Second-strike challenges

[Interceptor]

VIEW: Second-strike challenges —Ahmed Ali Shah

Pakistan needs to acquire a matching capability, not only to restore balance in the region but also to assure second-strike capability. There are several options available to Pakistan, though each presents its own unique challenges

On July 26, 2009, India launched its first nuclear submarine, capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles. While the submarine, Arihant, and its nuclear reactor are still undergoing trials, the Indians have already started building a second such submarine.

The upshot is that the induction of this capability would enhance India’s outreach in and domination of the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean littoral and beyond. Since the development presents a serious threat to Pakistan, in theory, it has the potential to spur an arms race in South Asia. The Indian Navy could threaten Pakistan’s brown water navy and be in a much better position to blockade Pakistani ports and choke the flow of trade from the Persian Gulf via the Suez Canal in the west and the Straits of Malacca in the east.

Pakistan therefore needs to acquire a matching capability, not only to restore balance in the region but also to assure second-strike capability. There are several options available, though each presents its own unique challenges.

The easiest option is to modify the existing fleet of conventional submarines. The most potent submarine with the Pakistan Navy fleet at the moment is the French Agosta-90B. One of the Agosta-90Bs, the PNS Hamza, is equipped with an air-independent propulsion system, which enables the submarine to remain submerged for longer periods.

Currently, Pakistan is the only country in South Asia in possession of a submarine with air-independent propulsion. With a few modifications to its torpedo tubes — they are already capable of launching Exocet missiles — the PN can launch nuclear cruise missiles. That would provide an instant second-strike capability.

Compared to nuclear submarines, conventional submarines are smaller, more manoeuvrable, quieter and more capable of underwater offensives against adversaries. The flip side is that conventional submarines are marred by lesser range and limited submersion endurance time. This, however, should be viewed in the context of PN’s modest regional ambitions, limited to brown waters only.

Arihant will carry the K-15 Sagarika, a submarine-based ballistic missile with a 700-km range. If Pakistan is able to equip its Agosta-90Bs with cruise missiles, e.g. the Babur cruise missile with a 500-km to 750-km range, then it can match India. Both submarines will require similar distance to carry out a nuclear strike. If Pakistan can meet the technological challenges, this capability could be achieved even before Arihant’s reactor goes critical and the Sagarika missiles become operational.

In that scenario, Pakistan can have assured second-strike capability before the Indians.

But this assurance would be limited and may last only till Arihant becomes operational. A submarine with longer range and greater endurance under water is necessary for a credible assured second-strike capability. Pakistan will thus require a nuclear submarine at some point.

For an easier way out, Pakistan can opt for the second option, i.e. removal of the air-independent propulsion system and the diesel engine on the Agosta-90B and make room for a miniaturised nuclear reactor, thereby increasing the range of the Agosta-90Bs and enabling them to stay underwater for longer periods. Theoretically, this option is possible, but literature does not indicate if any state has attempted such an experiment.

That said, the French Rubis Class nuclear submarine could be an inspiration in this context: it is the most compact nuclear submarine ever built, almost the same size as Pakistan’s Agosta-90Bs.

The challenge in resorting to the above option is miniaturising the nuclear reactor, which should be small enough to fit into the slim frame of the Agosta-90B. If Pakistan does overcome this challenge, it would be illogical not to develop a nuclear submarine capable of launching ballistic missiles.

But as noted earlier, each option has its own unique challenges. Building such a submarine will require tremendous work and technological effort. A larger submarine will be required with enough room for a nuclear reactor and ballistic missile containers, apart from the miniaturisation of the nuclear reactor and improving warheads. Whether Pakistan can overcome all these challenges remains to be seen. Even so, if we can miniaturise a reactor, there is no reason to think we cannot meet the other challenges.

In view of the above argument, it would only be logical for Pakistan to develop a similar indigenous capability, especially since Pakistan’s command and control structure also suggests the country needs a triad of nuclear forces.

Ahmed Ali Shah is a defence and strategic analyst. He can be reached at ahmedalishah1@hotmail.com

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...1-9-2009_pg3_3

[Solid Beast]

In essence I totally agree that we need a nuclear submarine to deny India a very strategic advantage in the water. After doing some research regarding nuclear subs versus DE I came to the conclusion that if your adversary has nuclear subs and you don't, you will end up using too many submarines and other resources to go after that highly important nuke sub while the enemy is consolidating control over shipping lanes and strategic coast with it's frigates/destroyers/etc. This threat is quantified even more considering India has an aircraft carrier that can go after our surface vessels and bombard coastal emplacements while the IAF ties up the PAF, leaving the Navy to fend for itself *which would be disastrous* Considering IN is significantly larger, resources have to be allocated wisely in times of conflict, because in a future war, the sea will be just as important as the land and air in terms of operation theatres. We need to keep our subs free to counter enemy subs and ships, and complicate matters for the enemy with our own ace in the pocket nuclear sub.

This statement also encapsulates the heart of the argument, apart from the submarine warfare aspect of the article, the nuclear aspect...

.... Pakistan’s command and control structure also suggests the country needs a triad of nuclear forces.

Babur may or may not be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but the Navy does need second strike capability most definitely.

I found this quote to be outlandish :

For an easier way out, Pakistan can opt for the second option, i.e. removal of the air-independent propulsion system and the diesel engine on the Agosta-90B and make room for a miniaturised nuclear reactor, thereby increasing the range of the Agosta-90Bs and enabling them to stay underwater for longer periods. Theoretically, this option is possible, but literature does not indicate if any state has attempted such an experiment.

[Mastankhan]

Hi,

At this juncture of time, pak navy needs to stay its course for the next five years at least---five years ago, we knew that india was going for a nuclear sub---. The naval arm needs to be strengthened with the surface vessels first, the diesel subs come with the package.

Instead of spending the money on the nuclear subs---pakistan needs to get some 4.5 generation deep strike capable air craft.

You see---a nuclear sub is an invisible threat---it is not a deterant---people don't see the nuclear sub---they are not scared of the nuclear subs---fighetr aircraft are the masters of the skies---they put the fear of lord in the hearts and souls of myriads---fighter aircraft do make a political statement---the visuals of which are potentially stronger than that of a sub, submerged in cold dark waters.

For roughly---2---3 billion dollars, if we dig out the money---we can get some really high quality stuff, which make the difference from being on the verge of war to being on the peace table for good. As long as we are going to have a weaker air force, india will do what it pleases at its discretion.

It is not the second strike capability that the pak needs---rather a very potent and threatening air arm.

[ferrari]

Originally Posted by Mastankhan

Hi,

At this juncture of time, pak navy needs to stay its course for the next five years at least---five years ago, we knew that india was going for a nuclear sub---. The naval arm needs to be strengthened with the surface vessels first, the diesel subs come with the package.

Instead of spending the money on the nuclear subs---pakistan needs to get some 4.5 generation deep strike capable air craft.

You see---a nuclear sub is an invisible threat---it is not a deterant---people don't see the nuclear sub---they are not scared of the nuclear subs---fighetr aircraft are the masters of the skies---they put the fear of lord in the hearts and souls of myriads---fighter aircraft do make a political statement---the visuals of which are potentially stronger than that of a sub, submerged in cold dark waters.

For roughly---2---3 billion dollars, if we dig out the money---we can get some really high quality stuff, which make the difference from being on the verge of war to being on the peace table for good. As long as we are going to have a weaker air force, india will do what it pleases at its discretion.

It is not the second strike capability that the pak needs---rather a very potent and threatening air arm.

Actually people fear more about the invisible threat than the visible threat. That's human psychology. Nuclear subs are actually better deterrents because of second strike capability and to detect it in the ocean is like looking for a needle in a haystack and is next to impossible.

On the other hand, gone are the days of deep strike fighters with arrival of AWACS and improved ground based radars and better SAM systems. on any day, Nuclear subs are best bet for second strike capability than a strike fighter.

[Mastankhan]

Hi,

Each to his own. OUT OF SIGHT---OUT OF MIND.

The awacs from both the side will possibly be taken out within the first few days of the conflict----in case of the second strike----big cities would be the target---you cannot put a ring of missiles around all the major cities---.

In the ocean, we would never know who the adversary is---or how many enemies we have to face---the american subs as well as the british subs would also be tracking the pakistani nuclear subs---. As no one would know who took out the pak nuclear sub---the americans or the british can play their hand in changing the balance of strike capability---which means that that they can strike us down and take out our nuclear sub to prevent a second strike.

[ferrari]

Originally Posted by Mastankhan

The awacs from both the side will possibly be taken out within the first few days of the conflict----in case of the second strike----big cities would be the target---you cannot put a ring of missiles around all the major cities---.

I highly doubt if the awacs will be taken down. AWACS will be functioning deep in its own territory, may be 200 kms from the border. Moreover, AWACS will be well protected by escorts which would have high air superiority role.

In the ocean, we would never know who the adversary is---or how many enemies we have to face---the american subs as well as the british subs would also be tracking the pakistani nuclear subs---. As no one would know who took out the pak nuclear sub---the americans or the british can play their hand in changing the balance of strike capability---which means that that they can strike us down and take out our nuclear sub to prevent a second strike.

Why would americans or british would take down Pakistani or Indian subs?. The main purpose of this nuclear sub would be to carry nuclear warhead tipped missiles with range long enough to strike enemy lands. It can still do this job by being just 5 kms away from its own port. That's the beauty of nuclear subs, ability to hide and still able to give a deadly blow to the enemy when asked for. Nuclear subs have the highest probability of carrying out second strike compared to ground and air based nuclear delivering systems which can be easily taken out by enemy.

[Mastankhan]

Hi,

To prevent a nuclear strike and especially a second strike by pakistan, there will be a lots of other players involved to stop that from happening.

You know--what is funny---is that the timing of pakistan's second strike and why pak should have a nuke sub----we are about to sign the u214 deal and all kinds of players are coming out with different scenarios---why this sudden interest now.

Pak navy must stay focussed and stay on the course that it has taken for at least five years. They need stability in procurement to increase their ability.

[ferrari]

India has a declared No First Use (NFU) policy of nuclear weapons, so I don't understand why Pakistan need a second strike capability. If Pakistan has to use nuclear weapons it should be all or none, there is no middle ground for that. You need second strike capability when a country declares NFU policy for its nuclear weapons, like India or China.

[Mastankhan]

Hi,

That is what I have been wondering---why the second strike---we don't need the first strike either---it is good to have that capability---but to express it openly and prepare for it openly, defeats the purpose.

Why would the other parties be involved---because they will have alot to lose if they sat inactive---that is their economies, weather, nuclear fallout and myriads of other things.

Let india have their nuclear sub---.

[DarkStar]

Pakistan should have a first strike policy...That is, in the event of a conventional war, Pakistan will use its nuclear arsenal...and will aim to do so before Bharat does.

I believe it is that exact deterrent, the words of which we spoke, that halted Bharat's designs on Pakistan during the Kargil conflict and the Bharatia Parliament shooting and mumbai crises.