Pakistan's Potential Nuclear Submarine Program Challenges Indian Naval Strategy

 Pakistan is considering enhancing its naval capabilities by equipping its under-construction Chinese submarines with nuclear-tipped missiles, potentially altering the strategic balance for the Indian Navy.

Delays due to fiscal constraints had postponed the acquisition of S-26 Hangor class submarines from China. Initially expected by the end of 2023, the first of these Yuan-class submarines was launched in May 2024.

Once eight of these submarines, equipped with Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP), join the Pakistan Navy, they will significantly boost the country’s offensive sea denial strategy, which emphasizes the use of submarines and missile-carrying maritime patrol aircraft. Expected to be operational by the late 2020s and early 2030s, the addition will increase the number of AIP-equipped submarines in the Pakistan Navy to 11.

Recent reports suggest that the Hangor class may not be a purely conventional attack submarine. Retired Pakistani naval officers have discussed on state television that Islamabad is aiming for an “assured” second-strike capability.

According to a Quwa report, Vice Admiral Ahmed Saeed and Rear Admiral Saleem Akhtar, both retired officials, talked about acquiring Hangor-class submarines from China. Saeed suggested these submarines would be a "hybrid," balancing conventional attack capabilities with nuclear potential.

While retrofitting the Hangor class with nuclear reactors is unlikely, Pakistan could deploy Tactical Nuclear Warheads (TNWs) on these submarines. Building nuclear-powered submarines is costly and complex, as noted by retired Commodore Anil Jai Singh, making it improbable even with Chinese assistance.

Pakistan has been developing TNWs since its first nuclear test in 1998. These smaller, portable weapons are designed for battlefield use rather than as strategic deterrents. The Hangor-class submarines will likely use a variant of the Babur-3 Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM), first tested in 2018 with a range of 450 km. The Babur-3 is a critical component of Pakistan’s “credible second-strike capability,” according to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

Vice Admiral Saeed emphasized that while the Hangor class is not a dedicated nuclear platform, the Pakistan Navy seeks to fire nuclear weapons from the sea, potentially requiring just one or two dedicated submarines. However, the Hangor class would primarily manage conventional roles and only strategic duties part-time.

Commodore Singh expressed doubts about the effectiveness of a single nuclear-armed submarine in the Pakistan Navy. He suggested that China might lease one to Pakistan in the future, but this remains uncertain.

Indian Navy's Concerns

While Pakistan cannot independently design and develop a nuclear-powered submarine, it may be exploring the possibility as part of a long-term strategy. China's support in arming Pakistan with such a submarine would challenge the Indian Navy’s dominance in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). China has already been supplying submarines to Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Myanmar, creating a competitive underwater environment in the IOR.

Retired Captain Anurag Bisen highlighted that a Pakistani submarine armed with TNWs would constrain the Indian Navy's deployment of its aircraft carriers until the submarine is accounted for.

India has been adopting a flexible deterrence approach against China and Pakistan. In March, New Delhi successfully tested the long-range ballistic missile Agni-V, featuring Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology, enhancing the survivability of its nuclear missiles.

Despite the potential threat from TNWs, Commodore Singh remains optimistic, questioning whether Pakistan has considered India's likely retaliation, as stated in its nuclear doctrine. Using TNWs is complicated and risky, making their actual deployment a significant gamble for Pakistan.

Bangladesh Coup plot Foiled

DHAKA — The Bangladesh army said Jan. 19 it had foiled a plot last month by some “religiously fanatic” Islamist officers to overthrow the elected government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

“We have unearthed a heinous conspiracy to overthrow the democratic government through the army,” army spokesman Brig. Gen. Masud Razzaq said in a written statement.

“The attempt has been thwarted with the whole-hearted efforts of army soldiers,” the statement said, adding that the plot had been incited by Bangladeshi expatriates in touch with “religiously fanatic army officers.”

Hasina’s government, which came to power in early 2009, made changes in June to bolster the secular character of the Bangladesh constitution, although Islam was retained as the state religion.

The move sparked a series of angry protests by Islamic activists in Muslim-majority Bangladesh, one of the world’s poorest countries with a long history of coups and counter-coups.

Razzaq told local media that the plot involved up to 16 Islamist officers, both active and retired, raising fears about the prevalence of hard-liners in the upper ranks of the 140,000-strong military.

Two retired officers including a colonel have been arrested and will be presented before a court of inquiry set up on Dec. 28, while an alleged “co-planner,” Maj. Syed Ziaul Haq, is on the run.

Syed Ashraful Islam, the spokesman of the ruling Awami League party and an influential minister, said anyone found guilty would be handed “exemplary” punishment.

“There is no room for conspiracy in the army. Those who are involved in such conspiracy will be given exemplary punishment,” he said.

Razzaq said Ziaul had circulated emails to serving officers, detailing a plan to overthrow the government Jan. 9-10.

The outlawed Islamist group Hizbut Tahrir, banned in Bangladesh in 2009 after it was linked to a car bomb on a politician, was accused of helping to circulate the messages.

There were rumors online late last month about a foiled coup attempt after the nation’s main opposition leader Khaleda Zia accused the government of “incidences of disappearances” in the army.

The army hit back, terming the allegations “provocative and misleading.”

Dhaka University professor Imtiaz Ahmed, a security expert, said it was important the armed forces “seriously dig into the matter as to how much the Islamists were involved, in which capacity and how big was the penetration.”

Bangladesh has a history of bloodshed and political violence since gaining independence in 1971. The country’s first president was assassinated during his overthrow by the army in 1975, and Bangladesh was run by the military dictator again from 1982 to 1990.

Democracy was restored in 1991, but street battles between Zia and Hasina’s supporters prompted the army to step in again in January 2007.

Hasina’s government was hit by a military rebellion in 2009, when 57 army officers were killed by renegade border guards.

China Eyes Navy Stop in Seychelles

BEIJING - China has said it may use the Seychelles as a naval supply stop while conducting anti-piracy missions, at the invitation of the Indian Ocean island state.

The announcement comes at a time of growing Indian concern about China's influence in the strategically important Indian Ocean, a vital shipping lane connecting Asia to Europe and the Middle East.

"According to escort needs and the needs of other long-distance missions, China will consider taking supplies or recuperating at appropriate ports in the Seychelles and other countries," the defense ministry said in a statement Dec. 12. The invitation was extended earlier this month during a visit to the Seychelles by Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie.

Beijing has funded or plans to invest in several major infrastructure projects in the Indian Ocean, including ports in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

Reports in China's state-run media quoted military experts as saying the move did not equate to establishing an overseas military base.

China has been heavily involved in anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and in the Indian Ocean.

Since 2008, China has sent 10 escort missions and more than 8,000 military personnel to the Gulf of Aden, escorting more than 4,300 vessels in the process, the official China Daily said.

Nuclear Scientist Says Bomb Saved Pakistan

WASHINGTON - The father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb has vigorously defended the program as sparing his country the fate of Iraq or Libya, amid signs that Islamabad is ramping up its weapons capacities.
Writing in Newsweek magazine, Abdul Qadeer Khan said that Pakistan's nuclear weapons had prevented war with historic rival India, which he accused of pursuing a "massive program" due to ambitions of superpower status.

"Don't overlook the fact that no nuclear-capable country has been subjected to aggression or occupied, or had its borders redrawn. Had Iraq and Libya been nuclear powers, they wouldn't have been destroyed in the way we have seen recently," Khan said.
Khan also argued that Bangladesh would not have won independence in 1971 if Pakistan had nuclear weapons. India supported Bangladesh's independence, which came after a nine-month struggle that was harshly put down by Pakistani forces.
Many Pakistanis regard Khan as a hero for building the Islamic world's first nuclear bomb. India and Pakistan carried out nuclear tests in 1998.
He admitted in 2004 that he ran a nuclear black-market selling secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. But Khan later retracted his remarks and in 2009 was freed from house arrest, although he was asked to keep a low profile.
Western powers in March launched a military campaign against Libya over concerns of violence against civilians. Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi agreed in 2003 to end his nuclear program and tried to reconcile with the West.
Pakistan has been increasingly worried about its nuclear program after U.S. forces on May 2 managed to enter the country covertly to kill the world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, who was living in the garrison city of Abbottabad.
Khan lashed out at Pakistanis who contend that the country, which suffers grinding poverty and receives billions of dollars in U.S. assistance each year, cannot afford its nuclear program.
"The propaganda about spending exorbitant sums on the nuclear program circulated by ignorant, often foreign-paid, Pakistanis has no substance," he wrote.
But Khan also said that Pakistan's "incompetent and ignorant rulers" never devoted enough resources to development, which he argued should have been easier due to the protection ensured by nuclear weapons.
While Khan said he was not familiar with the latest developments in Pakistan's nuclear program, Newsweek published a commercial satellite image that appeared to show expedited construction at the country's Khushab nuclear site.
The Institute for Science and International Security, which assessed the image, said it showed "significant progress" on a fourth reactor. A frame of a building was now visible, which did not appear in a picture taken in January.
The Washington-based think-tank said that plutonium from the new reactors would allow a "dramatic increase" in production, potentially allowing Pakistan to double its annual production of nuclear weapons.
Pakistan is the sole country blocking talks in the Conference of Disarmament that would lead to an international agreement banning production of new nuclear bomb-making material.
Pakistan said that Senator John Kerry, on a mission to Islamabad to ease tensions in the wake of bin Laden's killing, assured Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani that the United States had no designs on taking over the country's nuclear arsenal.
"He said that he can write this with his blood, that we have no interest in Pakistan's nuclear assets," Gilani's office said in a statement.
But the statement quoted Kerry as hoping that Pakistan's nuclear weapons would be "well-protected and secure" under a "proper command and control system."

Russia to build Bangladesh’s first nuclear plant

Russia also will train workers to run the plant, to be built in Rooppur, 75 miles (120 kilometers) north of Dhaka. – File Photo by AP

DHAKA: Russia has agreed to build energy-starved Bangladesh’s first nuclear power plant, the government said Friday.
Bangladesh’s Ministry of Science said officials from the two countries signed an agreement in Dhaka late Thursday for the $1.5 billion plant.
Russia will supply two reactors capable of generating a total of 2,000 megawatts of electricity for the plant, which is to be built by 2018, the ministry said. It will also supply fuel for the plant and take back the spent fuel, it said.
Russia also will train workers to run the plant, to be built in Rooppur, 75 miles (120 kilometers) north of Dhaka.
Relations between the two countries have been close since Russia backed Bangladesh in its 1971 war of independence with Pakistan.
Bangladesh’s decades-old gas-fired power plants are unable to generate enough electricity for the country’s 150 million people, with a daily shortfall of about 2,000 megawatts. Businesses complain that the shortages interfere with production.
The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank say Bangladesh’s economy, which has grown by more than 5 percent in recent years, will suffer if more electricity is not generated to support industries and agriculture.
The country also is looking at options to switch to coal-fired power plants. It has six coal fields with about 3.3 billion tons of estimated reserves. – AP

Bangladesh in the Bull’s Eye

Bangladesh in the Bull’s Eye

Forrest Cookson

Look at the map of the Indian Ocean. On the west there are the Middle Eastern countries and East Africa. On the east the long peninsular starts at the northern point of the Bay of Bengal and follows a series of north-south coasts going all the way to Singapore. In a real sense the Indian Ocean is closed in with the only convenient exit the man made Suez Canal in the west and the straits of Malacca in the east. In the west is a large part of the world’s discovered, remaining oil and natural gas reserves. Over in the east are three great industrial nations—Japan, China and Korea -- all consumers of a large amount of energy from oil and natural gas. These three nations have limited domestic energy resources and are dependent on imports particularly for oil and gas.

Think of the history of Japan in the first half of the 20th century. As industrial development got under way in Japan at the end of the 19th century the issue of access to raw materials became increasingly important. By the end of World War I modern navies were switching away from coal to oil as the fuel for driving the ships. Aviation was becoming more and more important in military affairs and war planes also depended on oil based fuels. From the Japanese viewpoint both their military and their industrial activities were increasingly dependent on importing oil. This oil was coming from Indonesia and the United States. The Japanese Government had imperial designs on China which, not being acceptable to the United States and the Netherlands led to the banning or limiting sale of oil products to Japan. The Pacific War between Japan and the allies followed. The war was an expression of Japanese desire for imperial expansion to insure that they had access to oil and the American resistance to this. The America resistance to Japan arose from the empathy felt by ordinary Americans for the Chinese who were oppressed by both their own Government and the Japanese occupation forces. The point of the story is that the Pacific War was about access to oil resources and the Japanese desperation to escape from dependence on the United States and the Netherlands.

Today 75 years later the same situation exists in the minds of the Chinese Government. Look at that map again and you see that the oil that is imported by China is coming largely from the Middle East and East Africa; to import this oil it is necessary to take the tankers through the Straits of Malacca between Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia or through the Lombard straits in Indonesia. Both of those routes are easily under the control of the American 7th fleet which has a de facto base at Singapore. Put another way Chinese oil imports can only reach China if the United States allows them to do so! Of course no threats are made nor are action taken to actually limit the passage of the oil products, but everyone understands the real threat without having to express it.

China’s response to this is to try everything that they can think of to develop alternative supply sources –these include deep water oil wells in the islands found in the South China Sea, oil and gas from Myanmar, and oil and gas that might be located in Russia. In addition China is developing alternative transport routes for Middle Eastern oil and gas. There are three that are potentially feasible: A pipeline over the Kra peninsular in Thailand; pipelines from central Asia and Iran to China; pipelines from the Bay of Bengal through Myanmar to China. The first of these is the simplest but as Thailand is a close ally of the United States it does not provide China much improved energy supply security. The pipelines from central Asia are very long complex construction projects that are probably many years from completion; further more these may be difficult to use for oil from East Africa and the Gulf States. Oil from such states may require ports in Pakistan and pipelines from these ports through Pakistan into western China. The Myanmar pipelines are needed not only for product from Myanmar but also for gas and oil from the Middle East shipped by targer to Myanmar ports. This includes major port facilities in Myanmar as well as pipelines and roads to protect and provide maintenance. These are all giant engineering projects, but China is well on the road to construction of some of these. The next decade will see continuing strong efforts by China to insure the security of its oil and gas supply by diversification of sources and transportation routes.

We are probably at the start of a new cold war with China and its supporters vs. the United States and its supporters. There are a few clear placements for Asia: North Korea, Myanmar, and Pakistan come down on the Chinese side; Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore come down on the US side. Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal will be trying to avoid taking sides.

What does this mean for Bangladesh?

For Bangladesh the key issues revolve around two points:

1. Should Bangladesh improve the maritime access of China to the Bay of Bengal by using Chinese funds and contractors to construct the new deep sea port?

2. How will China perceive the threat to their position and energy supply routes through Myanmar from Bangladesh’s relationship with India? The struggle now taking place in the northeast part of South Asia is more and more important to Chinese strategic interests.

Since its achievement of independence in 1971 Bangladesh has had the great advantage of being of limited importance to the strategic interests of major world powers. The natural resources of oil and gas are not of a magnitude to make the country of strategic importance. The economies of eastern India, Myanmar and Bangladesh were small and poor. The northeast part of India was particularly poor and backward. Starting around the early 1990s the growth prospects for this area began to improve, increasing market size and attracting interest of foreign investors. While these areas are still much poorer than other parts of South Asia, Chinese interventions to raise their naval presence in the Indian Ocean opened the eyes of Indian strategic planners to the threats that they faced. Increasingly northeast South Asia including Bangladesh and Myanmar loom large in their potential impact on national security concerns of China and India. From being irrelevant to major power strategic interests, Bangladesh is now in the bull’s eye. Both China and India see Bangladesh as a key area. For India to insure a friendly neighbor and to have transit access to the northeast states; for China to keep India from achieving a hegemonic role over Bangladesh and to provide a secure route for gas and oil to be shipped via pipeline to southern China.

However much Bangladesh wishes to avoid being drawn into these matters, it is no longer possible to return to the past where no one has important strategic objectives in the region. Bangladesh will become increasingly the target of maneuvers by India and China to gain advantage with respect to their higher strategic goals. Many Bangladeshis believe the true interests of Bangladesh are to be a friend to both great powers and avoid taking sides. However, India and China have different ideas and would like to draw Bangladesh into as exclusive relationship as possible. Unfortunately for the conduct of Bangladesh foreign policy there are powerful domestic political forces at work. The Awami League and its allies are clearly pro-Indian and the present government is moving systematically to improve its relationship with India. The BNP and its allies are clearly pro-Chinese and would like to encourage the “opening to the east” while keeping India at arms length.

The question facing the nation is the general strategic approach. There are in effect two choices: Move towards a strategic alliance with India and with that decision let the relationship with China be decided by China. This means being on India’s side in any conflict with China. Going down this path requires a toughness to deal with an annoyed China. The alternative is to maintain a balance and ensure that the country stays out of any conflicts between India and China. Choice between these alternatives is made difficult by the potential instability. Movement towards a strategic alliance with India might be reversed by a new Government.

India’s actions clearly indicate that they want a friendly relationship with Bangladesh and that they seek to have a strong position in Bangladesh in the energy sector and infrastructure to facilitate transit of goods between the northeast Indian states and the rest of India. The Indian government is pushing hard on these issues with considerable success. These actions serve India’s strategic purposes by raising their role in the Bangladesh economy and providing the infrastructure for logistical support to any military operations in the northeast states. [In a serious conflict between India and China there would be little possibility of enforcing a no military equipment or personnel clause.]

China faces a somewhat more difficult position. The recent visit by the leader of the opposition to China at the invitation of the Chinese Communist Party is an indication of their displeasure with the speed with which the relations with India are deepening. Chinese attitudes towards Bangladesh will continue to provide low cost financing of some projects and active participation of Chinese companies in Bangladesh Government tenders etc. but underneath there will be a toughness and caution. China continues to be a major arms supplier to Bangladesh. There is no point in China making an enemy of Bangladesh; in response to the progress with India, China will be cooler and less responsive as well as more demanding on assistance projects.

The past lack of strategic importance of Bangladesh’s location meant that the formulation of national security strategy was easy. The objective of all foreign policy was to maximize the foreign aid inflow and open up markets for Bangladesh exports. This was relatively simple and consequently a serious national security organization was not needed. But now the choices are more difficult requiring joint analysis by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense and involving a wide range of specialist organizations.

The new world that Bangladesh now faces suggests two points:

1. The organization for formulation and review of national security policy needs to be put in place insuring that there is close coordination between the military and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At present there is no stable systematic coordination among those responsible for national security.

2. The importance of stability of policy calls for a less political approach suggesting that the two political groupings must find a way to work out a core program that both major political grouping will not repudiate with each new government.

During the past few years there has been regular talk of a “national security council”; the best I understood this it was a device for bringing military officers into considerations of national policy. The idea stated in point 1 above is quite different. It focuses on two key issues that have never been correctly faced in Bangladesh: the strategic objectives of the country as defined by its relationships with other countries and the determination of military requirements based on the strategic objectives. Instead the size and mix of the military services is based on no strategic objectives but is determined in some mysterious way. To develop the strategic objectives and the military requirements that arise from them is the objective of a national security council. Now strategic objectives are set without reference to the military and military force levels are set without consideration of the strategic objectives. This was just fine when it did not matter very much. Now that Bangladesh is in the Bull’s Eye there is grave danger in not approaching the strategic objectives and military force levels in an intelligent, purposeful way.

As for the importance of stability of policy, that is up to the political leaders. In the United States at the beginning of the cold war in 1948 the two major political parties more or less agreed on the strategic objectives of the nation and worked out the implied force levels and roles of the military organizations. Neither party ever seriously challenged the underlying strategic objectives. During the next two decades as the cold war between China and the USA develops and escalates, Bangladesh can no longer sit out from the action. The long term survival of the nation depends on finding a strategic policy that is accepted by most of the population and in particular by the major political leaders. The choices are tough but must be faced.

Bangladesh Army's New Type59G MBT

Bangladesh Army's New Type59G MBT

China Defense Blog: Bangladesh Army's New Type59G MBT

Bangladesh Army's New Type59G MBT 

According to our friend, the Bangladesh Military Forum, (http://www.%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a.com/) (*********** = bdmilitary), the first public appearance of the long-expected Type 59G was reported by today's Channel-i news.

In essence, this latest Type59MBT variant is a Type 96G in a Type59 body modified to carry a 125mm main gun, a modern fire control system, and the latest Chinese armor protection package. A total of 300 examples of Type59G will be rebuild from the existing fleet. In addition to the Type59G rebuild program, theBangladesh army will procure the Type96 MBT in due course as part of a greater modernization drive. Since both MBTs are sharing many common components, this will greatly reduce the load on the existing logistic infrastructure.

Here is a list of Chinese land forces hardware to be procured by the Bangladesh Army compiled by BMF.


****
* 7 x Type 96 MBTs (Not delivered yet, but eventually a couple of regiments)
* 5 x MBT ARV (Chinese, for MBT2000/Type 96 recovery)
* 300 x Type 59 MBT Upgrade (1 spotted at Dhaka; Army named them as "Type 59 G")
* 1 x SPH Regt (Chinese 122 or 155 mm SPH is expected)
* 1 x ADA Regiment (This complements another air defence regiment in BDA. Regiment is equivalent of brigade; Equipped with Chinese AAGs and MANPADS).

****Including a couple of pictures, which might be interesting reference material.

Profile for new Type 59G MBT at *************** created with input from armoured corps officer, photo analysis and Chinese defense websites:

http://www.%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a%2a.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=333&Itemid=97 (*********** = bdmilitary)