue their pitched battles with the Police and attacked the PTV headquarters on September 1, 2014.


But there indeed was a method to this ‘madness’. The PA all along was using this engineered law-and-order crisis to extract from the PML-N-led federal government a promise of freedom for Gen (Ret’d) Pervez Musharraf—who then was an absconder and was wanted on treason charges for leading a coup against Nawaz Sharif’s government in 1999. Musharraf had served Pakistan as the PA’s COAS and President and is alleged to have imposed emergencies twice in his tenure—first in 1999 and later in 2007—to restrain the unamenable courts from challenging his questionable legitimacy.Coordinated anti-government protests in Islamabad since August 14 by cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party and Islamic cleric Maulana Tahirul Qadri of Pakistan Awami Tahreek (PAT) wre thus engineered by the ISI and ISPR on the PA’s behalf to ‘domesticate’ the federal government. And needless to say, by that time, the vital issues of strategic importance and foreign affairs were being single-handedly articulated and directed by the PA’s GHQ, without civilian oversight and input. In a subsequent Senate committee meeting, Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) Senator and former Presidential spokesperson Farhatullah Babar declared: “Foreign policy on Kashmir, India, Afghanistan, and nuclear assets is being formulated in GHQ instead of the Foreign Office.”
(To Be Concluded)
Viewing all 283 articles
Browse latest View live