China Military Watch

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.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: China Military Watch

Postby putnanja » 09 Aug 2008 04:20

rajrang wrote:Upgrade of airbases - with emphasis on the N.E.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 343937.cms


DBO airbase in Ladakh - Hope China gets the message and reduces its misbehavior towards India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 097563.cms


This is pretty old news, and has been posted and discussed before.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Vick » 09 Aug 2008 06:53

From DN
Chinese Aviation Merger May Portend Military Applications

By WENDELL MINNICK

TAIPEI — Plans by China’s aerospace industry to merge two state­owned aviation mega-corporations officially are intended to create an indigenous manufacturing capability for large passenger airliners to fill domestic orders and com pete on the international market.

But not everyone is satisfied the merger is for such innocuous reasons, and see strategic thought behind it.

China’s defense needs are expanding and becoming more advanced. Increasingly, rhetoric out of Beijing suggests China views the Pacific as a large Chinese pond. Plans include the development of advanced fighters and bombers, along with a stealthy unmanned combat aerial vehicle, the Anjian (Dark Sword). Access to advanced Western commercial aviation technology can rapidly migrate to assist military goals.

“One official purpose of the merger is to facilitate production of new commercial passenger aircraft. I seem to recall that the Luftwaffe used a similar program to develop bombers,” said Thomas Kane, author of “Chinese Grand Strategy and Maritime Power.” The process to merge China Avi ation Industry Corp. I and II (AVIC I/II) began in June and is expected to be finalized soon.

Though European and U.S. arms sales are restricted by embargoes put in place after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, commercial deals have mushroomed over the past 10 years.

Recent deals, particularly during the Farnborough Air Show in the United Kingdom, demonstrate foreign commercial aerospace companies are working closely with Chinese aviation companies.

During the recent show, AVIC I and Bombardier Aerospace announced a cooperative agreement in the commercial aircraft market, allowing Bombardier’s participation in the development of the ARJ21-900 aircraft.

Other deals included Boeing signing a $63 billion order with Air China for 15 777-300ER and 30 NextGeneration 737-800 jetliners. In June 2007, Boeing signed a $500 million deal with four AVIC I and II subsidiaries to manufacture parts for the 747 and the 787 Dreamliner. Sikorsky created the Shanghai Sikorsky Aircraft Co. as a joint venture with Shanghai Little Eagle Science and Technology Co. in March 2003. The company is now manufacturing the S-76 helicopter in a joint venture between Shanghai Sikorsky and AVIC II.

Originally, AVIC was one consortium of aerospace companies spread across China. However, in July 1999, the corporation was split, retaining its original name, in an attempt to streamline and modernize its manufacturing capabilities and competitiveness.

AVIC I centered on larger and more complex aircraft, including upgrades and new variants of the Xian H-6 (Tu-16) medium-range bomber and JH-7 fighter-bomber, as well as newer Chengdu J-10 and FC-1 fighters.

AVIC II centered on smaller aircraft, including military fixed-wing trainers and helicopters. Helicopters include the Changhe WZ10 attack helicopter, Z-8 heavy transport helicopter and Z-11 light utility helicopter.

China’s Xian H-6 (Tu-16) “Badger” medium-range bomber meets the Air Force’s immediate needs with new variants still being unveiled. But projecting force beyond China’s borders will require a new, strategic long-range bomber capability in the next 20 years.

With a service life of 40 years, the H-6 is expected to continue in operation until at least 2020, but China is the only country in the world still using the Tu-16 and is beginning to look beyond its borders to secure oil and other resources in Africa, the Middle East and South America.

China has also struggled to upgrade its fighter arsenal to fourth generation and acquire heavy fixed-winged transports and aerial tankers. The love affair that once existed between China and Russia appears over, and orders for new Russian aircraft have shriveled up over the past 10 years.

Instead, China’s aerospace industry has been building a closer relationship with European and U.S. aviation manufacturers. The result could produce unexpected benefits for China’s military.

“China, like Britain, has an established tradition of adapting civilian hardware to military purposes,” Kane said. “So, if the AVIC merger works as planned, it has the potential to build up China’s force projection capabilities.

“If the merger and joint ventures with foreign corporations make the new AVIC more profitable, that will ultimately feed back into military capacity as well,” Kane said.

Improvements in China’s commercial aerospace industry will quickly equate to better military aircraft. Larry Wortzel, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said the greatest improvements are coming from the exposure of AVIC personnel to U.S. quality control techniques, improved systems engineering and advanced researchand-development skills, which will no doubt give China’s Air Force a much-needed boost.

“Other areas that will probably be improved are the ability to work with and develop composite materials and to integrate fly-bywire systems and avionics,” said Wortzel, who served as a U.S. Army attaché in China.

He sees no way to stop U.S. commercial aerospace unintentionally influencing the military, but he recommends that the Pentagon “watch what Chinese engineers and technicians” are doing in the United States. “Also, we have to keep way ahead in developing new systems and countermeasures,” Wortzel said.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rajrang » 09 Aug 2008 07:35

RaviBg wrote:
rajrang wrote:Upgrade of airbases - with emphasis on the N.E.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 343937.cms


DBO airbase in Ladakh - Hope China gets the message and reduces its misbehavior towards India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 097563.cms


This is pretty old news, and has been posted and discussed before.


The above links are dated 9 August 2008.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: China Military Watch

Postby putnanja » 09 Aug 2008 09:45

rajrang wrote:The above links are dated 9 August 2008.


I saw the 2nd link and it was june 4th.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rajrang » 09 Aug 2008 23:53

RaviBg wrote:
rajrang wrote:The above links are dated 9 August 2008.


I saw the 2nd link and it was june 4th.



Good observation. I saw the date on the first link and assumed that the second was also the same date.

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: China Military Watch

Postby pkudva » 10 Aug 2008 11:34

I think should now look for a long range Bomber, that we are expanding our military like anything and when we are a full fledged nucler Power.....a longe Range Bomber is a Must. Hope we get Tu-22 at the earliest from Russia. It will have lots of implications in Asia.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10024
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sum » 10 Aug 2008 12:12

Hope we get Tu-22 at the earliest from Russia. It will have lots of implications in Asia.


Think it was part of the Gorky deal but was canned later for reasons the GoI and GoR know best!!!

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: China Military Watch

Postby pkudva » 10 Aug 2008 18:52

sum wrote:
Hope we get Tu-22 at the earliest from Russia. It will have lots of implications in Asia.


Think it was part of the Gorky deal but was canned later for reasons the GoI and GoR know best!!!


You never kow,It is true as the russians wanted india to buy them instead of leasing them to India.But looking at the overall picture it was better to buy them provided we get a confirmation that required spares will be made available. Secondly TU-142 can easily be modified to look something like Tu-95 Bomber. Especially once we start receiving p-8I we can convert our Bears in to longe Range Bombers.
In house development of Bombers will be very difficult for India, that is why china still uses H-6 as it acts as a form of force projection in the region.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10024
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sum » 11 Aug 2008 09:03

You never kow,It is true as the russians wanted india to buy them instead of leasing them to India.But looking at the overall picture it was better to buy them provided we get a confirmation that required spares will be made available. Secondly TU-142 can easily be modified to look something like Tu-95 Bomber. Especially once we start receiving p-8I we can convert our Bears in to longe Range Bombers.
In house development of Bombers will be very difficult for India, that is why china still uses H-6 as it acts as a form of force projection in the region.

But,will the bean counting CAG and MoD babus agree to this since these are very expensive to maintain aircrafts(a.k.a, semi hangar queens)?
Thats the 100 m $ question!!!!! :mrgreen:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16996
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 11 Aug 2008 09:18

pkudva wrote:You never kow,It is true as the russians wanted india to buy them instead of leasing them to India.But looking at the overall picture it was better to buy them provided we get a confirmation that required spares will be made available. Secondly TU-142 can easily be modified to look something like Tu-95 Bomber. Especially once we start receiving p-8I we can convert our Bears in to longe Range Bombers.
In house development of Bombers will be very difficult for India, that is why china still uses H-6 as it acts as a form of force projection in the region.


mki can do most missions a backfire can do in Indian service. in RuAF, importance of the tu-22m3 comes from the cruise missiles it can carry, which won't be supplied to India anytime soon. moreover, the mki's are more survivable and nimbler platforms able to self escort.
it's payload too is nothing to laugh at.

the bears are long in the tooth and anyway, there exists little justification for IAF to operate a dedicated medium/heavy bomber. think of the scenarios in which IAF operates and then decide if those warrant bombers.
Of course, you can think of the mki as a medium bomber !
One area where a bomber type a/c does have some justification is for the navy, to be deployed against PLAN surface assets. however, that need won't arise for the next decade at least.
regarding the h-6, please compare the payload of the h-6 with the mki ! :wink:

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1114
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Lisa » 21 Aug 2008 02:10

Again from Jane's, it is reported that there are moves to refurbish and
improve "facilities" that the Chinese have constructed on the Coco islands.
The GOI is aware and concerned!! Upgrade is slated to be improvements to
communication facilities, construction of 2 helipads and expansion of
ammunition storage for the Myanmar Navy.

On the face of it these improvements are similar to those which the
Chinese have already made on Mischief Reef and the Spratly Islands. If I
remember correctly images from Global Digital of these were published in
the same edition of Jane's Intelligence review that carried the story on the
new sub pens in Hainan

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20606
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Philip » 23 Aug 2008 12:16

Menace of the PLAN.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 37,00.html
Menace of the growing red fleet
August 23, 2008

AS the gleaming Great White Fleet of the US Navy sailed into Sydney Harbour 100 years ago this week, Australia was given the first glimpse of its own strategic future.

"When the fleet entered the Pacific we remarked that the centre of gravity of sea power had changed," The Sydney Morning Herald observed. "What the future of the Pacific is to be only the future can disclose (but) it is likely enough that America may become our first line of defence against Asia." Two world wars and one Cold War later, there is still a powerful ring of truth to these prophetic words. The US Navy still rules the waves across the vast Pacific Ocean and the US fleet, in a time of crisis, would be pivotal to Australia's ability to repel a regional aggressor.

But just as the Great White Fleet symbolised the rise of American naval power, the strategic balance in the Pacific a century later is being tested by a new player.

The slow, steady rise of China as a maritime power is increasingly concentrating the minds of defence planners in Washington and Canberra as they try to gauge its significance and weigh its implications for the region. The latest and most stunning example of China's expanding naval ambitions in the Pacific is the recent confirmation of a new underground nuclear submarine base near Sanya, on Hainan Island off China's southern coast.

Western intelligence agencies have been trying to glean information about the construction of Sanya for years because the new base says much about China's ambitions to create a genuine blue water navy that can project power well beyond China's shores and throughout the Pacific.

Sanya is reportedly being fitted out with underground berths for up to 20 advanced submarines and has facilities to house several aircraft carriers that China does not yet own. "China's nuclear and naval build-up at Sanya underlines Beijing's desire to assert tight control over this region," according to the respected defence journal Jane's Defence Weekly.

"This development, so close to the Southeast Asian sea lanes so vital to the economies of Asia, can only cause concern far beyond these straits."

Concern in Australian defence circles about China's naval expansion is real and rising but it is also kept firmly behind closed doors. While politicians and diplomats speak glowingly about Australia's relations with China, the burgeoning trade links and shared interests, a small team of defence planners in Canberra is planning how best to handle China's naval challenge to the region. The new defence white paper to be released at the end of the year will be framed with China's naval expansion prominent in the minds of the authors. "I don't think there is any serious view in the Australian defence establishment that Australia somehow needs to be prepared to face China single-handedly," says Rory Medcalf, director of international security at Sydney's Lowy Institute for International Policy.

"The question is, would we be called upon to assist in some sort of contingency, and what would we contribute?"

In Washington there is also much debate about how to deal with China's naval ambitions, including ways to strengthen co-operation and trust between the two navies. So far there has been little progress.

"The US-China naval partnership remains weak," Medcalf says. "The US Pacific Command's early efforts to draw Beijing into co-operation and transparency - such as naval exercises, visits and dialogue - have struggled. China last year cancelled US ship visits to Hong Kong to show disapproval over US Tibet and Taiwan policies. This reinforced US mistrust. And China remains deeply suspicious of American intent."

But what is China's naval intent? Is it merely trying to build a capability to better defend its coastline, or is it seeking to challenge the power balance in the Pacific?

A US congressional report on the modernisation of the Chinese navy last month concluded that Beijing's near-term focus was to "field a force that can succeed in a short-duration conflict with Taiwan and act as an anti-access force to deter US intervention or delay the arrival of US forces". "Longer-term goals of China's naval modernisation include asserting China's regional military leadership and protecting China's maritime territorial, economic and energy interests," it says. In late 2006, Chinese President Hu Jintao declared that his country wanted a powerful navy to protect the country's interests "at any time". "In the process of protecting the nation's authority and security and maintaining our maritime rights, the navy's role is very important. It is a glorious task," he said.

But beyond this, China has been opaque about the extent and purpose of its naval build-up. Beijing has used much of its double-digit defence outlays during the past 15 years to purchase potent surface ships, submarines and weapons. It is developing homegrown warship designs and is assumed to have a desire for aircraft carriers.

China has more than 50 submarines, the potential threat of which was underlined in October 2006 when a Chinese Song-class attack submarine surfaced unexpectedly in close proximity to the USS Kitty Hawk carrier battle group in international waters near Okinawa. But official statements about the purpose of China's future nuclear submarine force are all but non-existent.

So far, the growth in China's naval assets has not been matched by a commensurate growth in Chinese naval activity in the Pacific. The US Navy says Chinese submarines conducted only six patrols last year: a record, but hardly comparable to the US submarine force, which musters more than 100 patrols a year. At present China's submarine fleet is used almost exclusively as a coastal defence force but Washington suspects the ultimate aim is to develop a near-continuous sea-based force of nuclear-armed submarines that would pose serious dangers for the US Pacific fleet. The Lowy Institute this week held a symposium on maritime security co-operation in Asia, and Medcalf says there was broad consensus that China wants a serious blue water capability and "that it is not just about Taiwan".

"It is inconceivable that China will continue to accept the security of its (commercial) sea lanes to the Gulf and elsewhere being outsourced to the US and Indian navies," Medcalf says.

But Jonathan Pollack, professor of Asian and Pacific studies at the US Naval War College, told The Australian this week that while China would become a much more potent military force, it was unlikely to be provocative. "For all the shiny new (military) systems they are acquiring, China has not gone to war for 30 years," he says. "I don't see (it) as a kind of budding overlord."

So how is the US tailoring its naval strategy in response to the burgeoning Chinese navy at a time when the size of its own navy has shrunk from almost 600 ships during the Cold War to about 300 today? Last October, in the first significant revision of US naval strategy in 25 years, naval chiefs implied they would focus on carrots rather than sticks, emphasising the importance of international co-operation and collective security as a way to prevent misunderstandings. China was not mentioned by name but the implication was clear.

"Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and co-operation cannot be surged," says the policy, entitled A Co-operative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.

For Australia's navy, the rise of China will not have implications for the basic structure of the fleet, which is largely predetermined for the next two decades with the planned additions of new air warfare destroyers, amphibious ships and, eventually, subs.

The question will be at the margins: the extent to which it drives closer ties between our navy and the US Pacific fleet, and how Australia seeks to engage China's navy beyond the modest maritime co-operation program that exists. This includes periodic ship visits and participation by China last year in a search and rescue exercise with Australian and New Zealand navy ships in the Tasman Sea. Whatever transpires, today's Great White Fleet of the US and its naval allies will increasingly be engaged by the slow rise of what might one day be dubbed the great red fleet.

rajkhalsa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 09:55

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rajkhalsa » 29 Aug 2008 13:27

I just came across what is probably the best online translation service for Chinese websites: Popjisyo.com.

What it does is, rather than translate the whole webpage at once like babelfish, actually keeps the webpage as is and only translates each word of a sentance when you hold your mouse over a word or character. It's a bit hard to explain, so just click here for an example of what I mean -- a Popjisyo translation of a popular Chinese language military news website.

It's a bit difficult to follow if you have no knowlege of the language (as it doesn't tanslate proper nouns and such too well), it is extremely helpful if you have taken a language class in Chinese or are familiar with Chinese grammar. Worth checking out

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rajrang » 31 Aug 2008 20:05

I am cross posting from the Tibet thread due to its relevance in both places

Start of quote:pandyan wrote:
Quote:
Hopefully Indian military planners will take notice of it and not repeat the mistake of 1962 when they foolishly held back the IAF from involving itself in combat


Lots of questions:

Yep..this is precisely the point. It doesn't matter how big your equipment is...how you use it is what matters...this is precisely where politicians come into picture. They can setup barriers for failure and ask the forces to fight with artificial constraints. with beijing cajoling the supreme commander of kangress, they pretty much figured out that only way to win is by politics.

This brings another question: what role does the government play during war and what power does it have over the armed forces as far as strategies and execution is concerned?

End of Quote



I hear so often that had India introduced its airforce into the 1962 war, the outcome would have been more favorable to India. Are we really sure? Maybe somebody needs to do a thorough thesis/study of this claim?

In Korea the might of the U.S. air force could not defeat the chinese. Even 7 aircraft carriers attacking Vietnam simultaneously for weeks (at one point) could not eventually defeat them.

Is it possible that if India had used its (much smaller - my guess is 300 or less fighting aircraft, technologically weaker) airforce in AP, then while this would have had "some" effect on the invading chinese, it may not have been significant? After all the IA in AP had been more or less destroyed relatively quickly and there were no more (acclimatized, trained) soldiers to replace them - to re-capture territory by pushing the chinese back from Bomdila to the Thag La ridge (with the help of the air force). The majority of India's (my guess is approx 300,000 or so) army being meant for fighting in the plains with Pak.

Maybe, India's use of its airforce could have angered the chinese and they might have decided not to withdraw from AP. Had the chinese not withdrawn from AP, there was nothing that India (or the US) could have done about it.

Is it possible that PM Nehru took this into account and decided to "take a beating from the bully and avoid angering the bully further"? Sometimes that can be a tactic when dealing with a much stronger bully - let him finish hitting and he may be "satisfied" and go away. Sort of like - should a rape victim comply with a (cowardly) perpetrator with the hope that her life will be spared? Though these are rational thoughts - in a moment of great emotion, responses may be different - non rational.

I suppose India should face these questions squarely - because honest answers to these questions may suggest that India needs to re-arm itself immediately and raise far greater numbers of (offensive) ground divisions.

I also do not mean to underestimate the value of a strong airforce. Today, India's air superiority in the mountains will definitely cause the Chinese tremendous worry. After all they panick at the sight of a few poorly armed separatists and their response is to send entire divisions to deal with them - signs of insecurity. But can India's airforce push back Chinese forces once they have occupied Indian territory? You will need a ground forces for that.

My apologies - I realize it is easier to ask questions than to figure out answers for them.

Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 708
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Santosh » 31 Aug 2008 22:33

Rajrang, thats not true. The Chinese ground forces had Soviet air support during the Korean war without which they would not have been able to cross the Yalu river. Even before that, air power was used by USAF with devastating effects destroying the NoKo logistics which enabled UN forces to eventually beat back NoKo.

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 899
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Nitesh » 01 Sep 2008 19:35

http://sify.com/news/international/full ... d=14750383

China concerned about India’s defence measures: Experts
Monday, 01 September , 2008, 16:08


New Delhi: Experts have said that China is concerned, if not annoyed with India’s plans to have a fleet of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in the next decade and recently tested nuclear-capable missiles that put China's major cities well within range.

New Delhi’s decision to reopen air force bases near the Chinese border has also invited negative reactions from officials in Beijing, they claim.

Encouraging India's role as a counter to China, the US too has stepped up exercises with the Indian navy and last year sold it an American warship for the first time, the 17,000-ton amphibious transport dock Trenton.

American defence contractors have also been offering India's military everything from advanced fighter jets to anti-ship missiles.

"It is in our interest to develop this relationship," US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said during a visit to New Delhi in February. "Just as it is in the Indians'' interest."

Officially, China says it's not worried about India's military buildup or its closer ties with the US.

News home | All latest news about Indian politics

However, foreign analysts believe China is deeply concerned by the possibility of a US-Indian military alliance.

Ian Storey of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore said China sent strong diplomatic messages expressing opposition to a massive naval exercise India held last year with the US, Japan, Singapore and Australia.

Rahul Bedi, the Jane's analyst, added "those exercises rattled the Chinese."

India's 2007 defence budget was about $21.7 billion, up 7.8 per cent from 2006.

China said its 2008 military budget would jump 17.6 per cent to about $59 billion, following a similar increase last year.

The US estimates China's actual defence spending may be much higher.

Like India, China is focusing on its navy, building an increasingly sophisticated submarine fleet that could become one of the world's largest.

Though analysts believe China's military buildup is mostly focused on preventing US intervention in any conflict with Taiwan, India is still likely to persist in efforts to catch up as China expands its influence in what is essentially India's backyard.

Meanwhile, Sri Lankans -- who have looked warily for centuries at vast India to the north -- welcome the Chinese investment in their country.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Lalmohan » 01 Sep 2008 20:48

Santosh wrote:Rajrang, thats not true. The Chinese ground forces had Soviet air support during the Korean war without which they would not have been able to cross the Yalu river. Even before that, air power was used by USAF with devastating effects destroying the NoKo logistics which enabled UN forces to eventually beat back NoKo.


would appreciate some references/context for this. AFAIKnew the Chinese build up was largely covert and the crossing of the Yalu was a huge surprise. If you mean Soviet pilots in the Mig15's then yes, but you seem to imply logistical support too. Not aware of too many incidents of N.Korean/Chinese Mig's attacking UN/US ground positions though.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10024
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sum » 01 Sep 2008 21:14

From above article:


Meanwhile, Sri Lankans -- who have looked warily for centuries at vast India to the north -- welcome the Chinese investment in their country.

What sort of blatant propaganda is this?? :-?

Who is the author of the report? Couldnt find it anywhere....

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby soutikghosh » 03 Sep 2008 22:30


soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby soutikghosh » 03 Sep 2008 22:33

Chinese equivalent of SMERCH . A-100 MLRS
Image

Reloading
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8531 ... 811wv9.jpg

Battery Fire
Image

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: China Military Watch

Postby ranganathan » 03 Sep 2008 22:36

Thats not equivalent but reverse engineered smerch.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Singha » 03 Sep 2008 22:51

reverse engineered

Ru sells them customized kit to produce under license and pockets the money under table
to keep alive the figleaf that it does not sell stuff to PRC. this helps in certain aspects like
indian deals.

I will bet 12 horses the Su35BM tech is being sold as we speak to appear in the next J-11
iteration.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Vick » 03 Sep 2008 23:02

Singha wrote:reverse engineered I will bet 12 horses the Su35BM tech is being sold as we speak to appear in the next J-11
iteration.

At the last Zhuhai airshow, the top guy at NIIP offered the IRBIS radar to the Chinese.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: China Military Watch

Postby ranganathan » 03 Sep 2008 23:03

So? Unkil is offering F-16 blk 52 to porkis. Hawkeye and P-3's. So why the hypocrisy over russia? If India can't stand on its feet it deserves to die.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Paul » 03 Sep 2008 23:25

At the last Zhuhai airshow, the top guy at NIIP offered the IRBIS radar to the Chinese.




Confirm that. As early as 2001, Ivan Ivanov had stated that Russia will exports armaments to Pakistan

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: China Military Watch

Postby ranganathan » 03 Sep 2008 23:28

Except Mi-17 civilian version what exactly have they exported? Of course since India wants the amriki stuff I don't see anything wrong in them supplying weapons to porkis. Its called realpolitik. OFcourse unkil provides munna with free stuff so russians don't have much of a chance.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Singha » 04 Sep 2008 11:09

Unkil is viewed with mistrust for arms sales. Ru is supposed to be a "reliable munna all-lie" who
wouldnt shaft us but apparently they will unless we keep buying T90s.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: China Military Watch

Postby ranganathan » 04 Sep 2008 11:40

unkil is russia's sworn enemy why should they let india deal with their enemy and not deal with ours who is a small fry for them? How many LA class has unkil offered till now? Even if the nuke deal does go through rest assured most reactors would come from Ru not unkil.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: China Military Watch

Postby neerajb » 04 Sep 2008 14:38

rajrang wrote:Maybe, India's use of its airforce could have angered the chinese and they might have decided not to withdraw from AP. Had the chinese not withdrawn from AP, there was nothing that India (or the US) could have done about it.


It seems like some bullied school boy's suggestion. No offence meant but can't think of a better simile for this quote.

Cheers.....

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Lalmohan » 04 Sep 2008 18:43

neerajbhandari wrote:
rajrang wrote:Maybe, India's use of its airforce could have angered the chinese and they might have decided not to withdraw from AP. Had the chinese not withdrawn from AP, there was nothing that India (or the US) could have done about it.


It seems like some bullied school boy's suggestion. No offence meant but can't think of a better simile for this quote.

Cheers.....


there was some discussion about this on BRF a while back, two factors to be remembered - at that time the IAF did very little training for mountain CAS, there is an article in the IAF section about it too. Secondly, there was genuine fear that the Chinese would disproportionately escalate the conflict to a level that India could not match. So, probably a decision on cost/benefits grounds was made and a damage limitation exercise entered into

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Avinash R » 05 Sep 2008 11:51

China submits report to UN on military spending
Friday 05 September, 2008
China submits details about its military budget and use of funds allocated for defence expenditure to the UN in an effort to enhance transparency and "military mutual trust" with other nations.

"The Chinese government has handed over to the United Nations the 2007 military expenditures report," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said on Thursday.

This is the second year China is providing information about its defence expenditure since it signed an agreement with the UN last year to provide annual reports on the matter.


The report has been structured on the basis of rules and guidelines of the UN about disclosing military information, China is implementing its commitment about being transparent with regard to its military spending by making detailed disclosures to the UN.

Meanwhile, the People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party of China, published pictures of a month-long "confrontation exercise of joint operations under modern conditions" that began on 26th August at the Zhurihe Joint Tactical Training Base under the Beijing Military Area Command.

One of the pictures showed a train carrying the first batch of troops of a mechanised infantry brigade participating in the exercise code named "Sharpening-2008".

The other four pictures showed soldiers of the People's Liberation Army conducting different manoeuvres with sophisticated equipment.

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby soutikghosh » 05 Sep 2008 18:23


Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Avinash R » 05 Sep 2008 18:50

China bans mass prayers during Ramadan in restive province

Fri, Sep 5 02:48 PM

Authorities in China's Muslim-populated far northwest province of Xinjiang are seeking to prevent mass prayers and the distribution of religious material as part of a security crackdown for Ramadan, government notices said.

A series of attacks on police in the province around last month's Beijing Olympic Games left more than 20 officers and security guards dead, and at least as many attackers killed or arrested, in the biggest unrest there in years.

As the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan began, local governments this week issued orders to clamp down on security in the region and stop its ethnic Muslim Uighur population from using the holy month to foment further unrest.

"Faced with recent violent and disruptive activities by religious extremists, separatists and terrorists, we must... step up ideological education of religious leaders and followers," a notice posted on Xinjiang's Zhaosu county website said.

The county government prohibited government officials, Communist Party members, teachers and students from observing Ramadan, while warning that "any person caught forcing another to observe Ramadan" would be punished.

"We must timely warn and stop religious believers from organising and planning large scale prayer groups and prevent any large crowd incidents that could harm social stability," said a notice on the Xinhe county website.

namit k
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 21:58
Location: Diamant-Land

Re: China Military Watch

Postby namit k » 05 Sep 2008 19:08

China bans mass prayers during Ramadan in restive province

good response, whats the need of mass prayer with religio-political discussions in china? this time han chnx were lineant otherwise they could booooooom 8)

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10024
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch

Postby sum » 05 Sep 2008 19:09

soutikghosh wrote:Chinese way of shore bombardment

http://cache.orion.sina.com.cn/fansjczs ... /21368.jpg
:D

Is that the Smerch copy? Why is being tested(thats what i assume) on a ship/OPV??

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16996
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch

Postby Rahul M » 06 Sep 2008 11:26

sum, looks like this a li'l bigger than the polish shore bombardment MBR (now made by L&T) mounted on the polish amphibs.
a pic was posted a couple of months back in the indigenous R&D thread IIRC.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rajrang » 10 Sep 2008 05:49


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: China Military Watch

Postby putnanja » 20 Sep 2008 02:20

China begins training first batch of aircraft carrier fighter pilots

China begins training first batch of aircraft carrier fighter pilots
Print Email Feedback Discuss
Rate Article
Rating:
Manu Pubby Posted: Sep 20, 2008 at 0119 hrs IST
New Delhi, September 19 Indian maritime security experts are keenly watching China as it starts training its first batch of fighter pilots to operate from the country’s future fleet of aircraft carriers. A small article in a recent issue of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Daily announced that the first batch of 50 pilots cadets have been inducted at the Dalian Naval Academy to undergo training on ‘ship borne aircraft flight’.

China remains the only major military power that does not possess an aircraft carrier but the country is fast moving towards acquiring a fleet of indigenous carriers and the training programme for pilots is a rare official acknowledgement of the project.

As the article notes, the training programme is a significant milestone in China’s quest for a potent naval force. “The first pilot programme of recruiting pilot cadets is an important decision of the PLA Navy to realise a strategic transformation in the new period,” it says.

The news is being keenly watched by Indian maritime security policy makers as it gives an insight into China’s secretive aircraft carrier project. The first batch of pilots undergoing training on ‘basic theories of surface ship and flight’ will pass out from the academy in four years ¿ indicating that China will have a potent training platform for actual ship borne fighters by that time

As reported by The Indian Express, the Indian Navy also estimates that China will get its first functional aircraft carrier — a refurbished Soviet era Kiev class warship — by 2012 and will use it exclusively to train Navy personnel.

Incidentally, the Russian origin carrier, which has been renamed as the ‘Shilang’, has been transferred to the Dalian Naval Academy and is being fitted with a Chinese power plant. The Indian Navy believes that the carrier will never be able to function as a full fledged warship but will be used to carry out basic landing and take off practice.

While China is fast moving towards acquiring an aircraft carrier, analysts say that it could take nearly two decades ¿ the time required to train crews and fine tune operations aboard warships of this size - to have a fully operational fleet.

The US also estimates that China is capable of starting construction of an indigenous aircraft carrier by the end of the decade. The latest Pentagon report on the Chinese military, however, says that the country ‘could not have an operational, domestically-produced aircarft carrier before 2015’.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rajrang » 20 Sep 2008 07:50

neerajbhandari wrote:
rajrang wrote:Maybe, India's use of its airforce could have angered the chinese and they might have decided not to withdraw from AP. Had the chinese not withdrawn from AP, there was nothing that India (or the US) could have done about it.


It seems like some bullied school boy's suggestion. No offence meant but can't think of a better simile for this quote.

Cheers.....



Maybe a victim of bullying may have some useful insights about how to deal with a much stronger bully.

Many years back I read a book - "The rise and fall of great empires" - was the author Paul Kennedy? The book tries to analyze how the British managed to control a vast empire with relatively smaller military forces. Very often they were confronted by powerful European competitors also. Maybe India should take some ideas from the British - seems like a doctoral thesis material?

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: China Military Watch

Postby rajrang » 20 Sep 2008 08:00

Lalmohan wrote:
neerajbhandari wrote:
rajrang wrote:Maybe, India's use of its airforce could have angered the chinese and they might have decided not to withdraw from AP. Had the chinese not withdrawn from AP, there was nothing that India (or the US) could have done about it.


It seems like some bullied school boy's suggestion. No offence meant but can't think of a better simile for this quote.

Cheers.....


there was some discussion about this on BRF a while back, two factors to be remembered - at that time the IAF did very little training for mountain CAS, there is an article in the IAF section about it too. Secondly, there was genuine fear that the Chinese would disproportionately escalate the conflict to a level that India could not match. So, probably a decision on cost/benefits grounds was made and a damage limitation exercise entered into



Is it possible that in a future war between India and China - India might perform a cost/benefits assessment and once again conclude the air force should not be used - leaving the Indian Army to deal with the PLA by itself?

A similar analysis might also result in the Indian Navy not playing any role!

Therefore two things are important:

First, it is important that India's leaders clearly understand why the Air Force was not used in 1962. Also there is a need to understand under what circumstances India will be prevented from using its Air Force in a future war.

Second, India should clearly understand under what circumstances India will be prevented from using its Navy in a future war? Is there a well defined role for India's Navy during a war with China?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests