Signalian
MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2017
- Messages
- 340
- Reactions
- Country
-
- Location
-
It was the winters of 1990, that a large paper exercise, probably the only one of its kind, was conducted at Gujranwala. A Field Army HQ was set up to handle five corps. Men like Kakar, Hameed Gul, Mahsud and Farrukh were seen performing. During the final debriefing President GIK was in the chair. The COAS in his final remarks unloaded on the audience that if GOP were to give him the funds equivalent to the price of one F-16, he would raise a division to boost Pak Army's strength. In the same sentence, he announced the famous 'tea break'. The idea was to discourage a debate on his statement. The wily GIK would not have this way. He took the mike and elucidated the place of each service in the defence of our country and advised the military brass that instead of pulling each other down, they must look at the deterrence in its totality. Essentially, they must formulate a plan at the JSHQ level, before approaching him for the exchange of one F-16 with a division. Obviously the 'samosas' and cup of tea got cold.
In a similar incident, in 1985 NDC the debate on the place of Air Power in military strategy was raging wild. The airmen, smaller in number were having difficulty to contain the voluminous Khakis. A bright Brigadier who later rose to three star, declared that he did not need the airforce. After all, what had they done for him in the past? He preferred a ground based air defence to a large investment in fighters. It was a shock to hear him present his thesis that was based on ignorance of history, as well as the modern concepts. Thanks to the intervention of faculty that the place of the airforce in modern warfare was saved in Pakistan.
Basic contest in such discussions is not a true presentation of military concepts but an honest to goodness tussle for resources. The debate at the service level stage is unashamedly parochial, without a consideration of 'total deterrence'.
A new factor of missile force has been thrown in the traditional three-way contest for budget. It is new for us but not so new elsewhere. The German scientists of VI and V2 era must have taken chunks off the Luftwaffe budget. In the last half a century, we have seen the development of SRMs, IRBMs, ICBMs, SLBMs and CMs. It can safely be said that the money invested in such systems was the largest ever in any one concept in the military history. Yet they failed to replace the manned aircraft. Who would have more missiles than USA and USSR? Yet they continue to churn out F-22s and Su-37s and numerous other fighters. Obviously, the concept of doing the job through missiles only falls short of the achievement of its objectives. Despite the loud lobby nowadays in Pakistan, their inherent inaccuracy (Osama and Saddam still live!) and inflexibility to adjust quickly to changing scenario leaves a large gap to be attended to only by a manned fighter aircraft.
Just as a soldier is needed to hold ground at Siachen to prove our ownership and just as a tank is needed to violate the enemy territory, aircraft simply holds space in defence and violates the sanctity of enemy's airspace. If we lag behind in it's possession and acquisition, we would not be able to defend and the airspace of our motherland shall be violated. It seems like going to basic military school again!
Our political leadership is well meaning and patriotic. They do wish to keep their armed forces well trained and equipped. After all, armed forces are their instrument of conducting external politics with other countries. How can they ignore this factor? But at the same time, they are novices in the field of military strategy. Exploiting their simplicity, the contestants for the budget expose them piece-meal, to high technology, super duper labs and gadgetry which has been sitting on the test-benches for years. Holding men of military power and scientist in awe, they commit to their projected needs without a professional scrutiny. Thus money is fretted away in small projects, each promising a panacea to our problem of defence.
What we do need is a patient deliberation of military situation at one forum where all components are present. Out of this discussion, our 'total deterrence' should emerge. In such a scheme of total deterrence, it will be seen that the manned fighter aircraft looms the largest as an achiever of our designs. For such an important element that performs tactical and strategic roles independently and lends a helping hand to Navy and Army, immediate provision of resources is an inescapable necessity.
http://www.defencejournal.com/may99/aircraft-vs-missile.htm
In a similar incident, in 1985 NDC the debate on the place of Air Power in military strategy was raging wild. The airmen, smaller in number were having difficulty to contain the voluminous Khakis. A bright Brigadier who later rose to three star, declared that he did not need the airforce. After all, what had they done for him in the past? He preferred a ground based air defence to a large investment in fighters. It was a shock to hear him present his thesis that was based on ignorance of history, as well as the modern concepts. Thanks to the intervention of faculty that the place of the airforce in modern warfare was saved in Pakistan.
Basic contest in such discussions is not a true presentation of military concepts but an honest to goodness tussle for resources. The debate at the service level stage is unashamedly parochial, without a consideration of 'total deterrence'.
A new factor of missile force has been thrown in the traditional three-way contest for budget. It is new for us but not so new elsewhere. The German scientists of VI and V2 era must have taken chunks off the Luftwaffe budget. In the last half a century, we have seen the development of SRMs, IRBMs, ICBMs, SLBMs and CMs. It can safely be said that the money invested in such systems was the largest ever in any one concept in the military history. Yet they failed to replace the manned aircraft. Who would have more missiles than USA and USSR? Yet they continue to churn out F-22s and Su-37s and numerous other fighters. Obviously, the concept of doing the job through missiles only falls short of the achievement of its objectives. Despite the loud lobby nowadays in Pakistan, their inherent inaccuracy (Osama and Saddam still live!) and inflexibility to adjust quickly to changing scenario leaves a large gap to be attended to only by a manned fighter aircraft.
Just as a soldier is needed to hold ground at Siachen to prove our ownership and just as a tank is needed to violate the enemy territory, aircraft simply holds space in defence and violates the sanctity of enemy's airspace. If we lag behind in it's possession and acquisition, we would not be able to defend and the airspace of our motherland shall be violated. It seems like going to basic military school again!
Our political leadership is well meaning and patriotic. They do wish to keep their armed forces well trained and equipped. After all, armed forces are their instrument of conducting external politics with other countries. How can they ignore this factor? But at the same time, they are novices in the field of military strategy. Exploiting their simplicity, the contestants for the budget expose them piece-meal, to high technology, super duper labs and gadgetry which has been sitting on the test-benches for years. Holding men of military power and scientist in awe, they commit to their projected needs without a professional scrutiny. Thus money is fretted away in small projects, each promising a panacea to our problem of defence.
What we do need is a patient deliberation of military situation at one forum where all components are present. Out of this discussion, our 'total deterrence' should emerge. In such a scheme of total deterrence, it will be seen that the manned fighter aircraft looms the largest as an achiever of our designs. For such an important element that performs tactical and strategic roles independently and lends a helping hand to Navy and Army, immediate provision of resources is an inescapable necessity.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
AIR MARSHAL MUHAMMAD ARSHAD CHAUDHRY, HI (M), SBT
Air Marshal Muhammad Arshad Chaudhry was commissioned in the General Duty (Pilot) Branch of Pakistan Air Force on 23 June, 1963. Graduate of Air Command and Staff College USA, Diploma in War Studies from United Kingdom and National Defence Course from the National Defence College, Rawalpindi. He has held a number of command and staff appointments including those of Officer Commanding of a Flying Wing, the Officer Commanding of Combat Commanders School, the Base Commander of PAF Base, Rafiqui, Senior Air Staff Officer at Northern Air Command, Director General Joint Operations at General Headquarters and Air Officer Commanding, Central Air Command and Deputy Chief of the Air Staff (Personnel). He was appointed as Vice Chief of the Air Staff on 13 December, 1996. He Retired on 16 January, 1997 after more than 33 years of meritorious service in PAF. Receipent of Hilal-e-Imtiaz (Military) and Sitara-e-Basalt. He has flown all types of frontline aircraft in the PAF inventory and participated in both the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak Wars.AIR MARSHAL MUHAMMAD ARSHAD CHAUDHRY, HI (M), SBT
http://www.defencejournal.com/may99/aircraft-vs-missile.htm
