China does intrude into India, admits India
New Delhi, January 12: Ahead of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to China, India has said that the Chinese army "sometimes" does intrude on its territory but the issues are addressed through established mechanisms.
It also hinted its backing to Sri Lankan army's action against Tamil Tigers saying any country is free to take action against terrorists within its legal system.
"Sometimes the incursions take place. Every incursion is taken care of. It's being addressed through the established mechanism," External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was quoted as saying in an interview.
He said there was nothing to worry about the incursions as the mechanisms established by India and China to deal with such issues "are doing well".
Mukherjee, however, admitted that the infrastructure development on the Chinese side of the border is "much superior to that on our side."
"... Their infrastructure in terms of road, electricity and availability of other facilities is much superior to that on our side. It is a known fact. That is why we have decided that we should also build up the roads and other types of infrastructural facilities," he said.
On reported concerns expressed by senior Army officers on facilities on the Chinese side, Mukherjee said, "There is no question of letting down our vigilance and alertness."
China Military Watch
-
vivek_ahuja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
I guess I was talking about the frequency of these operations in the recent years. I am sure that our understanding of the technology and the nature of sub-surface operations is far superior, and I will agree on the issue of the future of IN naval operations and its superiority over the PRC after the arrival of the next generation of Submarine types. Nevertheless, the sheer numbers of the chinese subs cannot be dismissed lightly when compared to the small fleet of IN subs that will unfortunately be divided to counter both the Pakistani Navy fleets to the west and the PRC to the east. I just do not see the numbers adding up as I wish they would...JCage wrote:I am pretty sure we would have conducted far more patrols than the PRC. They are still getting to grips with sub ops, we have a lead time over them in respects of training and processes, though the technology gap has closed significantly, and will probably swing our way decisively in the short term when the Scorpene joins our fleet.
Link
Person of the Year: Qian Xuesen
Jan 4, 2008
Sea Change: The biggest change in the new ocean of space is China's rise to the fore
By Bradley Perrett / Beijing with James R. Asker in Washington
Nothing in aviation or space in 2007 represented a greater change in the status quo than China's ascendancy to the first rank of space powers. China had proven its mettle four years earlier by becoming only the third member of the elite club of nations capable of flying humans in space. But in 2007, it accomplished two more feats, proving to the world that it's a space player to be reckoned with across the board.
In January, China destroyed one of its own spacecraft with a ground-launched missile, shattering the aging weather satellite. Then in October, China launched its first planetary mission, sending a scientific probe to the Moon.
The man who laid the foundation for these achievements is a brilliant scientist who worked for the U.S. military on advanced rocket projects in the 1940s and helped found the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. Then, in a remarkably short-sighted move, the U.S. sent this man back to China with all his skills and knowledge of American secrets. With McCarthyism in full bloom, the scientist was deported on dubious charges of being a Communist.
That man is Qian Xuesen. And he became the father of the Chinese space program. (The name, sometimes spelled Tsien Hsue-shen, is pronounced chien shu-eh sen.)
The antisatellite (Asat) test demonstrated an ability--based on advanced sensors, tracking and precise trajectory control technologies--which had previously belonged only to the U.S. and Russia.
The Asat's warhead, launched by a ballistic missile, intercepted its satellite target nearly head-on, creating an extremely high closing velocity that multiplied the challenges in this test and served to underscore the leap in Chinese technology.
The test was condemned worldwide as the largest instance of space pollution in history. Thousands of new pieces of debris, more than 900 of them large enough (10 cm.) to be tracked by ground radars, were suddenly in orbit. They threaten low orbiting satellites of all nations, including the International Space Station. The amount of space junk hurtling around the planet, accumulated in the 50 years since Sputnik, had shot up by 10% in an instant. Worse, because the target satellite, at 860 km. (535 mi.), was fairly high, some fragments will take at least a century to be slowed down and brought back to Earth by the few molecules of atmosphere at that level. China has not explained why, even if it felt it had to conduct the test, it did not use a specially built low-mass target that might have been blasted away at a lower altitude, leaving a smaller debris cloud of shorter duration. Soviet and U.S. Asat tests ended in the 1980s, when far fewer satellites were in low orbit and the dangers of space junk correspondingly lower.
While China's space program began 2007 with a spectacular bang, it ended the year with a more peaceful, but still remarkable, achievement--when the country became the first developing nation to launch a spacecraft into lunar orbit.
The Chang'e 1 spacecraft is not in itself the main achievement. The platform is based on a communications satellite that China has been building for years. Rather, China has shown its greatest progress in mastering the challenge of tracking, telemetry and control technology needed to send a probe into deep space.
As with the Asat test, the message was that China had joined the front rank of space powers.
Qian Xuesen is not our Person of the Year because he personally directed these efforts. Now 96 years old and in poor health, he has not been active in the Chinese space program for many years. Rather, it's because he, more than anyone, is credited with the leading role in creating the scientific and industrial complex that's now reaching these heights of achievement. He began to create it, in 1956, from almost nothing.
At the time, his Chinese colleagues knew little about rocket propulsion. His personal book collection became a key resource. And his first research institute had only one telephone.
"First we recognized that the pressing problem was to teach, not immediately to do independent research," he later wrote. Fortunately, the Soviets gave crucial help for a few years.
The U.S. author Iris Chang, whose 1995 biography Thread of the Silkworm remains a leading source for information about Qian, wrote: "It was he who initiated and oversaw programs to develop some of China's earliest missiles, the first Chinese satellite, missile tracking and control telemetry systems, and the infamous Silkworm [anti-ship] missile.
"And it was he who helped turn systems engineering into a science in China, by working out a management structure that would facilitate communication between tiers of experts with a minimum of confusion and bureaucracy." Spurred on by Qian, the Chinese moved from copying a Soviet R-2 (SS-2) missile, itself a development of the German A-4 (V-2) of World War II, to building a succession of progressively larger domestic designs, including the Dongfeng 4 ballistic missile, whose three-stage space launch version, Long March 1, put the first Chinese satellite into orbit in 1970. Chang'e 1 was launched by a Long March 3A rocket, a development of the Dongfeng 5, for which research began as early as 1965.
"He's the father of our space industry," the head of China's lunar program, Luan Enjie, once told U.S. journalist Michael Cabbage. "It's difficult to say where we would be without him."
The story of how China got Qian back from the U.S. has been told many times, not least in the early 1950s, when it was current news. But it's a fascinating story, and is well worth retelling as we watch China's latest strides forward.
Qian was born in 1911, in the last weeks of Chinese imperial history, and at 23 traveled to the U.S. on a scholarship to study aeronautical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Preferring theory to the practice that MIT then emphasized, he soon moved to Caltech and began to follow a path that would lead to his becoming one of the most eminent rocket scientists in the U.S.
While his own country was racked by political division, invasion by Japan and, finally, civil war, Qian became a star pupil of the director of Caltech's Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory, the Hungarian-American engineer and physicist Theodore von Karman. Still in his 20s, Qian became involved in experiments in rocketry, a field that at that time, the late 1930s, was barely taken seriously.
But the U.S. Army Air Corps did begin to take it seriously in 1939, tasking Caltech, including Qian, to develop rockets to help bombers take off. As so often with rocket propulsion, the concept of what soon came to be called jet-assisted takeoff, or JATO, looks simple. Getting it to work led the team deeper into the struggle with propellants and combustion stability that helped make "rocket science" a byword for extreme technical challenge. The 1943 discovery of German rocket activity resulted in acceleration in U.S. work and, at Caltech, the creation of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, with Qian as a section leader directing research for Private A, the first U.S. solid-propellant missile to perform successfully.
The force that propelled Qian to the heights of the U.S. military technology establishment was the sudden realization of the potential of jet propulsion, including rockets. Almost ignored in the late 1930s, the technology rose by 1944 to first-rank development importance amid the largest war in history. By early 1945, Qian was in the Pentagon with a high-grade security clearance and writing reports on the latest classified technology nationwide and its implications for future military development.
As a member of the U.S. technical mission that scoured Germany for secrets at the end of the war, he interrogated Wernher von Braun. No one then knew that the father of the future U.S. space program was being quizzed by the father of the future Chinese space program.
Von Karman vouched for Qian to join the Scientific Advisory Board, set up to advise the head of the Air Force. "At the age of 36, he was an undisputed genius whose work was providing an enormous impetus to advances in high-speed aerodynamics and jet propulsion," von Karman later wrote, explaining the move.
In 1949, Qian described his idea for a spaceplane, a winged rocket that's credited as an inspiration for the late 1950s Dyna-Soar project, itself an ancestor of the space shuttle.
Then his U.S. career suddenly unraveled. In 1950, as Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) raged against supposed widespread Communist infiltration of the U.S. government and with China now Communist, the authorities revoked Qian's security clearance.
Iris Chang wrote that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had not a scrap of concrete evidence for its charge that Qian was a Communist. But the government did have some evidence, even if it was far from concrete. And the U.S. had clearly found itself in a sticky situation with Qian. When China was a U.S. ally, any feelings of patriotism he might have had could do little harm to the U.S. But now that China was hostile, was it reasonable to let him learn more U.S. secrets? Maybe. He was seeking U.S. citizenship at the time.
Apparently insulted, Qian first responded to the loss of his security clearance by trying to return to China, but he was stopped by the government, which wanted to keep his knowledge of U.S. secrets inside the U.S. Then both sides changed their minds. The immigration service sought to deport him, regardless of the fears of other agencies, and Qian tried to stay, apparently determined to clear his name. Qian's attempt to stay almost certainly proves he wasn't, in fact, interested in working for China. By that time he could have best done so by going home with his expertise and U.S. secrets. Without a security clearance, it was unlikely he could achieve much for China by staying in the U.S.
"It was the stupidest thing this country ever did," said Undersecretary of the Navy Dan Kimball, who tried to keep Qian in the U.S. "He was no more a Communist than I was, and we forced him to go."
The immigration service won its case against Qian, but the government still hesitated to send him back. After years in limbo, the scientist himself decided again to go home and sought help to do so from the Chinese government, which secured U.S. agreement as part of negotiations over Korean War prisoners.
China, of course, was delighted to have him back. It welcomed him as a hero when he was finally deported in 1955.
His reluctant return was hardly a patriotic act, but that was, and still is, overlooked in the official Chinese view of history. As recently as 2003, the Xinhua news agency, recounting his story, reported blandly: "In 1955, six years after the founding of New China, Qian Xuesen returned to the motherland."
Another fact that's ignored in China is that he gave bad scientific advice on agricultural yields that may have encouraged Chairman Mao Zedong's disastrous 1958-61 Great Leap Forward economic policy, which led to perhaps 20 million people dying of starvation.
It turned out that some of the U.S. fears of sending Qian back may have been exaggerated. First, the secrets that he knew were at least five years old by the time of his return, and that was an era of rapidly changing technology. Second, no single scientist or engineer can have more than a fraction of the knowledge needed to design space launchers or missiles. So he could only be a leader, not a one-man rocket builder. Indeed, his role turned out to be that of administrator of the Chinese space program. Moreover, Chang wrote that in many cases he told his questioning comrades that the technical answers they needed had already been published; they needed only to look up the right book, often an American one.
Finally, while he achieved great things for China as an administrator, those results again probably ended up serving U.S. interests, because China became an adversary of the Soviet Union within about five years of his return. Missiles built by the scientific-industrial complex he created were sent to the west of the country to bring Moscow in range.
But if China is now a strategic rival to the U.S., then his achievements are now more important than ever--especially as the Chinese economy moves relentlessly toward front and center on the world stage. Hence the continuing relevance of this very old man.
-
vivek_ahuja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Fascinating, isn't it? But guess what, even if we do agree to their demands (and it will be a major catastrophe if we do), there is still no way that five years after that they won't come up with another set of demands saying they now want the rest of AP.VijayV wrote:So they dont want our pajama, only nada.
It also underscores the unresolvable nature of the disputes between India and China. You see, this is akin to India saying that we want Lhasa before we can close down our disputes. You don't just ask over for the handover of cities and the residing populations and expect to give back deserted land.
So the next time you hear about politicians talking of progress in talks between the two countries, you switch the remote to another channel, because like the issue of Kashmir, this issue is never going to solve itself out over the next five hundred years through dialogue. Of course, this means that the only other option is war, and wars have the natural tendencies to resolve such issues within days.
Think about it.
Even wars don't solve issues anymore. Even if one country/population is defeated hands down, their struggle continues for decades. Think Tibet, Balochistan etc. Even the made-up freedom struggles never end even if one party has defeated the other over and over again (Kashmir). International politics follows a rule of jungle, no civilization there. There is no end to the greed.
-
vivek_ahuja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
The examples you gave are all examples of 'political bullshit meets war-fighting'. What I was talking about is that classical full scale conflict that is not a half hearted affair. And guess what, once a nation's army has been defeated on the battlefield, all that they can do is resistance fighting. But in case of a country like china, it will not work. This is a country that has killed many orders of magnitude more of its own citizens than what occupy any captured territory. It will be like Tibet, but not in the way you point out...archan wrote:Even wars don't solve issues anymore. Even if one country/population is defeated hands down, their struggle continues for decades. Think Tibet, Balochistan etc. Even the made-up freedom struggles never end even if one party has defeated the other over and over again (Kashmir). International politics follows a rule of jungle, no civilization there. There is no end to the greed.
So China does care for the sentiments of the Tibetans? Good joke. The whole article seems to be a move by China just to test the waters and get some feelers for their next move. Also look at these:Ma Jiali says, "The disputed area in Arunachal Pradesh is very large. But according to my understanding China does not want the whole of Arunachal Pradesh, just the Tawang area. The Tibetan people have very strong religious sentiments towards the area."
Delhi sees last of tough-talking Chinese envoy
Sun Yuxi, China's outgoing ambassador to India, enraged New Delhi when he claimed Arunachal was part of Chinese. A year later the comment has cost him his job.
“In our position the whole of what you call the state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory, and Tawang (district) is only one place in it. We are claiming all of that—that's our position,â€
The setting of "Sun",braggadacio of the land grab,is very welcome.However,he will be welcomed in the "great hall of the (opressed) people" with a warm embrace and a medal (Mao's Fart-1st class) to boot.He did exactly as his masters told him,to fart in India's face and create confusion in the minds of Indian policy makers about China's intentions.The boldness with which he offended our olfactory senses,indicated that he he had judged the strength of the eneny well and that striking and wounding first would pay for rewards
later.
This is now evident that at this meeting between the two leaders and their babus,maps are going to be exchanged.In China's maps no doubt will be shown huge areas of India marked as Chinese teritory.Deliberate Chinese intrusions are being bandied about without a protest as if the Chinese soldiers were little lost bleating lambs. The bargaining will then take place and the eventual gameplan of the Middle Kingdom is for India to accept a humiliating volte-face on the border issue,which our worthies will trumpet as a monumental victory,greater than '71-in reality another '62,while the burning issue of Tibet and Taiwan's independence wil scarcefully be mentioned,as we condemn their people into future Chinese slavery and sign away our birthright!
later.
This is now evident that at this meeting between the two leaders and their babus,maps are going to be exchanged.In China's maps no doubt will be shown huge areas of India marked as Chinese teritory.Deliberate Chinese intrusions are being bandied about without a protest as if the Chinese soldiers were little lost bleating lambs. The bargaining will then take place and the eventual gameplan of the Middle Kingdom is for India to accept a humiliating volte-face on the border issue,which our worthies will trumpet as a monumental victory,greater than '71-in reality another '62,while the burning issue of Tibet and Taiwan's independence wil scarcefully be mentioned,as we condemn their people into future Chinese slavery and sign away our birthright!
-
vivek_ahuja
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
And with that we will be following in the great footsteps of one of our greatest leaders...yes, you guessed it: Jawaharlal Nehru.
What really worries my about India's fate as a nation is the fact that after being handed down one of the greatest military defeats by China, we still continue to not learn anything from the experience.
If we take a look at the parallels of today's diplomacy to that of the late 1950s, you will be surprised at the commonality and parallelism. And fifty years from now another generation will be cursing this generation much in the same way as we are doing now.
What really worries my about India's fate as a nation is the fact that after being handed down one of the greatest military defeats by China, we still continue to not learn anything from the experience.
If we take a look at the parallels of today's diplomacy to that of the late 1950s, you will be surprised at the commonality and parallelism. And fifty years from now another generation will be cursing this generation much in the same way as we are doing now.
Ma Jiali says, "The disputed area in Arunachal Pradesh is very large. But according to my understanding China does not want the whole of Arunachal Pradesh, just the Tawang area. The Tibetan people have very strong religious sentiments towards the area."
According my understanding India does not want the whole of the land, just the Mount Kailash Area and part of tibet. The Hindus have very strong religious sentiments towards the area.
Get a load of this shameful article from Outlook. The author seems to put out a thinly veiled threat to India.
http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodnam ... F%29&sid=1
http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodnam ... F%29&sid=1
Transposed to foreign relations, imperial Confucianism binds the Chinese state into looking for a peaceful resolution of disputes so long as the other party also abides by the canons of reason and virtue. Coercion becomes justified only when the other party becomes 'unreasonable'.
China's growing impatience suggests it's coming to this conclusion about New Delhi. The way to deal with this is not to cite international law, or pass resolutions in Parliament asserting that Arunachal is an integral part of India. It is to concede that the Chinese would not be making the claims they are making if they did feel they have reason on their side too. So, the answer lies in compromise and face-saving. We have found, to our immense cost, that compromise on border issues is so very difficult in a democracy. That's why we once went to war, and suffered defeat—and humiliation.
See this report about alleged Chinese naval snooping against US carrier forces.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ ... 2003398029
ANALYSIS: Rumors of US-Chinese naval standoff sweep the US
By Charles Snyder
STAFF REPORTER, WASHINGTON
Sunday, Jan 20, 2008, Page 3
Was there a serious US-Chinese naval confrontation in the Taiwan Strait in November, or wasn't there? Nobody, it seems, knows for sure.
But reports of such a confrontation sped across the Pacific Ocean to the US with the speed of modern Internet communications this week and the story seemed to get bigger at each step along the way.
Finally, it was officially denied, but the denial was itself considered suspect by some observers and the issue may not be dead.
It started when the Chinese-language China Times reported on Tuesday that the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and its battle group was intercepted in the Strait by the Chinese guided missile warship, the Shenzhen, and a Song-class submarine, after being denied entry to Hong Kong for a Thanksgiving visit.
The US ships were heading to their home port of Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan through the Strait when the incident occurred, the China Times reported. Accosted by the Chinese vessels, the Kitty Hawk stopped and "assumed a combat position," and the confrontation lasted more than two days before each side stepped down, the paper said.
Indeed, the Shenzhen was heading in the same direction as the Kitty Hawk at the time and landed at Yokosuka on a courtesy call at about the same time as did the Kitty Hawk, to become the first Chinese warship to visit Japan since World War II.
Japan's Kyodo news bureau in Taipei, on Thursday, did a story on the China Times report, which in turn was picked up by the Navy Times. Japanese newspapers ran similar stories.
From there, the story spread like wildfire.
Within hours, US congressional staffers and others in Washington were asking Taiwanese reporters about the incident, which became the talk of the Taiwan media in the US capital.
Then, in a "news" story that appeared to assume the worst, Fox TV network news picked up the story, with its newsreader commenting that the reported standoff was "serious."
By the time Fox aired the report, the commander of US forces in the Pacific, Admiral Timothy Keating, had already denied the story as totally false, as did the Pentagon's East Asia spokesman, Stewart Upton, in Washington.
Nevertheless, a grave-faced Fox newsreader told viewers: "We are now hearing about a serious showdown between a US battle group and the Chinese Navy ... some kind of incident between US warships and a Chinese attack submarine and destroyer."
"This is serious," she said.
Punctuating the report was an interview with a Fox military analyst, Lieutenant General Tim McInerney, who speculated that there was "a little game going on here," between the US and Chinese navies, going on to explain why and how the confrontation could have occurred.
As the general delivered his scenario commentary, the screen was filled with Kitty Hawk file film of warships firing missiles and destroying enemy vessels at sea and ships in various war formations, under a foreboding sky.
No place in the report did the general or the newsreader note that the original story might be wrong. Nor did the broadcast indicate that the station had tried to confirm or deny the report.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ ... 2003398029
ANALYSIS: Rumors of US-Chinese naval standoff sweep the US
By Charles Snyder
STAFF REPORTER, WASHINGTON
Sunday, Jan 20, 2008, Page 3
Was there a serious US-Chinese naval confrontation in the Taiwan Strait in November, or wasn't there? Nobody, it seems, knows for sure.
But reports of such a confrontation sped across the Pacific Ocean to the US with the speed of modern Internet communications this week and the story seemed to get bigger at each step along the way.
Finally, it was officially denied, but the denial was itself considered suspect by some observers and the issue may not be dead.
It started when the Chinese-language China Times reported on Tuesday that the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and its battle group was intercepted in the Strait by the Chinese guided missile warship, the Shenzhen, and a Song-class submarine, after being denied entry to Hong Kong for a Thanksgiving visit.
The US ships were heading to their home port of Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan through the Strait when the incident occurred, the China Times reported. Accosted by the Chinese vessels, the Kitty Hawk stopped and "assumed a combat position," and the confrontation lasted more than two days before each side stepped down, the paper said.
Indeed, the Shenzhen was heading in the same direction as the Kitty Hawk at the time and landed at Yokosuka on a courtesy call at about the same time as did the Kitty Hawk, to become the first Chinese warship to visit Japan since World War II.
Japan's Kyodo news bureau in Taipei, on Thursday, did a story on the China Times report, which in turn was picked up by the Navy Times. Japanese newspapers ran similar stories.
From there, the story spread like wildfire.
Within hours, US congressional staffers and others in Washington were asking Taiwanese reporters about the incident, which became the talk of the Taiwan media in the US capital.
Then, in a "news" story that appeared to assume the worst, Fox TV network news picked up the story, with its newsreader commenting that the reported standoff was "serious."
By the time Fox aired the report, the commander of US forces in the Pacific, Admiral Timothy Keating, had already denied the story as totally false, as did the Pentagon's East Asia spokesman, Stewart Upton, in Washington.
Nevertheless, a grave-faced Fox newsreader told viewers: "We are now hearing about a serious showdown between a US battle group and the Chinese Navy ... some kind of incident between US warships and a Chinese attack submarine and destroyer."
"This is serious," she said.
Punctuating the report was an interview with a Fox military analyst, Lieutenant General Tim McInerney, who speculated that there was "a little game going on here," between the US and Chinese navies, going on to explain why and how the confrontation could have occurred.
As the general delivered his scenario commentary, the screen was filled with Kitty Hawk file film of warships firing missiles and destroying enemy vessels at sea and ships in various war formations, under a foreboding sky.
No place in the report did the general or the newsreader note that the original story might be wrong. Nor did the broadcast indicate that the station had tried to confirm or deny the report.
Chinese Submarine Patrols Rebound in 2007, but Remain Limited
China's entire fleet of approximately 55 general-purpose submarines conducted a total of six patrols during 2007, slightly better than the two patrols conducted in 2006 and zero in 2005.
The 2007 performance matches China's all-time high of six patrols conducted in 2000, the only two years since 1981 that Chinese submarines conducted more than five patrols in a single year.
The new information, obtained by Federation of American Scientists from the U.S. Navy under the Freedom of Information Act, also shows that none of China's ballistic missile submarines have ever conducted a deterrent patrol.
Twenty-five years after it launched its first ballistic missiles submarine, Xia (Type 092), China has yet to conduct its first deterrent patrol. The new information confirms that neither the Xia, nor the two new Jin-class (Type 094) ballistic missile submarines - the first of which was launched in 2004 - have ever conducted a deterrent patrol.
The single-warhead Julang-1 sea-launched ballistic missile developed for the Xia has been test launched twice, but is not thought to be fully operational
From the shallow bay, the Julang-2 missiles could be used to target Guam and Alaska, India, Russia, and - at the limit of its range - Hawaii.
-
Rudranathh
- BRFite
- Posts: 227
- Joined: 17 Nov 2007 20:06
Gerard wrote:Analysis: Capabilities of Chinese missiles
With the development of the market economy the SAF units, which were mostly stationed in remote mountainous regions in the past, have become the most unstable combat forces in the PLA. There are frequent instances of servicemen seeking early release from the military to transfer to local civilian positions, or even deserting their posts.
For those who don't believe that Indian Air Force is woefully unprepared to fight China check out this video where the senior retired air force officer talks about need for 60 squadrons (1200 fighters) to face Chinese 2500 to 3000 fighters.
Defence Watch - Indian Air Force Day Special Part III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIS7lk_r ... re=related
Defence Watch - Indian Air Force Day Special Part III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIS7lk_r ... re=related
Well the root cause China is picking up conflict with India is because they know thanks to India's defence procurement department India is not ready.
1) We have less than 600 fighters/ bombers; China has 2000. Roughly 50% of Chinese army has been modernized/ mechanized.
2) Hardly much has been done with Indian army. India has been on artillery order for decades now. India doesn't have enough army divisions to meet both China and Pakistan.
3) This will be unlike 1962 when Pakistan stayed back. Pak know they made a mistake and will join in with China at least to hold back India's response.
4) We don't have enough nuclear warheads and delivery capabilities (Agni 3/4) yet. Anything less than a couple of thousand war heads is useless as China knows that India is unlikely to take the nuclear risk given collosal numbers of Chinese war heads.
5) China with its new found capability does not fear USSR (the reason they pulled back in 1962) or USA (they are unlikely to be involved beyond diplomatic posturing for their own good).
These things together are changing the security environment along India China border. Hope govt wakes up and send the vigilance department to hunt for folks playing havoc with India's defence procurement!
1) We have less than 600 fighters/ bombers; China has 2000. Roughly 50% of Chinese army has been modernized/ mechanized.
2) Hardly much has been done with Indian army. India has been on artillery order for decades now. India doesn't have enough army divisions to meet both China and Pakistan.
3) This will be unlike 1962 when Pakistan stayed back. Pak know they made a mistake and will join in with China at least to hold back India's response.
4) We don't have enough nuclear warheads and delivery capabilities (Agni 3/4) yet. Anything less than a couple of thousand war heads is useless as China knows that India is unlikely to take the nuclear risk given collosal numbers of Chinese war heads.
5) China with its new found capability does not fear USSR (the reason they pulled back in 1962) or USA (they are unlikely to be involved beyond diplomatic posturing for their own good).
These things together are changing the security environment along India China border. Hope govt wakes up and send the vigilance department to hunt for folks playing havoc with India's defence procurement!
Couldn't agree with you more Alokgupt. The MRCA order has become a tamasha like the AJT was for 2 decades. Thank God the bison upgrade came through. (Were the rest of the bis's going in for uprades too?). I think that the Jaguar and the Mig-27 upgrades are now completed (Correction pls). There are about 75 MKIs with Indian production taking off. We needed to finalise the MRCA order in 2005 and start receiving deliveries by 2008-2009.
The less said about IA procurement, the better. The rampant corruption in this branch of one of the finest armies in the world is disgraceful. The IN perhaps is the only one that can be praised for working hard at its fleet strength enhancement. The IAF chiefs have not been able to convey the urgency in MRCA procurement to the politicians.
Decisions need to be made now!
The less said about IA procurement, the better. The rampant corruption in this branch of one of the finest armies in the world is disgraceful. The IN perhaps is the only one that can be praised for working hard at its fleet strength enhancement. The IAF chiefs have not been able to convey the urgency in MRCA procurement to the politicians.
Decisions need to be made now!
Not true,alokgupt wrote:5) China with its new found capability does not fear USSR (the reason they pulled back in 1962)!
Wars are won and lost on logistics.
Though I agree with the rest of your assertions on who China has overtaken in Military capability and logistics building. Our central government is the weakest we have ever had, our politicans are too old for the good of the nation. Things have to change and things have to change fast, Wether it is the Congress or BJP, I dont see a second line of Politicans who are capable of leading the nation.
Well true and false. But there are other strategic reasons as well.Adux wrote:Not true,alokgupt wrote:5) China with its new found capability does not fear USSR (the reason they pulled back in 1962)!
Wars are won and lost on logistics.
Though I agree with the rest of your assertions on who China has overtaken in Military capability and logistics building. Our central government is the weakest we have ever had, our politicans are too old for the good of the nation. Things have to change and things have to change fast, Wether it is the Congress or BJP, I dont see a second line of Politicans who are capable of leading the nation.
1962 war was perfectly timed with Cuban missile crisis. It started after USA and USSR were well entangled. It ended when USA and USSR resolved their dispute.
Cuban missile crisis Oct 14 1962 to Oct 28 1962
Indo China war Oct Oct 20 1962 to Nov 20 1962
During 1962, international events caused a final rupture between the Soviet Union and China. This finally resulted in border clash in 1969. The real reason China did not come to Porkistan support in 1971 war.
Things are more complicated than they look. Indira Gandhi played her cards extermely well and held off both USA and China while spliting Porkistan. No wonder she is called iron lady of India.
USSR is no longer there. America is no position to confront China for India. The reason BJP went for nuclear explosions. Only if we can stock up on Agni 3/4 China can again be held back.
I dont know about that,
How did Cuban Missile Crisis affect the Indian sub-continent. Indians were more inclined towards the Americans during this time anyways. So USSR isnt the one who came to our rescue. Pakistani's joined CENTO in 1955, we waited till the end of 1962 to make up our mind about the Soviets.
Chinese provocation started way before Oct 20 1962. But when we have idiots like Menon and Thapar, Well we deserve that drubbing.
Indians will need to change their whole procurement policy and modernization policy. Things are taking way too long, and our advseries are advancing. There isnt going to be a war with either China or Pakistan. But we cannot rest on that assumption.
How did Cuban Missile Crisis affect the Indian sub-continent. Indians were more inclined towards the Americans during this time anyways. So USSR isnt the one who came to our rescue. Pakistani's joined CENTO in 1955, we waited till the end of 1962 to make up our mind about the Soviets.
Chinese provocation started way before Oct 20 1962. But when we have idiots like Menon and Thapar, Well we deserve that drubbing.
Indians will need to change their whole procurement policy and modernization policy. Things are taking way too long, and our advseries are advancing. There isnt going to be a war with either China or Pakistan. But we cannot rest on that assumption.
I really doubt about China attacking India without the Taiwan issue being solved......A war with India will reduce Chinas focus on the east and if USA wish to give China a blowing punch, it will be the best timing. So IAF will not face the 2000 fighters.
But of course "Wish" & "Hope" are too nasty and useless words to be ever used in preparation for a war. India should be prepared to fight alone with China and Pakistan. Not to forget the small irritants the Bangladesh can cause.
But of course "Wish" & "Hope" are too nasty and useless words to be ever used in preparation for a war. India should be prepared to fight alone with China and Pakistan. Not to forget the small irritants the Bangladesh can cause.
The Chinese do not need to fight. Experience has shown them that a creeping salami slicing operation in disputed areas does not cost them anything. Indian defences are simply forced to move to the next ridge-line in the absence of political directives to maintain status quo. The Chinese have consistently been doing this since 1950 and our politicians and to a very large extent I think even our military leaders have no inclination to lay down the gauntlet. 1962 definitely castrated a large section of our political leadership when in comes to China (sumdurong chu 84 not withstanding)... the reasoning being if a poor China could humiliate us in 62, today's militarily powerful and economically resurgent China can inflict a bigger drubbing.
interesting bit of news,
[quote]Russian Arms Exports to China in Collapse: Report
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
MOSCOW — Russia’s arms industry is suffering a near collapse in exports to China as military top brass agonize over which technology the neighboring state should be allowed, a Russian daily reported Jan. 29.
The independent newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta said that Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov would visit China to try to resolve problems in this key relationship before President Vladimir Putin’s final term ends in May.
From a situation where 40 percent of Russian earnings from arms exports came from China, “recently exports to China of our military equipment and weapons have dropped almost to zero,â€
[quote]Russian Arms Exports to China in Collapse: Report
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
MOSCOW — Russia’s arms industry is suffering a near collapse in exports to China as military top brass agonize over which technology the neighboring state should be allowed, a Russian daily reported Jan. 29.
The independent newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta said that Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov would visit China to try to resolve problems in this key relationship before President Vladimir Putin’s final term ends in May.
From a situation where 40 percent of Russian earnings from arms exports came from China, “recently exports to China of our military equipment and weapons have dropped almost to zero,â€
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/01/chi ... twork.html
Chinese SAM network by SOC.
Provides evidence of exactly what I had been saying all along, that for their massive investment the PRC is by far not ahead of India, whereas they should have been! Their funding of multiple institutes, political choices of one agency vs the other is highly inefficient and typical of how the FSU used to be, but they are nowhere near spending or allocating the resources near to what the FSU did (and which bankrupted it) to overcome these deficiencies.
Note - just two KS-1A units in service, and this very year India has 2 Akash SAM units ordered, despite the fact that the Chinese folks on the net were claiming that the KS-1A was ready all along! There are three HQ-9 sites, of which one would have been a test one. This after decades of investment into the program. In contrast, the Indian ABM system will easily overhaul the above in terms of sophistication and deployment and there is the DRDO-IAI LRSAM as well. The bulk of the modern sites remain S-300 series, both PM and PMU-1.
12 modern EW/ Radar sites- all of which happen to be Russian.
All this while we have been spammed with hundreds of staged photos of Chinese SAM gear, but as far as actual deployment and productionization is concerned, they are nowhere near where they claimed to be.
This is not to underestimate them. S-3XXs are going to be the biggest threat we face, the PMU-2 in particular, are lethal.
Chinese SAM network by SOC.
Provides evidence of exactly what I had been saying all along, that for their massive investment the PRC is by far not ahead of India, whereas they should have been! Their funding of multiple institutes, political choices of one agency vs the other is highly inefficient and typical of how the FSU used to be, but they are nowhere near spending or allocating the resources near to what the FSU did (and which bankrupted it) to overcome these deficiencies.
Note - just two KS-1A units in service, and this very year India has 2 Akash SAM units ordered, despite the fact that the Chinese folks on the net were claiming that the KS-1A was ready all along! There are three HQ-9 sites, of which one would have been a test one. This after decades of investment into the program. In contrast, the Indian ABM system will easily overhaul the above in terms of sophistication and deployment and there is the DRDO-IAI LRSAM as well. The bulk of the modern sites remain S-300 series, both PM and PMU-1.
12 modern EW/ Radar sites- all of which happen to be Russian.
All this while we have been spammed with hundreds of staged photos of Chinese SAM gear, but as far as actual deployment and productionization is concerned, they are nowhere near where they claimed to be.
This is not to underestimate them. S-3XXs are going to be the biggest threat we face, the PMU-2 in particular, are lethal.
Chinese missile site Lhasa- Target India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJF3wa12Os
Pinponts Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJF3wa12Os
Pinponts Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore.
Very nice video comparison of a Chinese Type 96/99 with a Japanese Type 90 MBT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S-tARDgbt0
Check out how the gun tube of the Chinese tube rocks while it is maneuvering in contrast to the Japanese tanks rock steady gun tube. Superior stabilization and better suspension!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S-tARDgbt0
Check out how the gun tube of the Chinese tube rocks while it is maneuvering in contrast to the Japanese tanks rock steady gun tube. Superior stabilization and better suspension!
While all of Chinese neighbours are likely to remain neutral in any upcoming war that China might start...this is not the case with India. Pakistan has enough forces to keep all of Indian divisions in western sector engaged leaving almost nothing for China. Pakistan is unlikely to repeat the mistake of 1962.
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_d ... id=2370555
BEIJING’S STRATEGY TO COUNTER U.S. INFLUENCE IN ASIA
At first sight, China, though fast rising, seems hardly within striking distance of matching America’s influence in the region. Take for instance the amount of foreign direct investment (FDI): Chinese corporations’ cumulative capital outlay in Southeast Asia amounted to little over USD $1 billion by the end of last year, compared to more than USD $85 billion from U.S. companies (Straits Times, November 28). Yet Beijing has dramatically expanded its clout particularly among ASEAN members. In Kuala Lumpur, Premier Wen and his ASEAN counterparts will be putting the finishing touches on the ambitious China-ASEAN free trade area. When fully operational in 2010, the superzone will cover 1.8 billion people, an aggregate GDP of USD $2 trillion, and a trade volume totaling USD $1.23 trillion (China News Service, November 29). Tariffs for some 7,000 products would be lowered to 5 percent or lower by 2010. ASEAN is currently enjoying around a USD $20 billion trade surplus with China. Moreover, quite a few of the poorer ASEAN countries such as Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar have become virtual Chinese client states as a result of generous economic aid.
Even more noteworthy has been Beijing’s ability to quickly improve geopolitical, security, and military links with individual ASEAN members. This is despite the fact that Washington has privately urged ASEAN nations to steer clear of such ties with the PRC. For example, territorial disputes over the Spratly Islands, a perennial bone of contention between China and Southeast Asian states, have been partially solved due to China’s initiatives. Beijing has worked out separate agreements with Manila and Hanoi for the joint exploration of oil and gas in contested areas of the South China Sea. Until recently, it had been an ASEAN consensus that the Spratly issue be negotiated between China on the one hand, and the entire regional bloc on the other. Equally significant, the People’s Liberation Army has conducted joint military maneuvers with individual ASEAN nations. Beijing is also selling weapons of various degrees of sophistication to countries including Malaysia and Indonesia. Particularly alarmed by the inroad that Beijing has made with Indonesia, Washington last month decided to lift a six-year-old embargo on arms sales to the populous Muslim country. Diplomatic analysts have indicated, however, that Washington’s obsession with the global war on terrorism since 9/11 has provided an auspicious opportunity for Beijing to wade into a power vacuum in the Asia-Pacific region.
Throwing late patriarch Deng Xiaoping’s diplomatic dictum of “never taking the leadâ€
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_d ... id=2370555
BEIJING’S STRATEGY TO COUNTER U.S. INFLUENCE IN ASIA
At first sight, China, though fast rising, seems hardly within striking distance of matching America’s influence in the region. Take for instance the amount of foreign direct investment (FDI): Chinese corporations’ cumulative capital outlay in Southeast Asia amounted to little over USD $1 billion by the end of last year, compared to more than USD $85 billion from U.S. companies (Straits Times, November 28). Yet Beijing has dramatically expanded its clout particularly among ASEAN members. In Kuala Lumpur, Premier Wen and his ASEAN counterparts will be putting the finishing touches on the ambitious China-ASEAN free trade area. When fully operational in 2010, the superzone will cover 1.8 billion people, an aggregate GDP of USD $2 trillion, and a trade volume totaling USD $1.23 trillion (China News Service, November 29). Tariffs for some 7,000 products would be lowered to 5 percent or lower by 2010. ASEAN is currently enjoying around a USD $20 billion trade surplus with China. Moreover, quite a few of the poorer ASEAN countries such as Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar have become virtual Chinese client states as a result of generous economic aid.
Even more noteworthy has been Beijing’s ability to quickly improve geopolitical, security, and military links with individual ASEAN members. This is despite the fact that Washington has privately urged ASEAN nations to steer clear of such ties with the PRC. For example, territorial disputes over the Spratly Islands, a perennial bone of contention between China and Southeast Asian states, have been partially solved due to China’s initiatives. Beijing has worked out separate agreements with Manila and Hanoi for the joint exploration of oil and gas in contested areas of the South China Sea. Until recently, it had been an ASEAN consensus that the Spratly issue be negotiated between China on the one hand, and the entire regional bloc on the other. Equally significant, the People’s Liberation Army has conducted joint military maneuvers with individual ASEAN nations. Beijing is also selling weapons of various degrees of sophistication to countries including Malaysia and Indonesia. Particularly alarmed by the inroad that Beijing has made with Indonesia, Washington last month decided to lift a six-year-old embargo on arms sales to the populous Muslim country. Diplomatic analysts have indicated, however, that Washington’s obsession with the global war on terrorism since 9/11 has provided an auspicious opportunity for Beijing to wade into a power vacuum in the Asia-Pacific region.
Throwing late patriarch Deng Xiaoping’s diplomatic dictum of “never taking the leadâ€
MODERNIZING PLA LOGISTICS
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_d ... id=2370559
To ensure all weather high-altitude support, the PLA regularly operates in late autumn in Xinjiang in extreme weather conditions. In October, the PLA Daily (October 26) reported than an engineer regiment of the Xinjiang Military Area Command conducted a high-altitude cold weather exercise at 4,000 meters in the Kunlun Mountains. Comprising over 1,000 men with over 100 pieces of engineering equipment, the engineers developed new methods for providing engineer support including a rolling device that almost halves the time taken to build a bridge, new methods of camouflage suited to the terrain, and tested a new model front-end loader.
The GLD has embarked on a major modernization campaign to bring logistics in the PLA up to the expected level of a modern military force. The larger items required for logistics support on the modern battlefield are under development or are coming into service. In the near future, the PLA will be able to conduct sustained independent operations outside China’s borders—something it has never been able to do before now, finally acknowledging that logistics is the force multiplier.
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_d ... id=2370559
To ensure all weather high-altitude support, the PLA regularly operates in late autumn in Xinjiang in extreme weather conditions. In October, the PLA Daily (October 26) reported than an engineer regiment of the Xinjiang Military Area Command conducted a high-altitude cold weather exercise at 4,000 meters in the Kunlun Mountains. Comprising over 1,000 men with over 100 pieces of engineering equipment, the engineers developed new methods for providing engineer support including a rolling device that almost halves the time taken to build a bridge, new methods of camouflage suited to the terrain, and tested a new model front-end loader.
The GLD has embarked on a major modernization campaign to bring logistics in the PLA up to the expected level of a modern military force. The larger items required for logistics support on the modern battlefield are under development or are coming into service. In the near future, the PLA will be able to conduct sustained independent operations outside China’s borders—something it has never been able to do before now, finally acknowledging that logistics is the force multiplier.
India has two divisions in Central Command and eight divisions in Eastern command to fight this.
http://nbr.org/publications/asia_policy ... A%20RT.pdf
As of 2007, main ground force units are organized into eighteen group armies along with a number of independent units (divisions, brigades, and regiments/groups). Maneuver forces (infantry and armored units) consist of approximately 35 divisions and about 44 brigades. These forces are supported by roughly 40 artillery, surface-to-surface missile, air defense, and anti-aircraft artillery divisions and brigades and include various special operations forces, reconnaissance, army aviation, engineer, communications, chemical defense, electronic warfare, and “high technologyâ€
http://nbr.org/publications/asia_policy ... A%20RT.pdf
As of 2007, main ground force units are organized into eighteen group armies along with a number of independent units (divisions, brigades, and regiments/groups). Maneuver forces (infantry and armored units) consist of approximately 35 divisions and about 44 brigades. These forces are supported by roughly 40 artillery, surface-to-surface missile, air defense, and anti-aircraft artillery divisions and brigades and include various special operations forces, reconnaissance, army aviation, engineer, communications, chemical defense, electronic warfare, and “high technologyâ€
Last edited by alokgupt on 03 Feb 2008 21:14, edited 1 time in total.
India will absolutely need to deploy additional divisions for Ladakh, Himachal, and Uttranchal. India when comparing force match up with Pakistan is short two divisions in Jammu region and one division in Kashmir region. So where will it come up with additional forces in a joint fight (at least a threat of a joint fight) is anybody's guess.Paul wrote:With Pakistan busy fighting the Jehadis the pressure on our western borders seem to be easing. Is it feasible to divert 2-3 divisions and move them upto the Siliguri corridor or place them at the eastern edge of Arunachal Pradesh for offensive action.
I am not familiar with IAs latest orbat and there been have been objections to discussing that here in the past.
but anyway, is the RR counted as part of IAs normal divisions in wartime ?
how good is the BSF in a defensive role and urban/mountain fighting ?
how much of BSF do we have?
I am assuming (wrongly?) that CRPF/PAC are of no use against the regular
PA.
but anyway, is the RR counted as part of IAs normal divisions in wartime ?
how good is the BSF in a defensive role and urban/mountain fighting ?
how much of BSF do we have?
I am assuming (wrongly?) that CRPF/PAC are of no use against the regular
PA.
CRPF could play a very important rear areas security role, supporting the BSF who are further forward, who are watching the gaps between army deployed areas. the roles need to be quite different, and it will take a lot of C4I to make it effective and a huge training step up for the BSF and CRPF (and indeed CISF)
that way IA can focus on the spearhead
that way IA can focus on the spearhead
[quote="alokgupt"]India has two divisions in Central Command and eight divisions in Eastern command to fight this.
http://nbr.org/publications/asia_policy ... A%20RT.pdf
As of 2007, main ground force units are organized into eighteen group armies along with a number of independent units (divisions, brigades, and regiments/groups). Maneuver forces (infantry and armored units) consist of approximately 35 divisions and about 44 brigades. These forces are supported by roughly 40 artillery, surface-to-surface missile, air defense, and anti-aircraft artillery divisions and brigades and include various special operations forces, reconnaissance, army aviation, engineer, communications, chemical defense, electronic warfare, and “high technologyâ€
http://nbr.org/publications/asia_policy ... A%20RT.pdf
As of 2007, main ground force units are organized into eighteen group armies along with a number of independent units (divisions, brigades, and regiments/groups). Maneuver forces (infantry and armored units) consist of approximately 35 divisions and about 44 brigades. These forces are supported by roughly 40 artillery, surface-to-surface missile, air defense, and anti-aircraft artillery divisions and brigades and include various special operations forces, reconnaissance, army aviation, engineer, communications, chemical defense, electronic warfare, and “high technologyâ€
Last edited by alokgupt on 03 Feb 2008 22:31, edited 2 times in total.