The curious case of a misfired missile

A Pakistani newspaper announced about crashing of a private jet on the evening of March 09. The jet was reported to be used for training fell on a cold storage in Mian Channu village, Khanewal District. The pilot had reportedly ejected and was safe. PAK media reported no loss of life or injury as the location of crash had no human presence. Soon after, the army authorities cordoned off the area and cleared the civilians away from the crash site. Suspicions arose about the incident as private single seater aircraft rarely have ejection seats or jet engines.  

Two days after the incident, Pakistan’s DGISPR, Major General Babar Iftikhar announced: “A supersonic flying object, most probably a missile from India travelling at 40,000 feet covered over 250 kilometers and landed inside Pakistan territory on March 9 at 6:43 pm. Speaking about the missile’s warhead, he said, “It was an “unarmed projectile that damaged civilian properties.”

Pakistan claimed, the incident caused no loss or injury to human life. Pakistan Air Force claimed about continuously tracking the projectile coming from India at the speed of 2.8 Mach and the flight path was monitored from point of origin near Sirsa in India till the impact point near Mian Channu. There were also conflicting claims about Pakistan's air defence system bringing down the Indian flying object, while Gen Babar said that the projectile fell on its own and was not shot down.

India and Pakistan have repeatedly tested each other’s air defence system’s reaction times. Preceding the Balakot Air-Strike, Indian Air Force had flown a lot of Combat Air Patrols along Line of Control to spook off Pakistan’s air defences. The touch and go CAP missions were aimed at gauging the PAF air-defence response time. The interesting part is, when Pakistan tried to test the IAF interceptor’s response during the Kargil War. The IAF responded by shooting down a PN Atlantique off Kutch. Speculations were rife with social media. “Was the Missile firing incident one such attempt?”

India did take some time to regret the accidental frining of the missile into Pakistan because of a technical fault. The ‘incident’ was viewed seriously by the Indian establishment as a court of inquiry was ordered. Indian establishment didn’t name the misfired missile or mention the warhead of the missile. Several media reports claimed the missile being a frontline supersonic cruise missile.

Unconfirmed reports originating from India suggest that the 'missile' was actually a modified version of the ISRO (GSLV MKIII - MI) rocket which had been mistakenly shipped to Sirsa. The Indian Defence Ministry has categorically stated that it was not a 'Missile firing', but a 'high speed flying object' and the same has been corroborated by Pakistan’s DGISPR, Maj Gen Babar Iftikhar at a press briefing.

Unofficial reports are also doing the rounds that though the 'flying object' did have a tactical nuclear warhead (less than 1 KT) mated to it, the activation codes could not be located during maintenance period, nor was the 'self-destruct code' available at hand as the same had been kept under lock and key for safe keeping.

Pakistan’s security establishment criticized India for taking two days to accept the fact about the missile mishap. Pakistan’s Air Vice-Marshall Tariq Zia claimed the supersonic speed and the height of 40,000 feet of the Indian projectile could have endangered lives of passengers travelling in commercial flights, which fly between 35,000 to 42,000 feet.

Failure of Pakistan’s Air Defence

The Pakistan Army is in charge of the country’s integrated air defence, having motto of ‘defence by denial’. It comprises AEW&C, ground-based radars, HQ-7 command-line-of-sight short range ground-to-air defence, anti-aircraft artillery, shoulder fired Surface to Air Missiles and the F-16 and Mirage 3E interceptor jets drew first line of defence. China made LY-80 or HQ-16-Low to Medium Altitude Air Defense (LOMADS) is the mainstay of Pakistan’s air defence from incoming enemy aircraft and missiles. China and Pakistan both claim the LY-80 as the best deterrent against India’s Missiles.  

Pakistan’s constitution puts the responsibility for national defence on the military unlike India where the Defence Secretary and MoD are responsible for defence of the country, with the armed forces playing a secondary but fairly important role. The incident has resulted in a huge turmoil inside the Pak defence establishment as army and the Air Force want civilian leaders and bureaucrats to be responsible for defense of the country.

Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan Niazi has chaired an emergency closed door meeting of Cabinet Committee on National Security, with Principal Military Adviser, Intelligence Advisers, Cabinet Ministers, top military leadership and bureaucrats in attendance on the projectile issue.

Initial reports suggest about a major shake-up in PAK’s air defence establishment, citing incompetency on their part. A Qatar-based international news channel reported about sacking of Pakistan’s top Air Defence Commander after the incident. In addition, the Vice Chief of the Pakistan Air Force and one more Air Marshal have been asked to put in their papers for voluntary retirement.

Fearing the missile incident being a larger plot by India and underlying fear that EW and communication resources may have been compromised, Pakistan has commenced a major audit and RF frequency change of all passive and active radar emitters as well as ECM, ECCM and allied EW measures on emergent basis.

Read | BrahMos supersonic missile will now be able to destroy enemy targets up to 800 km

Immediately after citing the dummy ‘flying object, PAK’s Air Defence Operations Centre jumped in to action, suspending all the military and civilian flying for almost six hours to sanitize the air space. Frontline bases were put on high alert as most strike aircraft remained on runway readiness till 1300 hours on March 14. It is believed that this was necessitated as a 'purely defensive measure' following the 'accidental' Indian missile launch, during routine maintenance and final 'landing' near Mian Channu.

The DGISPR made claims to track the missile from launching onwards. But, the actual flight path of the missile and the one claimed by the Pakistanis are different. The missile could travel for four minutes traversing 124 km inside Pakistan before crash goes to show, it was neither tracked nor intercepted. Pakistan’s defence establishment is averse to using missile defences, unless the target is GHQ. Can cash-strapped Pakistan even afford to test fire the LY-80 air defence missiles costing a whopping 6.27 million apiece?

Pakistan’s Chinese-made LY-80/HQ-16 air defense - Surface to Air Missiles batteries and IBIS-150 air defence radars didn't track or intercept India’s Balakot Air Strike on February 26, 2019 and the incoming misfired missile on March 09, 2022. If the ‘misfired’ missile had travelled for another three minutes toward west, it could have reached Bahawalpur, residence of India’s most wanted terrorist and LeT chief Hafeez Saeed, responsible for 26/11 terror attacks on Mumbai.  

Pakistan’s air defence capabilities are now being questioned by Pakistani defence establishment and civilians alike. There are multiple states equating Chinese-made LY-80 surface-to-air missile systems with "Chinese goods because of malfunctioning of systems." Reports claim, most of the LY-8- LOMADS air defence systems are out of operation even after onsite repairing by the Chinese OEM. Pakistan Army is wasting the taxpayers’ money by buying junk military hardware from China.  

In the backdrop of Chinese aggression on Taiwan, this incident might prove to be an eye-opener about effectiveness of the Indian missiles and fragility of the LY-80. Taiwan defence forces’ purchase order for missiles from India will give them an immense advantage against Chinese air defences. 

The DGISPR’s press conference on March 10th was without the normal hue and cry. No US or UN intervention in the matter was sought. Does the uneasy calm after the not so accidental missile launch invariably hint towards a huge cover-up by both the sides? The incident might have been laid to rest with Pakistan’s press conference and India’s clarification on the matter. The accidental incident might be a convenient truth for both the sides to accept. Pakistan army claimed that the site of missile crash was a cold storage. But a close analysis of the debris shows the building to be a workshop or a warehouse having motors and lathe machines. Pakistan army cordoned off the area for two days and cleared something to be hidden from general public and the world. 

Pakistan claimed there was no warhead in the missile. But visuals shared by ISPR and open source videos of the crash site reveal the extant of the damage which shattered the entire structure, collapsing the walls. A warhead burst's overpressure can only cause such widespread damage. The missile’s crater doesn’t look much deep. Did the warhead burst in air? India’s supersonic missile could have burst and passed through the walls, if the warehouse at Mian Channu was not the target, the missile would have left an entry and an exit hole while not leaving such huge devastation. Doesn’t the damage show clearly, the missile has hit the pre-designated target? 

The Surgical and Air Strikes have shown that India’s present military posture is of offensive defence. The missile missed the civilian targets nearby to target the only ‘un-inhibited’ building. Is Pakistan covering up something to hide behind the ‘accidental fire claim’ to avoid revealing a high value target?

The author is a veteran of the Indian Navy. 

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own and do not reflect those of DNA.)