Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 Dec 2014 03:03

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6648 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 167  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2012 11:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31
Posts: 412
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/china ... 6ac839afff

Quote:
Chinese Nuclear Force Modernization: How Much is Enough?

Publication: China Brief Volume: 12 Issue: 8April 12, 2012 03:56 PM Age: 1 daysCategory: China Brief, Elite, Military/Security, China and the Asia-Pacific

By: Michael S. Chase

The modernization of China’s nuclear missile force capabilities has led a number of analysts to ponder the question of “how much is enough” for China. Some have speculated that China may take advantage of the declining numbers of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals to “rush to parity” with the nuclear superpowers. Others have even argued China already could have secretly amassed a much larger number of nuclear weapons than is widely believed, apparently basing this conclusion largely on their interpretation of the motives behind China’s large-scale construction of tunnels to support Second Artillery Force (SAF) operations (Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2011; “China’s ‘Underground Great Wall’ and Nuclear Deterrence,” China Brief, December 16, 2009). No compelling evidence has been provided to support these assertions, however, and several analysts have shown that they are based on questionable sourcing and flawed research (Asia Security Watch, January 9; Federation of American Scientists, December 3, 2011). Nonetheless, Chinese nuclear force modernization is real in both quantitative and qualitative terms. As the latest Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China indicated, China is moving toward a larger and more survivable force consisting of silo-based and road-mobile ballistic missiles and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).

These force modernization developments should come as no surprise. China has long sought an assured retaliation capability, though for many years China lived with a relatively modest and potentially vulnerable nuclear force [1]. More recently, however, China has been modernizing its nuclear forces in pursuit of “effective” nuclear deterrence, a requirement that can be traced to Chinese military publications such as the 1987 edition of the authoritative book, The Science of Military Strategy. More recently, China’s national defense white paper in 2006 described China’s nuclear strategy as requiring a “lean and effective nuclear force capable of meeting national security needs” but official Chinese sources provide little in the way of specifics with regard to how many nuclear weapons or what type of force structure is required to meet this objective (State Council Information Office, China’s National Defense in 2006). Non-governmental experts in the United States estimate China currently has a few hundred nuclear warheads [2]. Given China’s lack of transparency, however, analysts must draw their own conclusions about how many nuclear weapons Beijing believes will be enough to allow China to achieve its deterrence objectives in the future.

The writings of Chinese strategists shed some light on this problem in that they suggest quite strongly that China will continue to modernize and expand its nuclear missile force These same strategists, however, see little benefit to be gained by amassing thousands of nuclear weapons in an attempt to achieve parity with the United States and Russia. With respect to its nuclear missile force, China has shown determination to maintain the secure, second-strike capability that is required to ensure that it will have a credible strategic deterrence force—even in the face of advances in adversary ISR, precision strike and missile defense capabilities. Yet the writings of Chinese strategists strongly suggest going much beyond what is required for an unquestionably credible assured retaliation capability would lead to diminishing returns at best and strategic instability at worst. For example, Major General Yao Yunzhu of the PLA’s Academy of Military Science (AMS), a prominent analyst of nuclear issues, argues China adheres to the views of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, who clearly believed “deterrent effectiveness does not increase in proportion with numbers of nuclear weapons,” but rather that “a survivable and invulnerable small arsenal can be equally effective in terms of deterrence” [3]. Along similar lines, Sun Xiangli argues the experience of the U.S.-Soviet competition during the Cold War shows the pursuit of a “war-fighting” strategy “does not substantially increase the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.” Moreover, because it requires a very large nuclear arsenal, it consumes “substantial economic and technological resources.” Worse still, Sun argues, large arsenals and “war-fighting” strategies lead to strategic instability and increase the risk of nuclear war [4].

Assessments such as these appear to reflect the longstanding views of senior leaders. As a recent article based on Chinese military publications and the memoirs and selected works of key figures in China’s nuclear weapons programs points out, “Chinese leaders have believed that nuclear weapons were basically unusable on the battlefield and that once mutual deterrence was achieved, a larger arsenal or arms racing would be costly, counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating” [5]. China thus is unlikely to attempt to exceed the United States or Russia in terms of the number of nuclear weapons it deploys. Nonetheless, there is ample reason to believe Beijing will increase the size of its nuclear arsenal as needed to ensure that it maintains an assured retaliation capability in response to perceived security challenges. This could result in substantial increases to the quantity and quality of China’s nuclear arsenal.

Indeed, many observers expect China to field a larger and more sophisticated nuclear force over the next 10 to 15 years. The DIA presentation in the annual worldwide threat assessment provided Congress expresses this foreign consensus. Last year, DIA Director Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr. testified “[China] currently has fewer than 50 ICBMs that can strike the continental United States, but probably will more than double that number by 2025” (DIA Public Affairs, March 10, 2011).

At least three key factors are likely to influence Chinese decision-making about what exactly it requires in terms of nuclear force structure. First, at a broad level, China’s perception of its external security environment and its relationships with major powers is an important consideration. At a more operational level, China also must consider potential nuclear and conventional threats to its silo-based, road-mobile and sea-based nuclear forces. Finally, China also will weigh its concerns about future missile defense developments that could undermine its ability to maintain an assured retaliation posture capable of deterring potential adversaries.

Chinese scholars suggest missile defense is the most important factor in determining China’s future requirements. According to Yao Yunzhu, for example, U.S. missile defense deployments will be “the most significant factor that will influence China’s nuclear calculus” [6]. Furthermore, according to Chu and Rong, “Trying to retain the credibility of its nuclear deterrent in the face of a BMD system, China may increase its nuclear arsenal until it is beyond doubt that it is large enough” [7]. Chinese writers rarely provide specific numbers, but Chu and Rong suggest perhaps 200 nuclear warheads could be needed today, with that number possibly increasing to 300 or 400 in the future.

Yao writes China will need to “reevaluate the sufficiency of its nuclear arsenal to counter U.S. missile defense systems and retain a guaranteed ability to retaliate.”Yao argues, however, such a reassessment will result only in variation in the size of China’s nuclear arsenal, not in changes to the “basic nature” of China’s nuclear policy. In short, as Yao puts it, the purpose of Chinese nuclear missile force modernization “is to keep valid its longstanding nuclear policy” [8].

Implications of Chinese Nuclear Missile Force Developments

In recent years, the SAF has made impressive strides in the development of its nuclear deterrence capabilities. The deployment of road mobile ICBMs is giving China the assured retaliation capability it has long sought for its growing, but still relatively small nuclear missile force. Over the next ten years, China can be expected to continue to strengthen the SAF’s nuclear missile force, which will remain the most important element of China’s nuclear deterrent posture. Perhaps the most vital development in this regard could be the deployment of MIRVed road-mobile ICBMs.

China almost certainly does not plan to build thousands of nuclear weapons, but the development of Chinese nuclear capabilities still will have major implications. First, the SAF’s growing nuclear arsenal will make China a more important consideration in discussions about future nuclear arms control agreements. Chinese nuclear force modernization will become a more important consideration for Russia and the United States as they reduce the size of their own nuclear arsenals. Moreover, China’s integration into the global nuclear reduction process that President Obama outlined in his 2009 Prague speech, as well as that of the other nuclear powers, will eventually be required to make further progress toward his long-term vision of a world free of nuclear weapons—a goal recently echoed by Hu Jintao (Xinhua, March 27). The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review reflects this challenge, stating, “over time” the United States “will also engage with other nuclear weapon states, including China, on ways to expand the nuclear reduction process in the future.”

Chinese scholars expect that China will face greater pressure as a result. Teng Jianqun of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs-run think tank China Institute for International Studies, for example, sees Washington’s approach as still focused mainly on Russia, but notes “as bilateral disarmament progresses, the US will certainly pay increasing attention to China’s arms control policies” [9]. Beijing, however, is clearly reluctant to be drawn into the process, especially given China’s small nuclear arsenal relative to the U.S. and Russian arsenals. As Teng explains, “American and Russian stockpiles make up more than 90 percent of the world’s total nuclear weapons. Though both nearly have halved their nuclear arsenals since the end of the Cold War, their total number of nuclear weapons is still many times greater than that of states with small nuclear forces. Only when the two great nuclear powers have reduced their arsenals to an appropriate level will China follow suit.” It should be noted, however, that government-affiliated Chinese analysts have not specified what number would constitute an “appropriate level,” suggesting Beijing will remain reluctant to enter into such negotiations.

Second, beyond the implications for arms control, challenges for escalation management that arise from the SAF’s growing capabilities and evolving doctrine also merit consideration. In particular, some of China’s thinking with respect to using the missile force to send signals aimed at influencing an adversary raises the possibility of miscalculation or inadvertent escalation in a crisis. The risk of miscalculation could be heightened by uncertainty over the message that one side is trying to convey to the other or by overconfidence in the ability to control escalation. Some of the signaling activities described in Chinese publications easily could be interpreted not as a demonstration of resolve or as a warning, but as preparation to conduct actual nuclear missile strikes, possibly decreasing the ability of policymakers to successfully manage an unfolding crisis or even escalating a conflict rather than limiting its destructiveness.

Indeed, some Chinese sources raise troubling questions about potential miscalculations that could result from attempts to increase the intensity of deterrence during a crisis or a conventional conflict. For instance, one SAF publication suggests Chinese missile force units can attempt to deter an adversary by conducting simulated missile launches. For China’s solid-fueled mobile systems, this involves deploying the mobile missile forces to training areas and fake launch sites just before the enemy’s reconnaissance satellites are about to pass overhead. The mobile missile units can then prepare their equipment, erect the missiles and conduct pre-launch inspections. China’s liquid-fueled missiles also can carry out simulated launch preparations. The purpose is to persuade the enemy to believe China’s missile forces are prepared to strike enemy targets, thus convincing the enemy to abandon activities that China considers particularly threatening. According to the same SAF publication, such simulated missile launches “make the enemy believe that our missile forces are already in a situation of waiting for an opportunity or conducting pre-combat exercises; because of this, the enemy will consider the consequences and abandon some of its activities” [10].

Although Chinese authors appear to demonstrate at least some awareness of the danger that actions intended to deter an adversary could instead trigger escalation, discussions of these risks in the relevant publications are quite limited. For instance, Zhao Xijun notes deterrence must be calibrated to maximize the chances of achieving the desired results. If the level of threat is too low, it will not influence the enemy; but, if it is too high, the enemy may lash out in desperation. Zhao also offers a cautionary note that deterrence operations accidentally could trigger escalation if they are poorly timed: "Whether the timing for conducting the military deterrence of the missile forces is correctly chosen will directly affect the progress of deterrence and its outcome. If the appropriate timing is chosen, then deterrence will deter the enemy, contain the eruption of war and obtain the objective of peace with the small price of deterrence. If inappropriate timing is chosen, then deterrence may cause the situation to deteriorate, even leading to the eruption and escalation of war" [11]. Nonetheless, how Chinese decision makers would determine the “right” timing is not clearly specified, and the available sources suggest that Chinese thinking about the risks of specific actions may be rather underdeveloped. Importantly, they do not appear to reflect a detailed assessment of how potential adversaries might react to some of these actions, which could make attempts at escalation management in a crisis or conflict extremely challenging and potentially very dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Apr 2012 22:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Posts: 1306
^^^^
The Chinese have a tendency to speak one thing and do something entirely different. The above analysis can at best be defined as what is available in the public domain with regard to Chinese thought process on number of nuclear weapons.

If we were to take India's case, then we need nukes not only for Chinese cities, but also for massed Chinese Armour, Chinese troops, Chinese naval forces, Pakistani cities and some spare just in case. All urban dwellings having a population of 30 lakhs or more are valid target. Further one-to-one weapon mapping, i.e. designating one missile to one target is never enough. We need secondary delivery systems, i.e. SLBM, air to surface long range missiles, along with Surface-to-Surface missiles. In such circumstances, do we have the necessary uranium ore to target all of these targets?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Apr 2012 07:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11356
Location: India
There is a key flaw in China,its geography, that India and other nations worried about China's aggro must note and exploit.China has only one seaboard,unlike India or the US which have two or in truth three.The US has the advantage of having two oceans to ingress and egress from,our IOR is also not that bad as ,the ocean opens wide in the south towards Antarctica.China ,despite its huge landmass,is however constrained by the so-called "island chains",which it has planned to progressively control or dominate.Therefore,containing PLAN operations within the inner two island chains,as until it possesses true carriers it cannot challenge the US in the Pacific,will force it to stay within a designated and protracted body of water,the seas bordering SoKo,Japan,Taiwan and the Indo-China Sea,where the Phillipines and Indonesia complete the ring.The Indo-China Sea is the largest body of water from which China can breakout from the encirclement,through the two above mentioned island nations and into waters bordering Oz and NZ.This is one reason why China is claiming almost all the small island territories and extending unilaterally its sovereignty over the entire maritime region.By keeping the region in dispute and forcibly occupying the islands close to Indonesia and the Phillipines,China is physically extending its borders-just as it is doing in the Himalayas with India,so that it can later on establish forward bases or outposts ,making "breakout" even easier.Once "breakout" is achieved by PLAN forces,the "string of pearls" which it is assiduously threading together will enable it to hop from logistic base-to-base,connecting up all the way to its main IOR and Gulf naval base at Gwadar.This is why the PRC is also now trying to get Arctic "certification" from the nations that use the northern passage through the Arctic Sea,increasingly accessible because of global warming.However,the PLAN and PRC merchantmen would have to run the gauntlet of waters dominated by Japan,Russia-and one can see the glee with which the USN from Alaska would welcome into its crosshairs any PLAN ships !


What the Phillipines is now bravely doing,stopping the Chinese expansion through its little navy,has to be supported to the hilt,as if the Phillipines fails to stop the Chinese "takeaway" so close to its island landmass,the Chinese will be breathing right up the nostrils of all the ASEAN states in the maritime sphere.Indian needs to accelerate its naval cooperation plans with Vietnam and permanently have on station in the Indo-China Sea a squadron comprising both surface and underwater assets ,as well as land-based LRMP assets ,operating either from Vietnamese air stations and/or from the A&N islands to keep the PLAN firmly inside the first two island chains and preventing it from "breaking out" into the IOR in force in a crisis.

For this,the IN requires apart from the diplomatic agreements with the ASEAN nations,extra surface vessels and especially subs to counter the dozens of subs that China possesses,which year after year are increasingly being of new construction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Apr 2012 21:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31
Posts: 412
About 340+ K-8 now have been exported...

http://chinesemil.blogspot.ca/2012/04/z ... e-k-8.html

Quote:
Monday, April 16, 2012

Zambian Air Force buys more K-8 trainers from China

Image

K-8 Karakorum has been an export success for Chinese arm industry.

The Zambian Air Force has officially taken delivery of another eight K-8P jet trainers from the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC), bringing the number in service to 15.

The aircraft were delivered to Mumbwa air base in Zambia on March 21 and officially accepted during a ceremony there last Thursday, according to Zambian media. Zambian Air Force (ZAF) commander Lieutenant General Eric Chimese said that the jets will enhance the military wing’s ability to patrol the country and safeguard its airspace.

“Increased mining and economic activities have put pressure on us to monitor who is flying in and out of the country,” he said. “In order for us to remain relevant as an air force, the significance of keeping our aircraft in a state of readiness cannot be overemphasized. As professionals, it is our duty to ensure that aircraft is maintained and ready for use whenever required.”

Defence Minister Geoffrey Mwamba said during handover that the government was committed to ensuring that peace continued to prevail in Zambia, the Times of Zambia reports. “In accepting the new aircraft, I wish to pledge my government’s commitment to keep the machines in optimum condition by regularly providing resources for spares. This is in an effort to improve standards in the defence forces in order to make them viable and sustainable. I urge you to make maximum use of the equipment and take care of it,” Mwamba said.

“For the lifespan of the aircraft to be guarantee, spares for maintenance need to be provided as and when required. We call upon CATIC to render due and timely support in this regard,” he added.

CATIC vice-president Liu Jianhai said his company had provided Zambia with different aircraft and other services since 1979 and was happy that the good relations between Zambia and China had continued.

In 1999 Zambia received eight K-8s in kit form. “Last year in November, we witnessed the handover of a fleet of upgraded old K-8P aircraft by CATIC. This is in addition to other machines that the government is currently in the process of sourcing from CATIC, such as helicopters,” Mwamba said. “All this underscores the wonderful relations we share.” According to the Jane’s information group, Zambia’s air force is hampered by a lack of spares and a shortage of flying hours. Although it has sufficient capacity to transport troops and cargo, its combat capability is very limited. Transport capacity was boosted by the delivery of five Y-12 and two MA60 aircraft from China in 2006.

Indeed, China has a close relationship with Zambia, especially after signing a military cooperation protocol in 1998 regarding training of the Zambian Army. The Chinese and Zambian defence ministers met in Beijing in July 2005, agreeing to continue military co-operation.

“It must be borne in mind however that aviation equipment is by nature costly and given our delicate economic situation, re-equipping ZAF to stay abreast with technological advancements in the aviation industry will not be done overnight,” said Chimese.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2012 08:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27
Posts: 9297
Rotting From Within: Investigating the massive corruption of the Chinese military.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2012 15:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11770
Russia-China Su-35 Fighter Talks Frozen

Quote:
Negotiations on the sale of Russian advanced Su-35 Flanker-E fighters to China have been put on hold over Beijing’s refusal to buy a large consignment, Russian state-controlled arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on Tuesday.

“We have been promoting the Su-35 fighter on the Chinese market,” Rosoboronexport deputy chief Viktor Komardin said.

“However, China only wants to buy a limited number [of aircraft] whereas we want [to sell] a large consignment to make [the deal] economically viable.”

He offered no indication of the numbers involved

The negotiations have been ongoing for more than one and a half years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2012 22:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47
Posts: 773
abhishek_sharma thank you for that article on pervasive corruption in the PLA. It was a shocker to me. I knew of massive corruption in the CCP but routine buying of promotions in the PLA :eek: :eek: This is a MUST READ article and is tremendously good news for India. Hopefully the PLA can teach India a lesson in the near future like the one they "taught" Vietnam in 1979 the last time they saw major combat. Looks like Mao's epithet of paper tiger is staring them in the face.The whole damn country is one large mafia. I for one will sleep easier tonight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2012 23:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11356
Location: India
Of course the PLA is rotten to the core! Why,they've for decades cohabited with the Paki military and have thus acquired the same "pox" of unmitigated corruption.As in Pak,in China too the military have cornered all the lucrative businesses and industries either directly or through benamis.Excellent news for all China-threatened nations.As for the dead-end with Russia on the SU-35,I'm sure the Russians are having a great laugh at Chinese expense,"ditching them at the altar" and giving them a painful kick up their nether ends for illegal reverse-engineering and exporting Russian weapon systems and their tech.Crime never pays in the long run.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2012 03:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 345
Is an India-China arms race brewing?

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/ins ... 53868.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Apr 2012 21:18 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 14 Mar 2012 19:11
Posts: 9
This seems to be an older article from March, when Ex Pralay was going on in the East. For those of us here in the Eastern part of the country, it was a treat as fighters roared in the skies right past 9 at night. The exercise seemed quite intensive as fighter sorties went on throughout the day, evening and even nights. Was a treat for us jingoes based here, as we hardly see or hear fighters over flying these days....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2012 18:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4804
Location: Dehradun
More on the Phillipine-China stand off:

Quote:
The nine-day-old naval standoff between China and the Philippines showed few signs of cooling on Thursday, with Beijing sending a powerful military vessel toward the disputed islands in the South China Sea.

According to Chinese media reports Thursday, officials say the country's most advanced fishing patrol vessel, the Yuzheng 310, has been sent to protect Chinese fishermen in the region.

The standoff began early last week when Chinese surveillance ships prevented a Philippines warship from arresting several Chinese fishermen near Scarborough Shoal, an area both sides claim as sovereign territory.

Manila has requested to refer the issue to an international court, arguing the shoal is well within its internationally recognized exclusive economic zone.

Wednesday, Beijing rejected that request and summoned the Philippines Charge d'Affaires, Alex Chua, over the issue.


http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00458.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2012 01:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52
Posts: 268
Varyag sails to sea


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2012 16:18 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Feb 2011 17:37
Posts: 45
i got a question to all people here and since it's related to china,i am asking on this thread....some time ago various officials via the media informed us that since the days of Parakaram, we have been validating various operations and plans to shorten the response time in the event of war on the western front from a month(?) to 96 hours...fine/great/keep improving...what about our response time to the east??? Never heard any thing on this topic and could really not fine any discussion on this....anybody??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2012 19:24 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the PN has been given some of these boats. unsuited for heavy seas and lacks a sustainable air defence but good for hit and run coastal raiding.

I suspect they will try some stunt like launching an attack on porbandar or jamnagar next time to put a 'score' up on the board....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2012 20:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Posts: 1306
samverma wrote:
i got a question to all people here and since it's related to china,i am asking on this thread....some time ago various officials via the media informed us that since the days of Parakaram, we have been validating various operations and plans to shorten the response time in the event of war on the western front from a month(?) to 96 hours...fine/great/keep improving...what about our response time to the east??? Never heard any thing on this topic and could really not fine any discussion on this....anybody??

+1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2012 20:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11372
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Christopher Sidor wrote:
samverma wrote:
i got a question to all people here and since it's related to china,i am asking on this thread....some time ago various officials via the media informed us that since the days of Parakaram, we have been validating various operations and plans to shorten the response time in the event of war on the western front from a month(?) to 96 hours...fine/great/keep improving...what about our response time to the east??? Never heard any thing on this topic and could really not fine any discussion on this....anybody??

+1


1) There is an asymmetric component to the threat from the West, which is what started this "response time" business.No such component exists to the East - yet
2) East is more of "Mountain warfare" - a different game (war, height and terrain). Not an expert, but India is more on the D there and building a O capability

Two different animals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2012 20:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11372
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Don,

The Chinese should outsource the design (look) of their ships to the French.

That thing is as ugly as it gets. And hope one of those missiles does not take off a mast on of these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 01:37 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Feb 2011 17:37
Posts: 45
1) There is an asymmetric component to the threat from the West, which is what started this "response time" business.No such component exists to the East - yet
2) East is more of "Mountain warfare" - a different game (war, height and terrain). Not an expert, but India is more on the D there and building a O capability

Two different animals.[/quote]


Nrao sir,

Sorry, I am a trainee :oops: ...didn't understand the D and O capability ur talking about. Request you to kindly explain.

Thanks in advance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 01:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Aug 2009 16:41
Posts: 194
deterrence vs. offence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 02:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11372
Location: Revive Sanskrit
(Please drop the "sir". Thx)

Defense (or is it Defence?) and Offense (Offence).

I think the ratio is something like 4:1 as we post. It should get a little better when an entire Mountain Strike Corp is supposedly to be raised - just to be doubly sure, with toilets, if I may add (before the Chinese 'experts' complain again).

But, because of heights + terrain one cannot really compare it with the doctrine on the other front.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 02:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11372
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Just thinking aloud.

All these years I used to say that China had a window to attack India - IF she really wanted to do so.

I think with the international response to the A-5 test that window may either have closed or at least started to close.

China, for all practical purposes, can kiss AP goodbye for the next 30-50 years. May be they can re-visit that topic after that.


I would be very curios to see what Chicom does with her currency. That is a card she still has to buy back Western love (and perhaps blunt the A-5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 06:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23798
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
samverma wrote:
i got a question to all people here and since it's related to china,i am asking on this thread....some time ago various officials via the media informed us that since the days of Parakaram, we have been validating various operations and plans to shorten the response time in the event of war on the western front from a month(?) to 96 hours...fine/great/keep improving...what about our response time to the east??? Never heard any thing on this topic and could really not fine any discussion on this....anybody??



There is a specific reason for reducing the response time. And it is Pakistan specific. Pakistan openly advertises war plans where they admit that they will not be able to fight for more than two weeks and that if war is imposed on them by India it will either be stopped by international pressure within two weeks or will turn nuclear.

All previous military mobilizations by India - ending with the last one Operation Parakram, have taken so long that it has given the Pakistanis plenty of time to beef up defences and initiate diplomatic pressure on India via its 3.5 friends. In fact the US has even provided them with satelllte Intel about Indian manoeuvres. Also in earlier wars American arms manufacturers who have supplied Pakistan have been desperate to make sure their arms don't fail (thereby affecting exports) - even it it means "cheating" and providing some extra help like intel. That is why there is a plan to hit Pakis with very short notice - punish them and come out.

No such plan exists for China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 06:30 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 06 Sep 2009 23:39
Posts: 44
Would such a plan even be possible against China given the mountains in between ? Maybe we can move in a large number of infantry divisions and free Tibet fast but beyond that I am not sure. Perhaps bomb their infrastructure near the border or a long range brahmos ? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 06:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13262
shiv wrote:


All previous military mobilizations by India - ending with the last one Operation Parakram, have taken so long that it has given the Pakistanis plenty of time to beef up defences and initiate diplomatic pressure on India via its 3.5 friends. In fact the US has even provided them with satelllte Intel about Indian manoeuvres. Also in earlier wars American arms manufacturers who have supplied Pakistan have been desperate to make sure their arms don't fail (thereby affecting exports) - even it it means "cheating" and providing some extra help like intel. That is why there is a plan to hit Pakis with very short notice - punish them and come out.

No such plan exists for China.

Biggest support Pakistan gets is the media support from the west in all wars.
This western media support in all wars has kept India at check and held back. India by using rapid mobilization will reduce this advantage to Pakistan.

With China there is no need for this rapid fast logistics since terrain is different.
But China has a different challenge. Their mobilization at the border to create conflict is done covertly and this needs a different strategy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 09:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Posts: 1306
NRao wrote:
samverma wrote:
i got a question to all people here and since it's related to china,i am asking on this thread....some time ago various officials via the media informed us that since the days of Parakaram, we have been validating various operations and plans to shorten the response time in the event of war on the western front from a month(?) to 96 hours...fine/great/keep improving...what about our response time to the east??? Never heard any thing on this topic and could really not fine any discussion on this....anybody??



1) There is an asymmetric component to the threat from the West, which is what started this "response time" business.No such component exists to the East - yet
2) East is more of "Mountain warfare" - a different game (war, height and terrain). Not an expert, but India is more on the D there and building a O capability

Two different animals.

Two different terrains. And threat does exist to the East. For obvious reasons we cannot station most of our troops in and around Arunachal and Sikkim. Some of them will have to come from the plains of north east or eastern India. If there is a breach in our defense lines along these two states, then we will have to see how quick our troops can react and reach their designated places.

Nature of modern war fare dictates that the initial response determines the outcome of the whole conflict. And let us face it, PLA and PLAAF are the only forces on Indian borders which have the capability to take offense against IA and IAF. Not Porki army or its anemic air force.

So we need to have the discussion on how quick can IA step into conflict and take the offensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 10:52 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
if you compare the road n rail infra in eastern india vs west/north/south, there is a severe case of anemia lasting over decades. it will take some time to undo past wrongs - provided they are serious about it. at present assam still has MG line as the main railway lifeline to tezpur and beyond... only 3 bridges across the brahmaputra ... the list could go on.
in arunachal there are hardly any EW roads to deny the chinese ease of movement if they penetrate, its mostly NS to bottle them up in valleys.

so rapid movement and repositioning is out of question in that sector from faraway camps. whatever we desire has to be positioned as close to the front as possible with short and well protected lines of advance and a huge stockpile of fuel, food and ammo for high intensity usage without being dependent on thin supply lines. and thats precisely what we have done by fwd deploying to places like tawang , Se La, "tenga valley", rangiya which any army brat knows of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 14:55 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Feb 2011 17:37
Posts: 45
To all the people who replied to my post above...a very big thank you!!! Never went beyond Bagdroga so am forced to visualize the terrain and other difficulties that we will face...But it got me thinking...the defense plans in place are for defending only what we consider to be our version of the borders...as and when we get to the "offensive" capabilities will we use them for again "defense" or do we really want to take it to the next level and re-align the Chinese borders and give birth two new countries (Xinxiang and Tibet) into this wonderful world we live in :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 15:07 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Feb 2011 17:37
Posts: 45
So we need to have the discussion on how quick can IA step into conflict and take the offensive.[/quote]


With this quote and what Singha sir said about the lack of infrastructure, where do we really stand?? Paper plans of improving the infrastructure seem to be moving at glacial speeds...do we prepare of a similar (not identical as we have improved but still...) repeat of '62? Stupid and costly mistakes in terms of loss of lives and whatever land the Chinese may want to take?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 15:28 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Feb 2011 17:37
Posts: 45
A Nandy wrote:
Would such a plan even be possible against China given the mountains in between ? Maybe we can move in a large number of infantry divisions and free Tibet fast but beyond that I am not sure. Perhaps bomb their infrastructure near the border or a long range brahmos ? :)



I don't think we are in a position considering the limited numbers being manufactured today...it might change tomorrow but requires ballsy steps from the govt..average of 18-24 months to set up/expand the manufacturing facilities (across the whole spectrum from raw material to assembly)along with the necessary training that needs to be imparted to new recruits, testing, delivery to armed forces, deployment and then the regular validation of operations and tactics..

We need to remember, the PLA, PLAF, their paramilitary personnel have been entrenched for quite sometime...may not be first world qualitative but as someone once said on BR "quantity is also a form of quality"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 15:37 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Feb 2011 17:37
Posts: 45
China, for all practical purposes, can kiss AP goodbye for the next 30-50 years. May be they can re-visit that topic after that.


Nrao,

I don't admit to being any form of expert least of all on military matters, but the feeling that i get (very personal opinion) from reading across a range of posts/threads on BR, Chinese have a very different thinking then others..what we may consider impractical / illogical may not reflect the Chinese thinking..what little i understand is that with the unpredictable and secretive mind set of the Chinese,what's to stop them from doing something nasty on our borders...whether to validate their superpower ambitions, to divert the attention of their people from the internal problems or any other "reason" they might think of...What are your thoughts on this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 16:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 21 Feb 2012 15:54
Posts: 297
Maybe a noo-B question but have always had this nasty feeling that China in AP will use an unconventional approach like first flooding the Indian side by releasing water in Bramhaputra and its tributaries and then occupy land.

Perhaps its just a bizarre thought (since flooding will also create challenges for them to occupy) but surely it does impact our supply lines and holding areas and infrastructure.

Not sure if we have wargamed such scenarios


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 17:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11372
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Singha wrote:
if you compare the road n rail infra in eastern india vs west/north/south, there is a severe case of anemia lasting over decades. it will take some time to undo past wrongs - provided they are serious about it. at present assam still has MG line as the main railway lifeline to tezpur and beyond... only 3 bridges across the brahmaputra ... the list could go on.
in arunachal there are hardly any EW roads to deny the chinese ease of movement if they penetrate, its mostly NS to bottle them up in valleys.

so rapid movement and repositioning is out of question in that sector from faraway camps. whatever we desire has to be positioned as close to the front as possible with short and well protected lines of advance and a huge stockpile of fuel, food and ammo for high intensity usage without being dependent on thin supply lines. and thats precisely what we have done by fwd deploying to places like tawang , Se La, "tenga valley", rangiya which any army brat knows of.


The old think seemed to have been: you take AP, we take .......

However, Chicom over the years have strengthened the ".......", including inserting their troops in PoK (granted for building toilet, nonetheless they are there)!!!

The recent past reaction of the IA is to this. That Chicom is taking away the IA's advantage.

Also, other nations are not going to keep still. They may not like either nation, but, an actual war is a very, very rare instance to collect data. I am speculating wildly here, but, I would not be surprised if Western nations offer real-time info in exchange to collect info by inserting/embedding data gathering assets close to the front. This in addition to any remote/distance gathering facilities.

Also, as I have always said, the threat is really not from "China" as it is from the PLA. Even all the noise we hear WRT the A-5 is PLA talk. Every news paper is a PLA mouth piece. And, all experts need to get clearance from the PLA to talk on this topic - after all what would the (any?) PM/President know about the A-5?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 18:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11372
Location: Revive Sanskrit
One last observation:

Indian politicians giving a "nod" for a Strike Corps on the Eastern front is NO LESS than they giving a nod for the A-5. In fact, I feel, that the two go hand in hand. GoI has played the game in such a way that no, forget waves, ripples are created. But, let there be no doubt, MG rail or bad roads or whatever, that the GoI is not going to take crap on that front.

As far as I am concerned what appears as a nonsensical way that the GoI handles issues related to the Eastern front is not as comical as it appears to be. At the end of the day everything will be in place for a good strike package that should keep Chicom awake way beyond their sleep time.

JMT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Apr 2012 22:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13262
samverma wrote:
So we need to have the discussion on how quick can IA step into conflict and take the offensive.


With this quote and what Singha sir said about the lack of infrastructure, where do we really stand?? Paper plans of improving the infrastructure seem to be moving at glacial speeds...do we prepare of a similar (not identical as we have improved but still...) repeat of '62? Stupid and costly mistakes in terms of loss of lives and whatever land the Chinese may want to take?


IAF and missile regiments are the answer to your question. This will make up for the lack of infrastucture.
India in 2012 is not India in 1962. Indian capability in the region are at a very high level. International environment and level of support for India is different in 2012 and in the future. India has independent relations with several nations in the world without the vestiges of the British colonial past.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2012 18:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31
Posts: 412
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ellow-sea/
Quote:
China-Russia naval drills begin in Yellow Sea

BEIJING (AP) — China and Russia launched joint naval exercises Sunday that highlight warming ties between their militaries and growing cooperation in international affairs.

Chinese state broadcaster CCTV said the six days of drills feature simulated anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and search-and-rescue operations, including electronic countermeasures and other sensitive technologies.

Retired Maj. Gen. Yin Zhuo said it shows a high degree of trust between the sides.

“It’s an excellent exchange for China to be able to drill jointly in such sensitive areas,” Gen. Yin told CCTV.

China‘s Defense Ministry said China was sending two submarines and 16 ships to take part, including destroyers, escort vessels and hospital ships. The deputy chiefs of the countries’ navies oversaw the start of drills in the northeastern Chinese port of Qingdao, the home of China‘s northern fleet.

The two militaries hold frequent exchanges, despite recent disputes over Chinese copying of Russian military technology such as Sukhoi jet fighters. China was a key customer for the former Soviet arms industry, but recent technological advances at home have made it far less dependent on Russian weaponry.

Much of that cooperation takes place within the confines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a grouping of Central Asian states that seeks to check U.S. influence in the region and began holding joint drills in 2005.

Formerly Cold War rivals for leadership of the communist world, China and Russia have since found common ground in countering liberal democratizing trends across Asia and Eastern Europe and frequently vote against Western initiatives in the U.N. Security Council.

Most recently, they have united to block any U.N. actions on Syrian violence that could lead to some form of humanitarian intervention, a prospect both nations abhor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2012 12:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11770
U.S. Confronts China Over N.Korean Rocket Launcher

Quote:
The White House has accused Beijing of supplying North Korea with technology for a missile launcher showcased in a military parade in Pyongyang last week.

"We've raised the allegations with the Chinese government ... as part of our ongoing close consultations on North Korea," White House spokesman Jay Carney said at a daily news briefing on Monday.

Carney was reacting to reports that the vehicle, a transporter-erector launcher, may have been of Chinese origin.

Senior U.S. officials believe the Chinese company Hubei Sanjiang sold components used in constructing the launcher, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The launcher was seen carrying what appeared to be the North's latest missile.

China's involvement would constitute a breach of a UN arms embargo.

China has said it did not violate UN resolutions on North Korea.

Last week, the defense publishing group Jane's said the UN Security Council was investigating the claims.

Carney's comments come amid increased tensions on the Korean peninsula, following Pyongyang's failed long-range rocket launch earlier this month which the United States said was cover for a ballistic missile technology test.

Western nations fear the North may be preparing for another nuclear test.

Carney said the United States would "continue to work with the international community, including China, to enforce sanctions against North Korea's ballistic missile program and nuclear program."

Meanwhile, Chinese President Hu Jintao reaffirmed stong ties with Pyongyang during a meeting in Beijing on Monday with a North Kokean envoy, and appealed for "peace and stability" on the Korean peninsula.

"We will... strengthen strategic links and coordination on major international and regional issues for the purpose of safeguarding lasting peace and stability of the Korean peninsula," Hu was quoted by Xinhuia news agency as saying.

The North has threatened to wage a "sacred war" against Seoul over what it said where South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's "insulting" remarks about celebrations of the centenary of the birth of its late founding leader Kim Il-sung.

South Korea said last week it had deployed new cruise missiles capable of hitting anywhere in the North.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2012 12:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6119
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Singha wrote:
<SNIP>at present assam still has MG line as the main railway lifeline to tezpur and beyond... only 3 bridges across the brahmaputra ... the list could go on.
<SNIP>


Where did the bold part come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2012 13:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24
Posts: 162
Acharya wrote:
samverma wrote:
So we need to have the discussion on how quick can IA step into conflict and take the offensive.


With this quote and what Singha sir said about the lack of infrastructure, where do we really stand?? Paper plans of improving the infrastructure seem to be moving at glacial speeds...do we prepare of a similar (not identical as we have improved but still...) repeat of '62? Stupid and costly mistakes in terms of loss of lives and whatever land the Chinese may want to take?


IAF and missile regiments are the answer to your question. This will make up for the lack of infrastucture.
India in 2012 is not India in 1962. Indian capability in the region are at a very high level. International environment and level of support for India is different in 2012 and in the future. India has independent relations with several nations in the world without the vestiges of the British colonial past.


One more thing is in 1962 systems were a mess. My dad's regiment moved to NEFA, and jsut watched the Chinese, because their guns which was to follow the regt ended up somewhere in Assam. That kind of stupidity won't happen today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2012 13:20 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34020
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
in 900km stretch of brahmaputra there are at present a grand total of 3 bridges , two of which are road cum rail and one is road only. in any half-decent country or china, there would be no less than 15 in such a populated stretch. there would be 6 lane highways down both banks with a road bridge every 30km and a rail bridge every 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:B ... utra_River

the 4th bridge at dibrugarh was proposed when I was in school in 80s wearing half pant, work started when I was in engg college, continued on through my marriage and 2 kids and is still not done. hopefully my kid will see it in high school.

in 5yrs , 30km long bridges come up over the sea like between denmark-sweden, shanghai ningbo and the asashi kaikyo....here they cannot bridge a river in a decade!

such is the "grand urgency" in which the NE is run. :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2012 14:59 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 19 Feb 2011 17:37
Posts: 45
IAF and missile regiments are the answer to your question. This will make up for the lack of infrastucture.


I understand that these two will be the primary force in play in the NE...but the way we are going, we won't reach 39-45 squadrons till 2030 at least (i am guessing here) and our missile regiments (defensive and offensive) are also not being procured in large numbers yet....considering that we have had validated and matured in various technologies we still have not set up manufacturing facilities for large numbers of missile systems...knowing very well that there is a strong possibility of a war(short - long doesn't matter) we should have been on a war footing in terms of acquiring large numbers of weapon systems and deploying them by now....


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6648 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 ... 167  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, joji and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group