What's new

Pakistan's air war on the Taliban

air marshal

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
11,054
Reaction score
2
Pakistan's air war on the Taliban
July 30, 2009

by Asif Shamim

The New York Times has published an article about Pakistan's Air Forces improved ability to target and attack militant targets with precision weapons based on information from military officials and independent analysts.

What is surprising is the second paragraph in the article where it implies the military hierarchy in Pakistan were using Google Earth for maps to guide them and have now shifted to sophisticated imagery supplied via spy planes and drones to aid them with precision drops of laser guided bombs.

The change in approach is aimed at avoiding further alienation from the general public who are worried about collateral damage in those areas.

One further reason for the more accurate attacks is the locations in which the Taliban are now found. The rugged region surrounding South Waziristan makes it hard for ground forces to penetrate without sustaining heavy losses. Air strikes with guided weaponry is an asset alongside artillery barrages and helicopter gunship attacks which will help soften the blow in terrain which is often inaccessible by ground vehicles such as tanks.

According to military sources who spoke to the New York Times said Pakistani Air Force F-16s have flown several hundred combat sorties since May. 300 plus against militants held out in the Swat Valley and 100 or so missions in South Waziristan attacking mountain hide-outs, training centres and ammunition dumps.

The article also hints that Pakistani officials have approached the Obama administration with a request to lease Pakistan upgraded F-16s, until its delivery of new Block 52 jets in the next couple of years. The use of these jets they argue would allow Pakistani pilots to fly night missions and loiter over the target area for longer periods which is currently impossible with their aged Block 15 aircraft. Militants in the affected area have been quick to switch to moving and operating by night to avoid the current air attacks.

Everyday for the past few months Pakistani warplanes have hit targets in the Swat Valley and over South Waziristan. The marked change in these operations has been the improved imagery used by planners when attacking specific targets. Lessons were learned after the Bajaur strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) region of Pakistan in the autumn of last year.

"The biggest handicap we had in Bajaur was that we didn't have good imagery," Air Chief Marshal Qamar said. "We didn’t have good target descriptions. We did not know the area. We were forced to use Google Earth".

"I didn"t want to face a similar situation in Swat," he said.

Ten F-16s were equipped with the Sniper ATP, high-resolution, infrared sensor pods, provided by the United States. These jets conducted detailed reconnaissance of the entire valley prior to any of the attacks. In the mean time additional data via secret drone flights gathered a wide array of video which was supplied to Pakistani Army Commanders on the ground.

In most cases, officials said, the Pakistani Army provides target information to the air force, which confirms the locations on newly detailed maps. Identifying high-value targets through the use of army spotters or, in some cases, a new, small group of specially trained air force spotters, the air force was able to increase its use of laser-guided bombs to 80 percent of munitions used in Swat, from about 40 percent in Bajaur, Air Chief Marshal Qamar said.

Even with this new ability to attack targets with more precision has not completely stopped the sceptics from voicing there concerns about the numbers of claims of success mentioned by Pakistani officials. "We don't have access to battle-damage assessment or the information on the actual strike execution, so we cannot make a qualitative comparison of what the intended effect was versus the actual effect,2 said one anonymous American adviser.

Pakistani officials are quick to acknowledge that the 21 or so high priority militant leaders in the affected regions have yet to be killed or captured during these new offensives.

"We're still developing our plans for South Waziristan," Air Chief Marshal Qamar said. "We are preparing to ramp up. I think Baitullah Mehsud is getting the message, and the message is, if he keeps doing these things, we'll hit him."

Link: http://www.f-16.net/news_article3681.html
 
I THINK IT IS THE BEST TIME FOR PAF AUTHORITIES TO ASK OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOR NEW F-16 JETS
I THINK PAKISTAN SHOULD ASK TO ACQUIRED ABOUT ATLEAST 55 NEW F-16 JETS AND STOP DEALING WITH CHINA FOR J-10
IF US GIVE US GREEN SIGNAL FOR F-16
 
stop j-10 woooooow greatest ever idea man these damn f-16s are our real enemy.if you know some thing abut j-10b before you post this.
 
this mushy has hands already on his head i think he should wear thinking cap both on and off the camera any way J 10 is better than any F 16 produced ever by USA
 
stop j-10 woooooow greatest ever idea man these damn f-16s are our real enemy.if you know some thing abut j-10b before you post this.

buddy in deep strike penetration anything that is concerned
is the high-tech radar,avionics and the most lethal payloads
and in this regard f-16block52-60 are far superior to
J-10.J-10 can hardly match f-16block30 in this regards
 
NR_Saulat,

Please use regular font in your posts unless there is something specific that you want to point out. Its hard on eyes to read everything in bold.

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
NR_Saulat,

Please use regular font in your posts unless there is something specific that you want to point out. Its hard on eyes to read everything in bold.

Thank you!
sir next time i will do take care about that
 
Last edited:
Even with this new ability to attack targets with more precision has not completely stopped the sceptics from voicing there concerns...

How can these concerns be allayed?

Why do our American "Friends" seek confirmation of Pakistani claims only by reference to
access to battle-damage assessment or the information on the actual strike execution, so we cannot make a qualitative comparison of what the intended effect was versus the actual effect
--- for instance is access to battle damage assessment the only way they can confirm or information of the actual strike execution the only way to confirm?

While this is reflective of suspicion, it also suggests an interest of the US - they could have opted for a variety of verification, yet they outlined two in particular, both give them operational insight.

Now the US has any number, rather a large number of imagery assets, and yet if I have understood the "sceptics", it is seeking battle damage assessment from the same Pakistanis it is sceptical about - what's wrong with this picture?

Or is it that the US analysts are hoping to do a accounting job with their scepticism??
 
How can these concerns be allayed?

Why do our American "Friends" seek confirmation of Pakistani claims only by reference to --- for instance is access to battle damage assessment the only way they can confirm or information of the actual strike execution the only way to confirm?

While this is reflective of suspicion, it also suggests an interest of the US - they could have opted for a variety of verification, yet they outlined two in particular, both give them operational insight.

Now the US has any number, rather a large number of imagery assets, and yet if I have understood the "sceptics", it is seeking battle damage assessment from the same Pakistanis it is sceptical about - what's wrong with this picture?

Or is it that the US analysts are hoping to do a accounting job with their scepticism??


Mr. Muse,

It is understandable that Mr. Holbrook was not even aloud to visit the SWAT valley, he so badly wanted to. These actions do create sceptisms based on one sided accounts, wouldn't you say!!! Read this article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/wo...stan.html?_r=1 .

Where the upgrades of F-16 are based on fighting the talibans a night, but yet no one or outsider is aloud to access the situation at hand. There has to be some transparency or we are going nowhere.
 
I THINK IT IS THE BEST TIME FOR PAF AUTHORITIES TO ASK OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOR NEW F-16 JETS
I THINK PAKISTAN SHOULD ASK TO ACQUIRED ABOUT ATLEAST 55 NEW F-16 JETS AND STOP DEALING WITH CHINA FOR J-10
IF US GIVE US GREEN SIGNAL FOR F-16

We are never going to get Block 52 until the situation changes in Afghanistan, Uncle Sam will only deliver then when they feel that they are loosing the fight.
J-10 is a good fighter with our choice of Avionics and weapons it will be a lethal fighter. If we go for J-11 nothing like it. WE have been flying twin engine's for the last 4 decades, And its not a big deal our Airmen have worked on F-6 and F-T6 long enough and they are very capable.
 
It is understandable that Mr. Holbrook was not even aloud to visit the SWAT valley, he so badly wanted to. These actions do create sceptisms based on one sided accounts, wouldn't you say!!!

Hello Jeypore:

Whether it is understandable or not, is matter of persepective - having said that, I would refer you to the earlier post, there are ways for the US to be better informed, they have far greater imagery assets than does Pakistan.

You point about Mr. Holbrooke is very interesting, is his expertise battle damage assesment? Exactly what other than high cost and risk would accomodating Mr. Holbrooke in Swat accomplish?
 
Mr. Muse,

It is understandable that Mr. Holbrook was not even aloud to visit the SWAT valley, he so badly wanted to. These actions do create sceptisms based on one sided accounts, wouldn't you say!!! Read this article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/wo...stan.html?_r=1 .

Where the upgrades of F-16 are based on fighting the talibans a night, but yet no one or outsider is aloud to access the situation at hand. There has to be some transparency or we are going nowhere.

Transparency has to be on Pakistan's terms. On one hand you want Pakistan to put her soldier's in harms way, and we have sacrificed enough due to the blowback in Afghanistan, and on the other, you want us to go into a terrain without proper capabilities? We ask for tools and then you essentially turn around and say let us judge your campaign. Now why should Pakistan allow anyone on the outside to come and judge our CI campaign? When was the last time our advice or judgment was taken into consideration in the way the ISAF campaign is being run in Afghanistan? Maybe the answer is that Pakistan is insignificant, ok so be it but then do not expect the problem of militancy to go away in a few months.

Unlike the occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq where the Americans and ISAF can supervise every operation, Pakistan is an independent state and on certain things, what we say goes. If we do not have tools that are necessary then don't get on our case about fighting and ending this militancy overnight. Give us our space and time if the US cannot equip the Pakistani military for the task on hand.

The US cannot have their cake and eat it too. Before asking Pakistan to put boots on the ground in Waziristan, realize that there are families in Pakistan who too are worried about losing their sons to this war in the tribal areas. The problem here is the usual BS gori hypocrisy. Spend a billion a week in Iraq, but when you can lease a sqn worth of F-16s for night interdiction role for less than 20 million a month to Pakistan, you balk. Seems like priorities are not where they should be.
 
Transparency has to be on Pakistan's terms. On one hand you want Pakistan to put her soldier's in harms way, and we have sacrificed enough due to the blowback in Afghanistan, and on the other, you want us to go into a terrain without proper capabilities? We ask for tools and then you essentially turn around and say let us judge your campaign. Now why should Pakistan allow anyone on the outside to come and judge our CI campaign? When was the last time our advice or judgment was taken into consideration in the way the ISAF campaign is being run in Afghanistan? Maybe the answer is that Pakistan is insignificant, ok so be it but then do not expect the problem of militancy to go away in a few months.

Unlike the occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq where the Americans and ISAF can supervise every operation, Pakistan is an independent state and on certain things, what we say goes. If we do not have tools that are necessary then don't get on our case about fighting and ending this militancy overnight. Give us our space and time if the US cannot equip the Pakistani military for the task on hand.

The US cannot have their cake and eat it too. Before asking Pakistan to put boots on the ground in Waziristan, realize that there are families in Pakistan who too are worried about losing their sons to this war in the tribal areas. The problem here is the usual BS gori hypocrisy. Spend a billion a week in Iraq, but when you can lease a sqn worth of F-16s for night interdiction role for less than 20 million a month to Pakistan, you balk. Seems like priorities are not where they should be.

I Empathetise with you Mr. Blain, spoken as a true Pakistanie. What is troubling is precedence of Pakistan is not helping here. Likewise, there is a clear transparency of what the NATO forces are doing, therefore it applies to Pakistan as well to jointly fight these talibans and Al queda.

Sceptical mind set is going to be an uphill battle from this point onwards that Pakistan's needs to fight.
 
Hello Jeypore:

Whether it is understandable or not, is matter of persepective - having said that, I would refer you to the earlier post, there are ways for the US to be better informed, they have far greater imagery assets than does Pakistan.

You point about Mr. Holbrooke is very interesting, is his expertise battle damage assesment? Exactly what other than high cost and risk would accomodating Mr. Holbrooke in Swat accomplish?


Mr. Muse,

Does it really matter if his expert in assesment in battle damages???

What matters clearly he is the ambassador for the regional tensions. I would not take him that lightly because end of the day he has to give his reports to the superiors (execute branch).
 

Back
Top Bottom