Worst-case scenario w/bin Laden

[gunnut]

Why?

Again, are US leaders stupid enough to set back, perhaps irreversibly, US goals in the region with respect to stability and ending support for extremism, that they would take choose 'pointless bravado'?

If so, no wonder the US continues to flail in Afghanistan.

Ahem...who's in the White House?

[S2]

A.M. Reply

"If so, no wonder the US continues to flail in Afghanistan..."

Go light here. You tread on immensely shaky ground with your rhetoric.

I'll take our flailing, such as it is as interlopers to Afghanistan with 1,000 KIA over 10 years of combat to your own abysmal record of failing inside your own country and your accrued casualties since the Bajaur operation (your first of note) in September 2008.

The time difference alone is staggering. So too the comparative casualties. Finally, we've the excuse of Ferenghi. What's your's? You may rail at the notion of a "failed state" but Pakistan is hardly anybody's success model. The world had to beg Pakistan to save itself from itself with the taliban conquest of Swat and invasion of Buner.

[Parihaka]

At least I sure hope so.

Ditto

[Agnostic Muslim]

What else would you send from Mushaf?

Check your airbase link for fighters based there.

[S2]

"The US force went in for Bin Laden. An OPFOR against that operation would be one opposing the effort to avenge 3000 Americans. To allow it any type of success would be to convey the message that the US could tolerate active protection of someone who poses what's characterized as an existential threat to the US. A weak response would substantively degrade any deterrence value of the strike. Any Pakistani attempt at mounting such, would have been met with a "robust" response.

The results would be messy, but at the end of the day, one side is The Superpower, and the other side, is a 3rd world country."

This isn't bravado. Given the speculating nature of this scenario Citanon is lucidly spot-on. The response from America would be unequivocable and overwhelming. The internal debates would be short to nonexistent and the ensuing combat would be waged remorselessly until your armed forces ceased to exist as a regional or internat'l threat.

We'd have no choice should Pakistan stand between OBL and ourselves. Armitage's alleged non-comments to Musharraf would absolutely come home to roost.

[Parihaka]

"The US force went in for Bin Laden. An OPFOR against that operation would be one opposing the effort to avenge 3000 Americans. To allow it any type of success would be to convey the message that the US could tolerate active protection of someone who poses what's characterized as an existential threat to the US. A weak response would substantively degrade any deterrence value of the strike. Any Pakistani attempt at mounting such, would have been met with a "robust" response.

The results would be messy, but at the end of the day, one side is The Superpower, and the other side, is a 3rd world country."

This isn't bravado. Given the speculating nature of this scenario Citanon is lucidly spot-on. The response from America would be unequivocable and overwhelming. The internal debates would be short to nonexistent and the ensuing combat would be waged remorselessly until your armed forces ceased to exist as a regional or internat'l threat.

We'd have no choice should Pakistan stand between OBL and ourselves. Armitage's alleged non-comments to Musharraf would absolutely come home to roost.

As proved in real life it wouldn't really take that much in the scenario. Destroy the PAF and block a road or two. End of story.

[gunnut]

Check your airbase link for fighters based there.

Wiki is what I could find. Unless you have other sources...

Besides, F-16 is the most advanced fighter in PAF inventory. J-7 is a daylight fighter and is 50 years old. Mirage III is getting up there. It makes the most sense the most capable fighter fleet would be kept at the highest ready level. F-16 is also the only night capable fighter with the best radar among the 3. It doesn't make sense to scramble the J-7 or the Mirage III.

[Stitch]

Useless bravado.

End of story.

A.M. - If you have the chance, read "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of Seal Team 10", by Marcus Luttrell; this was SEAL Team 10, not ST6. If a "regular" SEAL team would go through this, can you imagine what ST6 would do? Members of ST6 are down-selected from the OTHER fourteen SEAL teams; not only do the members have to actually make it onto a "regular" SEAL team to begin with (with a 75% fail rate), they have to qualify for the ultimate team, ST6. Failure is not an option.

[Officer of Engineers]

As proved in real life it wouldn't really take that much in the scenario. Destroy the PAF and block a road or two. End of story.

I think our two Pakistani posters should start realizing something. Pakistan is a nuclear weapons power. A nuclear weapons power with zero abilities to reach the US.

[Dago]

Over OBL's body and a couple dozen SEAL's who would likely be returned?

Not likely.

Um, basically yes. It would solely be, over OBL, as that was the mission. And if we took casualties, by you Pakistani's, I could guarantee that there would be far greater retaliation, and be twice as many on your side. We aren't the Indians, nor any other Regional power you have faced.

Wow - you even have that old Pakistani Army officer beat who argued that '1 Pakistani soldier was equal to 10 Indians'

Heck, you are talking '20 to 1'.:Dancing-Banana:

Another attempting to sound smart comment.

Battle of Guadalcanal - John Basilone? After his 15 member group was reduced to 2 other soldiers held off an attack by "...a regiment of approximately 3,000 soldiers from the Japanese Sendai Division".

Give us your ratio. Since you seem to be obsessed and awed over ratios! - Here is the dancing banana dance for you. I'll do it for you. :Dancing-Banana:

How would you take the assertion that the Japanese Sendai Division has seen more combat than any other Pakistani soldier? Yet, even a well trained regiment were held off! Probably asserts that combat can be pretty much unpredictable and also can say how much of an advantage of one side can have over the other. Which would involve more then just 20 of my toy soldiers vs 10 of yours - Rook takes Knight - I win mentality.

So, speaking relatively of that area, in that amount of time, I would make the assertion it would be by far of your better well trained force, and I would also assert, would lack any real organizational skills too repel an attack of a combined group of Navy SEALS. As long as the duration was not permitted to exceed the following conditions (A) Run out of ammo or (B) The enemy amassing any qualitative, numerical, and capable force of dislodging said force

This is just basic, rationale stuff. This is far from your readinesses area, and the other side has the initiative. This was completely caught off-guard.

It would look more like Somali, and sorry to say, they seen more combat than Pakistani's in that area. They also were drugged, and amped up in that area. Yet they were held off from what? Do you remember? Maybe you can come up with a ratio with that.

Why would the US push the issue to a confrontation given that they stand to gain nothing from it either, even if they are capable of destroying the Pakistani military?

How do we know that the reason the PAF jets never intercepted the Blackhawks was because the US did in fact contact Pakistan
(1) When the operation at the compound was underway and it was a matter of time when Pakistani forces would arrive.
(2) When the PAF jets were scrambled.

You have no basis.

Even your own Government denies that they were notified until after the operation. And there were no reports of Pakistani planes being scrambled by your Government.

One could also be said, the Pakistani never scrambled jets, as it didn't want to risk conflict with the United States, and knew that there assets would be vulnerable, and the Military made the call not too send vulnerable air craft in the air. Instead, they would just make a formal, diplomatic protest.

So the US would potentially start a regional war and demolish any chance of stabilizing the region and weakening terrorist organizations, the very purpose for which the US is militarily engaged in the region and conducting said mission to take out OBL, than have ST6 surrender, returned, and OBKL still arrested/killed?

You really don't know how service is nor being part of Special operations of respective armed forces? Do you ? I can tell, this is all from a college dorm - somewhere.

Look, I would expect even your Country armed forces to follow the chain of command - and - follow objectives.

And liked followed up from before, ST6 would not surrender, you can say it's against there creed. In the type of conflict these elite forces train for - in denied areas, outnumbered, utilizing hit and run tactics - "..."Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and which employ specialized military capabilities to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets. Direct action differs from conventional offensive actions in the level of physical and political risk, operational techniques, and the degree of discriminate and precise use of force to achieve specific objectives."

These are missions that they train for, operating in denied areas.

Something you can possibly read up on this subject, of this "bravado" you attempt to understand, can come from our friends from across the Atlantic. Google - Bravo Two Zero. Probably the most realistic environment you can come close too of survival, being out numbered, in a denied area.

Sounds like a lot of stupid bravado and testosterone pumped generals in the US military decision making process if that is the case.

Same could be said of Pakistani Generals that would think of such a scenario of attempting "to arrest", "capture" or kill United States Special Operation forces.

It's hard to understand in a college dorm, however, you will not expect SEAL team members to just say "Hey boys, that's a night, we won't complete our mission" As Pakistani's say "Hey you are under arrest put down your weapons".

Your view of conflict and Special Operations is sound! Sarcasm. How could I argue with you! I mean in the middle of a warzone your supposed to trust the other side with your safety and your men's safety. Heck why attempt a mission that you will just surrender?

You honestly think these boys would give up there weapon? That's your only safety. ;) How about you guys throw down your weapons, turn around and walk back to your families, while we complete our mission, thats what I would say. :)

Steele: Sergeant, what's the meaning of this?
[Thinking he's talking about the unauthorized pig picking]
"Hoot": Just a little aerial target practice, sir. Didn't want to leave 'em behind.
Steele: I'm talking about your weapon, soldier. Now Delta or no-Delta, that's still a hot weapon. Your safety should be on at all times.
"Hoot": This is my safety, sir.
[He holds up his index finger and bends motions as if squeezing a trigger and then walks off]
Sanderson: Let it alone, sir. He hasn't eaten in a few days.

Put a lil humor in this thread...

[Mihais]

Now that's jingoism at its finest.

[Dago]

The F-16 A's are not the only fighters at the base.

OK - MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT.

(A) Provide detailed count and combat equipment (Aircraft)
(B) Support Aircraft
(C) Combined Capabilities in said area (range, sortie time, and loiter time)

[Dago]

Now that's jingoism at its finest.

I would have too agree. Though you have to admit - there is jingoism to go around for everyone.

However, you would think it would be better to argue realties than hypothetical scenarios that are made up to serve the otherside POV. Ad nauseum.

[Chogy]

No one knows the stealth characteristics of the modified Blackhawks, but I would speculate (that's all we are doing here anyhow) that there is simply no way to turn a helicopter into an F-22 or even an F-117 in terms of RCS. But helicopters in general have an advantage in that their pure slowness makes them sometimes difficult to track against a background. The return from a slow helicopter is often based upon the moving parts - the blades, both main and tail. If these could be removed (magically) and a helicopter is flying below a certain speed, it simply will not be seen by a fighter.

To get a good track requires velocity, and the aspect angle must be near 0 or 180 degrees, meaning the helicopter is either flying towards, or away from, the airborne radar.

Probably the only Pakistani platform with any chance of intercepting these would have been their F-16C's. These would have to be airborne and on a lucky axis to make any sort of intercept. But U.S. planners could not assume there would be none in the area. It could have been as unlucky for the U.S. as to have armed F-16's simply running routine night maneuvers at the right time, right place. And if I were in charge of this mission, I would request F-22's and make use of their stealth and importantly outstanding dash capabilties.

Begs the question - if that was the case (orbiting F-22's) do you use them if F-16's are getting close? I'd have to say yes. One cannot assume the helicopters would not be detected/tracked. And if that worst-case scenario had come about, the political fallout would have been 100X what we have today. It would have been very ugly.

[notorious_eagle]

J-7 is a daylight fighter and is 50 years old.

Not true, the F7PG's are day/night interceptors. They have been used extensively by PAF for interception and carrying out CAP's.

Mirage III is getting up there.

Mirage III after the ROSE I upgrades can perform day/night interception.

It makes the most sense the most capable fighter fleet would be kept at the highest ready level.

Indeed but all fighter type aircrafts in PAF are always kept ready to cater the threat on our Eastern borders, the serviceability ratio of PAF Fleet is around 90% which is pretty good.

F-16 is also the only night capable fighter with the best radar among the 3.

The radar for Mirage which is Grifo M3 is equivalent to that of Block 15's APG 66. But i guess this will change as all the F16's in PAF's fleet are upgraded with APG68(V9) radars.

It doesn't make sense to scramble the J-7 or the Mirage III.

I remember in 2008 when public anger against the Drones were at an all time high, Mirage III's were launched to intercept them. It makes sense to actually launch the JF17 as they are based in Peshawar, the distance between Peshawar-Abbottabad is less than Sargodha-Abbottabad where the F16's are b

I think our two Pakistani posters should start realizing something. Pakistan is a nuclear weapons power. A nuclear weapons power with zero abilities to reach the US.

Sir we are well aware of the fact that the United States is a Super Power, it would be suicidal for Pakistan to get into a shooting war with the US. But the question is, will the US destabilize the entire region by attacking Pakistan's military assets as a show of force as some members over here are advocating? I have my doubts. The US leaders are going out of there way to build trust with Pakistan, the American policy makers are well aware of the fact that destabilization of the region is not America's best interests.