564: PAKTIKA UNDER FIRE: PAKISTANI AIR STRIKES IN AFGHANISTAN

My article published on the EurasianTimes Website on 26 Dec 24.

PAKTIKA UNDER FIRE: PAKISTANI AIR STRIKES IN AFGHANISTAN

In a recent escalation of cross-border tensions, Pakistani air strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province have resulted in the deaths of 46 individuals, highlighting the ongoing volatility of the region. These strikes, which targeted areas suspected of harbouring militants, have sparked outrage and condemnation, both within Afghanistan and from the international community. The attack underscores the fragile security situation along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and the broader geopolitical tensions between the two countries.

The situation is fraught with complexity, involving not only the two neighbouring states but also international actors such as the United States, China, and the Taliban, which has recently regained control of Afghanistan. The United States, a key player in the War on Terror, has a vested interest in the stability of the region. China also closely monitors the situation with its Belt and Road Initiative and economic investments in the region. The Taliban’s resurgence and its relationship with Pakistan further complicate the geopolitical landscape. Understanding the motivations behind these air strikes, the implications for regional security, and the broader geopolitical consequences is essential for assessing the future of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations and the overall stability of the South Asian region.

Historical Context of Afghan-Pakistani Tensions.

The history of Afghan-Pakistani relations, deeply rooted in the colonial past, has been marked by frequent tension, often arising from political, territorial, and security concerns. The division of Afghanistan and Pakistan following the partition of British India in 1947 created lasting complications, particularly concerning the Durand Line, the controversial border that separates the two nations. Afghanistan was the only country that initially refused to recognise this border, leading to disputes that have lingered ever since. These disputes have significantly shaped the region’s geopolitical dynamics and continue influencing contemporary events.

In recent decades, the issue of militancy and cross-border insurgency has exacerbated tensions. Pakistan has been accused of using its territory as a haven for Afghan militants, particularly during the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), when Pakistan supported Afghan mujahideen factions in their fight against Soviet forces. This support led to the rise of groups such as the Taliban, which took control of Afghanistan in the 1990s and provided a safe haven for terrorist organisations, including al-Qaeda.

The post-9/11 era marked a shift in the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Pakistan became a crucial ally in the War on Terror. Still, at the same time, it continued to support certain militant groups as part of its strategy to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan. This double-dealing led to accusations that Pakistan is playing a double game, supporting insurgent groups while pretending to be a partner in counterterrorism efforts.

Boomerang Effect. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) supported the formation of the Taliban in the 1990s, seeing them as a potential ally to ensure a friendly government in Afghanistan, which would provide Pakistan with strategic depth against India. While the Taliban still maintains some ties with Pakistan, there have been periods of tension. Taliban-linked groups, such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), have turned against the Pakistani state, conducting attacks within Pakistan. The TTP aims to overthrow the Pakistani government and establish a stricter interpretation of Islamic law, which has led to significant violence and conflict within Pakistan itself.

The Geography and Strategic Importance of Paktika Province

Paktika is one of Afghanistan’s eastern provinces, bordering Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces. This region has been a hotspot for insurgent activity for years, with various militant groups, including the Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP), using the rugged terrain to hide from Afghan and Pakistani forces. The province is strategically important due to its proximity to the Durand Line, making it an ideal location for militants to cross between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The geography of Paktika also makes it difficult for both the Afghan government and Pakistan to secure the region. The mountainous and forested landscape provides natural cover for insurgents, while the porous border allows for the easy movement of fighters and weapons between the two countries. Over the years, various militant groups have exploited these conditions to launch attacks across the border.

Pakistani Narrative and Possible Reasons.

Pakistan’s air strikes in Afghanistan, particularly in Paktika, are typically framed as responses to cross-border attacks by militants. These strikes are part of Pakistan’s broader counterterrorism strategy, aimed at dismantling militant groups operating in the border region. Pakistan has long accused Afghanistan of harbouring insurgents who use Afghan soil to launch attacks on Pakistani targets, particularly in the tribal areas and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. In response, Pakistan has argued that it has the right to conduct air strikes and military operations on Afghan territory to safeguard its national security.

Cross-Border Militancy. The presence of Pakistan-based militant groups in Afghanistan, especially the TTP, is one of the primary reasons for these air strikes. The TTP has been involved in numerous attacks on Pakistani military and civilian targets, leading Pakistan to launch retaliatory strikes against their hideouts in Paktika and other Afghan provinces. These groups are often blamed for destabilising the region, and Pakistan’s military views these air strikes as a necessary measure to contain the threat.

Out of Control Region. Afghanistan’s inability to fully control its territory, particularly in the eastern and southern regions, has been a significant factor in the escalation of violence. The Taliban’s resurgence in Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021 has further exacerbated the situation. Pakistan perceives the Afghan as incapable of effectively dealing with the cross-border insurgency, legitimising unilateral military action.

Pakistan’s Desire for Regional Influence. Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies have long had a strategic interest in maintaining influence over Afghanistan. By launching air strikes, Pakistan aims to retain control over militant groups operating along the border and to prevent any spillover of instability that could undermine its security or its strategic objectives in the region.

Domestic Political Considerations. Pakistan’s military leadership is often under pressure from domestic constituencies, particularly in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan regions, to take decisive action against militants. Air strikes in Afghanistan serve as a signal to domestic audiences that Pakistan is committed to protecting its sovereignty and securing its borders while also sending a message to Afghanistan and the international community about Pakistan’s resolve to fight terrorism.

Impact on Afghanistan and Regional Stability

Pakistani air strikes in Afghanistan, especially in Paktika, have had significant implications for both Afghan civilians and the broader regional stability. The loss of civilian lives and the disruption of daily life in the region due to these strikes cannot be overstated.

Civilian Casualties and Displacement. One of the most immediate consequences of air strikes is the toll on Afghan civilians. These strikes, while aimed at militant targets, often result in civilian casualties and the displacement of local populations. This exacerbates the already dire humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, which is dealing with the aftermath of decades of war, economic collapse, and the resurgence of the Taliban.

Sovereignty Concerns. Afghanistan has repeatedly protested Pakistani air strikes, viewing them as violations of its sovereignty. Afghanistan’s government (under both the previous Western-backed administration and the current Taliban regime) has argued that such strikes undermine the principle of territorial integrity and violate international law. The strikes further strain Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, which are already fraught with mistrust and historical grievances.

Taliban’s Response. The Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in 2021 has added a new dimension to the conflict. While the Taliban has historically maintained close ties with Pakistan, its control over Afghan territory has not led to a reduction in cross-border militancy. The Taliban’s reluctance or inability to clamp down on Pakistani militants operating from Afghan soil has prompted Pakistan to continue its air strikes. However, this has created a delicate situation where the Taliban must balance its relationship with Pakistan while dealing with growing public discontent over the air strikes.

Regional Security and Geopolitical Dynamics. The air strikes also have broader regional implications. Pakistan’s actions are viewed with concern by India, which has long been wary of Pakistan’s influence over Afghanistan and the destabilising effect of cross-border militancy. India has consistently accused Pakistan of using Afghan-based militant groups to advance its strategic interests in the region. Furthermore, the involvement of external actors such as the United States, which has interests in Afghanistan and is concerned about Pakistan’s role in the area, complicates the situation. These air strikes may lead to greater instability in an already volatile region, affecting the prospects for peace and development in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Conclusion. Pakistani air strikes in Afghanistan’s Paktika province represent a complex and multifaceted issue in South Asian geopolitics. These strikes are driven by security concerns, political motivations, and strategic interests, with significant implications for Afghanistan’s sovereignty, civilian population, and regional stability. While Pakistan justifies its actions as a necessary response to cross-border militancy, the long-term consequences of these strikes may not only strain Afghanistan-Pakistan relations further but also exacerbate the instability in the broader region.

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

Link to the article on the website:-

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/pakistan-conducts-2nd-air-strikes-on-afghanistans/

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

BBC News. “Pakistan Air Strikes in Afghanistan Kill 46: A Critical Overview.” BBC, December 2023.

Al Jazeera. “Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Border Tensions: An Analysis of the 2023 Air Strikes.” Al Jazeera, December 2023.

Mansoor, Safdar. “The Durand Line: A Historical Perspective on Pakistan-Afghanistan Relations.” Asian Affairs, vol. 38, no. 3, 2007, pp. 405-421.

Johnson, Thomas H., and M. Chris Mason. “The Taliban’s War with Pakistan: A Strategic Overview.” Middle East Policy, vol. 17, no. 4, 2010, pp. 56-70.

Tanner, Stephen. “Pakistan’s Military Strategy and Its Afghan Frontier.” International Security Studies Review, vol. 32, no. 2, 2014, pp. 99-113.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Pakistan’s Afghan Policy: Challenges and Opportunities.” Carnegie Report, 2021.

Gul, Imtiaz. The Most Dangerous Place: Pakistan’s Lawless Frontier. Penguin Books, 2010.

Khan, Mehmood. Pakistan’s Counterterrorism Strategy: A Comprehensive Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). “Afghanistan: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.” UNAMA Annual Report, 2023.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

July 8, 2024January 4, 2025

492: INDIAN AIR FORCE CHALLENGES AND FUTURE TRAJECTORY

My Article published in the News Analytics Journal Jul 2024.

India faces two nuclear-powered inimical neighbours. China is emerging as a major regional power with the aspiration to be a global power, and her desire to dominate Asia and, finally, the world has implications for India. India’s relations with China have changed from cooperative to competitive to combative. China sees India as a competitor and would like to keep India off-balance. On the other hand, Pakistan remains a security threat and continues to use non-state actors to maintain a situation of unrest. Asymmetric warfare will remain an instrument of its state policy. These two countries have a close and longstanding strategic partnership that includes cooperation even in areas of defence and security. Pakistan openly boasts of collusive support from China in case of a war with India. Due to its unique geographical location and geopolitical environment, India faces a collusive threat with significant chances of military conflict. Therefore, her national interest dictates that the country be able to deter her inimical neighbours from any military misadventure, either singly or collusively.

China’s warfare strategy focuses on developing a modern and capable force to support its national security interests and regional/global ambitions. The Chinese forces are undergoing significant modernisation and expansion at a rapid pace, with particular emphasis on developing advanced technologies and capabilities. China’s investment and progress in space-based systems, quantum technology, unmanned platforms, hypersonic weapons, directed energy weapons, etc., will give it surveillance and precision strike capability with lightning speeds.

India’s military aspirations must align with its socioeconomic condition and likely threats. The path forward for India is clear: it must enhance its deterrence capability while investing in future war-fighting technologies. With its significant offensive potential and responsiveness, air power is the most crucial arm of military action. The Indian Air Force (IAF), like air power in the last century, has evolved to reflect changes in technology, doctrine, and strategic priorities. However, it must continuously adapt to the existing and changing environment to build focused capabilities. The IAF will have to create deterrence and be able to dominate the air. The IAF must remain adaptive and agile to win wars in a network-centric battlefield with conflicts varying across the complete threat spectrum. Identifying focus areas and developing assets, platforms, facilitators, and infrastructure is essential. While several issues are vital requirements, the main pillars are trained manpower, combat leadership, combat sustenance resources, and sound strategy. The IAF must focus on capability building and adopt a multidisciplinary and integrated war-fighting approach.

The IAF should expand its investments in advanced munitions, combat support aircraft, electronic warfare, and physical infrastructure. Boosting the IAF’s fighter force strength should be a top priority, maintaining a balance between quantity and quality. An adequate number of combat support platforms should follow. Air Defence has evolved from point defence to offensive defence, with the spectrum expanding to cater for sub-conventional threats to long-range hypersonic weapons. Appropriate weapons, systems, and networks need to be added. The weapon list should provide various options, including high-tech, long-range smart weapon systems with increased accuracy and assurance. Air combat support and protective infrastructure are essential. The IAF’s networking capability has evolved well and is applied to air defence, air ops planning, maintenance, and logistics functions. However, there is still room for further progress and integration of new inductions.

The Indian Air Force, as a technology-intensive service, must continuously incorporate modern, cutting-edge equipment and technology. Technology’s profound influence on air strategy is a significant driver of innovation and evolution. Investing in emerging technologies is necessary and exciting, opening up new possibilities. Future technologies impacting the air war, such as Quantum computing, Hypersonic weapon systems, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Nanotechnology, Unmanned platforms, Drones and swarm technology, and Network-centric environment / Internet of things/system of systems, are on the horizon. Impetus is also required for some of the existing aviation-related programs like fifth-generation fighters, Transport aircraft (for civil and military requirements), Development of gas turbines and engines, sensors and seekers, stealth, metallurgy and composites, unmanned platforms and swarms, AI-enabled autonomous systems and long-range vectors.

A strategic focus is required for a medium-term and long-term technology plan supported by adequate budget allocation. A suitable ecosystem needs to be developed to harness these dual-use technologies. IAF must define a defence science and technology strategy with a vision to harness technology and convert it into decisive capability. The following focus areas are advocated, with a particular emphasis on Indigenous defence production capability:-

- Situational Awareness & Decision Making. One effect of advanced technology on air warfare is the increased pace and intensity of air operations. In such a scenario, the decision-making process must quickly keep up with the OODA cycle. The three most important contributing factors are high situational awareness, a robust and fast network system for information sharing, and AI-based decision-support systems.

- Space-Based Capabilities. The term airpower has changed to aerospace power, with the aerial warfare envelope expanding to the space domain. Space-based systems and applications are embedded in every aspect of aerial warfare. The involvement of space-based equipment and systems is even more significant in Grey zone warfare. Space-based systems are becoming increasingly crucial in air warfare, providing capabilities such as navigation, targeting, communication, early warning of missile launches and space-based surveillance. The integration of these systems with air assets is expected to continue, providing new opportunities for crucial offensive and defensive operations.

- Hypersonic Weapons. The development of hypersonic weapons is likely to impact air strategy significantly. Hypersonic weapons provide new opportunities for rapid response and long-range strike capabilities with precision. They also pose new challenges in terms of protection and air defence. The high speed and unpredictability of hypersonic weapons will require the development of new air defence strategies, as traditional air defence systems may be unable to detect or intercept these weapons. This could lead to the development of new technologies, such as directed energy weapons or advanced sensors, to counter the threat posed by hypersonic weapons. Also, protective infrastructure would be required to withstand these weapons’ destructive power.

- Unmanned Platforms. The use of unmanned platforms and systems is growing in warfare. This shift is expected to continue as technology advances and the capabilities of unmanned systems improve further. Drones of various sizes and capabilities are taking over the tasks of conventional platforms. Their use is spread across the entire spectrum of threats, ranging from sub-conventional and conventional to long-range attacks. Investment in anti-drone systems is also a need of the hour.

- Sixth Generation Aircraft. Sixth-generation aircraft are still in the development phase; however, based on current trends in air technology, sixth-generation aircraft will likely have several key features that will shape air strategy in the future. They are likely to have increased automation with advanced AI and machine learning algorithms that will enable autonomous decision-making and allow them to adapt to changing situations quickly. They would also have enhanced stealth capabilities, making them virtually invisible to radar and other detection systems. Integrated sensor systems in these aircraft will provide comprehensive situational awareness and the ability to engage targets with great precision. Sixth-generation aircraft are expected to significantly impact air strategy in the future, with their advanced capabilities enabling air forces to operate with greater autonomy and strike enemy targets with unprecedented precision and speed. However, as with any new technology, challenges may be associated with introducing sixth-generation aircraft, including developing new tactics, training programs, and support infrastructure to realise their full potential.

- Loyal Wing Man Concept. Both piloted and unmanned platforms have their respective advantages and disadvantages. The thought process for the next generation of platforms is to harness the benefits of both and develop networked systems wherein both can work in an integrated manner. Research is being done in many countries on the “loyal wingman” concept.

Indian Air Force has always encouraged the development of indigenous defence production capability, and it is one of its key result areas. It has played an essential role in creating an aerospace ecosystem in India and has been operating indigenously built aircraft and aircraft built in India under licence production. This has given impetus to indigenous industry in the past and will continue to support it in future. The critical thing to remember is that while supporting self-reliance, the minimum level of deterrence capability must always be maintained.

Perceived threats and challenges to national security, calling for immediate and substantial measures to enhance IAF’s war-fighting capacity and capability. Capability building entails a long gestation period. The IAF should continue prioritising modernisation efforts, including acquiring advanced aircraft, weapons systems, and sensors. This will enable the IAF to maintain a technological edge over potential adversaries and respond effectively to emerging threats. The IAF should concentrate on new areas of capability development, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), cyber warfare, and space-based systems. These capabilities will enhance its ability to conduct various operations, from intelligence gathering to precision strikes. Operational preparedness includes reviewing doctrines, strategy and tactics, organisational structures, human resource adaptation, training, and maintenance and logistics concepts.

IAF must think differently to tackle various asymmetric and non-traditional security threats. This would require more innovative, out-of-the-box solutions that leverage the prevalent technology. Overall, the IAF should strive to balance traditional air power capabilities and emerging areas of strategic importance. This will enable the IAF to defend India’s air space and national security interests while contributing to the broader role of nation-building, regional stability and humanitarian assistance.

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References

Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retd), “Air Power Transformational Challenges India”, Air Power Asia.
Basic Doctrines of the Indian Air Force 1995, 2012 and 2022.
Ashley J Tellis, “Troubles They Come In Battalion”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2016.
Air Mshl Anil Chopra (Retd), “IAF modernisation challenges ahead”, South Asia defence and strategic review.
Vivek Kapur, “IAF Equipment & Force Structure Requirements to Meet External Threats, 2032”, MPIDSA, 2014.
“Interview with CAS and articles in IAF”, IAF anniversary issue of Chanakya Aerospace, defence and maritime review, 2018.
Gp Capt AK Sachdeva(Retd), “Rebuilding the IAF fighter fleet”, SP’s Aviation issue 2, 2019.
Sanjay Badri-Maharaj, “Indian Air Force at 86: options and challenges”, Vayu V/2018.
Gp Capt J Noronha (Retd), “Strength lies in numbers: Rebuilding the combat fleet of IAF”, Indian Defence Review Oct-Dec 18.
Air Marshal Dhiraj Kukreja, “IAF 2020 and beyond”, Indian Defence Review, Jan – Mar 17.

Disclaimer:

June 1, 2024January 4, 2025

483: Ritu’s Column: When Eagles Kept Falcons at Bay

Ritu Sharma is a journalist, with a Master’s Degree in Conflict Studies and Management of Peace from the University of Erfurt, Germany. Her areas of interest include Asia-Pacific, the South China Sea, and Aviation history. She has been writing on subjects related to defence, foreign affairs, and nuclear technology for the last 15 years. She has written for PTI, IANS and The New Indian Express. Presently she is writing for the EurAsian Times.

Her article on Kargil Operations (Op Safed Sagar) was published on 01 Jun 2024 on “The EurAsian Times”.

(Besides the two quotes, the views of the author are her own)

When Eagles Kept Falcons At Bay – How IAF’s MiG-29 Fighters Triumphed Pakistan’s F-16s At 18,000 Feet

By Ritu Sharma – 01 Jun 2024

On May 26, the Indian Air Force (IAF) launched Operation Safed Sagar, which saw the deployment of air power at 18,000 feet. As the intruders, backed by the Pakistan Army, entrenched themselves on the treacherous heights of the Kargil sector, the IAF deployed its entire fleet, and the pounding continued for the next 60 days.

On May 21, the IAF launched a Canberra PR57 to conduct a reconnaissance of the Kargil area to assess the extent of intrusion. The aircraft descended to 22,000 feet, just two miles from the LoC, and was just 4,000 feet above the highest Himalayan points. The Canberra sustained a hit on its right engine by what was later determined to have been a Chinese-made Anza infrared surface-to-air missile. This called for a change in tactics by the IAF.

The Indian government had given the green light for the use of air power, albeit with one caveat – the Indian fighter jets were not allowed to cross the border with Pakistan. India began the air bombing on May 26 with MiG-21, MiG-23, and MiG-27 fighters carrying out six attacks against intruder camps, materiel dumps, and supply routes.

On the second day, the force lost two fighter jets—a MiG-27 and a MiG-21. The Pakistan-backed insurgents were using Stinger, a Man-Portable Air Defence System (MANPADS) that operates as an infrared-homing surface-to-air missile (SAM). The IAF MiG-21 piloted by Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja, tasked with photo reconnaissance during the Kargil conflict, was shot down by ground-fired missiles over Batalik along the Line of Control in Ladakh. He ejected in time but parachuted down into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and was later executed by the Pakistan forces in contravention of the Geneva Convention. On the third day of air operations, an IAF Mi-17 helicopter was downed again by an enemy shoulder-fired Stinger surface-to-air missile while conducting a low-level attack. After this, the IAF stopped using all slow-moving air assets in the conflict.

India had pressed its fleet of MiG-21s, MiG-23s, MiG-25s, MiG-27s, MiG-29 Fulcrums, Jaguars, and Mirage-2000s into the attack of the enemy positions within a small target area of just 5-12 km from the Line of Control (LoC). These fighters flew at 30,000 feet to avoid Pakistan missiles. The Pakistan and Indian Air Forces did not have dogfights. But, the Indian MiG-29s called ‘Baaz’ (or Eagle) did have whoever blinks first games with Pakistan’s F-16 ‘Falcons.’

“While PAF fighters did fly Combat Air Patrols (CAP) during the conflict, they stayed well within Pakistani air space. On occasions, IAF MiG-29s armed with the deadly R-77 BVR Air-to-Air missiles could lock on to PAF F-16s, forcing the latter to disengage. In the absence of a PAF threat, the IAF was able to deliver numerous devastating strikes on intruder positions and supply dumps,” a Strategy Page report said in the aftermath of the conflict. During the Kargil War, the PAF’s director of operations later reported isolated instances of IAF and PAF fighters locking on to each other with their onboard fire control radars.

The IAF pilots carried out 6,500 sorties, including strikes, reconnaissance, evacuation, transportation, and logistic support. In a 2012 report by Benjamin Lambeth of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled “Airpower at 18,000 feet: The Indian Air Force in the Kargil War” explained how the IAF pummelled the Pakistan Army and the PAF: “Throughout the campaign, whenever IAF reconnaissance or ground attack operations were underway in the immediate combat zone, Western Air Command ensured that MiG-29s or other air-to-air fighters were also airborne on combat air patrol stations over the ground fighting on India’s side of the LoC to provide top cover against any attempt by the PAF to enter the fray in a ground attack role.”

The result was that PAF F-16s maintained a safe distance of 10 to 20 miles on the Pakistani side of the border. The report quotes Air Marshal (retired) Vinod Patney, the then head of Western Air Command: “I think my insistence on mounting CAPs across the (command’s entire area of responsibility) at different heights and times to give the message that we were ready and angling for an enlarged conflict helped. It was akin to throwing a glove, but it was not picked up.” Then IAF Chief AY Tipnis later recalled that he had “authorised the escorting fighter pilots to chase away Pakistani aircraft further back across the LoC.”

Talking to the EurAsian Times, Air Marshal Anil Khosla (retired) said: “Mig-29 and Mig-21 aircraft played an important role in local area air dominance by preventing enemy aircraft from interfering with our air and ground operations.” “The effort these aircraft put into air defence escorts and Combat Air Patrolling by day and night proved an effective deterrent, ensuring local air superiority. At times, PAF F-16s, orbiting on their side of the LOC, were kept at bay by our air defence fighters flying a protective pattern above the strike,” Khosla added.

MiG-23 and MiG-27 fighter jets had to manually dive to bomb the targets as they lacked modern equipment to locate them. However, this tactic did not work well in the rarefied atmosphere of the Himalayas. Hence, the IAF introduced the French Mirage 2000H equipped with day—and night laser-guided bomb delivery pods. On June 24, the IAF’s two Mirage 2000Hs dropped the first-ever laser-guided bombs of the force in a combat mission and destroyed the Northern Light Infantry’s command and control bunkers. The IAF reported at the end of 1999 that it resulted in as many as 300 enemy casualties within just minutes.

Air Marshal Khosla said: “Interdiction proved effective (Attack on NLI’s (Northern Light Infantry of Pakistan) command headquarters at Tiger Hill and supply dumps at Muntho Dhalo).” However, he adds, “helicopters and fixed-wing combat support aircraft are vulnerable in confined and contested air space”. This holds even in today’s battleground. Air Marshal Khosla underscores that airpower needs to be applied innovatively with ingenuity. The challenges during the Kargil conflict were manifold, including the high-altitude terrain (10,000 to 18,000 ft), low air density, strong winds, small camouflaged targets, and self-imposed restrictions like not crossing the border.

The IAF’s MiG-21s operated without modern navigation equipment, and pilots navigated with handheld GPS gadgets. The Indian Air Force integrated the 1000-kg bombs with laser-guided weapon pods. The IAF selected weapon impact points that would snowball into landslides or avalanches.

The IAF also deployed its ‘Super Spy’ MiG-25 Foxbat for reconnaissance missions. With an operational flight of over 70,000 feet and a speed of Mach 2.5, the fighter jet had regularly flown reconnaissance missions. Such was the clarity of the camera fitted in the belly of the aircraft, which allowed it to click photos of humans on a Pakistani tarmac. The Foxbat would create a sonic boom and escape before PAF could scramble its interceptors. In 1999, however, its mission parameters were different—it was to fly low and slow to map the targets on the Pakistani side for the Mirage-2000s bombing. The aircraft flew at a lower height, which was never envisaged, and there were no Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) laid down. Also, it needed to maintain a velocity and height ratio for the camera to click clear photographs. At the given height, the aircraft was well beyond the range of the surface-to-air missiles, but the only threat was from aerial interception. To overcome that, the aircraft was escorted by Mirage-2000s during the mission.

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Disclaimer: