China Military Watch

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 16 Mar 2009 18:51

well, the defence minister of Srilanka visited China during March 3rd-6th,2009.but it is very interesting that China didn't reported it until on March 11th,2009.

So ,what happened ? was there anything speical during the the visit?

well, the following are some pictures showing the meeting beween the Defence minister of Srilanka and the generals of PLA .

PLS pay attention to the map. pls guess what part of the earth the PLA generals and their guests from Srilanka were studying,then you should have a clue what they are talking about!

http://p.ilorz.info/uploads/1237209795x974222243.jpg
may be it is easier to tell what part on the earth they were watching ,judging from this angle.
http://p.ilorz.info/uploads/1237209825x974222243.jpg

for your reference.
http://p.ilorz.info/uploads/1237210325x974222243.jpg

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 16 Mar 2009 19:04

So since pakistani weapons seemed to have been very ineffective against LTTE, they want chinese weapons? Not much better are they? They simply don't have the balls to call PLAN into that area. It will mean end of sri lanka as a nation.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 16 Mar 2009 21:15

So since pakistani weapons seemed to have been very ineffective against LTTE, they want chinese weapons? Not much better are they? They simply don't have the balls to call PLAN into that area. It will mean end of sri lanka as a nation.

not just about some weapons brother,thats not a big deal for china , but about the future

you can imagine the strength china will gain if it has a base in northern lanka,
ifin return it helps eliminate the 'northern' influence,the lankans hate too much,
so much that they cant even consider a 50sq mile autonomous area for tamils to have a little pride and equality in lanka

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 16 Mar 2009 22:08

namit k wrote:
So since pakistani weapons seemed to have been very ineffective against LTTE, they want chinese weapons? Not much better are they? They simply don't have the balls to call PLAN into that area. It will mean end of sri lanka as a nation.
not just about some weapons brother,thats not a big deal for china , but about the future

you can imagine the strength china will gain if it has a base in northern lanka,
ifin return it helps eliminate the 'northern' influence,the lankans hate too much,
so much that they cant even consider a 50sq mile autonomous area for tamils to have a little pride and equality in lanka

Long long time ago in the 80s, the US wanted a naval base in Jaffna in return of US military and economic aid. The experience of similar aid to Pakistan, scared the shit out of the Indian Govt, who in turn played hard ball and agreed to send in the IPKF.

As Namit said Entry of the Chinks for a sea port could be a dustinct possibility. About time we started offering carrots & sticks to our neighbours.

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Mar 2009 09:13

Wasnt the LTTE nudged on/helped create by India to avoid US setting up a base and a VoA station (which means a listening post) in N. Lanka?

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 17 Mar 2009 21:00

^^ thats why , India raised the humanitarian issues and halted the lanka army march on that 50sq km left,
its not so easy to kill ltte or any humanitarian voice of tamils with porki and chinese weapons, which demands equality at least.
lanka should 'Realize' that India is the big boss of this house and so do others and it is better to live peacefully with India which always respects their coexistence, than to be bewildered by chinks and unkil
otherwise like porkistan theyl shoot their own legs

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 17 Mar 2009 21:51

Some interesting articles on Chinese forces
CHINESE AIR/LAND/SEA STRIKE MISSILES
chinese tactical missiles
new chinese bomber
usaf help to plaaf
usaf help to plaaf 2
U.S. SUPER COMPUTERS FOR CHINESE NUCLEAR WEAPONS LABS
although the links are old but intersting

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 18 Mar 2009 21:40

When MMS was sleeping

China moves into India's back yard
The “H’ factor – The New Pearl

China is all set to drop anchor at India's southern doorstep. An agreement has been finalized between Sri Lanka and China under which the latter will participate in the development of a port project at Hambantota on the island's south coast.

The Hambantota Development Zone, which the Chinese will help build, will include a container port, a bunkering system, an oil refinery, an airport and other facilities. It is expected to cost about US$1 billion and the Chinese are said to be financing more than 85% of the project.

They say China won the project thanks to Indian lethargy and shortsightedness. According to this view, while India has been dragging its feet on this and other issues, the Chinese quickly moved in to clinch the deal. In the process, it has made inroads into Sri Lanka - a country that India regards as within its sphere of influence.

Titled "Energy Futures in Asia" by Booz Allen Hamilton (defense contractor) for the Pentagon in an “internal report” mentions about the "pearls" in a string. These pearls could be seen in Chinese naval presence. It starts from Gwadar in Pakistan, at Chittagong in Bangladesh, in Myanmar, Cambodia and Thailand, pulling to South China Sea. Add to all this, “Hambantota” – the “H” factor – the new pearl in the necklace – which is “Made in China”.

When opponents present openings, you should penetrate them immediately. Get to what they want first, subtly anticipate them. Maintain discipline and adapt to the enemy in order to determine the outcome of the war. Thus, at first you are like a maiden, so the enemy opens his door, then you are like a rabbit on the loose, so the enemy cannot keep you out.”- Art of War - Sun Tzu.

i guess now we know what the lankan minister with chinese generals were discussing

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 19 Mar 2009 00:53

some days back there was paper article on ho China is increasingly investing in dual use product companies & its investment is being welcomed due to the financial crunch. cant recall where i read it

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Mar 2009 19:16

Years ago,long before the Chinese signed on,I ranted and raved at India's inaction at these opportunities in the island.We are now paying for our lethargy and MEA myopia.However,all is not lost.India can sign the long delayed defence agreement with Lanka,which will protect ourselves from any misuse of SL territory against us.This deal has beend elayed only becaus eof the pro-Eelamist fifth-columnists in TN.We shouyld've bravely gone ahead and banned any political entities which threatened to defy on the agreemnt the GOI as anti-national .Here is another report on the PLANs expanding patrols.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7952004.stm

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 19 Mar 2009 20:14

One view of the Future Chinese Aircraft Carrier Concept

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6091/95077877.jpg

ticky · Post by **ticky** » 19 Mar 2009 20:28

^ looks more like one of the USN flatops to me and is that a hornet on the CAT? Garus help

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 19 Mar 2009 20:31

Srilanka is only one part of the puzzle here. But accept it - it is too late. Nepal has been the latest addition to the string of neighbors in Chinese influence.

Being non-aligned, we do not pursue strong strategic and military alliances with any of the smaller/neighbor nations. Till 90's it has served us well since our economy and ambitions were limited. Now with improving economy, we are scampering to make allies, while China has been executing a precisely planned scheme of encirclement.

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 19 Mar 2009 20:53

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 19 Mar 2009 20:59

Man, that is the longest post I have seen in BR in some time.
Could we have a link?

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 19 Mar 2009 21:02

Looks like the whole of wikipedia has been...

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 19 Mar 2009 21:10

Kailash wrote:Man, that is the longest post I have seen in BR in some time.
Could we have a link?

There you go Sir

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Div- ... ocId541017

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 20 Mar 2009 21:58

DSI Intakes and IRST added to J-10B: Pic

Doesn't look like 5th gene to me!

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 21 Mar 2009 17:37

Cut-out of Chinese PLAN TYPE-52 Air Defence Destroyers. Chinese Aegis Clone
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/ ... _70558.jpg

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 21 Mar 2009 19:06

DSI Intakes and IRST added to J-10B: Pic

While Paki foras are claiming this as a Pak J-10 Varient. Chinese Mil Forums are saying that its PSed .

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 21 Mar 2009 22:58

soutikghosh wrote:Cut-out of Chinese PLAN TYPE-52 Air Defence Destroyers. Chinese Aegis Clone
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/ ... _70558.jpg

thats a damn dangerous machine,looks like those nasty are preparing for something big, atleast adopting russian navy doctrines against the usa
btw which design copy is that destroyer

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 22 Mar 2009 00:55

namit k wrote:
soutikghosh wrote:Cut-out of Chinese PLAN TYPE-52 Air Defence Destroyers. Chinese Aegis Clone
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/ ... _70558.jpg
thats a damn dangerous machine,looks like those nasty are preparing for something big, atleast adopting russian navy doctrines against the usa
btw which design copy is that destroyer

I always see you making arbitrary comments, with no substance. Ofcourse its a dangerous ship, its a destroyer, they are meant to be dangerous.
Please enlighten me that what makes this ship "damn dangerous ship" and y is it so special ? Iam just trying to understand the reasoning behind your post.
is it the phased radar which makes it sooooo scary or the 16 Anti ship or 48 SAM's
Also if this ship is so special, then P-15A and P-15B, should be similarly special

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 24 Mar 2009 10:18

New J-10 variant sighted

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Mar 2009 17:35

The DDG is heavy on the anti-air mission,for defence against the USN's air power ,supposedly during a spat with taiwan.

Here is a report from the PRC showing its J-10 flying with engine trouble.Check into the link for the video.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 961023.ece

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Mar 2009 19:36

Stiill seven kilometers from the airfield, the engine stopped and the jet began to lose altitude at a rate of 25 metres per second. The pilot succeeded in gliding the fighter onto the runway without power. The rear parachute also failed, but he succeeded in bringing the fighter to a halt after taxiing for some 1,400 metres down the runway

What worked then if the parachute and the engine failed when doing relatively moderate stunts?

Such a aircraft would have been shredded to pieces by IAF if offered as a indigenous development...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 Mar 2009 03:31

sum wrote:
Stiill seven kilometers from the airfield, the engine stopped and the jet began to lose altitude at a rate of 25 metres per second. The pilot succeeded in gliding the fighter onto the runway without power. The rear parachute also failed, but he succeeded in bringing the fighter to a halt after taxiing for some 1,400 metres down the runway
What worked then if the parachute and the engine failed when doing relatively moderate stunts?

Such a aircraft would have been shredded to pieces by IAF if offered as a indigenous development...

too early to state what could've caused the engine to die out.

anyhow, we too ought to be patient, and not jump to conclusions, as once the LCA enters service, there will be issues, some that could happen in flight. if the J-10 had crashed, it wouldn't have been reported and since it was saved, the pilot is now a hero.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Mar 2009 03:56

soutikghosh, what was the point of posting all that inline text when a simple link to the original web page would suffice?

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 26 Mar 2009 18:14

sum wrote:
Stiill seven kilometers from the airfield, the engine stopped and the jet began to lose altitude at a rate of 25 metres per second. The pilot succeeded in gliding the fighter onto the runway without power. The rear parachute also failed, but he succeeded in bringing the fighter to a halt after taxiing for some 1,400 metres down the runway
What worked then if the parachute and the engine failed when doing relatively moderate stunts?

Such a aircraft would have been shredded to pieces by IAF if offered as a indigenous development...

one of JH-7's Prototypes was turned over when it landed

its two pilots died in a very very bloody way.......their Upper bodies as well as the Cockpit were completely “Removed" by the concrete on the airfield.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 26 Mar 2009 18:23

Thanks for reporting but there is no need for the ghastly details. All accidents are bloody and sad.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Mar 2009 19:10

China naval gazing.Fulla rticle worth a read.
http://www.fpif.org/fpifzines/wb/5994

Excerpt:Naval Gazing

Let's say that China sends a ship 75 miles off San Diego to do a little surveillance. Those are international waters, after all, and Beijing is interested in the latest developments in our submarine warfare capabilities at Naval Base Point Loma. And it wants to do some reconnaissance for its own expanding fleet of subs. Want to bet that the United States dispatches a ship to tell the Chinese to back off?

Earlier this month when the situation was reversed, however, America got all huffy when China confronted the USNS Impeccable, a surveillance vessel, 75 miles from China's naval base at Hainan Island. The Pentagon argued that the United States can do whatever it wants in international waters. China responded that the Impeccable was in China's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, which it says should be restricted to peaceful activities.....

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 Mar 2009 22:17

Liu wrote: one of JH-7's Prototypes was turned over when it landed

its two pilots died in a very very bloody way.......their Upper bodies as well as the Cockpit were completely “Removed" by the concrete on the airfield.

Very sad indeed...what was the official reason given for the crash?

Yusuf · Post by **Yusuf** » 28 Mar 2009 20:47

Pentagon report says China is scared of Indias march both militarily and economically. The dragon is finally feeling might get trampled by the elephant.

abhi.bharat · Post by **abhi.bharat** » 28 Mar 2009 21:59

SURFACE-TO-AIR
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2009 Jane's Missiles & Rockets --

China seeks export customers for Yitian SHORAD system
Christopher F Foss

During the IDEX 2009 defence equipment exhibition and conference held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) displayed two air-defence systems for the first time outside China.

These were a truck-mounted twin 35 mm self-propelled anti-aircraft gun system called the CS/SA1 (based on the Rheinmetall Air Defence Oerlikon twin 35 mm GDF towed anti-aircraft gun) and the Yitian short-range air-defence (SHORAD) mobile air-defence system.

The existence of the Yitian SHORAD was first revealed some four years ago, when the system was claimed to be still in the final stages of development. According to NORINCO, the system is now in service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and is being offered on the export market.

In the form in which it was shown at IDEX, the missile system was integrated on the latest-generation NORINCO WMZ 551 (6x6) armoured personnel carrier (APC) chassis, but could be installed on other tracked or wheeled chassis.

Used in significant numbers by the PLA, the WZ 551 has been exported to a number of countries around the world. Its flexible design allows it to be modified for a wide range of missions, including being fitted with a turret-mounted 105 mm gun for use in the direct-fire role.

According to NORINCO, the Yitian SHORAD system has a combat weight of 16 tonnes. Its air-cooled diesel engine gives a maximum road speed of 100 km/h and a cruising range of up to 800 km.

The vehicle shown at IDEX retained the full amphibious capability of the WMZ 551 and is propelled in the water by two shrouded propellers situated one either side at the rear that are also used for steering when afloat. However, the vehicle will have a very limited amphibious capability in its Yitian form due to the additional weight on top of the hull when compared to the baseline WMZ 551.

Both the vehicle commander and driver are seated at the very front of the vehicle, with driver on the left and commander on the right. The commander also operates a remote-controlled 12.7 mm machine gun installed on the right side of the roof. Used typically for self-defence, this is laid on to the target using a flat-panel display and an associated hand controller.

Banks of four electrically operated smoke-grenade launchers are installed on either side of the roof and cover the frontal arc. Standard equipment includes a land navigation system and a nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) system.

In the baseline WMZ 551, the main diesel powerpack is to the rear of the commander's and driver's position. It is located on the left side of the vehicle, allowing enough space for a small passageway to the right that allows access to the rear compartment.

This passageway has been omitted from the Yitian vehicle. Due to the space taken up by the additional electronics and the auxiliary power unit needed to run the missile system when the main engine is switched off, there is no access between the front and rear areas of the vehicle.

A remote-controlled turret mounted on the roof of the vehicle carries eight TY-90 fire-and-forget surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), mounted as banks of four on either side of the turret. Each missile is mounted in an individual container that serves for transport purposes and as a launcher.

The TY-90 (Tian Yan - 'Heavenly Swallow') missile was originally developed by the China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation for use in the air-to-air role from the Z-10 attack helicopter, although it has also been launched from a number of other helicopters. At one time, the TY-90 was thought to be a modified version of an existing shoulder-fired manportable SAM, but this is now clearly not the case.

According to NORINCO, the TY-90 has a range of 500-6,000 m with altitude limits from 15 m up to 4,000 m. Maximum speed is Mach 2.2 and the single-shot kill probability is 80 per cent.

The missile's nose-mounted infrared seeker was developed by the Luoyang Optoelectro Technology Development Center. It uses an indium antimonide (InSb) detector and is reported to provide an all-aspect capability. An expanding-rod warhead initiated by a laser proximity fuze is reported to have a kill radius of 4 m.

Although the system has been designed to engage fixed- and rotary-wing targets, according to NORINCO it is also capable of detecting and engaging other aerial targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and even cruise missiles.

An advanced electro-optical package is mounted between the two four-round banks of missiles. Above this is the antenna of a 3-D X-band tracking radar that can be folded down for transport.

NORINCO claims that the radar has a maximum range of up to 18 km against a fighter-sized aircraft and up to 8 km against a typical cruise-missile target.

The electro-optical package includes day and thermal devices, a laser rangefinder and an automatic target tracker. The example shown at IDEX did not have any devices to keep the optics clear in bad weather.

According to NORINCO, the electro-optical package can detect a typical aircraft target out to a range of about 12 km and start tracking at a range of about 10 km, but these figures depend on the ambient weather conditions.

Two operators are seated in the very rear of the vehicle; each has a display and associated controls that include command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) and communications systems.

In a typical engagement, the surveillance radar would detect the target. If this were confirmed as hostile, it would be assigned to the electro-optical tracker, who would continue to track the target.

Once the target was within the effective range of the TY-90 missile, it would be engaged. The system can deal with targets flying at speeds of up to 400 m/s and the overall system reaction time is being quoted as six to eight seconds.

Although it would normally be integrated into an overall air-defence system, Yitian can be used as a stand-alone system. It could also operate with its radar switched off, receiving target information from another sensor. The system can be used to defend high-value static areas or to defend mobile columns.

A typical Yitian SHORAD battery would consist of a headquarters section with a command-post vehicle, six Yitian SHORAD systems, missile resupply vehicles, a missile-testing and maintenance vehicle and a mechanical/electronic maintenance vehicle.

The command-post vehicle is also based on a modified WMZ 551 chassis. It has a raised roof at the rear and is fitted with a SHORAD surveillance radar. An IBIS-80 truck-mounted surveillance radar is being offered as an option.

The TY-90 SAM is also used on the NORINCO Giant Bow II air-defence system. This consists of a battery command-post vehicle (BCPV), AS901A 3-D radar, Giant Bow II TY-90 launchers and Giant Bow II twin 23 mm light anti-aircraft guns. The latter are the Chinese version of the widely deployed Russian ZU-23-2 LAAG.

The BCPV has a roof-mounted electro-optical package that can track the air threat for subsequent engagement by the Giant Bow II TY-90 launchers. The latter is based on a similar two-wheeled carriage and has a total of four ready-to-launch TY-90 SAMs. These missiles are launched from rails rather than the sealed container/launcher used by Yitian.

In a typical target engagement, the TY-90 missiles would be used to engage targets at longer ranges with the 23 mm LAAG being used to engage close-in targets, as well as having a secondary ground role.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 28 Mar 2009 22:17

Yusuf wrote:Pentagon report says China is scared of Indias march both militarily and economically. The dragon is finally feeling might get trampled by the elephant.

IMHO, US is just making sure that India and China stay at each other's throat. India is a potential market for US arms and to enhance sales, you need to raise the threat levels. That is exactly what US is doing.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 29 Mar 2009 01:32

I dont know if this is the right thread to put this in but I just read this on the NYTimes and I thought it was definitely a Chinese military operation albeit a cyber operation. Please delete if you think there is another thread this needs to go in. I couldnt find a cyber-war thread.

Massive Chinese Spyware system infiltrates many Indian government computers and embassies

The article mainly deals with how the Tibetans computers have been compromised but they mention a lot about how computers in India and Indian embassies are compromised as well. They clearly mention that the computers at the Indian embassy in Washington DC were infected with this remote spy system that can activate microphones and webcameras and search file directories via a remote interface.

Also, they say one of the investigators in Canada traced them back to a website that was located in Hainan Island (isnt that were they have their naval base with their SSBN's ? ) . All in all , I am sure the National Security Agency has been aware of them for a long time but I dont know if the government of India is aware of the scale of the compromised computers. I think it would be reasonable to speculate that even Bharat Rakshak's servers could be "infiltrated" as this is a pretty popular sounding board for Indian military sentiment.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 29 Mar 2009 02:01

Yusuf wrote:
Pentagon report says China is scared of Indias march both militarily and economically. The dragon is finally feeling might get trampled by the elephant.

IMHO, US is just making sure that India and China stay at each other's throat. India is a potential market for US arms and to enhance sales, you need to raise the threat levels. That is exactly what US is doing.
Yusuf wrote:Pentagon report says China is scared of Indias march both militarily and economically. The dragon is finally feeling might get trampled by the elephant.
IMHO, US is just making sure that India and China stay at each other's throat. India is a potential market for US arms and to enhance , you need to raise the threat levels. That is exactly what US is doing.

You might be right but that does not mean that we should start trusting the chinese.If you are a neighbour of china you can never be comfortable or relaxed.

chand · Post by **chand** » 29 Mar 2009 04:45

you don't have to trust chinese, just don't give american too much faith either.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Mar 2009 05:56

Office of the Secretary of Defense
ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2009

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Ch ... t_2009.pdf

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 29 Mar 2009 18:36

JaiS wrote:New J-10 variant sighted

This single-seat variant differs from the initial single-seat J-10 model in that it appears to feature a revised engine inlet, consistent in design with the diverter-less supersonic inlet (DSI) featured on the latest version of the Chengdu FC-1 lightweight multirole fighter. Reminiscent of the DSI modification first tested on a Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 30 in 1996, this modification saves weight and improves specific engine power and stealth. It also cleans up the J-10's previous complex inlet configuration, which was reportedly prone to vibration.

They are really working to counter Su-30MKI, IAF should seriously look at this bird.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 29 Mar 2009 19:01

Vast Spy System Loots Computers in 103 Countries
Indian systems affected? Probably!

TORONTO — A vast electronic spying operation has infiltrated computers and has stolen documents from hundreds of government and private offices around the world, including those of the Dalai Lama, Canadian researchers have concluded.

The Toronto academic researchers who are reporting on the spying operation dubbed GhostNet include, from left, Ronald J. Deibert, Greg Walton, Nart Villeneuve and Rafal A. Rohozinski.

In a report to be issued this weekend, the researchers said that the system was being controlled from computers based almost exclusively in China, but that they could not say conclusively that the Chinese government was involved.

The researchers, who are based at the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto, had been asked by the office of the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader whom China regularly denounces, to examine its computers for signs of malicious software, or malware.

Their sleuthing opened a window into a broader operation that, in less than two years, has infiltrated at least 1,295 computers in 103 countries, including many belonging to embassies, foreign ministries and other government offices, as well as the Dalai Lama’s Tibetan exile centers in India, Brussels, London and New York.

The researchers, who have a record of detecting computer espionage, said they believed that in addition to the spying on the Dalai Lama, the system, which they called GhostNet, was focused on the governments of South Asian and Southeast Asian countries.

Intelligence analysts say many governments, including those of China, Russia and the United States, and other parties use sophisticated computer programs to covertly gather information.

The newly reported spying operation is by far the largest to come to light in terms of countries affected. This is also believed to be the first time researchers have been able to expose the workings of a computer system used in an intrusion of this magnitude.

Still going strong, the operation continues to invade and monitor more than a dozen new computers a week, the researchers said in their report, “Tracking ‘GhostNet’: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network.” They said they had found no evidence that United States government offices had been infiltrated, although a NATO computer was monitored by the spies for half a day and computers of the Indian Embassy in Washington were infiltrated.

The malware is remarkable both for its sweep — in computer jargon, it has not been merely “phishing” for random consumers’ information, but “whaling” for particular important targets — and for its Big Brother-style capacities. It can, for example, turn on the camera and audio-recording functions of an infected computer, enabling monitors to see and hear what goes on in a room. The investigators say they do not know if this facet has been employed.

The researchers were able to monitor the commands given to infected computers and to see the names of documents retrieved by the spies, but in most cases the contents of the stolen files have not been determined. Working with the Tibetans, however, the researchers found that specific correspondence had been stolen and that the intruders had gained control of the electronic mail server computers of the Dalai Lama’s organization.

The electronic spy game has had at least some real-world impact, they said. For example, they said, after an e-mail invitation was sent by the Dalai Lama’s office to a foreign diplomat, the Chinese government made a call to the diplomat discouraging a visit. And a woman working for a group making Internet contacts between Tibetan exiles and Chinese citizens was stopped by Chinese intelligence officers on her way back to Tibet, shown transcripts of her online conversations and warned to stop her political activities.

The Toronto researchers said they had notified international law enforcement agencies of the spying operation, which in their view exposed basic shortcomings in the legal structure of cyberspace. The F.B.I. declined to comment on the operation.

Although the Canadian researchers said that most of the computers behind the spying were in China, they cautioned against concluding that China’s government was involved. The spying could be a nonstate, for-profit operation, for example, or one run by private citizens in China known as “patriotic hackers.”

“We’re a bit more careful about it, knowing the nuance of what happens in the subterranean realms,” said Ronald J. Deibert, a member of the research group and an associate professor of political science at Munk. “This could well be the C.I.A. or the Russians. It’s a murky realm that we’re lifting the lid on.”

A spokesman for the Chinese Consulate in New York dismissed the idea that China was involved. “These are old stories and they are nonsense,” the spokesman, Wenqi Gao, said. “The Chinese government is opposed to and strictly forbids any cybercrime.”

The Toronto researchers, who allowed a reporter for The New York Times to review the spies’ digital tracks, are publishing their findings in Information Warfare Monitor, an online publication associated with the Munk Center.

At the same time, two computer researchers at Cambridge University in Britain who worked on the part of the investigation related to the Tibetans, are releasing an independent report. They do fault China, and they warned that other hackers could adopt the tactics used in the malware operation.

“What Chinese spooks did in 2008, Russian crooks will do in 2010 and even low-budget criminals from less developed countries will follow in due course,” the Cambridge researchers, Shishir Nagaraja and Ross Anderson, wrote in their report, “The Snooping Dragon: Social Malware Surveillance of the Tibetan Movement.”

In any case, it was suspicions of Chinese interference that led to the discovery of the spy operation. Last summer, the office of the Dalai Lama invited two specialists to India to audit computers used by the Dalai Lama’s organization. The specialists, Greg Walton, the editor of Information Warfare Monitor, and Mr. Nagaraja, a network security expert, found that the computers had indeed been infected and that intruders had stolen files from personal computers serving several Tibetan exile groups.

Back in Toronto, Mr. Walton shared data with colleagues at the Munk Center’s computer lab. One of them was Nart Villeneuve, 34, a graduate student and self-taught “white hat” hacker with dazzling technical skills. Last year, Mr. Villeneuve linked the Chinese version of the Skype communications service to a Chinese government operation that was systematically eavesdropping on users’ instant-messaging sessions.

Early this month, Mr. Villeneuve noticed an odd string of 22 characters embedded in files created by the malicious software and searched for it with Google. It led him to a group of computers on Hainan Island, off China, and to a Web site that would prove to be critically important.

In a puzzling security lapse, the Web page that Mr. Villeneuve found was not protected by a password, while much of the rest of the system uses encryption.

Mr. Villeneuve and his colleagues figured out how the operation worked by commanding it to infect a system in their computer lab in Toronto. On March 12, the spies took their own bait. Mr. Villeneuve watched a brief series of commands flicker on his computer screen as someone — presumably in China — rummaged through the files. Finding nothing of interest, the intruder soon disappeared.

Through trial and error, the researchers learned to use the system’s Chinese-language “dashboard” — a control panel reachable with a standard Web browser — by which one could manipulate the more than 1,200 computers worldwide that had by then been infected.

Infection happens two ways. In one method, a user’s clicking on a document attached to an e-mail message lets the system covertly install software deep in the target operating system. Alternatively, a user clicks on a Web link in an e-mail message and is taken directly to a “poisoned” Web site.

The researchers said they avoided breaking any laws during three weeks of monitoring and extensively experimenting with the system’s unprotected software control panel. They provided, among other information, a log of compromised computers dating to May 22, 2007.

They found that three of the four control servers were in different provinces in China — Hainan, Guangdong and Sichuan — while the fourth was discovered to be at a Web-hosting company based in Southern California.

Beyond that, said Rafal A. Rohozinski, one of the investigators, “attribution is difficult because there is no agreed upon international legal framework for being able to pursue investigations down to their logical conclusion, which is highly local.”