Continued from page 26 (previous issue (May 2019)
Another so-called surgical strike could help arrest the rapidly deteriorating popularity of Modi and his party the BJP, which very likely could lead to a major debacle in the coming general elections in India. A repeat of the first surgical strike which had paid a rich political dividend without risking a nuclear conflagration with Pakistan appeared to be the most viable option. The Indian military was ordered to plan and execute it as soon as practicable.
In the first surgical strike, although the political objective of shoring up Modi’s worsening popularity in India was achieved, it had resulted in the loss of over half a dozen soldiers, presumably the much-hyped Indian commandos. A surprise aerial assault was considered a safer option. Balakot, the target selected was within three to four minutes ingress time for the Indian strike package and they could deliver the payload and return to the Kashmir Valley within five to six minutes.
No PAF operational air base existed inside 50 miles of Balakot and any scramble by the PAF jets on alert would take at least over ten minutes to come within engagement range of the Indian raiders, giving them enough time for a safe return. Balakot was in the world map radar where training camps of the Afghan Mujahedeen had earlier been operational in the 1980s and despite clearance of the area of any non-state actors especially after 2003, India continues to paint Balakot as one of the training centres from where the so-called perpetrators of the Pulwama attack had originated.
The Indian planners probably were aware the Balakot hilltop selected as the target was devoid of any infrastructure, barring some scattered thatched dwellings. Thus, they presumably hoped bombing Balakot would not cause much damage and Pakistan hopefully would again dismiss it as a non-issue, not serious enough for a tit-for-tat response. BJP, in the meanwhile, would project the attack internationally and locally as having avenged Pulwama by punishing Pakistan through military action and still staying below the nuclear threshold.
The Balakot air attack had two serious flaws. First, in the September 2016 surgical strike, the attempted incursion was along the LOC, where such incidences are fairly common, almost routine. The aerial assault of Balakot in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, on the other hand, had breached the country’s international border and was akin to an act of war by the adversary.
This violation could not be ignored and although the Indian bombing merely destroyed scores of trees, killed a few domesticated animals, damaged a couple of thatched houses and injured one civilian, the violation could not be ignored. Pakistan vowed to retaliate in the manner it deemed fit, and at the time and place of it’s choosing.
Second, unlike the previous alleged surgical strike where BJP had managed to extract much political mileage despite its inability to prove any substantial damage, on this occasion, the Indian media demanded photographic proofs of destroyed training camps and killing of 350 insurgents, which the IAF and BJP had proudly claimed immediately after the raid. To make matters worse for India, Pakistan gave free access to both the local and international media to visit the bombing site and find out the truth. Pakistan’s version was proven and the Indian government and military had eggs on their faces.
The real purpose of the Balakot raid, similar to the previous one was to garner support for the BJP and Prime Minister Modi for the upcoming election but the result was just the opposite. The Indian opposition openly blamed their government for having orchestrated the entire Pulwama episode in a futile attempt to again play the anti-Pakistan card to boost their chances in the upcoming elections. Modi’s popularity, despite all the hype and spin created by the subservient Indian electronic media, was taking a downward trajectory.
Something had to be done to remedy the situation. Pakistan’s unequivocal proclamation that they would respond militarily to the Indian bombing raid perhaps, in their judgment, was a window of opportunity to the IAF and India where if they could shoot down the PAF planes during the reprisal raids, the honour and prestige of India and the IAF could be redeemed. The moral of the story: ignoring even a feint threat of a bully only encourages him to do something even more stupid the next time.
Pakistan responds to the Balakot Raid
Indian Prime Minister’s threats to punish Pakistan for the Pulwama attack were being spewed thick and fast ever since 14 February 2019. Pakistan’s likely response to any Indian military misadventure was also spelt out in no uncertain terms by Imran Khan, the Pakistani Prime Minister. ‘Pakistan would not think of responding, it will respond’, was his unambiguous, unequivocal and crystal clear declaration. Even before the Balakot bombing, the Pakistani Armed Forces had already prepared a number of well-thought-out contingency plans that were rehearsed and fine-tuned to deal with any situation arising out of an Indian offensive. The responses were supposed to be based on the quid pro quo principle.
On receiving the news about the Balakot bombing, Pakistan reiterated its earlier stance that it will react at the time and place of its choosing. For the political and military leadership of Pakistan, the first task was to conduct an accurate damage assessment of the Indian raid before responding in accordance with its quid pro quo philosophy. The bombing, fortunately, had caused very little damage and might have been overlooked; the blatant violation of the international border, however, could not be condoned.
The dilemma for the military planners was how to respond without violating the quid pro quo stance. A decision to lock on to and record genuine military targets across the LOC using the standoff capability of its Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) system with the appropriate airborne platforms but then shifting aim to nearby innocuous sites before firing the weapons was arrived at.
The explosions just next to key military installations, it was hoped, would send the message to the adversary the damage the PAF was capable of inflicting but it deliberately refrained from doing so to avoid escalation. From the naval term, it was a ‘shot across the bow’. Would such an action have appeased the Pakistani public who were expecting a more robust response? This must have crossed the minds of the military planners.
The ALCM carrying aircraft with their heavy load needed protection from the enemy interceptors and these were provided by an appropriate number of suitably positioned escort fighters equipped with Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missiles. As was hypothesised by the PAF, the approaching raid package was picked up by the IAF air defence network and they launched their flotilla of Mig-21s, Mirage 2000s and Su-30s to intercept the raid.
The PAF strike aircraft, using their standoff capability successfully locked on and recorded the genuine targets across the LOC and then shifted aim just prior to weapons release to prevent any human or material losses but near enough for the enemy to hear the blast just next door. This was achieved without crossing the LOC and as the PAF had hoped and expected, the Indian interceptors tried to pursue the attackers and presented themselves within range of the BVR missiles of the PAF escorts. Two Indian interceptors were engaged by the PAF escorts and promptly shot down. The entire PAF strike package returned home triumphant without incurring any losses.
One of the targets to be engaged by the ALCM carrying platforms was an Indian brigade headquarters that was in their crosshair and then spared. With hindsight, we now know the Indian Army Chief was present there when the ALCMs were released. Had the Brigade Headquarters been targeted, it could have resulted in the death of the Indian Army Chief the escalation ladder from then on would have been unimaginable.
What exactly was the Indian strategy during the short aerial mix up, one wonders? Perhaps they were using the upgraded and modified Mig21s (Bison) as baits to lure the PAF strike platforms to within range of the Mirage 2000s and Su-30s that were lurking at the rear. Perhaps they underestimated the capability of the PAF and were taken in by the US propaganda that the SU-30s would upstage the American F-15s and F-16s in aerial combat.
Perhaps they did not realise the Americans were deliberately exaggerating the SU-30s capabilities in a bid to scare their government into increasing funding for their F-22 and F-35 programmes. Perhaps the PAF is better trained and over ten years of active combat has battle-hardened their pilots who held their nerve better during the aerial engagement. One can only guess.
The loss of two Indian fighters in the aerial battle with the PAF has been confirmed although India officially has conceded to the loss of a lone Mig-21, whose pilot was captured by Pakistan and duly returned as a goodwill gesture. Unconfirmed reports suggest the second aircraft shot down was a SU-30 and not another Mig-21.
Because both the Indian fighters were brought down by BVR missiles, visual confirmation of the type was not possible. One of the Indian TV channels had announced the loss of a SU-30 to the PAF fighters; the breaking news was subsequently withdrawn but not before it went viral on the youtube. Eye witness reports from across the LOC have also surfaced that talk about the crash of a SU-30 and fatality of two pilots.
The shooting down of the two Indian fighters resolved the PAF dilemma of not doing enough in retaliation. Merely a ‘shot across the bow’ might not have been enough consolation for the Pakistani public but the twin aerial victories were Godsend. The Pakistani public is elated and the PAF has lived up to its reputation. Round one for Pakistan and the PAF and one hopes there is no round two but we must be prepared and as my colleagues suggest keep our powder dry and be prepared for any eventuality.
Paper 138
Space Exploration: Lesson 101
Background/History
Space considered the final frontierit is where humanity made the first tentative foray barely six decades ago. Just twelve years later the first man had landed on the moon surface, echoing the iconic message “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.
Since then the exploitation of space both for military and commercial purposes has continued unabated and with the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the pace has picked up in the 21st century. Space exploitation, however, has not remained the sole preserve of advanced nations only as a number of less developed countries have the capability to launch a satellite into space and many others possess and operate their own satellites (Tripathi 2013).
Space, as alluded to in this article, is the outer space, which is defined as the region beyond the earth’s atmosphere (stratosphere). Before space became accessible by the human race, sea and land controls were considered the tools for world domination. Earlier in the 17th century, Sir Walter Raleigh had proposed that world domination could be achieved through control of the oceans writing that “whosoever commands the sea commands the trade whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself”.
John Mackinder in his treatise published in 1904 called “The Geographical Pivot of History” prophesied “Who rules East Europe will rule the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island. Who rules the World Island commands the world.” His compatriot Alfred Mahan, a US naval officer had differed, agreeing with Sir Walter Raleigh and in his judgment sea control was the key towards attaining world supremacy. His hypothesis stated, “Whoever rules the waves rules the world”.
With the introduction of air power as a new medium of warfare, US Hansen W Baldwin projected, “Tomorrow air bases may be the high road to power and domination… Obviously, it is only by air bases … that power exercised in the sovereign skies above a nation can be stretched far beyond its shores… Perhaps… future acquisitions of air bases … can carry the voice of America through the skies to the ends of the earth”.
Today the focus on which medium holds the key for world domination has altered and experts opine, “Who controls space controls the world”. Superiority in space exploitation in the current world order hence will become the primary determinant on where a nation stands on the world power hierarchy ladder.
Space-based assets generally in the form of satellites currently perform a vast array of functions ranging from scientific, ecological, humanitarian, commercial and military. The Hubble telescope weather and imagery satellites help in advancement of science, ecology, weather forecast, climate change study and in disaster relief. Many of these have great commercial value and are employed for the purpose.
Navigation, communication and imagery satellites can also be employed for military purposes, from aerial espionage, communication eavesdropping, ICBM defence and weapons terminal guidance, although some are specifically tailored to meet the military needs and are not made available for any other task. While militarization of space is growing rapidly, weaponisation in the form of weapons fired from space that have destructive capability also termed as Space To Earth Weapons (STEW) are yet to be operationally deployed, although a number of nation states are working towards that goal. Space-based anti-satellite weapons for space control and denial are reported to be at an advanced stage of development.
The provision of goods and services of commercial value by using space-based assets in the outer space orbiting the earth fall under the definition of commercial exploitation of space. Satellites that provide navigation, television, imagery for commercial purposes are some of the current examples. Industries and services engaged in the manufacture, sale and launch of these satellites form an integral part of the space economy. Future prospects of commercial ventures in space include, for example, space tourism and plan to exploit resources originating outside the earth through asteroid mining and space tourism.
Navigation satellites
Global Positioning System (GPS) was the first operational satellite-based navigation system fielded by the USA and is operated by the USAF. Originally known as Navstar GPS the system was built upon the TRANSIT system developed by the US Navy and tested in 1960 to pinpoint the exact location of their Polaris missile-equipped nuclear submarines.
The launching of a satellite network for the GPS began in 1973 and the system was declared operational in 1995. Initially restricted for the military but following the shooting down of the South Korean airline that had unintentionally strayed into the Soviet airspace, GPS service was made freely available for civilian use once it was sufficiently developed.
In 2002, GPS had 2-metre accuracy while the latest version that uses the L5 band which was released in 2018 has enhanced the accuracy to barely 30 centimetres. A newer version of GPS like the GPS III and the Next Generation Operational Control System referred to as GPS (OCX) is likely to be made operational by 2023 and 2021 respectively.