China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 05 Jul 2011 07:47

jaladipc wrote:I think we folks are missing something while busy hanging on this so called single crystal tech.couple of blue moons ago a jingo from BARC whose specialization is materials development and working on the same said that single crystals for aero engines is a technology of the past and the latest being the metal silicide coatings.he went on saying that use of metal silicide coatings instead of single crystal will further bring down the weight for aerospace applications.


Nothing is being missed. No one is hanging on to anything - fact that will be noticed if all the posts are actually read. Saying is different from doing. If you look at Aero India pictures you find images of Indian composite blades and blisks on display - all newer tech than powder metallurgy (AFAIK) for engine blades. But we are still not there. As far as the west is concerned it is all "been there done that" For India and China it is "still getting there". You have to get there first before you can accept or reject. Getting a reliable F-100 level engine would be a great achievement for China or India. Getting a reliable F-404 level engine would be a super-prize.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 05 Jul 2011 08:08

Here is an interesting commentary on what the US is doing with this 1970s F-100

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/523 ... nes-03862/
So, what is a “Digital Engine Control VI”, anyway?

At a general level, Digital Engine Controls perform many of the same functions as the digital engine controls in your car, using sensor inputs from inside the engine itself and from outside the aircraft (i.e. air density, throttle lever position, engine temperatures, engine pressures, et. al.) to optimize performance in real time. These DEC VI controls are part of a FADEC, or “Full Authority Digital Engine Control” system, which was pioneered on the F100 and now equips most modern jet engines. In June 2007, F100 engines exceeded 21 million total flight hours. Upgrades to the FADEC system can put that experience to good use, and complement engine upgrades such as those underway in National Guard aircraft.

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4475
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby gakakkad » 05 Jul 2011 10:02

There is something I'd like to say about the whole Chinese saga .

Economic similarity with Nazi Germany

The Chinese situation in many ways is quite similar to pre ww2 Germany (1932-1939) . An authoritarian , oppressive Govt .Massive infrastructural investments without any practical reasons that inflated the economy. (Germany Autobahns etc China Bullet trains etc) . Fabricated economic statistics . ( The unemployment rate in Germany was practically zero , reason being Jews were kicked out and Christians replaced them , Jews were not included in stats. We are all too well verse with what lizard does). Persecution of a specific group of people . Both countries were appeased by the hypocritical international community .

There were however some important differences . German engineering was renowned even in those days .(BMW etc) We know about lizard all too well. The german economy depended upon domestic consumption besides infrastructure. Exports declined. For the only time in the history of modern Germany was there a negative balance of payment . Growth in economy was in large part due to infrastructure and domestic consumption. The chinese model of positive BOP and export based economy may at first site seem more sustainable . But experts have pointed out that it is not. Most readers must have perused through those articles . An important point here is that western (and even some Yindian companies like videocon) have factories in Lizard . The out put of those factories goes in the balance sheet of the foreign companies but the GNP stats of the Chinese companies. They can always shut there shops and get out. Even not bothering to take back some machinery .(Doesnot matter to most companies).

Relevance to the defence Industry

The case of the Chinese engineer with the fake signal cancellation processor is lot more important to the defence industry than one might imagine. The important thing is that the government believed the guy and gave him a huge finance . Lack of accountability coupled with prohibition of failure can be a deadly combination . The Chinese companies have to come up with a fifth gen Jet. Failure is not an option . And the Bakis don't share DJinn technology with them nor could they replicate Harry Potters magical wand. What do you do ? Modify known airframes to have SCI-FI looks and Hand it over to tHE ccp . BE hailed a hero and pocket the money you get from the country.I am not saying that they dont have a fith gen jet. But my scenario is perfectly possible. The DSP chip was caught because it was in the public domain. And motorolla could easily identify the same. In case of jets its unlikely to ever get caught . It is perfectly conceivable that The ccp and the country believes in the stated capability of the jet.

When American's develop something good they shout over the top of their rooftops and show off there stuff. Lot of technical stuff is even shown in NAT-Geo/ Discovery channel .Even our Desi LCA was shown in KHANLANDS nat-geo . It is a natural tendency . The american effort to sell us the mmrca is legendary . The chinese hardly sell their 'original' defence products .(except the soviet rip offs like mig 21). Fear of the buying country replicating their products is unfounded . Most of their customers don't even have scooter manufacturing capacity. (tsp for instance)

The reason why they rarely hold exercises with other countries is fear of exposure . The reason why they keep cancelling defence exercises with Indian forces is because we hand over their H&Ds to them at the end of a stick during the exercises. Ordinarily countries would never miss an opportunity to learn from their arch nemesis. Even Khan and Bear have had exercises.

If they were good the Taiwan would have been a part of PRC. And Philippines and Vietnam couldn't as much have mewed . (fear of khan is not an argument , when bear attack Georgia, Khan looked the other way. Bear bullies Ukraine (not that ukraine does not deserve it) and all we hear is feeble condemnations.

Our Industry is well experienced too

Entry level enthusiasts often argue that "atleast wo log copy karke kuch seekhte to hain , apnaa jet to banaate hain"

All aircrafts used in india are license manufactured here. We don't paint our label and sell it to other countries. We give due credit to the OEMS. We get to learn a good deal from that . And MKIs had a lot more indian innovation than one might imagine. Point is that we have all the experience the lizard has (and perhaps lot more ). Only thing is they find it cheaper as they rob oem's of there money.
Industrial guru's please don't argue about the differences between reverse engineering and license manufacturing in this one. As soviet era spares can easily be procured from ukraine and other cis.
This is a reason why bear and other countries won't sell them any longer. Thats why PAK-FA is indo-russian project. Its an urban legend that the Chinese were approached earlier and that they refused as Russians had more to gain . For god sake bears almost as good as uncle . Only place bear sucks is electronics .( as if china was any better). The indian electronics is improving greatly. Besides we easily get stuff from Israel and the french. Israel might not mind selling it to the bear. (their people even sold to lizard)

China a country with disguised low self esteem

We often see people with this . They often over compensate . I have a cousin who is a doctor too. His girlfriend (and now wife) got surgery while he ended up in anesthesia .(the least sought after clinical branch in India, In khan land situation is opposite). He loathed himself . Whenever we met he would talk about the importance of anesthesia in great irritating length. And he grew wary of criticism . His dad sought therapy for him before his relation with his wife was affected greatly . In many News sites (especially the ones related to international diplomacy) comment section there is an anti Indian / Anti american diatribe that mocks the Indo/american relations and economy. These are comments which can easily be distinguished from the ones written by jobless pakis. These comments are consistent and organised . Clearly the CCP propaganda machinery is at work . What objective would it serve ? None concrete. Psychologically to criticise others is to praise oneself. A person who keeps doing so has low self esteem . Why would china over react when some country attempts to have diplomatic ties with Taiwan? Because Taiwan is everything china is not . Sheer Jealousy I tell you . And low self esteem.

Bottom line

No need for shivers from the lizard .Of course we should not be complacent or take them lightly. IN fact we should not take any one lightly , East Timor , Somalia , Zimbawe , Burkina Faso etc. None of these people I tell you .

PrasadZ
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 11 Apr 2010 08:42

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby PrasadZ » 05 Jul 2011 11:35

gakakkad wrote:No need for shivers from the lizard .Of course we should not be complacent or take them lightly. IN fact we should not take any one lightly , East Timor , Somalia , Zimbawe , Burkina Faso etc. None of these people I tell you .

:rotfl: kakkad-ji you made my day!!
We find chinese propaganda clumsy but do note its typical of cultures that have an element of boastfulness. Good propaganda is like marketing, aimed to convince others, a boast needs to convince only yourself.
I have observed a few fob indians in the east who mistake eastern smiles for agreement or lack of confidence. To the east asian, a smile bares gums n teeth, context tells u intention. Maybe the context n targets of their propaganda tell us more than their content.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rohitvats » 05 Jul 2011 12:04

ShauryaT wrote:rajanb ji: You may be referring to Nathu La and Chola incidents of 67?


Nathu La was a different thing all together and involved the GOC commanding the division in the area....I had posted a detailed account of it in IA thread.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajanb » 05 Jul 2011 13:55

Rohit,

I don't really remember. The only places I am familiar with is Nathu La, Bomdila and Tawang. When I posted this account I remembered it vaguely as Bomdila. I scanned the archives of Time magazines but didn't find the cover page with an Indian Colonel on there. I gave up on trying to find cover pages on Newsweek. The other magazine in those days was the Illustrated Weekly.

And I still do think it was before'65. The reason, I am saying this is because it was a real high, a morale booster, after the drubbing in '62. So I think it was '64. Because after '65 we were on a high.

Maybe you can use your contacts to zero in on the location and year? Thank heavens I still remember where Kalaikunda is. :oops:

Cheers.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajanb » 05 Jul 2011 14:07

Rohit/Shaurya:
From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

India also reported a series of skirmishes after the 1962 war, which were never confirmed by China. One report provided by India shows that in late 1967, there were two skirmishes between Indian and Chinese forces in Sikkim. The first one was dubbed the "Nathu La incident", and the other the "Chola incident". Prior to these incidents had been the Naxalbari uprising in India by the Communist Naxalites and Maoists.[63]


It wasn't in Sikkim the incident I am talking about.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 05 Jul 2011 14:45

It is one thing to get a technology working in a lab (and displaying THAT at an air show ...... it is great, but .........)

It is another to get that technology working on a prototype. Working = in all senses.

It is yet another to reproduce that technology, consistently, within tolerances, etc in a production environment.

And, it is even more amazing to react to and correct flaws without hindering production or the use of that technology.

India (and perhaps China too) are somewhere in the first two steps. Its should take another decade to cross the other two steps.

Now where are these two nations WRT technologies of the US, in terms of time (1970/80/90), remains to be debated.
Last edited by NRao on 05 Jul 2011 14:58, edited 1 time in total.

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajanb » 05 Jul 2011 14:56

NRao wrote:It is one thing to get a technology working in a lab (and displaying THAT at an air show ...... it is great, but .........)

It is another to get that technology working on a prototype. Working = in all senses.

It is yet another to reproduce that technology, consistently, within tolerances, etc in a production environment.

And, it is even more amazing to react to and correct flaws without hindering production or the use of that technology.

India (and perhaps China too) are somewhere in the first two steps. Its should take another decade to cross the other two steps.

Now where are these two nations WRT technologies of the US, in terms of time (1970/80/90) remains to be debated.


So is it correct to say that since the Chinese have "reverse engineered" Ru platforms, and in the case of Tejas we have architected it right from the ground up, that we are in a better position, timewise, to achieve stages three & four, at least in the case of Tejas, with the proviso, that there are no external dampeners to the project like adequate and timely funding etc.?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 05 Jul 2011 15:07

I, for one, am very reluctant to compare India and China.

I still feel that the two nations have taken a very different path to achieve their goals, goals which themselves seem to be rather different.

I am impressed by a few things that they have done and equally impressed with what India has done.

What both countries have produced has to be impressive - only because their users seem to like the product set. But that does not mean that the support systems - R&D included - can and will provide the appropriate support. What I would really like to track is R&D. How solid is that. Until R&D is really solid the pipeline will start drying out somewhere down stream. Or one will get new products based on old technologies.

And I would not even think about the West.

Pratik_S
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 11 Feb 2010 21:19
Location: In the Lion's Den
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Pratik_S » 05 Jul 2011 15:25

China Signs $500 Million Deal with Russia for 123 AL-31FN engines
Breakthrough ain't going to come anytime soon.

nikhilarora
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 23 Jun 2011 19:02

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby nikhilarora » 05 Jul 2011 17:03

Hi,

I am a huge fan of Shiv Sir and his analysis and would like to second him. Please excuse the inexperience of my age but I do believe we can take on the chinese given the chance (limited Dhoti shiver and more strategy and strong willpower of our babus like the Vietnamese showed in so may occasions). Quoting an article which I found interesting and think is very apt analysis for the discussion going on here. Please forgive me if its a repost.

http://ignca.nic.in/ks_41065.htm

Personally I would never give away even a single bit of my motherland to Hungry wolves and would defend it severely. This is our country and our countrymen, no imperialist should cause a divide in her.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Jul 2011 19:11

China News Digest, Issue 3, June 2011
In the new report.
CHINESE MILITARY STARTS LEGISLATION PROCESS UNDER XII FIVE YEAR PLAN
CHINA TESTS UAV V750
CHINESE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT BURSTS MID-AIR

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Jul 2011 19:58

A bit dated but "Beidou" is to watch for as on it will depend a whole host of command and control on offensive assets.

China sends Beidou navigation satellite to space

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajrang » 06 Jul 2011 22:07

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: Why do you have to ascribe, what Indians think of themselves with regards to China on this thread. There is a place for it, however is it this thread?


Still - every time that happens some new person uninitiated with this thought process comes on and warns that ignoring China or or being complacent about China is wrong.

I had a flaming argument with one guy about this many pages ago.


I was that person you are referring to. The flaming argument consisted of you insulting me and a few days later rohitvats as though taking a cue from this insulted me again. You guys need to have some self-control. It is likely I fell approximately into the category you have referred to above - "person uninitiated with this thought process comes on and warns that ignoring China is wrong etc. " but that does not give you or anyone else the opportunity to let loose on them, being diplomatic is a better choice.

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 994
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby DavidD » 07 Jul 2011 05:05

ashi wrote:Innovative New Chinese UAV Emerges

The latest unmanned aircraft pictures from China show a reconnaissance truck with a joined wing and tail that could considerably increase range and payload and produce better handling at high altitudes.

U.S. analysts already are suggesting that the new Chinese UAV design — with its 60,000-ft. cruising altitude, 300-mi. radar surveillance range and low radar reflectivity if it uses the right composite structure — could serve as the targeting node for China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles. The ASBM threat against carriers finally has U.S. Navy officials worried.


Here's a clearer version picture:

http://i.imgur.com/yHZxr.jpg

This might be the most significant development since the unveiling of the J-20 as far as the Chinese military is concerned.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby shiv » 07 Jul 2011 05:36

DavidD wrote:This might be the most significant development since the unveiling of the J-20 as far as the Chinese military is concerned.


Why is this significant? I don't know about China but in India "unveiling" means nothing. India is constantly unveiling stuff. India unveiled a model hypersonic aircraft about 10 years ago. I even took a photo with no intervening bushes, shrubs or fences.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Singha » 07 Jul 2011 07:58

the long dual wings definitely indicate a high cruising altitude. so radar/imagery for strategic recon is the likely role.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Kanson » 07 Jul 2011 20:32

ShauryaT wrote:China News Digest, Issue 3, June 2011
In the new report.
CHINESE MILITARY STARTS LEGISLATION PROCESS UNDER XII FIVE YEAR PLAN
CHINA TESTS UAV V750
CHINESE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT BURSTS MID-AIR

Some good information.

FUZHOU BLASTS KILL THREE, DESTROY VEHICLES

A series of blasts on 26 May 2011 rocked a government compound in Fuzhou, Jiangxi province, killing two people including a suspect and injuring another ten. The China Daily reported on 27 May 2011 that Qian Mingqi, 52, a jobless local resident, allegedly set off the bombs on Thursday morning within about half an hour at three different locations in the Fuzhou city of Jiangxi.14 Qian was killed in one of the blasts, reported Xinhua News Agency, citing sources with the provincial public security department. Earlier it was wrongly reported that a disgruntled farmer was suspected of having caused the explosions to vent his resentment over a legal suit.

A source with the Linchuan district government said Qian was involved in a house demolition dispute, triggering suspicions that he might have set off the explosions as revenge against the local government. Qian reportedly left a message on his micro blog, saying he was forced to "step on a road I don't want to step on" due to the loss of his newly-built house, which was "illegally demolished". Local authorities are investigating the blasts.

Earlier in May, a petrol bomb set off by a disgruntled former employee at a rural bank in a heavily Tibetan region of north-western China's Gansu province wounded 49 people. Last year, three people set themselves on fire in a Jiangxi county not far from Fuzhou to try to stop officials forcing them out of their homes to make way for a bus station. In 2001, a string of explosions at workers' dormitories in the northern city of Shijiazhuang killed 108 people.

This is the latest of many such “sudden incidents” where Chinese farmers have sought to retaliate against illegal land acquisition and property demolition for reconstruction. Inadequate compensation coupled with intimidation by local developers has engendered anger and hopelessness among the sections of the rural population. This is symptomatic of the vast economic gulf between the rich and the poor in China and the limited success met by government policies aimed at reducing this divide and providing effective governance in rural China.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2474
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby VinodTK » 08 Jul 2011 04:35

A lost war history of Indians in China
Seventy years ago, Sikh, Rajput and Chinese regiments fought together against the Japanese in the battle of Hong Kong. This is the kind of narrative you don't expect to hear in Beijing even if it pops up soon after dialogue between the rival militaries recently resumed after a tense year-long gap.

This week, a small audience of Indian diplomats and the Indian and foreign media, gathered to hear an illustrated talk of the defence attache's travels retracing the history of Indian troops in old war-torn China. It threw up nuggets of military history that may, if better known, ease some of the strain in building strategic ties.

"It's not well known that a day after Pearl Harbour, the Indian and Chinese regiments fought on the same side,'' said colonel G Jaishankar.

The armies staring down the disputed Himalayan boundary separating India and China may find it hard to imagine this shared slice of history from 1941. Two decades later, Indians and Chinese fought a war against each other.

In his travels as a history buff, the official photographed the transformation of landmarks from northern Beijing to southwest Yunnan. In northeast Dalian, the scene of a former British-Indian encampment is now an IT park.

"These are aspects of history we should be aware of,'' he said.

Stories have gone down in historic records, of Indian soldiers under Britain who fought opium wars and waded through drainage channels to help lift the siege of Peking's legation quarters in 1900. Photographs of Sikhs guarding the Shanghai concessions are sprinkled in landmarks including the Oriental Pearl Tower.

Some strands of the joint action of Indians and Chinese in December 1941 remain lost. About 585 Indians were commemorated as the commonwealth war dead in Hong Kong. Graves in 15 Chinese cemeteries were lost during the cultural revolution of 1966-76.


In the Temple of Heaven in Beijing, a curator showed Jaishankar a relic saved in storage. It is the only bell saved from a set of six bells used in Ming harvest ceremonies.

In 1994, the Indian army returned the bell, which was part of the British loot from Peking.

Jaishankar is still searching for an authentic Yunnan Rupee minted for trade between British India and the mountainous province.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Sid » 08 Jul 2011 06:13

VinodTK wrote:A lost war history of Indians in China
Seventy years ago, Sikh, Rajput and Chinese regiments fought together against the Japanese in the battle of Hong Kong. This is the kind of narrative you don't expect to hear in Beijing even if it pops up soon after dialogue between the rival militaries recently resumed after a tense year-long gap.
-..................

In the Temple of Heaven in Beijing, a curator showed Jaishankar a relic saved in storage. It is the only bell saved from a set of six bells used in Ming harvest ceremonies.

In 1994, the Indian army returned the bell, which was part of the British loot from Peking.

Jaishankar is still searching for an authentic Yunnan Rupee minted for trade between British India and the mountainous province.


One of these bell is still in Indian Army possession, adorning a mess hall :) .

I dare not say where it is else I will have to kill everyone of ya :rotfl: :rotfl:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 11 Jul 2011 09:35

Mullen: China now a world power

The top U.S. military officer declared Sunday that China "has arrived as a world power," and that previous U.S. descriptions of China as a "rising power" are now a thing of the past.

U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen made the remarks during an address at a university in Beijing at the start of a four-day visit.

"China today is a different country than it was 10 years ago, and it certainly will continue to change over the next 10 years," Mullen told the audience at Renmin University. "It is no longer a rising power. It has, in fact, arrived as a world power."

In January, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described China as a "rising power."

"The United States is changing as well," Mullen added in his remarks, "as are the context and global order in which both our countries operate. I believe that our dialogue needs to keep pace with these changes. It needs to move from working out the particular issues and conditions of our bilateral relationship to working together to meet broader -- and common -- goals we share."

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 11 Jul 2011 18:03

China starts constructing own flattop / '2 carriers operational within 10 yrs'

China has started construction of its first domestically made aircraft carrier, according to diplomatic and U.S. government sources.

China has set a national goal of building a stronger navy and aims to expand its maritime interests.

This year, China will likely begin test-sailing a midsize aircraft carrier--the Varyag--that it bought from Ukraine, the sources said.

When the domestic carrier is completed, the Chinese Navy will have two aircraft carriers in its fleet.

The addition will likely raise concerns in neighboring countries, including Japan, whose ties with China have been strained over the Senkaku Islands; and Vietnam and the Philippines, which have territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea.

It will also shake up stability in the Asia-Pacific region, which has been primarily maintained by the United States' overwhelming military power.

In early June, Chen Bingde, the Chinese military's chief of the General Staff, told Hong Kong media that China was building an aircraft carrier, the first time a top officer of the Chinese military has acknowledged the fact.

But he did not clarify whether the carrier being constructed referred to the Varyag or the other carrier.

According to the diplomatic sources, another officer in the Chinese military said the Varyag cannot be called a domestically made carrier, and clearly stated that the carrier is another under construction in a different location.

A U.S. government official also said that Washington regards the carrier referred to as China's domestically made one.

Part of the U.S. Defense Department's 2010 annual report, titled "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China," said China will be able to operate two or more aircraft carriers in the coming 10 years.

Military sources close to developments in the Chinese Navy said the domestically made carrier is being constructed in a shipyard on Changxing Island in Shanghai.

The sources said the new carrier will likely be midsize, similar to the Varyag, and carry Jian-15 jet fighters, which China has just developed. The fighters will likely take off from a ski jump-style flight deck as is done on the Varyag.

Though the new carrier is modeled after the Varyag, the military sources said it has great geopolitical significance, showing that China has acquired the technology to construct an aircraft carrier on its own.

Security around the shipyard on Changxing Island has increased significantly since the start of this year, which military sources attribute to the start of construction of the carrier.

According to military experts, even in the United States it takes at least five years from the start of construction of an aircraft carrier to its deployment. Thus it is likely that China will need seven to eight years until the domestically made carrier can be put to use.


chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby chackojoseph » 11 Jul 2011 21:28

IIRC, on internet, in early 2000's, chinese used to argue how usless the Indian carrier is and China would never build a carrier.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Jul 2011 22:10

chackojoseph wrote:IIRC, on internet, in early 2000's, chinese used to argue how usless the Indian carrier is and China would never build a carrier.
Now that is called psy ops. If anyone fell for it, they deserve it.

A cursory look at IOR should dispense any notions of the need not to have an AC/CBG.

India is already somewhat land locked, due to geo-politics for now, the ocean is our best bet.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Shrinivasan » 12 Jul 2011 10:07

Cross positng from the Paki Thread about Chinese Wave attacks during 1962...

rohitvats wrote:Let the bumkum of Chinese/PLA being bereft of firepower in 1962 be laid to rest. Chinese were very elaborate in their preparation and ensured that they had both numerical and forepower advantage. And while they did use inflitration to outflank IA positions, they ensured that they had the manpower and firepower advantage.

See this link for orbat of PLA in 1962: http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/china/sinoindia1962.html

As a reminder - regiment in case of PLA is equivalent to a Brigade in our case.

Agree with Rohit, they had prepared well for this attack on Desh in 1962, they had built up a huge human force, well armed, motivated and supplied, ably supported by artillery etc.
Any Chinese Attack of the future will be in waves (after wave after wave), no doubt. A human wave is one of the waves, there would be waves of Ballistic Missiles, a waves of cruise missiles, LR Rockets, LR Artillery, Bombers and heavily armed infantry... this is not a Dothi Shiver but a clarion call to understand the capabilities of Chinese. There is no profit in denigrating a Chinese threat as a human wave attack and pooh pooing it with we will use a kill box, overlapping fire etc... remember Swami Vivekananda's saying ARISE.. AWAKE..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 12 Jul 2011 13:11

China says US spends too much money on military

The US is spending too much on its military in light of its recent economic troubles, China’s top general said yesterday while playing down his country’s own military capabilities.

People’s Liberation Army Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde told reporters he thought the US should cut back on defense spending for the sake of its taxpayers. He was speaking during a joint news conference in which he traded barbs with Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen.

“I know the US is still recovering from the financial crisis,” Chen said. “Under such circumstances, it is still spending a lot of money on its military and isn’t that placing too much pressure on the taxpayers? If the US could reduce its -military spending a bit and spend more on improving the livelihood of the American people ... wouldn’t that be a better scenario?” he said.


Mullen’s visit is the first of its kind in four years. Mullen and Chen are trying to upgrade military-to-military ties after setbacks over US arms sales to Taiwan, cyber attacks traced to China and concern about Beijing’s military plans.

China’s military budget of US$95 billion this year is the world’s -second-highest after Washington’s planned US$650 billion in defense spending.

Mullen acknowledged tough challenges to improving their military ties and called for more communication as well as “clearer and more pragmatic expectations.”

Chen said China is more than two decades behind the US in terms of military technology and Beijing needs to upgrade by adding new hardware such as aircraft carriers.

“China is a big country, and we have quite a number of ships, but these are only small ships and this is not commensurate with the status of a country like China,” he said. “Of course I hope that in future we will have aircraft carriers.”

Chen said a former Soviet-era aircraft carrier that China bought from Ukraine in 1998 was “a valuable thing” for China and it was being used for research and development purposes.

During their talks yesterday, Chen said he and Mullen also discussed China’s development of a new missile system, the Dong Fang 21D. Analysts have said the “carrier killer” missile might threaten US warships and alter the regional balance of power.

China’s push to cultivate homegrown aircraft carrier and missile technology has raised the stakes for Washington, long the pre--eminent naval power in Asia, and jangled the already edgy nerves of China’s neighbors, perceiving from Beijing more assertive enforcement of claims to disputed territories.

Over the past year, China has seen a flare-up in territorial spats with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam and seen its relations strained with South Korea — all of which have turned to Washington for support.

Chen criticized the US for its recent military exercises with the Philippines and Vietnam, saying they should have been put off due to the heightened regional tensions. Mullen defended the operations as routine.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby NRao » 12 Jul 2011 16:21

The PLA is a State within a State and needs to be treated as such.

Look for the civilian sector to down play all these statements.

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Avid » 12 Jul 2011 17:53

Well put NRao. PLA is a commercial/economic entity also. It is one big reason why the official and real budget of china is so different.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Jul 2011 18:44

NRao wrote:The PLA is a State within a State and needs to be treated as such.

Look for the civilian sector to down play all these statements.
Also, good psy ops to present an argument to the US that they are way overspending from their means and yet, increase their own spending by double digits every year.

Only fools should fall for this.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby merlin » 12 Jul 2011 19:11

ShauryaT wrote:Only fools should fall for this.


We have enough and more of these in India.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby abhishek_sharma » 13 Jul 2011 08:44

From the Sea: PLA Doctrine and the Employment of Sea-Based Airpower
Naval War College Review, Summer 2011

Despite an impressive naval modernization over the past two decades, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) currently possesses little in the way of force-projection capabilities. ... At this point, the most visible manifestations
of the PLAN’s desire to possess this type of force-projection capability are its Type 071 amphibious transport dock (LPD), commissioned in November 2007; a second Type 071 hull now under construction; and, most significant, the
ongoing refurbishment of an incomplete, Soviet-built, Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier at Dalian....However, China’s desire to possess modern force-projection capabilities for its navy is also the source of considerable speculation and misunderstanding. This is particularly true for China’s aircraft carrier program. Speculation runs from
forward-leaning predictions that by the early 2020s China could have as many as five aircraft carriers, including two nuclear-powered hulls, to a recent prediction from an Australian policy research think tank that despite evidence to the contrary the Chinese are not serious about building aircraft carriers, because it would be “dumb for them to do so.”. ...

Also, while smaller and much less capable than a true aircraft carrier, China’s single Type 071 LPD is the PLAN’s first true deck-aviation ship, in that unlike destroyers and frigates, it can operate a larger number and more diverse mix of helicopters against a larger set of missions. ...

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Further confusing the situation is Beijing’s own obfuscation. Despite years of interest in aircraft carriers and, evidence indicates, experimentation with aircraft carrier technology, as late as 2004 Chinese officials, including General Xiong
Guangkai, then deputy chief of the General Staff, stated that China did not plan to build carriers
. One year later, the unfinished Soviet Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier Varyag, which China had purchased from Ukraine in 1998, went into dry
dock at Dalian Shipyard, in northern China
, for an extensive refit that continues at this writing. Today anyone with access to the internet can track the extensive modifications to the ship in photographs posted on a number of blogs and
websites. Five years after the ship first entered dry dock, even the most skeptical observers are convinced that China intends to put the ship into operation in the not-very-distant future.

Roughly coincident with work on Varyag, Chinese rhetoric on this issue has shifted considerably, with officials and the media discussing aircraft carriers with increasing candor. These include positive statements in April 2009 regarding aircraft
carriers by Defense Minister Liang Guanglie and Admiral Wu Shengli, commander of the PLAN, as well as a March 2010 editorial in the English-language version of the Global Times stating that it was time for the world to prepare for a
Chinese aircraft carrier
. ...

In addition to Varyag, China is also developing the aircraft that will compose the ship’s air wing. Press and internet reports claim China is producing a Chinese carrier fighter based on the Russian Su-33 Flanker D, designated the J-15; according to one website, the first prototype of this aircraft made its maiden flight on 31 August 2009 and its first takeoff from a land-based “ski jump” (runway ending in an upward ramp) on 6 May 2010. While the exact dates of these flights cannot be confirmed, recent internet pictures show a Chinese Flanker-variant prototype in flight with the same canards and shortened tail stinger as the Russian carrier capable Su-33; a video of the prototype flying is also on the web. While externally the J-15 appears to be a near copy of the Su-33, internally it likely possesses the same radar and avionics as China’s domestically produced land-based Flanker, the J-11B. It will probably be capable of employing a full suite of China’s most advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, including the PL-12 active-radarhoming, medium-range, air-to-air missile.

As an airborne-early-warning (AEW) platform, China may acquire, according to the Russian press, nine Ka-31 AEW helicopters. However, internet photographs indicate that China has fielded a prototype AEW variant of the Z-8 medium-lift helicopter. It is unknown which will be chosen as the primary AEW helicopter for the PLAN’s aircraft carrier force. It is possible the PLAN sees an indigenous platform based on the Z-8 as a long-term solution, with Ka-31s from Russia as gap fillers. Alternatively, the Z-8 prototype could also be a test bed for an AEW variant of a more modern helicopter, such as the developmental Z-15.11 Any of these would be much less capable than a fixed-wing AEW platform, such as the America E-2C Hawkeye.

PLA THEORY AND AIRCRAFT CARRIER EMPLOYMENT

...It is in the South China Sea that one should expect first to see the PLAN employ aircraft carriers. ...

The Chinese navy does not need to fight in the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean or at the center of the Pacific Ocean. The Chinese navy follows a proactive defense strategy. ...

It is highly unlikely for three reasons that China will seek to use its carriers to assert U.S.-style sea dominance in the Indian Ocean or elsewhere in what Chinese sources term “far-seas operations.” First, current estimates are that China
is going to build three or four carriers. Since it is highly unlikely that all of them will be combat ready at the same time, they would find themselves outnumbered and outgunned by the Indian Navy. India itself is looking to field a force of three aircraft carriers, but in the Indian Ocean they would be supported by land-based airpower, including AEW and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms. They could call on India’s fleet of submarines for additional
support. China’s carriers, by contrast, would be operating beyond the support of land-based airpower, with at best minimal support from China’s small force of nuclear-powered attack submarines. This also does not even address the possibility of American involvement, which would only make the situation less tenable for PLAN carrier groups operating in the Indian Ocean in wartime. Additionally, even if all of China’s carriers were combat ready, security concerns nearer home would likely preclude the PLAN’s surging all of its carriers and their escorts into the Indian Ocean, leaving the PLAN significantly weakened vis-à-vis powerful East Asian competitors.

Second, there is also the question of just how much combat capability PLAN carriers will bring to a traditional force-on-force conflict. It can be safely assumed that at the very least the PLAN’s first two carriers (to include ex-Varyag), and
possibly later ones, will employ a short takeoff but arrested recovery (STOBAR) —that is, a ski-jump design
. This represents a significant limitation, because ski-jump-equipped carriers are far less capable than U.S. Navy–style catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) ships, which employ powerful steam catapults to launch heavily laden fighter and strike aircraft. STOBAR carriers are forced to operate rotary-wing AEW platforms, which are far less capable than fixed-wing AEW aircraft in terms of range, operating altitude, and the size of the radars they can carry, thereby severely inhibiting the situational awareness of a battle group. For regional operations (e.g., in the South China Sea) this would not be as much of a problem, because PLAN carriers could count on support from land-based AEW aircraft like the KJ-2000 and KJ-200, now in service in the PLAAF. In the Indian Ocean this would likely not be the case.

Recent internet reporting claims China has fielded a prototype fixed-wing AEW platform based on the twin-engine Y-7 transport, which is at least superficially similar to the U.S. E-2C, indicating the potential for future carrier use. This raises the possibility that China is looking to field CATOBAR carriers in the future and that its carrier force will ultimately include a mix of CATOBAR and STOBAR ships. However, the Y-7 is considerably larger than the E-2C, itself a challenging aircraft to operate off the U.S. Navy’s large carriers. This means that if China is going to field a carrier-capable AEW platform based on the Y-7, the airframe will likely require significant modifications before it is ready for employment at sea.
Third, although the J-15 itself may be able to employ a wide variety of air-to air and air-to-surface munitions, fighters operating from STOBAR carriers are limited in the fuel and weapons they can carry and so primarily defend their
battle groups, rather than acting offensively. Again, in a regional conflict where land-based strike aircraft (such as the JH-7A, H-6G, J-11B, and Su-30MKK/MK2) can be called upon for offensive strikes, this is not a big problem. Outside of East
Asia, however, China could not use land-based strike aircraft without air bases in foreign nations. STOBAR carriers, for their part, cannot generate as many sorties as CATOBAR carriers, because they cannot simultaneously launch multiple
aircraft, and the Kuznetsov and similar designs cannot carry air groups as large as those of American carriers.


These disadvantages, however, are not crucial for regional force projection, because land-based airpower would be available. PLAN carriers, therefore, would likely operate against opponents like Vietnam, in a supporting role—antishipping,
island seizure, and sea-traffic protection—as opposed to serving as the centerpiece of offensive fleets deployed thousands of miles beyond Chinese waters.

...

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby abhishek_sharma » 13 Jul 2011 08:55

Continued from the article posted above:

VERTICAL ASSAULT: AMPHIBIOUS AIRPOWER

With approximately sixty ships of the type displacing over a thousand tons, including twenty-six landing ships, tank (LSTs) of over four thousand tons, as well as numerous smaller craft, the PLAN possesses one of the world’s largest amphibious assault forces. However, it has very little capacity for vertical assault, due
to a lack of deck-based aviation. Modernization of this force over the past two decades has been steady, with the arrival of Type 072II and 072III LSTs and Type 073IV landing ships, medium (LSMs). However, since most of the new ships have
replaced older and less capable ships, overall lift capacity has not increased significantly;....

However, their shallow draft and lack of aviation facilities (LSTs have helicopter landing pads but not hangars) make them less than ideal for assault operations beyond China’s littoral, such as in a coral-island campaign, and wholly unsuited for long-range expeditionary operations beyond East Asian waters or for nontraditional security operations, ...


China’s intention to address the gap in the PLAN’s modern long-range expeditionary capability was first made public on 22 December 2006, with the launching of the Type 071 Kunlunshan (LPD 998). The Type 071 LPD offers a significant
increase in lift capacity
and, just as important, the capability to employ a small but flexible air group of helicopters in assault and attack roles. With its long range and large capacity, the Type 071 LPD can operate far from China’s shores, engaging in a wide range of missions, from amphibious assault and vertical envelopment (the insertion of troops by airdrop or air landing) to humanitarian aid to areas stricken by natural disasters and evacuation of Chinese citizens trapped in war-torn nations. However, with only one ship operational and a second under construction, long-range assault capability is still quite limited. It is unknown how many LPDs the PLAN intends to build, with estimates ranging from two
ships to eight.
In addition to the Type 071 LPD, the press reports that China plans to build the Type 081 LHD (helicopter assault ship), similar in size and capability to the French Mistral-class LHD, or approximately half the size of the U.S. Navy Wasp class.

In June 2007, American defense analyst Richard Fisher, of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, reported that Chinese sources at an international maritime trade show in Singapore (IMDEX-07) claimed that the Type 081 LHD would displace approximately twenty thousand tons, have the capacity to transport five hundred troops, and be configured for helicopter-based vertical assault. ...

FUTURE EMPLOYMENT OPTIONS

The highest projections for modern Chinese amphibious assault ships are for eight Type 071 LPDs and six Type 081 LHDs, but American, Indian, and Taiwanese defense analysts have all assessed that the PLAN will acquire six Type 071s and
three Type 081s.
Fisher claims that China intends to build three amphibious task groups, each based around one Type 081 and two 071s. It is possible (perhaps likely) that these analysts obtained their information from the same source—they
may even be quoting one another—and that the projection of three Type 081 LHDs and six Type 071 LPDs probably represents a high-end estimate for the Chinese navy’s future long-range amphibious force. A force of this size would
permit the PLAN to field something akin to three American-style expeditionary strike groups, if it desired to organize its forces in such a manner. While this sounds impressive, in reality it represents enough lift for only between 4,500 and
6,500 troops, about one of the South Sea Fleet’s two marine brigades.
Moreover, that estimate assumes that all of the ships are operational and fully mission capable at the same time, a rare occurrence in any navy. It should also be noted
that such a force could employ in total between forty and seventy helicopters of various types, depending on mission requirements. Yet the PLAN only has about thirty-five rotary-wing aircraft of all types, most of which are smaller Z-9 and
Ka-28 helicopters, geared toward antisubmarine warfare and search and rescue.


The PLAN’s current inventory of fifteen Z-8 medium-lift helicopters is wholly inadequate to support an expanded force of amphibious-assault vessels. ...


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 15 Jul 2011 12:48

China needs aircraft carriers

Aircraft carriers have become an integral part of a good navy. In fact, a navy is not considered good enough if it does not have aircraft carriers.

No wonder, the United States plans to build 10 Gerard Ford-class aircraft carriers, which can serve up to 50 years and replace 10 commissioned ships. The US will commission the first Ford-class carrier in 2014 and the last in 2048, which will help it maintain its dominance in oceans.

In comparison, China still lacks some major weaponry such as long-range strategic bombers, heavy transport aircraft and aircraft carriers. The country is still waiting for its first aircraft carrier to turn its naval defense capability from green water to blue water.

Given the circumstances, China should develop aircraft carriers in three stages: revamped and self-constructed medium-sized conventional aircraft carriers, self-developed nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and self-developed giant nuclear-powered vessels. The country urgently needs its first carrier to increase its combat effectiveness.

China, however, should develop its aircraft carrier fleet in accordance with the defensive nature of its national defense policy. Since China is still a developing country, it should continue giving priority to economic development and deepening its reform and opening-up policies. After all, it needs long-term stability and a peaceful environment for economic development to maintain its defensive defense policy.

Aircraft carriers are essential for China primarily to defend its territory and territorial waters and bring a semblance of parity among the world's big powers. Though some people try to use China's quest for an aircraft carrier to justify their "China threat theory", the truth is that China has never used and will never use its military power for expansionary purposes.

History show that despite being perhaps the world's strongest naval power in the 15th century, China never invaded another country. Instead, the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) government sent Zheng He on seven naval expeditions from 1405 to 1433 to places such as Arabia, Brunei, East Africa, India, the Malay Archipelago and Thailand to boost friendly exchanges.

Zheng He's truly friendly and commercial voyages were in sharp contrast to his European counterparts' adventures to colonize countries about half a century later.

Contrary to general fears, China needs aircraft carriers because they are important for cooperation as well as a counterbalancing force among the big powers. China is the only permanent United Nations Security Council member that has no aircraft carrier. Even some of the non-Security Council members have them. This has left China at a strategic disadvantage.

Since the 1990s, the increasingly unbalanced use of advanced strategic forces like carriers and nuclear weapons by some countries has been undermining peace and slowing down world economic development. Some countries' unilateral actions have more often than not intensified regional conflicts. Once China adds aircraft carriers to its naval fleet, it could act as a counterbalancing force for such countries.

Defense Minister Liang Guanglie has said China cannot be without aircraft carriers forever, especially because of the increasing power struggle in the international arena.

Also, China's 2010 defense white paper emphasized "the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy's endeavors to expedite the modernization of its integrated combat forces, enhancement of its capabilities in strategic deterrence and counterattack", and development of its "capabilities in conducting operations in distant waters and in countering non-traditional security threats".

Aircraft carriers can be used as strategic deterrence and to thwart outside interference in regional affairs. As Andrew Erickson, of the US Naval War College, once said, China doesn't want war, but it wants to ensure that any action against its national core interests can be well deterred.

An aircraft carrier is a strategic equipment that indicates a navy's power and depth. Aircraft carries, as well as nuclear weapons, electronics, information technology, cyberspace technology, economic development and preparedness are some of the modern deterrents that can ensure national security.

Also, because of their huge size, advanced equipment, rich reserves and well-trained soldiers, aircraft carriers are highly effective in and capable of providing timely relief to people in the event of disasters, both man-made and natural.

For example, when floods and mudslides hit Thailand in March, affecting about 1 million people and stranding about 15,000 tourists in different places, the Thai government dispatched its only aircraft carrier, with four helicopters, accompanied by three other navy vessels to help relief efforts and evacuate people. And after a deadly earthquake and deadlier tsunami hit Japan on March 11, the US Navy quickly sent its vessels along with nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Ronald Reagan to help Japan in its relief and rescue operations.

The Chinese government and the PLA also use military personnel and equipment to help relief and rescue work in disaster-hit areas. So aircraft carriers can also strengthen China's relief, rescue and evacuation operations and help it better coordinate and execute its plans.

The author is an associate professor at Economic Security and National Defense Economy Institute, School of Economics, Renmin University of China.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Jul 2011 20:25

One part in the article that abhishek_sharma posted that irritates me is it does not even contemplate operations by the IN in the south China sea :twisted:


abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby abhishek_sharma » 17 Jul 2011 15:15

ShauryaT wrote:One part in the article that abhishek_sharma posted that irritates me is it does not even contemplate operations by the IN in the south China sea :twisted:


Typical American bias. Don't worry too much about it.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajrang » 18 Jul 2011 01:49



Previous recovery operations were conducted in 2009. Two events happened in late 2008 and early 2009. One was the India US Civil Nuclear agreement in October 2008. The second was Obama assuming office in January 2009. In less than one year from those two milestones, US India military relationship with respect to some naval exercises as well as military expeditions in AP have been halted. Two possible reasons include: (a) In the years prior to the nuclear treaty there were highly publicised naval exercises as well as military exercises in AP in order to strengthen forces within India favorable to signing the treaty, those reasons no longer existed once India signed the treaty and/or (b) Obama's confused foreign policy in his initial two years which had the tone of appeasement of all powers in the world antagonistic to the US. It is also possible that the above are simply coincidences - but I do not like coincidences. It is also possible that both factors are present.

Meanwhile, PRC is tightening the screws on India as they have often done during the last several decades. I wonder how India can tighten the screws on China similarly.

(1) First, maybe arms transfer to Vietnam, Phillipines etc., including, Brahmos and Agni missiles?
(2) Second, India could also lay claim to a corresponding large area of Tibet adjoining AP and start referring to it as North AP. After all why should the disputed area be limited to south of the present LOC that China does not recognize in any case as having sanctity?
(3) Third, China has forgotten that in 1962 they unilaterally withdrew from territory they had captured in Tawang back to the current LOC. It should not take much legal background to remind the world that the unilateral Chinese withdrawal is an irrevocable (legal) acceptance by China that (all of) AP is a part of India.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 18 Jul 2011 14:26

China Details Anti-ship Missile Plans

China Daily is citing a range of 2,700 km for the revolutionary missile, the DF-21D, presenting the crucial data point in a report based on comments by the chief of the Chinese general staff, Gen. Chen Bingde. The Pentagon said last year the DF-21D’s range is “in excess of 1,500 km.”

“The missile is still undergoing experimental testing and will be used as a defensive weapon when it is successfully developed, not an offensive one,” says Chen. “It is a high-tech weapon and we face many difficulties in getting funding, advanced technologies and high-quality personnel, which are all underlying reasons why it is hard to develop this.”

jimmy_moh
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 14 May 2009 12:33
Location: LOC

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby jimmy_moh » 18 Jul 2011 14:38

How an anti ship missile can be defensive .......


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests