Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 13 Oct 2017 00:36

Philip wrote:Nowhere is it stated that "overwhelming force" is reqd. A def. analysts suggested that 3-3.5% could be devoted to India's def. budget keeping in mind the reqs. of the next 25-50 yrs.Anything less will ensure our continued harassment and attempted blackmail by the Chinese as they're doing today.

Cheen’s strategy is to intimidate and change facts on ground and at sea with its advantages of mass production of ships and aircraft and and mass contruction of infrastructure. It’s weakness is at actually fighting a war.

If India plays the long game with Cheen during an extended period of peace, we will see what happened in the Paracels and Spratlies happen in the IOR as more and more warships, planes, ports and simply other “stuff” get put into the Indian Ocean to stake their influence in the region. If you look at their pipeline — Type 002, Type 003 carriers, Type 075 LHDs, Type 055 DDGs, J-15A, J-20, J-31, blah blah — versus ours, the future ain’t looking very bright.

We’ll get Vikrant for certain but when? Four P15Bs for sure. Four LPDs for certain but again when? The Kalvaris (ignoring they are not armed with torpedos yet.) 83 LCAs? 36 Rafales. But everything else is filled with uncertainty. The 57-plane RFI for the IN, SEF and the P75I are all pretty much just talk for now.

War when we still have more stuff locally gives us the best chance of staving off this SCS scenario in the IOR where overwhelming numbers and construction on the ground and sea create persistent presence and de facto jurisdiction.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48115
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 13 Oct 2017 01:09

Next week is the 19th CPC conference which is expected to anoint XiJin Ping's status of great leader.

BBC.'s Carey Gracie is carrying on a weekly series on radio.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 13 Oct 2017 10:26

Eleven is surely trying to make it to the top and compare himself with Mao and Deng. Question is: what kind of rivalry / opposition is he going to find.

These regions of interest will give us more answers in the coming months:

Will he still be able to keep his top lieutenant : Wang Quishan.
Will he be able to reform hukuo. They tried doing it last time a few years back but couldnt gain traction.
Will he still continue on the more aggressive approach towards the SCS / near neighbours by militarising more islands and have more border trouble
Will he be able to make inroads in OBOR or will he face trouble.


If he fails in a few of these, he could face an internal rebellion. So, we should act in our best interests and thwart a few of his pet projects. That will naturally weaken him and add fuel to the fire (embers atleast) thats burning against him.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 13 Oct 2017 12:46


vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 13 Oct 2017 13:45

The interesting thing is the Wang Quishan is known to be a fixer. And he has been heading the anti corruption wing so far. He has a taint charge against him and if he retires now, it could be speculated that he resigned because of the taint himself. That will bring problems to Xi. If he didn't retire, Xi will have to break the soft norm. Caught between the Dragon aka devil and North Natuna sea though not deep blue.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 13 Oct 2017 14:11

Chola,why I've been insisting that we utilise our massive unsinkable landmass more with LRMP,strat. bombers,etc. operating from both the mainland and islands.They would get to the scene of action in the shortest time,and armed with LRCMs,ASMs like BMos,etc.,wreak havoc on any PLAN CBG ir task force/s attempting to ingress into the IOR or transiting its waters. The difficulty is dealing with the huge no. of PLAN and PN subs. A massive sub acquisitiion process must be put into action,with cost-effective acquisitions,not always looking for the bestest of all. This is how germany lost the war. Read a post by Ramana in the AV td.V. illuminating,The Sovs. built cheap but study tanks in tens of thousands /yr meant to be expended on the battlefield using the auto-industry prod. philosophy,whereas the Germans "crafted" their tanks having almost 20 variants of just one model.There was little large-scale prod. of a model.batches had incremental improvements making prod. a nightmare. WE should adopt the same philosophy when beefing up our sub numbers. A few dozens of cost-effective conv. boats plus a dozen+ SSBNs,SSGNs and SSNs.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 545
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby nam » 13 Oct 2017 15:12

See it is so simple to put the Chinis import in place and give a message to our "traders"

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/new-interpretation-of-customs-rule-leaves-solar-developers-stranded/articleshow/61060194.cms?from=mdr

One of the best way to reduce imports from Chinis.... block it at port for "incomplete paperwork".

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21887
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SSridhar » 13 Oct 2017 17:38

Lull at Doklam: Time for a Holistic Strategic Review - Maj. Gen. G.G.Dwivedi, IDSA Comment
The recent standoff at Doklam had raised genuine concerns about the situation escalating, given that the opposing troops stood ‘eye ball to eye ball’ for over 10 weeks. While the crisis has been defused for the time being, the probability of a future flare up cannot be ruled out. Post the disengagement, Chinese troops have fortified their positions in the Doklam Plateau with the declared intent of resuming the road construction activity at an appropriate time. The military build-up, which had been undertaken by the two sides in the wake of the crisis, remains in place. The current period of lull is, therefore, a tactical pause. In all prudence, Doklam should be taken as a nudge to initiate a holistic strategic review.

There is an old adage that “the longer you look back, the farther you can look forward”. Chinese leaders have a good understanding of their nation’s history and are known to make comparisons between the present and the past. Zhou Enlai had famously said “diplomacy is continuation of war by other means”, morphing the famous maxim by Clausewitz. Doklam was a well-calibrated small team action aimed at changing the status quo on the ground but with overarching strategic ramifications. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will make further moves on the ground only after the issue has been well deliberated by the Communist leadership.

After being appointed as ‘First Lord of Admiralty’ in 1911, Winston Churchill wrote a memorandum to his cabinet colleagues in which he stated that “Preparation for war is the only guarantee for preservation of wealth, natural resources and territory of the state.” To this end, he identified three key areas; probable dangers, history’s lessons and employment of war material. Interestingly, these guiding tenets are relevant to this day in the Indian context as well.

Probable Dangers

According to Graham Allison, the preeminent geostrategic challenge of the era is not violent Islamic extremism or resurgent Russia but the impact of China’s resurgence. Lee Kuan Yew had observed that the sheer size of China’s displacement meant that the world has to find a new order. Hence, when China cautions Japan to get used to its actions in the East China Sea and India to prepare for more Chinese roads in Doklam, these should not come as a surprise.

Through its assertive behaviour and expansionist approach, China has pursued the strategy of encroachment – ‘nibble and negotiate’ – evident from its actions both along its land borders and maritime frontiers. This is in consonance with the Chinese culture of maintaining a peaceful periphery by keeping the neighbourhood subdued. The Chinese are averse to any challenge or competition. A lonely power, China has optimally used its two allies – Pakistan and North Korea – to serve its strategic interests in the Indian subcontinent and the Korean Peninsula. With the deepening Chinese economic engagement with Pakistan as part of its global outreach, the nexus between the two countries is set to strengthen further.

Given the exponential accretion in China’s Comprehensive National Power (CNP), there is a marked shift from its earlier strategy enunciated by Deng Xiao Ping – ‘to bide for time and maintain a low profile’ till the completion of peaceful rise. Now, President Xi Jinping has emerged as an all-powerful ‘Fifth Generation’ leader whose China dream – fuxing (restoration)– envisions a “powerful and prosperous China”, symbolic of its past grandeur. In the quest to shape a ‘Sino-centric global order’, China seeks a unipolar Asia and a bipolar world. Mega projects like the Belt-Road Initiative (BRI) and Maritime Silk Route launched at Xi’s behest are means of power projection, designed to catapult China into the superpower league.

Xi has accorded high priority to defence modernization, an important component of CNP. Consequently, the PLA is in the midst of path breaking reforms to emerge as a modern military that is capable of winning “limited war under informationised conditions”. To this end, the Central Military Commission (CMC), the highest military body, has been reorganized. All the members of the CMC are senior most PLA Generals, including General Chang Wanquan who has been the Defence Minister since 2012. The massive infrastructure development on the borders aims to overwhelm the adversary with sheer speed and shock action. While a major conflict with India is not in China’s larger interest, it will keep up the pressure astride the Line of Actual Control (LAC) through pre-emptive tactical actions.

Historical Perspective

An analysis of past skirmishes along the border reveal a definite pattern. Mao initiated the 1962 War when he was under serious criticism post the disastrous ‘Great Leap Forward’. The Nathu La Incident in 1967 coincided with an intensely turbulent phase of the ‘Cultural Revolution’. The Sumdurong Chu crisis in 1987 synchronised with the 13th Party Congress. The standoff in the area of Depsang Plateau in April 2013 preceded the visit of Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang. The face off in Chumar in September 2014 happened during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India. Doklam was triggered in mid-June just before Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US. The timing of the Doklam crisis may also have some connect with the 19th Party Congress due in mid-October 2017. China’s diplomatic moves to defuse the situation at Doklam were primarily to prevent the derailment of the BRICS meeting which would have severely dented Xi’s image. It is evident that China’s internal dynamics have definite linkages with incidences on the border. Beijing has repeatedly resorted to military force against neighbours to achieve political objectives.

Employment of war waging material

In an era of ‘limited wars’, defining lines between strategic and tactical objectives stand blurred. Even small tactical incidents have strategic implications, wherein it is not unusual for the top leadership to willy-nilly get involved, Doklam being a case in point. In a limited war scenario, it is not total force ratios that are critical. What is crucial is the quantum of combat potential that can be brought to bear in an integrated manner at the point of decision, in a telescopic time frame. A flat decision making structure and synergy are sine qua non in modern warfare. Thus, well-developed infrastructure particularly in forward areas is vital. China has gained a strategic edge in this regard. However, its vulnerability of fighting from exterior lines of communications can be optimally exploited.

Strategic Review

In the light of the aforesaid imperatives, a holistic strategic review is no more an option. This ought to be carried out over a wide spectrum and in a multi- dimensional manner with specific timelines. As the Chinese leadership believes in negotiating only with equals, India has to address the current state of asymmetry vis-à-vis China in right earnest. It is only a state of strategic equilibrium between the two countries that can pave way for meaningful dialogue and regional stability. Some of the key facets which deserve attention are enumerated below.

Firstly, as a part of grand strategy, India needs to rebalance in consonance with the geopolitical shift that is in the offing in the Indo-Pacific. To counter Beijing’s growing influence especially around the neighbourhood, New Delhi needs to shed its traditional policy of ambiguity. It has to be forthcoming to play a larger role in the region by aligning with strategic partners, namely the US and Japan, besides other friendly nations. In the process, India must push strongly for a multipolar global architecture to effectively thwart China’s designs.

Secondly, the enhancement of CNP as an integral component of national policy ought to be accorded highest priority to correct the prevailing imbalance.
It entails sustaining a fast pace of economic growth, strengthening institutional mechanisms and the optimal utilisation of national resources.

Thirdly, as hard power is a vital component of CNP, enhancement of military capability is a critical imperative. So far, the process of military modernization has followed an ad hoc, incremental, approach in the absence of a well-defined national policy. This demands a strategic shift to make way for a transformational process in order to enable the Indian Army match the PLA. It entails dismantling bureaucratic gridlocks, abolishing service-specific organizational structures, sharpening the teeth-to-tail ratio, fast tracking the procurement cum acquisition procedures and leveraging technology. The consistent downward trend of defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP, which now stands at about 1.6 per cent, needs to be corrected.

Fourthly, there is an urgent need to prepare a ‘White Paper on National Defence’ which should clearly define the prevailing security environment, threat assessment and thrust of military modernization. Given the regional security dynamics, while major wars are unlikely, localised conflicts remain a possibility. The rapid advancement in technology has compressed time and space in addition to making battlefields non-linear. The traditional view of deterrence stands redefined by new concepts of ‘pre-emption’ and ‘prevention’ and these are being increasingly practiced by India’s adversaries.

Fifthly, it is ironic that we are yet to formulate a ‘Doctrine of Limited War’. This has to be a top driven process emanating from a National Defence Policy. Even the much talked of ‘two front scenario’ has varying interpretations between the three services. The current state of infrastructure stands out as a major impediment for the timely employment of combat power at the point of decision. The development of integrated and sustainable logistics is a pre-requisite for success in a limited conflict. The creation of super highways, freight corridors, forward airfields, strategic airlift capability and state of art communications set-up is the way forward.

Lastly, the concept of ‘border management’ requires a relook as the present system suffers from serious lacunae. There is an urgent need to have a single nodal agency to coordinate the functioning of the multiple organs involved in safeguarding India’s borders. Operational control on the Line of Control (LoC) and Line of Actual Control must rest with the Army. The operational capability of the Paramilitary Forces needs to be enhanced on priority basis. The mere enhancement of budgetary allocations without a coordinated security policy will not suffice. As the probability of face-offs and local skirmishes remains high, contingencies must be in place to deliver timely and calibrated responses. Disputed areas must be held in strength ab initio in order to prevent the adversary from presenting India with a fait accompli.

Given divergent national interests and overlapping strategic objectives, rivalry and competition is inherent in India-China relations. The vexed border issue coupled with the Tibet factor further add to the complexities. Hence, politico-diplomatic showdowns and standoffs on the border have to be accepted as a new normal. While sustained efforts to revamp the existing mechanisms of engagement remains a work in progress, there can be no laxity in defence preparedness. China respects strength and despises the weak. Defence and diplomacy being two sides of the same coin, it is boots on the grounds that determine the extent to which an envelope can be pushed at the negotiation table.

Maj Gen G G Dwivedi (retd) is former Assistant Chief of Integrated Defence Staff, has served as Defence Attaché in China, North Korea and Mongolia, and is currently Professor of International Studies at Aligarh Muslim University.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5856
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Amber G. » 14 Oct 2017 09:57

Image

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 14 Oct 2017 12:32

excellent article from Maj Gen Dwivedi. I hope someone in the govt is listening to them and some progress happens.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 14 Oct 2017 14:03

Passing the message on! I tell all buyers at the SMarket looking at Chin goods not to buy them.
Cheers,Happy Diwali!

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 14 Oct 2017 17:15

Philip wrote:Chola,why I've been insisting that we utilise our massive unsinkable landmass more with LRMP,strat. bombers,etc. operating from both the mainland and islands.They would get to the scene of action in the shortest time,and armed with LRCMs,ASMs like BMos,etc.,wreak havoc on any PLAN CBG ir task force/s attempting to ingress into the IOR or transiting its waters. The difficulty is dealing with the huge no. of PLAN and PN subs. A massive sub acquisitiion process must be put into action,with cost-effective acquisitions,not always looking for the bestest of all. This is how germany lost the war. Read a post by Ramana in the AV td.V. illuminating,The Sovs. built cheap but study tanks in tens of thousands /yr meant to be expended on the battlefield using the auto-industry prod. philosophy,whereas the Germans "crafted" their tanks having almost 20 variants of just one model.There was little large-scale prod. of a model.batches had incremental improvements making prod. a nightmare. WE should adopt the same philosophy when beefing up our sub numbers. A few dozens of cost-effective conv. boats plus a dozen+ SSBNs,SSGNs and SSNs.


We do not need all those if we initiate a fight now. The balance of forces in the IOR and along the chini border is overwhelmingly in our favor at this point in time.

By the time with we end up getting these bombers through our well-oiled procurement babudom, the chini pipeline will be pouring out so many Type 055 DDGs and Type 054B FFGs into the water that they will spill over into the IOR.

But no amount of procurement will matter if we do not change our Gandhian mindset and actually initiate war with cheen. Doka La has shown us that, even after all that sabre rattling, Cheen will not fight and will rely on its long term strategy of overwhelming the status quo during times of peace by establishing jurisdiction through persistence presence.

The US calls this winning in the “gray zone.” It is a strategy that allows you to use your military (and para-military) to take territory without fighting. It means you get a return in your investment in warships and aircraft and mil engineering projects during the 99.97% of the time where they are not engaged in kinetic combat.

Unless we can match them productionwise, then we cannot play this game long-term. We need to INITIATE war at time and place of our choosing. Doka La gave us a perfect excuse to clobber the PRC in real warfare. If we don’t want the PLAN entrenced in the IOR then we need to go to war with or without an excuse.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 14 Oct 2017 17:34

Combat in the gray zone. An insidious, mercantile form of aggression. Well suited to a mercantile trading/manufacturing power that can’t fight.

You combat this by escalating the gray zone to red and a real fight that they do not expect.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/10/12/chinas-sneaky-navy-maritime-militia-force-consists-thousands-vessels/

China’s regular navy already has more ships than the U.S. — a little more than 300 to the U.S.’s 277. But Andrew Erickson, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College’s China Maritime Studies Institute, warns that it is China’s informal sea forces that need close watching.

At an event hosted by the Jamestown Foundation, Erickson described the three elements of China’s maritime forces: the navy, coast guard, and a maritime militia – or, as he said a friend’s five-year-old son acutely described it: “a regular navy, the police navy, and the sneaky navy.”

...

He said China’s coast guard is also the largest in the world, with 225 ships that are over 500 tons and another 1,050-plus ships confined to closer waters — a total of about 1,275 ships.

The coast guard, along with the maritime militia, can focus on securing China’s coast and backfilling lower-end missions, while China’s regular navy – the People’s Liberation Army Navy – can feel comfortable shifting some of its emphasis outward, he said.

On how well this was working, Erickson responded, “They’re good enough to keep winning in the gray zone, which is where China wants to play.”

The gray zone refers to a space between peace and war where there is conflict below the threshold of conventional warfare — which complicates a U.S. response to that conflict.


abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby abhik » 14 Oct 2017 19:18

nam wrote:See it is so simple to put the Chinis import in place and give a message to our "traders"

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/new-interpretation-of-customs-rule-leaves-solar-developers-stranded/articleshow/61060194.cms?from=mdr

One of the best way to reduce imports from Chinis.... block it at port for "incomplete paperwork".


This has held up about 1,000 containers of solar modules at the Chennai port, affecting almost all the leading developers because customs authorities have suddenly started classifying solar modules as “electrical motors and generators,” which attract a levy of 7.5%, plus 2% education cess and 1% secondary and higher education cess, industry executives said. The Ministry of New & Renewable Energy is seized of the matter and has written to the finance ministry.
...

WTF so solar cells are not electrical generators? And they are complaining about 7.5% - what were they paying before?
Solar modules were imported smoothly under a category that allows duty-free import of “diodes, transistors and similar semiconductor devices; photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells whether or not assembled in modules or made up into panels, light-emitting diodes; mounted piezo-electric crystals”.

Wha Wha! So we where allowing duty free import all this time, but are scratching our heads as to why the electronics industry has failed to take off. Clamping down on these Chinese imports will be the biggest boost to Make in India.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 15 Oct 2017 10:47

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-1 ... fghanistan

What are the chances of this going to the Chinese hands so they can reverse engineer this and do a Cheen eq of the Reaper?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9276
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Oct 2017 10:59

This reverse engineering is BS . China develops stuff due R&D manufacturing facilities and shitloads of TOT agreements , imports from manufacturers around the world. Above huge investment and patience with domestic manufacturing

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 15 Oct 2017 17:09

Aditya_V wrote:This reverse engineering is BS . China develops stuff due R&D manufacturing facilities and shitloads of TOT agreements , imports from manufacturers around the world. Above huge investment and patience with domestic manufacturing


Yup, the KEY is the deep TOT agreements they made with the French and the Russians — meaning they get to use the technology in as many variants and iterations as they desire.

These deals go back decades with the French and Russians supporting the PRC in subsequent new projects all the way to the current day so we know there is no break in the contracts (otherwise the critical new Z-11, Z-15, J-20, J-31, JF-17 and Y-20 programs would all be dead in the water as they depend on critical and Russian components such as the engines.)

Contrary to the Aerosoatiale/Eurocopter and Sukhoi deals we see the licensed produced British Rolls Royce Spey which were first imported for the JH-7 and then later license built as the WS-9. This was a top flight engine (it powered the UK’s F-4s until the 1980s) that Cheen had the blueprints for at Xian. A perfect mark for RE if there ever was one. Yet it was used only on the JH-7/JH-7A but nowhere else.

It is obvious to me that RE of modern aircraft and their components (especially the engines) is near impossible with direct help from the OEMs. Especially when they are near exact copies like the J-11s and Z-8/9’s.

So most CRITICAL thing in these TOT partnerships as far as I’m concerned is the TERMS of contract. The Harbin and Shenyang contracts allow the PRC to do with the Dauphin and Su-27 technology anything they want while HAL’s agreement on the MKI or Rafale are straitjacketed to those limited runs onlee.

This picture shows us how badly we do with our terms of contract with the same French and Russian vendors compared to Cheen.

Image

Every helo on that chini carrier is a variant of a French product patent.

From the Super Frelon:
Z-8JH SAR
Z-18 VIP
Z-18F ASW
Z-18J AEW

From the Dauphin:
Z-9S SAR

All from lines set up with Aerospatiale in Harbin and Changhe beginning in the 1980s.

While the J-15 fighter comes from the Shenyang production lines set to build the Su-27SK.

I need to follow this chart to figure out all the chini flankers. All of the variants essentially come from the J-11A.

Image

If we can do that with HAL’s MKI line onlee. But right now we cannot change a single screw from the original Russian plans. What the chinis have is true TOT — technology was transferred into their hands to do whatever they want with it. This is not what we have with HAL and the MKI.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8684
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby UlanBatori » 15 Oct 2017 20:07

Why not StOT?

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4147
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Peregrine » 15 Oct 2017 20:57

X Posted on the Railways Thread - Posting here is as this "Problem" could be associated with the Doklam Standoff-Affair

Question : Has India awarded any High Speed Train Project to China? If not then India should withdraw and may be ask the Japanese and Other Nation's Companies to Negotiate for these Corridors. Grateful if One of the Gurus could post a list of International Railway Manufactures in respect of the other Eight Corridors. Many thanks in advance.

Doklam fallout? 'Lack of response' from Chinese railways delays high-speed train project in south India

NEW DELHI: An ambitious high-speed train project in south India has been delayed after Chinese railways did not respond, railway officials have said, suggesting that the "lack of response" may be due to the Doklam standoff. Chinese railways had completed feasibility study for the project a year ago.

An internal brief of the Mobility Directorate on the status of nine high-speed projects of the railways, accessed by PTI, shows that the Chennai-Bangalore-Mysore corridor, a 492 km stretch, lies in limbo because the Chinese railways has failed to respond to the ministry's communiques.

"The Chinese company submitted the final report in November 2016 and after that the Chinese team has suggested for a face to face interaction. No date has been fixed from their side," said the note prepared by the Mobility Directorate.

On the reason for the delay, the brief states -- "lack of response" from Chinese railways.

The brief also states that the feasibility study by the China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group Co Ltd (CREEC) was submitted to the Railway Board in November 2016 and after that the Chinese company had sought meetings with officials of the Board.

However, officials say that the Board has been unable to get in touch with officials of CREEC despite repeated communications sent to them via mails in the last six months.

"We have even tried to get in touch with them through their embassy here, but we are yet to hear from them," said an official.

The ministry officials said that it was the standoff between the two countries in Bhutan's Doklam area+ between June 16 and August 28 this year that seems to have derailed the project.

"The study began in 2014 and they submitted the report in 2016. The entire cost was borne by them. In fact they have shown so much interest in collaborating with us for other projects as well, so we think that it was the standoff that must have raised doubts," said a senior rail official.

An email to the Chinese embassy by the PTI on the issue did not elicit any response.

Troops of India and China were locked in a 73-day-long standoff in Doklam+ since June 16 after the Indian side stopped the building of a road in the disputed area by the Chinese army. Bhutan and China have a dispute over Doklam.

The brief, prepared by the department in charge of all the high speed corridors, also states that except the Chinese roadblock, work on the eight other projects was on track. So the Indian Railways should "Drop" the Chinese and pass on the Project to "Others"

China had in fact not only pitched for the Mumbai-Ahemdabad high speed network,+ which was finally bagged by Japan, but also for the bullet project in the Mumbai-Delhi sector, which is yet to be finalised.

China is also training railway engineers in heavy hauling and it is with Chinese collaboration that India is setting up its first railway university .

The Chennai-Bangalore-Mysore corridor is one of nine such high speed corridors being developed by the ministry. The aim was to increase the speed from the present 80 kmph to 160 kmph.

While the Delhi-Agra route was made operational in 2016 with the country's fastest train Gatimaan Express running between the two cities, the work on rest seven of eight of 8 is going at a fast pace, the brief indicated.

Cheers Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 16 Oct 2017 12:35

Cancel any deal with China and get Japanese or EU options. Both the French and Spanish have excellent systems and the Italians have the best system which India should adopt.Diff. classes of trains and speeds for each , ensuring both safe and satisfying comfort levels . Rossa,Argento,Bianca and locals. This is what is most urgently reqd. More modern coaches upto intl. std.,plus trains that are not ultra-fast but "semi-speed" as mentioned,similar to the Bianca/Argento classes of the Italians. fast trains should not be for more than 4-5 rs. Distances not more than 500km covered in 3-4 hrs.,so that day trains will suffice .in India as for time beyond that,air travel will be more convenient and perhaps even cheaper too. Night trains for longer distances with improved sleeper accommodation,toilets,etc.

Time to show the China that opportunity strikes but once. 6 months is a huge time for amy govt. We should find an alternative partner asap.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9276
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Oct 2017 12:45

About the Chinese Flankers, Note there is never any talk of export of the flanker variant, this tells me it nothing by Manufacturer with some Tot. J-15 is nothing more or less than the SU-33 with assembly and some manufacturer in China and some in Russia. In fact we seem to have more control in our SU-30 than the Chinese have in their flanker variants.

While we need to admire the Chinese some of the stuff they have achieved, this Self flagelation and shaming of Indians on this reverse engineering BS needs to be muted.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 16 Oct 2017 13:23

Since we are talking about RE vs TOT, I have this question in mind: why is Russia loathe to sell its top line weapons / fighters to China lately? They tried selling their earlier warhorse and famous fighters and China cancelled a lot of the remaining contract after getting the first few and totally taking them apart upside down and RE them. The Russians did hint at that as a potential concern.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4147
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Peregrine » 16 Oct 2017 13:26

Philip wrote:Cancel any deal with China and get Japanese or EU options. Both the French and Spanish have excellent systems and the Italians have the best system which India should adopt.Diff. classes of trains and speeds for each , ensuring both safe and satisfying comfort levels . Rossa,Argento,Bianca and locals. This is what is most urgently reqd. More modern coaches upto intl. std.,plus trains that are not ultra-fast but "semi-speed" as mentioned,similar to the Bianca/Argento classes of the Italians. fast trains should not be for more than 4-5 rs. Distances not more than 500km covered in 3-4 hrs.,so that day trains will suffice .in India as for time beyond that,air travel will be more convenient and perhaps even cheaper too. Night trains for longer distances with improved sleeper accommodation,toilets,etc.

Time to show the China that opportunity strikes but once. 6 months is a huge time for amy govt. We should find an alternative partner asap.
Philip Ji :

Capital Idea - In Spades!

Cheers Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9276
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Oct 2017 13:54

vijaykarthik wrote:Since we are talking about RE vs TOT, I have this question in mind: why is Russia loathe to sell its top line weapons / fighters to China lately? They tried selling their earlier warhorse and famous fighters and China cancelled a lot of the remaining contract after getting the first few and totally taking them apart upside down and RE them. The Russians did hint at that as a potential concern.


The Chinese in spite of Loss of face with their public are buying the Su-35- their online posters including many here since they can produce soo many flankers and J-20 is there, why would China even go for the inferior Su-35, but China did purchase and Russia did sell . Why would Russia sell in small numbers if the Chinese can RE it and mass produce.

The answer is simple, the Russians are confident the Chinese cannot mass produce or just RE the engine and Chinese know the level of their tech, online posters claims aside.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 16 Oct 2017 14:09

Yup.The Chinese will beg,borrow,or usually steal what they can,no need to pay for the tech stolen what?! So what thye do is to make a product as sophisticated as they can,never waiting (unlike us) to wait for the best to arrive! Thye then mass produce their aircraft,etc., improving them incrementally at stages of mass production,and when you look at the overall picture,their huge numbers make up for the loss in quality.Imagine a dozen SU-35s facing 3-4 Rafales every time! What the IAF has lost since '71/'80s,is the large amt. of aircraft that gave us that advantage against both Pak and China.The boot is on the other foot now,where we've lost the battle of numbers almost decisively,plus are in great danger in losing the battle for quality with the limited arrival of the Chinese stealth fighter. Some years ago OZ (Carlo Kopp) writings analysed the face-off between US F-22s,etc. against large nos. of Flankers. The outcome wasn't a happy one for the US. Despite their stealth advantage,they would be overwhelmed with much larger nos. of Flankers.WE now have Chinese stealth birds arriving making it even more difficult.

Tell me,launching a BMos ASM ,final results are the same,from either a $200M Rafale or a $30-40M MIG-29UG/35. Which bird would one rather have in your pocket,4 MIG-35s or just one Rafale? Even the AAMs carried by both MIG-29UGs and Rafales would be the same,barring perhaps the meteor if we acquire it. Now these are aircraft of relatively the same size.etc. larger aircraft would carry larger LR AAM missiles like the sometimes mentioned 400KM AAM for Super-Sukhois,FGFAs. Acting as top cover for the med. sized birds carrying mostly ASMs with limited AAMs for self defence,would be able to handle any threat to them.
Israeli F-15s went on to support Operation Opera, the IAF’s daring raid on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Six F-15s would provide counter-air escort the eight newly received F-16s that would do the bombing. The high-risk mission was a massive success.

They later on turned their F-15s into multi-role strike aircraft like our MKis,but the role in protecting "the ones doing the biz" remains.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 16 Oct 2017 14:26

One, you can’t get more top of the line than the Su-35. Only the PAK FA sits higher and it is still in prototype. The Russians would never have sold them the Su-35 (or engines for the J-20 or J-31 or the JF-17) if the Cheen had tried to RE on the sly. There is no way they would sell a piddling 24 if there was any possibility of it being RE’ed.

Two, there is no doubt that Cheen as a whole got an IMMENSELY good deal from their contracts. Their fanboys might be butthurt (over what? pride?) but their military gets to experiment with endless varieties of flankers all of which — J-11B/BH/BS, J-15, J-16 — actually end up in their air force. You do not get that kind of track record inducting new birds into the air force without help from the OEM.

Even the fact that the J-11 and the J-20 were able to switch to the domestic WS-10 from the AL-31 involved direct Russian help. The WS-10 was originally tested in Russia at the same time as the Kaveri.

There is no doubt Cheen has a deep and varied military AC eco-system when they can put forth endless variants with most of the final marks eventually ending up with local engines no less. This was all done with decades of ongoing French and Russian ToT contracts.

If there is any reason to self-flagellate this is it — horrible fvcking “ToT” terms of agreement. It is our poor contract negotiations that gave us a skin-deep screwdrivergiri system where HAL cries about MKI production ending. If we had a proper ToT agreement, HAL would be working on another Indian Su-30 variant just like Shenyang is working on the J-11D and J-16D.
Last edited by chola on 16 Oct 2017 14:50, edited 1 time in total.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 16 Oct 2017 14:50

Im new to TOT and RE. So out of curiosity what really stops us from better ToT or better contracts. Im sure we are as capable, if not more, as the Chinese. So, what is really the primary point of contention - is it sheer babudom not allowing this so they can make more money everytime the IA / IAF comes begging for more assets or is it anything more sinister?

What can we do to change this.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 16 Oct 2017 15:28

vijaykarthik wrote:Im new to TOT and RE. So out of curiosity what really stops us from better ToT or better contracts. Im sure we are as capable, if not more, as the Chinese. So, what is really the primary point of contention - is it sheer babudom not allowing this so they can make more money everytime the IA / IAF comes begging for more assets or is it anything more sinister?

What can we do to change this.


I thought long and hard about this. It could be a B’wood comedy of idiot babus and our love for gora (blonde Natashas) that we like to imagine here sometimes.

But using Occram’s Razor, it is more likely just simple business. The sellers will not give you anything unless the deal is negotiated properly. And there are tradeoffs for each thing you ask for at a particular price point.

Now if you follow our contracts in the media, you would know we ALWAYS ask for local offsets and OEM guarantees for locally produced stuff.

Think about this from the perspective of the phoren seller: if the buyer is forcing you to produce things locally and then is putting you on the hook for the local stuff then it is imperative that you keep as much control of things as possible to make sure the locals don’t fvck you over with any possible incompetence. Therefore, you send them parts that they can simply screwdriver together but you make sure that the parts themselves are built at home under your own quality control. It is that simple.

Also in our politics, job creation trumps technology transfers. It is far more important to get the local work if the OEM forces us to decide between the two. So we are depositioned to accept screwdrivergiri over true and deep ToT.

Now, I doubt the Russians or French are asked by Cheen to create jobs in Cheen. And I doubt France is forced to guarantee Z-9s or that Russia is on the hook for the J-11s. For Chinis, ToT is probably first and foremost. They are probably willing to pay a lot more too.

So more money, no cost and headaches with offsets and especially no dangerous uncertainty over guaranteeing local production. For all this, the OEMs have to give something more in return and that is to loosen their hold over proprietary tech.

Also, there is the chini market that they leverage for other things — more access for Airbus or Sukhoi in the chini civilian market, for example. This deserves a much longer look since Wall Street has seen Cheen use this to extract technology from many MNCs. This leverage is undoubtedly used in military contract negotiations as well.

So I think we need to focus less on job creation and more on the actual ToT. Do away with the local guarantees if they give us freedom with the technology. Obviously, if we are monkeying around with variants the OEMs can’t be forced to guarantee that. And we need to leverage our massive market.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 16 Oct 2017 16:17

I see your point and its a very valid one. Heck, Im all for paying more upfront and then get ToT and trying out various variants - that will actually help create atleast 1.5x more jobs and more tech oriented jobs than just getting kits and fitting them out in BLR or elsewhere. Why can't the govt get it?

Or is it something more than this and our hands are constrained.

Again: how can we put this view forward so it is atleast considered the next time than just blinding following the local sourcing / offsets principle.

That has been my biggest beef with the current disposition - it seems more like a check box implementation than a full fledged overhaul. How can we improve it as a people now?

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6252
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby anupmisra » 16 Oct 2017 17:48

Neuter this!

To Inspire Young Communists, China Turns to ‘Red Army’ Schools
- NY Times

Today’s life is rich, blessed, happy and joyous,” she said. “Where does our happy life come from? Who gave it to us?”. In Ms. Xie’s classroom at the Workers and Peasants Red Army Elementary School, there was only one correct answer, and she had worked tirelessly to ensure her students knew it. “It comes from the blood of revolutionary martyrs! From the Red Army!” said a 9-year-old boy, Li Jiacheng. The class burst into applause, and Ms. Xie beamed.
For decades, the Chinese Communist Party has pushed a stiff regimen of ideological education on students, requiring tedious lessons on Marx and Mao and canned lectures on the virtues of patriotism and loyalty.
Textbooks are getting a larger dose of Communist Party lore, including glorified tales about the party’s fights against foreign invaders like Japan.
In a stern directive issued last month, the party ordered schools to intensify efforts to promote “Chinese traditional and socialist culture” — a mix of party loyalty and patriotic pride in China’s past.
Mr. Xi, who is expected to strengthen his hold on power at a party meeting this month, is turning public education into a self-serving propaganda exercise.
parents protested a decision by education officials to make traditional Chinese medicine a required course for fifth-grade students.
“It’s like learning Darwinism in the morning and creationism in the afternoon”
Mr. Xi’s campaign has also extended to universities, where officials have banned textbooks that promote “Western values” and punished professors for straying from the Communist line. Some scholars describe restrictions on free speech in the classroom as the most severe since the aftermath of the massacre around Tiananmen Square in 1989.
The government has set up 231 so-called Red Army schools as models for its approach.

Image

Mr. Xi has passionately defended his push for positively portraying China’s past, chastising schools for removing ancient poems from the curriculum and calling traditional culture “part of the Chinese nation’s blood and genes.”
This fall, the Chinese Ministry of Education began rolling out new textbooks in history, language, law and ethics across primary and secondary schools. The new books include studies of 40 revolutionary heroes, writings by revolutionary leader Mao Zedong like his 1944 speech “Serve the People” and lessons on China’s territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea, a pillar of Mr. Xi’s foreign policy.
Anti-Japanese sentiment also features prominently, part of Mr. Xi’s efforts to glorify the early days of the party and its role in defending China from foreign invaders. A second-grade lesson tells the story of the “little hero” Wang Erxiao, a 13-year-old cattle herder who is said to have died in 1942 while trying to protect the offices of a Communist newspaper from Japanese soldiers.
The school’s curriculum recounts the experience of Mao’s soldiers during the early years of the revolution, who are portrayed as heroically fighting to free China from rapacious warlords and Japanese invaders.
Even math classes are infused with party history. Students are asked such questions as calculating the distance of the Long March, Mao’s epic 1934-36 retreat across China. (The answer is about 6,000 miles.)
Mr. Xi himself has also become a part of the curriculum. Several times a week, the school’s more than 1,400 students line up in the cement-paved courtyard to sing an ode to Mr. Xi’s signature phrase, the “Chinese dream”:

Chinese dream for 1,000 years,
Chinese dream for 100 years,
The dream carries on, the dream embraces all,
For the revival of China, for the revival of China!


By the way, it is a fallacy that chinese communists defeated the "japanese invaders". The nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and KMT were responsible for that leading to the civil war after WWII.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6252
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby anupmisra » 16 Oct 2017 18:06

How Chinese Propaganda Has Infiltrated American Homes | China Uncensored


anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6252
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby anupmisra » 16 Oct 2017 18:11

The Ridiculous Japanese Devils of Chinese TV | China Uncensored


Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4147
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Peregrine » 16 Oct 2017 20:28

Fraud scandals sap China's dream of becoming a science superpower

BEIJING: Having conquered world markets and challenged US political and military leadership, China has set its sights on becoming a global powerhouse in a different field: scientific research. It now has more laboratory scientists than any other country, outspends the entire European Union on research and development, and produces more scientific articles than any other nation except the United States.

But in its rush to dominance, China has stood out in another, less boastful way. Since 2012, the country has retracted more scientific papers because of faked peer reviews than all other countries and territories put together, according to Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks and seeks to publicize retractions of research papers.

Now, a recent string of high-profile scandals over questionable or discredited research has driven home the point in China that to become a scientific superpower, it must first overcome a festering problem of systemic fraud.

"China wants to become a global leader in science," said Zhang Lei, a professor of applied physics at Xi'an Jiaotong University. "But how do you achieve that and still preserve the quality of science? We still haven't figured out how to do that yet."

In April, a scientific journal retracted 107 biology research papers, the vast majority of them written by Chinese authors, after evidence emerged that they had faked glowing reviews of their articles. Then, this summer, a Chinese gene scientist who had won celebrity status for breakthroughs once trumpeted as Nobel Prize-worthy was forced to retract his research when other scientists failed to replicate his results.

At the same time, a government investigation highlighted the existence of a thriving online black market that sells everything from positive peer reviews to entire research articles.

President Xi Jinping, whose leadership is expected to be reaffirmed at a Communist Party congress that begins next week, has stated his goal of turning China into "a global scientific and technology power" by 2049. But the revelations have been a setback to this effort.

China has, of course, made enormous strides in science, research and technology. Worried that its economy is still too dependent on low-end manufacturing, the government is investing hundreds of billions of dollars in developing high-tech industries like semiconductors, solar panels, artificial intelligence, medical technologies and electric cars.

China has built extensive infrastructure across the country, with roads, railroads, ports and bridges that exhibit enviable engineering prowess. And it has reshaped many other parts of the world by exporting its expertise, offering it yet another way to drive its rapid economy growth.

But it has also endured problems of piracy and poor quality that have plagued its economic rise, blemishing what has been an otherwise dramatic entry into the ranks of the world's leading scientific nations.

China has made inroads partly because of its willingness to invest in new research at a time when such spending has stagnated in countries like the United States and Japan. The government in Beijing has poured the equivalent of billions of dollars into new projects to catch up with the West in producing original research, and also reverse decades of scientific brain drain by luring home top Western-trained Chinese researchers.

"The state needs the strategic support of science and technology more urgently than any other time in the past," Xi said last year in announcing the 2049 goal. "The situation that our country is under others' control in core technologies of key fields has not changed."

Now there are worries that persistent problems of academic fraud and lax standards exposed by the recent scandals could slow China's ascent.

Scandals over faked research results have shaken many countries, including Japan, the United States and South Korea. But fraud appears to be especially widespread in Chinese academic institutions, as seen in the large number of retracted articles and faked peer reviews.

In part, these numbers may simply reflect the enormous scale of the world's most populous nation. But Chinese scientists also blame what they call the skewed incentives they say are embedded within their nation's academic system.

As in the West, career advancement can often seem to be based more on the quantity of research papers published rather than the quality. However, in China, scientists there say, this obsession with numerical goal posts can reach extremes.
Compounding the problem, they say, is the fact that Chinese universities and research institutes suffer from a lack of oversight, and mete out weak punishments for those who are caught cheating.

Put these together and the result is an academic system that is willing to wink at ethical lapses, they say.
"In America, if you purposely falsify data, then your career in academia is over," Zhang said. "But in China, the cost of cheating is very low. They won't fire you. You might not get promoted immediately, but once people forget, then you might have a chance to move up."

Some scientists say China's overemphasis on numerical measures of success can be seen in its almost single-minded focus on the Science Citation Index, or SCI. This index is used to assign an "impact factor" score to scientific journals, which ranks their importance in part by counting how many times their articles are cited in other papers.

Getting an article published in a high-ranking journal can lead to career promotions and monetary rewards. Many Chinese universities offer hefty research grants and salary bonuses to faculty members who get published in journals with high impact factors. In June, Sichuan Agricultural University in Ya'an awarded a group of researchers about $2 million in funding after members got a paper published in the academic journal Cell.

"Everything revolves around the SCI," said Chen Li, a professor in the medical school at Fudan University in Shanghai. He and other scientists compared Chinese academia's obsession with this numerical index to the government's fixation on gross domestic product as a measure of economic success.

"Sometimes we joke that to evaluate faculty in China, all you need is a primary school kid who can do addition," Chen said. "Just add up the impact factors of the different journals."

One result has been increasingly elaborate schemes for getting papers into prestigious journals. These include the use of faked peer reviews, a practice that came under strict scrutiny following the retraction of 107 biology papers last spring — the largest such mass retraction by a single journal in history. Many of those authors were clinical doctors, who in China face intense pressure to publish.

They took advantage of the fact that many scholarly journals rely on evaluations by other scientists in the same field in deciding whether to publish a paper. Some journals — including Tumor Biology, which retracted the 107 articles — go so far as to ask the authors themselves to suggest peers to write these reviews, a fact that critics say opened the door to fraud.

In Tumor Biology's case, government investigators found that many of the authors had submitted the names of real researchers, but with fabricated email addresses. This apparently allowed the authors, or more often writers hired by the authors, to pose as academic peers, and write positive reviews that would help get their own papers published.

According to an investigation led by the country's Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese researchers used such methods to manipulate the peer-review process in 101 out of the 107 retracted articles. In many cases, government investigators said authors had gone online to hire people to write professional-sounding reviews.

A recent search revealed a teeming, illicit trade in faked peer reviews. A search for the term "help publishing papers" on Taobao, a popular Chinese e-commerce site, yielded a long list of sellers who offered services ranging from faked peer reviews to entire scientific papers already written and ready to submit. Depending on the service, they charge from a few hundred dollars up to $10,000.

"We have helped professors of all backgrounds," one seller wrote through Taobao's chat function. "Don't worry, we'll keep it a secret."

Fang Shimin, a prominent muckraking blogger, said: "The fraud techniques have become more sophisticated. They're not as easy to uncover."

Overall, experts say, there are signs that the academic environment in China is improving. Plagiarism appears to be in decline thanks to new detection tools, and Chinese-born researchers returning from universities overseas have brought back best practices, helping to raise ethical standards.

But the pressure to produce original, groundbreaking research remains. Many say that appears to have been the case with Han Chunyu, a scientist at Hebei University of Science and Technology who made a big splash last year by claiming that he had found a new way to edit human genes — a technique that could one day make it possible to eliminate hereditary diseases, or allow parents to tailor their unborn children's height or IQ.

The claim, contained in a paper published in the journal Nature Biotechnology, made Han an overnight celebrity. The local government even offered to build a $32 million gene-editing research center at his university, which he would run.

Then, late last year, other scientists began reporting failures replicating Han's results. Facing mounting pressure, he and his co-authors finally retracted the paper, though they have since vowed to clear their names.

"When it comes to research culture and academic integrity, it all depends on self-discipline," said Zhang Yuehong, editor of the Journal of Zhejiang University, who has studied the problem of plagiarism in research articles. "We need to work harder to develop a culture of integrity."

Cheers Image

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 17 Oct 2017 12:50

vijaykarthik wrote:I see your point and its a very valid one. Heck, Im all for paying more upfront and then get ToT and trying out various variants - that will actually help create atleast 1.5x more jobs and more tech oriented jobs than just getting kits and fitting them out in BLR or elsewhere. Why can't the govt get it?

Or is it something more than this and our hands are constrained.

Again: how can we put this view forward so it is atleast considered the next time than just blinding following the local sourcing / offsets principle.

That has been my biggest beef with the current disposition - it seems more like a check box implementation than a full fledged overhaul. How can we improve it as a people now?


“Something more to this”? You are hinting at a conspiracy. But from whom? The Russians and French? They are experienced and established sellers and will do what is best for their bottom line. Or do you mean members of our babudom under phoren influence through money and honey?

Conspiracy theories are ratholes with no clear solutions since you can always imagine things that make problems insolvable.

The key is simply negotiating for the right thing (tech transfer as a priority instead of jobs) and leveraging your strengths (including civilian market acess) to force real ToT from the vendors.

As far as getting this view out there, I’ve been harping in this for past couple years. But in the end we’re just a forum. (Though my favorites, the GDF section and its wonderful sexy and funny threads, were locked because of possible visits from sahibs of obvious influence so maybe BR does have some sort of reach into the corridors of power in Dilli!)

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1105
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby vijaykarthik » 17 Oct 2017 18:16

I surely mean babudom only. I am not doubtful about the French and Russians here - its simple: if there is money and power, they will eventually succumb. They are dealers and business men at the transaction level and if the price is high, then they will be willing to part with technology - heck, even China gets it, we surely can do even better. So, I am surely wondering the babudom knows something we don't and eventually end up making us pay for all the mistakes they make. Its profitable for them and why will be change it unless we the people push them? -- Thats my underlying logic

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2858
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Rudradev » 18 Oct 2017 03:34

Good article in Foreign Policy Magazine

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/17/is- ... y-muscles/

Is India Starting to Flex Its Military Muscles?

By Sumit Ganguly, S. Paul Kapur | October 17, 2017, 4:26 PM


This summer, India deployed troops to prevent China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from constructing a road on the Doklam plateau near the contested Bhutan-China-India border. Indian forces stood in the path of the construction crews, blocking their work and at times even tussling with Chinese troops. Despite increasingly harsh warnings from Beijing, including the threat of “all-out confrontation,” the Indians held fast. After a nearly two-month standoff, both sides disengaged and the PLA stopped its road-building activity, though China made clear that it would “continue fulfilling its sovereign rights” by stationing troops and patrolling in the area.

It is tempting to dismiss Doklam as yet another inconsequential Sino-Indian spat in a long-disputed border region. But that would be a mistake. The standoff suggests that changes may be afoot in India — changes that could significantly alter India’s strategic character.

India, in its 70-year history, has rarely sought to employ force beyond its borders. When it has done so, it has generally faced relatively weak adversaries, such as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka during the late 1980s, and potential coup-makers in the Maldives in 1988. In the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, India confronted an able adversary, and it attacked well into enemy territory, nearly reaching the border city of Lahore. But India did not seek this conflict, which began when Pakistan attempted to seize Kashmir with irregular and conventional forces. India’s most ambitious military operation occurred in 1971, when it launched a large-scale armored thrust into East Pakistan, severing Pakistan’s Eastern and Western wings and helping to create the new state of Bangladesh. India acted only after an influx into West Bengal of refugees fleeing Pakistan’s civil war had forced its hand, however. Unable to absorb the flow of new arrivals, it had little choice but to attack East Pakistan and put an end to the crisis.

The modesty of this martial record has helped to create the impression of a strategically passive India, which despite its considerable economic and military heft is hesitant to use force in anything more than domestic policing and counterinsurgency operations. The accuracy of this characterization is of more than academic interest. India has emerged as a central partner in U.S. efforts to balance rising Chinese power in the Indian Ocean/Asia-Pacific region, and Washington has invested heavily in helping to build Indian strategic capacity through arms sales, technology sharing, joint military exercises, and deepening diplomatic engagement. An India unwilling to use force beyond its borders would be of limited utility to regional balancing efforts and a poor choice for a close partnership with the United States.

It is easy to exaggerate the likelihood that India will prove to be a passive behemoth. Its strategic track record is more complicated than initial appearances suggest. India has engaged potent adversaries in the past, including numerically superior Chinese forces in 1962, a qualitatively better-armed Pakistan in 1965, and a nuclear-armed Pakistan in 1999. Although India did not launch these conflicts, and not all of them crossed international borders, they did involve protracted combat that entailed significant cost and risk.

But now India may be evincing an increased willingness to employ force beyond the confines of its own territory.

The Doklam standoff, in which India deployed troops to Bhutan in response to Chinese provocations, was particularly notable in this regard. What prompted India to adopt such a confrontational policy?

The answers to this question are manifold. First, India is treaty-bound to cooperate closely with Bhutan on strategic matters. This cooperation is broadly understood to imply an Indian obligation to ensure Bhutanese security. The Bhutanese government opposed China’s road-building, labeling it a “direct violation” of existing boundary agreements and calling for a return to the status quo.

Second, even though China was not building its road on Indian soil, the project threatened India’s security. Doklam is not only perilously close to the Indian border but also near the Siliguri Corridor (often called the “chicken’s neck”), which links India’s heartland with its northeastern region. At its narrowest point, this corridor is only about 17 miles wide. In the event of a war, a PLA pincer movement could cut off India’s northeast from the rest of the country — a fear has long plagued military planners in New Delhi.

Third, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration appears to believe more than many previous Indian governments in the utility of force in addressing security concerns. For example, in June 2015, Indian troops crossed the border into Myanmar and attacked the camps of anti-Indian insurgents. Just over a year later, Indian commandos crossed the Line of Control dividing India from Pakistani territory in the disputed territory of Kashmir, and attacked a number of Pakistan-supported terrorist training camps. Although previous governments had conducted similar operations, they had carefully avoided discussing them publicly. In this case, however, Indian officials then provided detailed public briefings about the raids. Indeed, Modi, in a public address in New York, went to so far as to say that, “When India conducted surgical strikes, the world experienced our power and realized that India practices restraint but can show her power when needed.” The current government’s willingness to not only acknowledge these operations, but actually to highlight them, marks a distinct policy shift.

In the case of China, despite initial friendly overtures following Modi’s election, India has adopted a more assertive stance. It made clear to China’s President Xi Jinping during his state visit to India in 2014 that Delhi would stand firm in the Ladakh region of Kashmir, where the PLA had made a number of limited probes. Then, when confronted with China’s road-building activities at Doklam, India moved quickly to aid Bhutan, deploying troops to block further Chinese progress. (In 2013, under the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India had downplayed protracted Chinese incursions into Indian territory in Ladakh.)

Finally, India’s understanding of its self-interest appears to be expanding. By stopping China’s road-building project, it protected not only itself but also a smaller neighbor from coercion by a powerful third country. In doing so, India not only demonstrated that it would resist Chinese bullying, but also showed that India would, at least in some cases, seek to prevent China from bullying others.

This suggests a more muscular approach not just to defending India’s own interests, but also to preserving the existing regional order, and may hint at the emergence of a more robust Indian leadership role in the region. In private conversations, Indian strategists acknowledge that such leadership implications were an important part of their calculus in dealing with the crisis.

The question now is whether this more assertive Indian approach will endure. India was in a particularly favorable legal and geographical position to intervene in Doklam, and the characteristics of future crises could differ considerably. The Indian government shows no signs of adopting a more conciliatory stance, however. A post-crisis statement, though measured, made clear that India would not accept forceful attempts to alter the status quo. Border agreements, it said, must be “scrupulously respected.

Moreover, the winds favor New Delhi: The Doklam episode was generally interpreted as a victory within India, garnering largely favorable press coverage and commentary from the strategic community. This will create domestic political incentives to continue to pursue forward-leaning policies. Finally, general strategic momentum is pushing India in an increasingly competitive direction. India has become one of the world’s largest arms importers, while also emphasizing indigenous defense production through its “Make in India” campaign.


Its projects include raising a mountain corps, modernizing its fleet of combat aircraft, expanding its , and improving its nuclear capabilities. In addition, India is working closely with partners such as Japan, Vietnam, and the United States to hedge against regional security challenges through efforts such as joint exercises, training, and military sales. The U.S.-India relationship is especially important; Indian leaders have described it as “indispensable,” and the two countries are cooperating on a number of significant projects, including the joint development of jet engines and aircraft-carrier technology.

All of these developments suggest that Doklam was not a wholly unique event, but rather part of a broader trend toward increased Indian strategic activism. And the standoff’s favorable outcome may encourage the Modi government to adopt even more activist policies in the future. If this proves true, India will face an increased risk of regional confrontation, including more Doklam-like standoffs along the contested Sino-Indian border. But India may also begin to shed its reputation for passivity, emerging as less of a strategic bystander than as a stakeholder in and defender of the existing regional order.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Sumit Ganguly is the Tagore chair in Indian cultures and civilizations at Indiana University, Bloomington, and a visiting professor at the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College.

S. Paul Kapur is a professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.



ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48115
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 18 Oct 2017 05:51

Sumit Ganguly is Stephen Cohen chela.

I don't care for his analysis.

India had to counter at Doklam. Not doing so would cut off NE.
No flexing/ vexing.
No need to see more.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3545
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby sanjaykumar » 18 Oct 2017 07:36

A gain of a few kilometres in proximity to the border would be irrelevant to the siliguri corridor defences. The topography does not encourage facile access, in fact this area is virtually impenetrable for significant numbers of land forces.

What China feared was the the seeming establishment of strategic parity over a misthought tactical move. India validated china’s fears.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2858
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Rudradev » 18 Oct 2017 08:57

ramana wrote:Sumit Ganguly is Stephen Cohen chela.

.

I know, and that is what makes it all the more surprising that he wrote this.

He used to firmly adhere to Uneven Cohen's paradigm of IndiaPakistan equal equal (which in itself was a way to preclude any honest assessment of India vis a vis PRC in US policymaking circles).

Something has happened to turn Ganguly 180 degrees. Either the thinking in DC has changed and he is trying to keep up. Or he was always pro India but used to keep a lid on it during Cohen's heyday (to stay on the good side of his mentor).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby NRao » 18 Oct 2017 09:42

Change in DC. Actually under Obama. It came full circle under McMaster.

Very good article.

Should see more assertive moves when Indian eco kicks into higher gears.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests