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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 13 Jul 2012 10:58

Wong and others take OT stuff to another thread , lets discuss only military issue here

China's refitted aircraft carrier sails off for month long sea trial, possibly involving air operations

Chinas's refitted aircraft carrier has sailed out from Dalian port for its longest sea trial to date: It will last 25 days. Shenyang J-15 fighters may be involved in this sea trial which would make it a first.

"The longest sea trials indicate the aircraft carrier has finished the first step of tests on the ship itself and is beginning tests of aircraft landing and takeoff," military analyst Yin Zhuo, a retired major general, said yesterday.

It will take a long time for Chinese fighter pilots to train to land on the aircraft carrier, which is the most difficult step during training, said Hu Siyuan, a professor with the National Defense University PLA China.

"The pilots have to use the best direction, height and speed to land on the 60-meter-wide aircraft carrier and also need to prepare to abort the landing and ascend again for any emergency, which are great challenges mentally and physically," Hu said.

The Shenyang J-15 is a carrier-based fighter aircraft currently in development by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation and the 601 Institute for the PLAN's (Chinese Navy) future aircraft carriers.

While the J-15 is based on Russian-designed Sukhoi Su-33, it is reported to share a large portions of electronics and avionics with the J-11.

Some photographs taken by Dalian residents living near the port showed J-15s with wings folded and at least one helicopter on the carrier's deck. As we reported however, these were only mock ups used to train the crew in handling fighters on the carrier deck.

Kukreja
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 24 Aug 2010 19:28

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Kukreja » 13 Jul 2012 23:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju ... ground-sea
A Chinese naval frigate {Type 053} has run aground in a disputed area of the South China Sea in an embarrassing twist to the escalating territorial row in the area.

News of the collision came shortly after a summit of south-east Asian foreign ministers broke up without a joint statement for the first time in the 45-year history of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean) because of splits over the complex and increasingly heated maritime dispute.
---
A statement on the Chinese ministry of defence's website said a navy frigate had been accidentally grounded near Half Moon Shoal in the South China Sea while carrying out routine patrols on Wednesday night.

member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_20033 » 14 Jul 2012 00:08

Isn't it strange that India and China are the two world's oldest continuing civilization. Surprisingly they never fought a war in before 1962. its my opinion as a student of history that the problem is not China its the communist party of China. the communist ideology which needs presence of ememies to keep people united under the threat of enemy. People of China should understand that Communist party will never serve their interst. As far as economic growth of china is there being a professional in Financial industry I am very much sure that its a big bubble which will end up badly.
Last edited by archan on 14 Jul 2012 09:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: this thread is about China MILITARY watch

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby SaiK » 14 Jul 2012 08:55

Deleted by moderator
Last edited by archan on 14 Jul 2012 09:49, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: STOP detailing the thread. No comments on any user

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9970
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Yagnasri » 14 Jul 2012 12:33

Can any nation use a complex platform like carriers just like that without developing required tactics etc and learing the use of the system its role in the scheme of the things. I do not see anything on China's new AC use and role. It looks more like a development efforts and the real one with defined role etc will come with the next ship/s.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Christopher Sidor » 15 Jul 2012 09:25

^^^^
We are discarding the help that China will receive from other countries like Russia, Brazil, etc. Just as China was able to launch its first man in space with copious help from others, China will make this leap also.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby pragnya » 15 Jul 2012 18:05


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 » 15 Jul 2012 18:24

there are only two nations in the world with long and continuous exp with CATOBAR ops which is usa and france.
and only one country, with high intensity combat exp using carriers and very realistic exercises using upto 4 carrier strike groups for mass effect.

people trying to play "catch up" and trying for shortcuts is like me buying the same shoes and kit as haile gebreselassie and chasing after him. :D

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1883
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby eklavya » 16 Jul 2012 01:24

wong wrote:How could have I missed this bit of Indian logic? A North Korean and a South Korean are both Koreans. An East German and a West German are both considered Germans. Both people from China and Taiwan are CHINESE.


Great example Wong.

North Korea and the former East Germany are the ideological brothers of the CPC ruled PRC: communist, single party dictatorship, curtailed religious and personal freedoms, rotten to the core, failed / bound to fail.

Their ethnic twins, South Korea and the former West Germany, are/were leading global economies with highly innovative companies and democratic political system.

Hardly surprising that an open society like Taiwan produces innovative individuals.

Don
BRFite
Posts: 412
Joined: 09 Dec 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Don » 17 Jul 2012 19:40

Image

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Austin » 18 Jul 2012 10:39

Beijing’s Raptor Knockoff

China shows off second new stealth jet development in two years


American intelligence agencies recently obtained new information on China’s second new stealth fighter-bomber revealed on the Internet in the past two years, according to U.S. officials.

The new jet, dubbed the F-60, is a fifth-generation warplane; a prototype was disclosed in photographs posted on two Chinese military affairs websites beginning June 21.

Officials familiar with intelligence reports said the shape and design of the F-60 appears similar to the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, the U.S. military’s most advanced stealth fighter, although it is smaller in size.

The similarities are raising concerns in counterintelligence circles that China obtained design details for its new jet from the F-22 through espionage or cyber-spying, as occurred with the Chinese compromise of F-35 data by suspected intelligence hackers several years ago.

A Defense Intelligence Agency spokeswoman declined to comment on the new Chinese stealth jet.

According to the U.S. officials, intelligence analysts recently conducted detailed analyses of photos that show the first prototype of the new jet being transported on the back of a flatbed truck along the Beijing-Shenyang highway under escort by vehicles and officials of the Ministry of State Security, China’s political police and intelligence service.

Chinese Internet photo showing what U.S. intelligence agencies believe is a new Chinese stealth fighter enroute to a stress testing facility.

The new jet was shown at a rest stop during its transport during what Chinese websites said was transfer to a stress testing facility.

The twin-engine jet was shown without its tail stabilizers or cockpit canopy, leading some analysts to conclude it was an L-15 trainer aircraft.

However, analysis of the photos revealed that the new jet is larger in size and has different wing shapes and engine intakes than the trainer, and therefore is likely the new F-60.

The photos and commentary were posted on Tiexue (www.tiexue.net), a military website in Beijing that reports on People’s Liberation Army developments; and Feiyang Junshi, (www.fyjs.cn), another military website based in Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province.

No mention was made of the F-60 in recent unclassified Pentagon annual reports to Congress on China’s military.

The 2011 report stated that development of the J-20 stealth jet and long-range conventional missiles “could improve the PLA’s ability to strike regional air bases, logistical facilities, and other ground-based infrastructure.”

The F-60 jet is under development by the Shenyang Aircraft Corp., which analysts say lost out several years ago to the manufacturer of China’s first stealth fighter, the J-20, which is being built by the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute.

The J-20 was first shown in a test flight during the visit to China in January 2011 by then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in what was widely viewed as anti-U.S. political posturing by China’s communist government and military.

Gates had canceled production of the Air Force’s F-22 months earlier claiming that large numbers of F-22s were not needed because China would not field a comparable jet until 2020.

It now appears that China will have two new fifth-generation stealth fighters capable of challenging the U.S. Air Force in Asia years before the U.S. intelligence estimate of 2020.

The Pentagon considers stealth jet fighters key “anti-access, area denial” forces that China is developing as part of a strategy of forcing the U.S. military to operate further from Chinese shores.

The arms have prompted a new Pentagon doctrine called the Air Sea Battle Concept that calls for new U.S. forces and upgraded alliances in Asia to better assist U.S. forces in coming to the aid of democratic friends and allies in any future conflicts in the region.

Other high-tech forces being built by China for use against the United States include anti-ship ballistic missiles; anti-satellite missiles and lasers; large numbers of submarines; cyber warfare capabilities; and anti-missile defenses.

Some U.S. intelligence analysts are viewing the disclosure of the F-60 as an official leak by the Chinese military. Evidence for that view was one photo of the jet that shows an Audi A6 parked next to the truck transporting it. The parked Audi appears designed to provide foreign or domestic observers with a vehicle of known dimensions that will allow analysts to make calculations on the size and shape of the new jet.

China in the past has revealed new military developments on the Internet through similar official leaks. For example, China’s new Yuan-class attack submarine was built entirely in secret until photos of the submarine appeared on the Internet in 2004.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a former deputy chief of staff for intelligence, said the disclosure of the new Chinese stealth jet “should not come as a surprise.”

“The PLA [air force] has a very comprehensive planning process, and may have several advanced aircraft in various stages of design and development,” Deptula told the Free Beacon.

Larry Wortzel, a former Army intelligence officer, said it would be difficult to determine if the Chinese obtained secrets on the F-22 for the new jet.

“We know the F-35 had a major cyber penetration,” Wortzel told the Free Beacon. “But even without a penetration, there have been enough opportunities to see F-22s to assist a manufacturer in trying to copy the external design. Xian and Shenyang were working parallel programs for stealth fighter aircraft.”

Richard Fisher, a specialist on China’s military program, said in addition to the rest stop photos, later pictures showed the new jet at a People’s Liberation Army Air Force test center near the city of Xian.

“The F-60 has been reported by Chinese sources as a possible ‘private’ program that it hopes it can sell to the PLA later,” Fisher said in an interview.

“This has happened numerous times before, as in the case of the Hongdu K-8 trainer. What we see on the truck could also be a full-scale model headed for a wind tunnel, electronic or stress testing facility. We do not know yet if a flying prototype has been built.”

However, Fisher said image analysis shows the new jet to be a possible smaller fifth-generation fighter that could be promoted by Shenyang as a lower cost fighter than the Chengdu J-20.

“It is just slightly longer than the F-35, has twin engines but clearly uses stealth shaping as would a fifth-gen fighter,” Fisher said. “It may also employ internal weapon carriage and most likely has a modern [active electronically scanned array] radar. If this is a real program, it will also be developed into a carrier capable version. The size and twin-engine configuration is correct for usage on China’s carriers.”

China is currently conducting sea trials for its first aircraft carrier, the Soviet-era Varyag, and U.S. intelligence officials have said two additional carriers are under construction at a shipyard near Shanghai.

“The bottom line here is that as Washington can’t figure out whether it can afford just one fifth-gen fighter program, China may be pursuing up to three or more,” Fisher said.

The Chinese fighter buildup comes as the Navy is having second thoughts about purchasing large numbers of the naval version of the F-35, which was designated the mainstay future U.S. fighter jet after Gates killed off the F-22.

“When fighter programs start this kind of dive before production and deployment, the ending is usually bad,” Fisher said. “If the Shenyang fighter program is real, this only serves to compound the disaster of having ended F-22 production, which has to rank as one of the most shortsighted and dangerous acts of U.S. unilateral disarmament since the end of the Cold War.”

If the Navy cuts its plans to buy large numbers of F-35Cs and rely more on jets from the Air Force, there are concerns that the Air Force with about 120 F-22 will not be able to do the job, Fisher said.

The second new Chinese stealth fighter development further undermines the decision made by Gates in 2009 to limit production of the F-22 to 187 aircraft and to instead produce several thousand F-35s.

Gates said on July 16, 2009 that by 2020 the United States would have 1,100 fifth generation F-35s and F-22s, but that China was projected to have none, and that the gap of U.S. to Chinese advanced fighters would widen by 2025 with 1,700 advanced U.S. jets to Beijing’s “handful” of jets capable of penetrating strongly defended airspace and the ability to fly long distances.

Fisher said in response to Gates’ 2009 assessment: “With delays being compounded by further cutbacks and production reductions, it does not seem possible that the United States will have 1,700 fifth-generation fighters in 2025 while the Chinese may only have a handful.”

“The Chinese may have two hundred to several hundred by 2035, which in their neighborhood will go far to deter the United States,” he said.

To meet the Chinese jet fighter imbalance, “it is imperative that we revive production of an improved version of the F-22,” Fisher said. “Otherwise we condemn ourselves to either a slow retreat from Asia or a ‘Pearl Harbor’ that will be delivered by China.”

The Pentagon’s 2011 report on China’s military said, “In January 2011, initial images of China’s fifth generation J-20 stealth fighter were posted on the Internet.”

“Although the appearance of this prototype underscores the level of PRC investment in advanced defense systems, the Defense Department does not expect the J-20 to achieve an effective operational capability prior to 2018,” the report said. “China faces several hurdles as it moves toward J-20 production, including the mastery of high-performance jet engine production.”

The report also said “the J-20 will eventually give the PLA Air Force a platform capable of long range, penetrating strikes into complex air defense environments.”

Aaryan
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 00:01

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Aaryan » 18 Jul 2012 18:15

A really good article on the chinas-naval-strategy and its history..
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/paradox-chinas-naval-strategy?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120717&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=dbddadabeebd45edb22c6982c5d00286

To understand China's present-day maritime logic and its territorial disputes with its neighbors, it is necessary to first understand the so-called nine-dash line, a loose boundary line demarcating China's maritime claims in the South China Sea.

The nine-dash line was based on an earlier territorial claim known as the eleven-dash line, drawn up in 1947 by the then-ruling Kuomintang government without much strategic consideration since the regime was busy dealing with the aftermath of the Japanese occupation of China and the ongoing civil war with the Communists. After the end of the Japanese occupation, the Kuomintang government sent naval officers and survey teams through the South China Sea to map the various islands and islets. The Internal Affairs Ministry published a map with an eleven-dash line enclosing most of the South China Sea far from China's shores. This map, despite its lack of specific coordinates, became the foundation of China's modern claims, and following the 1949 founding of the People's Republic of China, the map was adopted by the new government in Beijing. In 1953, perhaps as a way to mitigate conflict with neighboring Vietnam, the current nine-dash line emerged when Beijing eliminated two of the dashes.


Despite the lack of legal recognition for the nine-dash line and the constant friction it engenders, Beijing has little ability now to move away from the claim. With the rising international attention and regional competition over the South China Sea, the Chinese public -- which identifies the waters within the nine-dash line as territorial waters -- is pressuring Beijing to take more assertive actions. This has left China in an impossible position: When Beijing attempts to portray joint developments as evidence that other countries recognize China's territorial claims, the partner countries balk; when it tries to downplay the claims in order to manage international relations, the Chinese population protests (and in the case of Chinese fishermen, often act on their own in disputed territory, forcing the government to support them rhetorically and at times physically). Any effort to appeal to Beijing's domestic constituency would risk aggravating foreign partners, or vice versa.


China's world is changing. Its emergence as a major economic power has forced Beijing to rethink its traditional foreign policy. Closest to home, the South China Sea issue is a microcosm of China's broader foreign policy debate. The ambiguity of China's maritime claim was useful when the region was quiet, but it is no longer serving China's purposes, and coupled with the natural expansion of China's maritime interests and naval activity it is instead exacerbating tensions. Old policy tools such as trying to keep all negotiations bilateral or claiming a hands-off approach are no longer serving China's needs. The policy of joint development inherited from Deng has failed to bring about any significant cooperation with neighboring countries in the sea, and the assertion of the nine-dash line claims amid the U.N. sea treaty filings has simultaneously increased domestic Chinese nationalism and countermoves by neighboring countries.

Despite the lack of clarity on its maritime policy, China has demonstrated its intent to further consolidate its claims based on the nine-dash line. Beijing recognizes that policy changes are needed, but any change has its attendant consequences. The path of transition is fraught with danger, from disgruntled domestic elements to aggressive reactions by China's neighbors, but by intent or by default, change is happening, and how the foreign policy debate plays out will have lasting consequences for China's maritime strategy and its international position as a whole.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 18 Jul 2012 19:28

ashi wrote:
I think it is quite the opposite, from your lengthy response that spins left and right, and mixed with name calling.


What name calling? Dont make me laugh. For the obnoxiousness Wong showed with your lot watching tacitly, the responses have been remarkably civil. If y'all were to try that sort of behaviour in an American forum, the responses would have been far more appropriate.

Apparently you chinese gentlemen think that BR is some place to show off your staged propaganda and expect even those of us who can see through your charade to clap for your silly show. Every 2-3 days, Don & you lot post some silly staged pics, some self congratulatory claptrap and then react like scalded cats when somebody posts a critique.

Furthermore, your so called summation was pathetic and disingenuous.

It neither conveyed the gist of what I wrote and was actually a shameless attempt to twist my words into what they were not. And then you have the chutzpah to try and brazen it out.

You can't understand worth a darn either, can you. "Response which spins left and right"..oh boy. Just proves what I had written, nuance, balance is beyond y'all. It has to be "China strong" or "you are my enemy"..!

Tell you what, if you want to pat yourself on your back on how "China strong" you are, try a Philippines forum and try to work off your testosterone and to prance about in front of folks who may lack the ability to contest your MIC in a long term manner.

Post here and there will be people who are not awed by your MIC or your armed forces either. They will question your lurid claims and your attempt to turn the thread into some sort of coffee table book with nice staged pics and one-two line sugary statements

Meanwhile, please work on your comprehension skills before you try "summarizing" my posts. Here it is again for you. China is indeed "becoming stronger", but via an extraordinary wasteful and political process. That sort of thing may make you happy, but for the rest of us, we'd rather India proceeded on its own path.
Last edited by Karan M on 18 Jul 2012 19:52, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 18 Jul 2012 19:32

wong wrote:No attempt at mislead. The full quote is here...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... s-01989/So it "Defence Industry Daily" instead of "Defence Managment" with the last quote. My mistake. But Big F'ing deal.


Oh really? So somehow you mixed up two entirely different "quotes" from two entirely different sources, and then attempted to pass one off as the other.

And Defense Industry Daily? Really..a source of "widely held estimate"...that site is a news aggregator, with zilch experience of Indian programs or actual hands on experience with the Indian MIC, and which just provides "editorial content" for companies which want news aggregators to give them market info.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 18 Jul 2012 19:40

wong wrote:
nash wrote:Mr. wong care to tell me then why USA so eager to exporting C-17,C-130 super hercules,Apache,M-777,P-8I,etc.


Err, money?? High paying jobs for Americans. It's an almost perverse, reverse welfare system. $1 Billion for propellers planes for Switzerland. What's next for Indian arms imports ?? $1 Million AK-47's from Qatar or $2 million RPG's from Monaco ??


I really didn't have time to respond to this sort of trolling rubbish earlier..but to let this stuff stand is pointless, so here are the facts..at least for the benefit of those who were actually following this "debate"...and to ensure that agit prop (as used by Wong above ) does not become the accepted "truth"..

Recall I mentioned the GOI's dual sourcing strategy? Its valid for even the trainer deal. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Reports for 2012 are available and mention that the Pilatus deal is for 75 aircraft, with HAL to make 106 aircraft on its own.

And the prior HPT-32 issues were because the American OEM which supplied the engine, could not (or would not) solve the fuel starvation issue. HAL has put a tender for a new partner. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/getimage1.png/

Net, to meet IAF requirements in a timely manner, the Pilatus deal was resorted to, whereas HAL has the option of making an Indian trainer, with a new engine & partner. The process ensures that both industry and service requirements are met.

And Pilatus has a long history of making trainers and its baseline PC-9 is the platform from which the de facto US trainer was chosen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-6_Texan_II

And this was apparently sought to be obfuscated away in claims of Pilatus/Switzerland not being able to make aircraft akin to Qatari Ak-47s and Monaco making RPGs.. what silly rubbish.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 18 Jul 2012 20:19

Karan M wrote:
wong wrote:What makes you think they want to be discreet about it?? That's not the vibe I'm getting. They've got a new toy that they want the Americans to know. I'm getting the "send SEAL Team 6 and we'll be waiting" vibe.


This has to be the most insightful comment ever...because it gives a sneak peek into wong and co.

The Chinese are showing off a new plane because the Americans successfully penetrated Paki AD (which uses PRC radars and what not)...and think they have to be "China strong and death to the white devil". So they show off a plane on a highway with suitably staged pics and videos.

Basically, wong says China felt impotent thanks to the OBL raid and the "leak" is about being potent again. Just in case Seal Team six, those meanies, decide to pay China a visit.
:mrgreen:

Apparently, PRC is a country, where the military shadow-boxing against the elected Govt, passes on its own message. What a bunch of clowns!

http://www.chinesenegotiation.com/2012/ ... rontation/

During his meeting with Hu, Gates asked, “President Hu – A J20 flew today. Was this directed at me or the United States? What can I tell the US press corps when they ask me?” According the former Ambassador, there was a flurry of conversation down the line of PRC officials and advisors until it became clear that this was the first news of the test flight that many -if not all – the Chinese civilians in the room had heard.


Americans respect direct, straight-shooting partners who air their of grievances and work out differences with brutal honesty. Chinese don’t. Huntsman understood that once the Chinese side feels insulted or that they have lost face it undermines the relationship and makes further negotiation impossible.


And here we have "confirmation"...from Austins post above!

The Pentagon considers stealth jet fighters key “anti-access, area denial” forces that China is developing as part of a strategy of forcing the U.S. military to operate further from Chinese shores.


Some U.S. intelligence analysts are viewing the disclosure of the F-60 as an official leak by the Chinese military. Evidence for that view was one photo of the jet that shows an Audi A6 parked next to the truck transporting it. The parked Audi appears designed to provide foreign or domestic observers with a vehicle of known dimensions that will allow analysts to make calculations on the size and shape of the new jet.


Are these Chinese insecure, or what!

So to attempt to signal the Americans that they are "China stlong" they open up what should be classified programs and make a hue and cry about it.

In the process, ensuring that despite economic troubles, the US military continues to get sufficient funding...and that neighbours like India don't slack off either.

The Chinese redefine the phrase strategic stupidity. In which vein..

rajanb wrote:Karanji, thanks for taking the time to respond to Wong and in the process educating me. I look forward to your posts with enthusiasm.

These posts elicited a question in my mind. Considering the state of their military machines, and in the case of another conflagration with India a la 1962 (God forbib I am all for peaceful coexistense of the civilised and not '62 kind :mrgreen: ), do you think the chinese will resort to throwing hordes of men at us as they did in 62? This time, obviously, they will have more hardware to throw at us.

Or are their lives as cheap as they were in 62?


Thanks for your kind words (and to Manish & Mahadev as well)..

But to answer your question, I believe that if there is a conflict between India and China, they will throw everything and the kitchen sink at us.

Just to shock Delhi & the Indian Armed forces into some sort of panic. But it won't work.

A) Because the Indian Armed forces, despite any initial reverses, can and do know how to fight tenaciously - case in point Kargil. When was the last time, the PRC actually faced a conflict where it was at a complete disadvantage and then seized the initiative?

b ) Thanks to the Pakistanis and their outsourcing of terrorism, the Indian Army has amongst the highest proportion of combat experienced soldiers in the world. India has been rotating units throughout J&K for decades now, and as such, many Indian soldiers have an idea of what it means to be fired on and how to react in turn. The PRC army has done what, as versus entering Indian borders and painting rocks?

c) India has heavily fortified the areas of conflict. A speedy drive through Indian areas is not going to happen. It will be a heavily contested fight for every inch of terrain.

d) The way the Army is thinking - asking for mountain strike corps etc, clearly, they dont intend to just defend. They intend to bring the hurt to the PRC Army as well.

But that is IF there is a conflict.

The way the PRC has been behaving, I can say one thing for sure, these over aggressive clowns who run the country's military apparatus are ensuring that they lose the initiative. Every day that passes, their rivals are building up their defenses - and pretty much every country on their periphery is now contesting territory with them.

Consider, if they had just bided their time and NOT done stupid things like visa denials to people from Arunachal, coming over to the Indian side and painting rocks, posturing 24/7...New Delhi (with the current UPA being what it is, led by the great MMS) would have just slept. Instead, they made such a song and dance, that even Delhi has stood up and is rearming itself.

The Arty program is finally moving. The Army got its clearance for extra strike corps and other formations! A Brahmos variant gets developed for mountain strike. The AF gets its MAFI program underway, with MMRCA cleared and Sukhois making their entry into the NE. Akash squadrons get ordered. New variants of Agni are developed....the list is long.

And this is just India.

Japan is now beginning to rearm itself. South Korea is no longer content to sit by and watch the US protect it, and has started developing 1500 km cruise missiles, which can reach all the way into China - which Beijing being as insecure as it always is, would clearly be noticing. And then what does China do?

It attempts to browbeat countries like Vietnam and Philippines.

Now the US is busy moving into the PRCs backyard, openly mentioning the PRC as a threat, while all this while, it had almost given up on ROC and had even begun to regard a conflict with China as well nigh unnecessary.

This is the quality of Chinese leadership and their "strategery".

All the Raptor knockoffs cannot disguise such idiocy. They are creating a ring of steel around China, with multiple ASEAN and US allied nations willing to put aside their differences and work with each other, and with countries like India (the only country with the scale to actually contest Chinese ambitions) just to counter Chinese hegemony.

The interesting part is that all this has occurred with a lot of New Delhi's strategic decision making or even economic development on "autopilot". If Delhi was led by effective, speedy decision makers, the PRC would be in deep trouble.

It will be interesting days for PRC ahead, because clearly, they have become too used to throwing their weight around already and India is rising, one way or the other. And those countries which aided the PRC rise (like Japan) will now look towards hedging their bets!

I sincerely wish we get a more effective and nationalist govt at the Indian Center, rather than the current one. Because if we do, the PRC is going to be in for a rude surprise. With even the current administration's bare minimum response able to checkmate some of the PRC's more bizarre antics, an effective Govt would simply ramp up ties with countries like ROC (result PRC apoplexy), Japan (result PRC anger and dismay), Korea (ditto) and Vietnam (outrage and PRC checkmate).

I'd love to see what happens a decade from now if India hosts ROC training detachments for their AF, Navy, Army and supplies them equipment and helps them in scaling up their armed forces. Basically make them (and Vietnam) into mini fortresses.

China's insecurity just shows how weak they are. They are basically telling the whole world - or anyone who'll listen - do this and you will p!ss us off. Good. We can keep doing something like that 24/7 and make them gnash their teeth in impotent anger.

They have already hurt India enough by behaving absolutely irresponsibly giving that terror sponsor, nuclear weapons, even as it hurtles towards jihadi extremism across the board.

In contrast, India has behaved responsibly. Way too responsibly, and India holds far too many cards on whom it can support and with what.
Last edited by Karan M on 18 Jul 2012 20:36, edited 1 time in total.

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby nakul » 18 Jul 2012 20:31

I believe China is testing the waters. They know that geographically smaller countries (including India) would fight tooth and nail for their survival. The CPC is ensuring that it knows what it is getting into. It would not enter a war praying Mao's strategies to save them.

They have already tested Phillipines resolve. Vietnam appears to be next. It doesn't seem that China would be able to push these countries too hard. Economics is 1 thing, it is the 2nd largest economy. But militarily, China is still backward. Hence, they won't be getting into wars anytime soon.

Economically, they are trying too squeeze their opponents. Countries heavily dependent on China would find it tough to withstand economic sanctions. Hence, China is happy to play the economics card with the poorer nations. They don't stand a chance. This is perhaps the sign of things to come. Just like US throws its military weight around, we can see China copying them on the economic front.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 18 Jul 2012 20:47

nakul wrote:I believe China is testing the waters. They know that geographically smaller countries (including India) would fight tooth and nail for their survival. The CPC is ensuring that it knows what it is getting into. It would not enter a war praying Mao's strategies to save them.

They have already tested Phillipines resolve. Vietnam appears to be next. It doesn't seem that China would be able to push these countries too hard. Economics is 1 thing, it is the 2nd largest economy. But militarily, China is still backward. Hence, they won't be getting into wars anytime soon.

Economically, they are trying too squeeze their opponents. Countries heavily dependent on China would find it tough to withstand economic sanctions. Hence, China is happy to play the economics card with the poorer nations. They don't stand a chance. This is perhaps the sign of things to come. Just like US throws its military weight around, we can see China copying them on the economic front.


The US has both economic and military clout. Take a look at anything we use, and its either America driven or developed by an American company in some form or the other. The US has very high influence and hence veto power on the WW technology ecosystem and who gets what and furthermore, thanks to its complex basing system of military might, has many allied/partner nations willing to meet the US midway and even beyond in terms of economic alliances.

The South Koreans for instance have voluntarily adhered to ballistic missiles with only 300 km reach. The Japanese have not pursued nuclear weapons - with the US umbrella around the corner.

In contrast, the Chinese economic might is primarily driven as a supplier of either rare raw materials (to which alternative sources may be found, if enough pain was brought), mass produced consumer material (which too can shift) and consumption of western produced value added goods and services plus huge amounts of raw materials.

This is not enough by far, to mimic the US.

The mistake they are making, being fundamentally driven by an insecure mine is bigger than yours victim complex, is to attempt to be the biggest kid on the block in terms of power and violence. The fools.

If they had been benign and sought to project soft power, albeit backed up by military might - and actually conceded some space to smaller nations - and its not like what they were losing was theirs to begin with..

They would be very hard to challenge. Large chinese expat populations, historic ties + friendly dependent Govts. Well nigh unbeatable.

Instead, aggressive testosterone driven macho posturing, forcing a reluctant west, currently fed up of conflict, to still sustain an otherwise challenged MIC (good news for western industry), and also forcing neighbours to gang up against China (good news for anyone not wanting to learn mandarin for the future).

Its funny in a way. Both India and China have been ruled by cliques and dynasties. The Indian ones however sophisticated, are still vulnerable to criticism and the people waking up. And hence India is slowly emerging from its stupor and moving towards the future. China on the other hand, despite all its efficiency in bringing business in, growing infrastructure and what not, has baked in a structure that cannot be criticized and changed...and as such, won't change since it won't introspect.

How long can the "China stlong" stuff last, and how long will the chinese public continue with their docile acceptance as serfs in front of the chinese govt. Maslows model will kick in someday..

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajanb » 18 Jul 2012 21:57

I remember there was a China Vietnam war in 1979, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia to end the chinese backed barbaric Khmer Rouge Govt.

And China invaded Vietnam. Both sides claimed victory. But China could not dislodge Vietnam from Cambodia. But they did weaken Vietnam by following a cowardly scorched earth policy when they withdrew.

Once again the chinese used massive numbers. Their poor citizens are cannon fodder onlee while the polibureau enjoys the pleasures of the Imperial Palace.
Last edited by rajanb on 18 Jul 2012 22:03, edited 1 time in total.

nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby nakul » 18 Jul 2012 22:02

China may go to war with Vietnam to shore up support: Russian media
An article published in Vedomosti, a Russian business newspaper affiliated with the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, has suggested that China will launch a war against Vietnam over the South China Sea, both to establish sovereignty over the disputed islands and solidify the support of Chinese citizens.

While both China and Vietnam are inviting foreign companies to invest the exploitation of the resources beneath the South China Sea, Moscow appears to have sided with Hanoi rather than Beijing.

Russia's Gazprom, the largest natural gas extractor in the world, signed a contract with the Vientamese government to exploit resources in disputed areas, triggering protest from Beijing. At the same time, Moscow authorities provided military assistance to the Vietnamese armed forces, importing advanced weapons such as Su-30MK2 fighters, Gepard-class frigates and Yakhont anti-ship missiles.


Moscow has increasingly fallen afoul of Beijing. Russia supplied weapons to two of China's regional competitors — India and Vietnam — and participated the RIMPAC joint naval exercises held by the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific. From the Russian point of view, China remains a much bigger threat than Vietnam or even the distant United States.

Yet the article said that the Chinese government may launch a war against Vietnam simply to consolidate the rule of the Communist Party within the country, where leaders consistently worry about "social stability."

The article said that China is now being isolated by nearly every capital in the region. Roughly 30 Chinese fishing boats arrived at the disputed Spratly Islands Sunday, under the protection of Fishery Administration Ship 301, reported China's state-run Xinhua news agency. This fleet consisted of a 3,000-tonne supply ship and 29 ships, and will spend the next five to 10 days near the waters of Yongshu Reef.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajanb » 18 Jul 2012 22:09

Things are getting hot.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20120718000081

Russian coast guard fires on Chinese boats in Sea of Japan


Two Chinese fishing boats were fired upon by the Russian coast guard vessel Dzerzhinsky in the Sea of Japan on July 17, reports the Hong Kong newspaper Ming Pao.

A spokesman for the Russian Border Guards Service said the Dzerzhinsky was forced to fire on the vessels after they refused to desist from fishing in Russian waters. After a three-hour chase, the Russian ship opened fire on the two vessels from eastern China's Shandong province.

The two boats, with a combined crew of 36, were eventually captured by the Russian coast guard for crossing the maritime border illegally. A 22.5 ton squid was found aboard one of the boats. Further investigation will be held at Nakhodka on the Trudny peninsula.

The Chinese consulate at Khabarovsk denied rumors that a Chinese crew member fell overboard during the confrontation.

This is not the first time a violent confrontation has occurred between a Russian patrol and Chinese vessels. A Chinese boat was sunk by a Russian vessel in the winter of 2009, leading to the death of eight of the Chinese crew of 16.

Zhou Yongsheng from the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing said Russian frontier units are generally more aggressive when dealing with suspected intruders but the incident is unlikely to harm the strategic cooperation between Beijing and Moscow.

With China's maritime disputes with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam recently making headlines on a daily basis, it comes as something of a surprise that the first shots fired against a Chinese vessel should come from a Russian boat. Yet while Russia and China share common cause over international issues such as Iran and Syria, confrontation between the two major powers in the Asia-Pacific region may in time prove inevitable. Russia has exported advanced weapons to Vietnam and India, two of China's regional competitors, while the Russian navy's Pacific fleet also sent three ships to take part in the recent RIMPAC 2012 naval exercises held by the United States off Hawaii. These moves have conveyed to Beijing that Moscow is also a potential threat as well as a partner.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 18 Jul 2012 22:19

The article said that China is now being isolated by nearly every capital in the region.

Roughly 30 Chinese fishing boats arrived at the disputed Spratly Islands Sunday, under the protection of Fishery Administration Ship 301, reported China's state-run Xinhua news agency. This fleet consisted of a 3,000-tonne supply ship and 29 ships, and will spend the next five to 10 days near the waters of Yongshu Reef.

Insecure Chinese jokers constantly seeking to arm-twist their neighbours.

rajanb wrote:I remember there was a China Vietnam war in 1979, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia to end the chinese backed barbaric Khmer Rouge Govt.

And China invaded Vietnam. Both sides claimed victory. But China could not dislodge Vietnam from Cambodia. But they did weaken Vietnam by following a cowardly scorched earth policy when they withdrew.


What was really interesting about that fight was that the Vietnamese did not commit their frontline army to the fight. They deployed their border security militia somewhat similar to our BSF and irregulars. Yet, the PRC Army had a horrible casualty profile and was unable to swiftly or comprehensively defeat the Vietnamese. Basically, this is the reason why the PRC still has a level of fear and angst regarding the Viets though by destroying their border infra, the Chinese did achieve their strategic aims.

A Vietnam armed with Brahmos, Prahar, Shourya (in numbers) is a good way to keep China occupied. Donating upgraded T-72s and BMPs while replacing them in Indian service with Arjun/T-90s and FICVs in India could also be another thought for the future.

Once again the chinese used massive numbers. Their poor citizens are cannon fodder onlee while the polibureau enjoys the pleasures of the Imperial Palace.


I doubt todays Chinese citizens are that docile. The PRC apparently had protests and mini-rebellions when dead bodies of their PLA started arriving back then. In todays world, all the fifty centers won't be able to hold down the public for long.

The PRC is all too willing to bark loudly at all its neighbours, but the question is will they keep barking or ever graduate to biting. Because they will get hurt, back. Even in the Indo-China scenario, as somebody once said, they are willing to fight India to the last Pakistani.
Last edited by Karan M on 18 Jul 2012 22:34, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rajanb » 18 Jul 2012 22:27

And now the Russians have one of the Vietnamese oil blocks besides taking part in naval exercises where China moaned that they were kept out. Sort of spoils the flied lice. :mrgreen:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 18 Jul 2012 23:00

Thanks to resurgent energy exports, the Russians have managed to stabilize their nation, are gradually rebuilding their institutions and are also re-arming. Exports to countries like India and China have helped. As usual, the Chinese, after building their MIC on the back of Russian brains available for cheap, and transfer of technology, decided to show strategeric brilliance and tried to rip off Sukhois, and who knows what else. Now the Russians are also waking up to China.

Is there anyone - apart from that beacon of plogress Pakistan - that actually really likes China? How far can image manipulation go in fooling their own people. Their is not a single high end jet engine in China, yet Chinese fanboys are busy bragging on the net about how they are better off than the Russians and can now compete with the Americans. Meanwhile, the Russians are being sounded out by the Chinese to export 117S engines to China. These are actually 1G behind the latest prototype 117 variants on the PAK-FA & will be 2G behind the definitive 5th Gen engine planned for the series production version (also to be used on the FGFA with India). Yet we are told how Big Black Flying Dlagon is better than anything else out there...

China is reportedly interested in buying a handful of Su-35S..why? If J-20 is so advanced? Or is it more of an empty shell right now, and the reality is that even when filled out, the systems in it will not match a mature version of an early 80's fighter?

Chinese radars and missiles have already reached world class standards per Chinese fanboys. Ok.
Then why is China buying S-300s and per reports, interested in buying S-400s? Heck, even India has chosen to develop enhanced variants of Israeli and French radars, coupled with own missiles for its own BMD. It is codeveloping its own MR/LR SAM with Israel, and has not spent billions into modernized Cold War era Russian hardware.

Net - for all the talk of China strong, I think any serious observer can see that there is a vast gulf between Chinese claims (and staged leaks) and where it actually is. The Chinese Govt. understands this, so it has been busy buying whatever it can to stand up its forces (the same as India does) but while dishonestly portraying to its people, that it has already arrived in terms of fielding a successful local MIC (when it is a long way from doing so).

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rohitvats » 18 Jul 2012 23:51

Thanks to the stupidity of the Chinese and their great sun-zutiapanty they have managed to get someone like GOI to react and put in place measures to check China/PLA. They have already triggered the largest expansion of IA post 1962 and before this decade is out, PLA will end up facing dedicated 10-12 mountain divisions...all trained and equipped to fight the PLA along the Sino-India border. And then, we have equal number of other divisions which can be thrown into the matrix. So, unless PLA is thinking of throwing every Group Army against India (and which have yet not practiced warfare in mountain/high altitude areas)...they are already facing up-hill task in true sense. Their only chance is in initiating a 'border incident' and apply disproportionate force to gain a win and 'teach' India a lesson.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19954
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Karan M » 19 Jul 2012 00:05

^^ Exactly. Sun-zutiapanty is perfect term to describe China and its stupid behaviour. To get "someone like GOI to react and act" is itself zutiapanty of highest order but they have compounded it. In 1962, by attacking India, they ensured that Nehru and pacifist cabal were firmly put out to turf and military was given a share at the funding table. Imagine if they hadn't attacked India, the Army would be fraction of what it was. In the 80's, by arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons, they ensured India weaponized, and now has ballistic missiles with payloads that can turn Beijing into Bye-Jing. By giving Pakistan ballistic missiles, which those idiots promptly threatened India with, India went on its national mission to develop a BMD system - end result, huge advances in AESA radar tech, missile tech, C3I software. This at a time when Indian MIC was not getting sufficient funds. Today, we can see spinoff products emerging in multiple areas, accelerating Indian defence modernization. In recent years, they are forcing the opening up of the Indian MIC to the private sector and also the acceleration of service procurement.

China is basically its own worst enemy. Their only "success" is in arming Pakistan to kill Indians. Even so, India continues to grow stronger. I wonder how long it will be before Pakistan falls to radicals in a gradual slow takeover who then own the Army/insitutions in totality, and go on to sponsor Uighurs in China. It will be heights of irony if Pakistan then threatens its master with the very weapons it was donated.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_20292 » 19 Jul 2012 00:09

^^^

karan, could you simulate or speculate on a detailed war scenario between India and China?

it would include estimates of how the forces would fight, the role of pakistan, naval warfare, etc. length of conflict.

anyusharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Aug 2009 03:17

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby anyusharma » 19 Jul 2012 01:10

rohitvats wrote:Thanks to the stupidity of the Chinese and their great sun-zutiapanty they have managed to get someone like GOI to react and put in place measures to check China/PLA. They have already triggered the largest expansion of IA post 1962 and before this decade is out, PLA will end up facing dedicated 10-12 mountain divisions...all trained and equipped to fight the PLA along the Sino-India border. And then, we have equal number of other divisions which can be thrown into the matrix. So, unless PLA is thinking of throwing every Group Army against India (and which have yet not practiced warfare in mountain/high altitude areas)...they are already facing up-hill task in true sense. Their only chance is in initiating a 'border incident' and apply disproportionate force to gain a win and 'teach' India a lesson.


Sir, what we often fail to remember is the wide experience our armed forces have gained over the years. Firstly, by partaking in several conflicts post-independence the experience the forces have gained is as valuable as the hardware we so desperately yearn for. It is one thing to amass shiny new boots to show off at larger than life military parades or have your troops do a little dance on a segway, and another to have veterans across generations part of your culture who have a valuable input to offer on the art of war. Fortunately, or unfortunately India has gathered a plethora of such experience. Notwithstanding Korea, PLA has not stepped out of its comfort zone other than a few border conflicts with USSR and Vietnam, and of course 1962.
Secondly, our armed forces have the privilege of participating in a wide host of bilateral or multilateral exercises especially in the last decade, gaining critical input; whilst PLAN vessels have only just started venturing out of coastal waters, or even the south china sea.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Johann » 19 Jul 2012 07:45

As far as the direction and quality of Chinese defence policy goes China probably had it best under Deng.

He place military modernisation fourth and last on the list of modernisation priorities. Muscle flexing was supposed to be low profile, and China was to avoid being caught on its own on an issue at all costs.

Since Deng's death the Chinese MIC has seen some significant qualitative improvements, but the overall quality of decision making regarding military posture has sharply declined.

The fact is that Hu Jintao is not truly in control of the PLA's defence posture. Hu's the only civilian with the official authority to exercise control, but he has little confidence, knowledge or experience with military and defence issues. He has no source of independent military advice either to compensate.

The PLA's generals now dominate the Central Military Commission and they set their own budget and policy priorities, without sharing the responsibility for the welfare of the rest of the PRC's population.

This is why the defence budget has been ballooning while the PRC is busy alienating all of its neighbours for the better part of a decade. We can expect more of the same until the civilians get better control of the PLA or vice versa.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10117
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby sum » 19 Jul 2012 08:12

rohitvats wrote:Thanks to the stupidity of the Chinese and their great sun-zutiapanty they have managed to get someone like GOI to react and put in place measures to check China/PLA. They have already triggered the largest expansion of IA post 1962 and before this decade is out, PLA will end up facing dedicated 10-12 mountain divisions...all trained and equipped to fight the PLA along the Sino-India border. And then, we have equal number of other divisions which can be thrown into the matrix. So, unless PLA is thinking of throwing every Group Army against India (and which have yet not practiced warfare in mountain/high altitude areas)...they are already facing up-hill task in true sense. Their only chance is in initiating a 'border incident' and apply disproportionate force to gain a win and 'teach' India a lesson.

From OrBAT:

Mandeep Singh Bajwa tells us. So far no concrete details have emerged – Indian intelligence on China is weak, to put it kindly. Aksai Chin is part of Indian Ladakh that China claims and overran in the 1962 War. At that time China had 15 C class (8000 men) divisions in Tibet, mainly for Internal Security. These divisions were lightly armed. But the men were experienced veterans of Korea, their senior officers were also veterans of the China civil wars. India, of course, till 1959 did not have a single brigade on the border, and even in 1962 had just three. Another story for another time.



· Though India raised ten mountain divisions in four years after the 1962 fiasco, with each division being 15,000 men with excellent equipment, firepower, and transport, China was so contemptuous of India’s political will to fight that as Tibet was pacified, China began to withdraw troops from the region. Today it has just two brigades, a reinforced infantry regiment, and border troops in the region. We have no good details on the border troops, but believe there are around six regiments plus independent battalions. India has 100 large border battalions each of 1100-1200 men committed to the China front. That is without counting the regular army.



· Because China steadily reduced its military presence in Tibet – partly offset by increasingly improved roads and even a railroad, India also began reducing its attention on the frontier. The mountain divisions were always dual use anyway, but by the 2000s Indian forces committed exclusively to the China frontier fell to five divisions.



· The Chinese, of course, can never leave well enough alone, or treat anyone as equals. They can be masters or slaves, nothing in between. For no reason at all, they started poking India along the long dormant border, starting in the second half of the 2000s decade. For a long time India did nothing. The nation has such low self-esteem that, frankly, it is difficult to humiliate it or get it to act. But eventually it all proved too much. India has added four new mountain divisions plus two corps HQs; and the Army has sought approval for a minimum of three more, which the government has cleared, but not yet found the resources. It also speeded up – on Indian Standard Time – construction of new roads, put underway several rail projects, and reopened/expanded several abandoned air landing grounds. It still takes India 3-4 times longer to actually complete projects than China, but at least a bunch are underway.



· This background is necessary to understand why China is reinforcing Aksai Chin. For example, in Eastern Ladakh Indian had three infantry brigades, one essentially tasked to the Siachin. Now an infantry and an armored brigade are being added, and two of the yet to be raised new divisions will form a mountain strike corps for Kashmir and Ladakh.



· If asked to provide his assessment of what is going on the China side (and Editor must make clear no one has asked his opinion), based on current information the maximum Editor will concede is a new regiment, facing Indian 3 Division. But there are many levels below this maximum.



· First, the reinforcements may have nothing to do with India. They may be internal security troops as a precaution against the spread of the current Tibet revolt to the western part of this occupied nation. They could also have something to do with the Xinjiang problems. These, we hasten to say, should not be exaggerated. Compared to what is happening in several parts of India, Xinjiang is a sedate family picnic. Islamist infiltration cannot be an issue because anyone who wants to cross Baltistan and Skardu to get into west Tibet and thence to Xinjiang basically wants to commit suicide, and there’s easier ways to achieve that.



· Second, China may be reacting to India’s Ladakh buildup. The right anchor of 3 Division’s line, Demchok (70 Brigade) is quite suited for an armored brigade which would wreck havoc on Chinese positions in west and central Tibet, particularly if combined with the airborne brigade (50th). Which incidentally trains for many missions including a deep landing behind Chinese Ladakh defenses. 3 Division’s 114 Brigade Sector (Chushul) can also be a viable armor route. One place it is unwise to underrate the Indian Army is on innovativeness in using armor at that altitude. For example, India is prepared to send a mechanized battalion down the Shyok and Indus Rivers in an offensive against Skardu. Even at this time, without the new armor brigade, India has a tank regiment and BMP regiment in Ladakh.



· An alternative to a new regiment opposite Demochk or covering Chushul-Demchok is a regiment or less between the Changchemo and Galwan Rivers. This area is covered by a sector HQ, an ad hoc formation into which India tosses Scouts battalions, border troops, a heavy mortar regiment and the like. Call it an understrength brigade is you like.The new infantry brigade for Ladakh seems like to be deployed either behind the sector as an offensive force, or sent to Changchemo, cutting the long and very difficult sector into two.



· A battalion or two rather than a regiment is a distinct possibility (there appears to be a regular battalion in Chinese-held Ladakh, but we are not sure), as is an upgradation of border forces.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby rohitvats » 19 Jul 2012 11:20

The biggest x-factor which no one talks about is that Indian Army is geared to fight the Chinese from the ground up...there are forces in being which are going to be supplemented in near future. The logistics for this deployment and war-fighting exist and has been streamlined over the years. This is in sharp contrast to the PLA...for any meaningful offensive in the area, PLA will need to get troops from outside Tibet.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1528
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby sooraj » 19 Jul 2012 11:31

rajanb wrote:And now the Russians have one of the Vietnamese oil blocks besides taking part in naval exercises where China moaned that they were kept out. Sort of spoils the flied lice. :mrgreen:



India and Russia should jointly bid for vietnamese oil blocks. :twisted:

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 » 19 Jul 2012 11:56

for hard physical activity at ASL 10,000ft+ what is the days of acclamatization needed? 1 week or 2 weeks?

would be interesting to know if the PLA is building up huge garrison towns in centralized places in tibet and then planning to use road/rail to move them to the frontline as needs dictate.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby merlin » 19 Jul 2012 12:04

Two weeks

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Victor » 19 Jul 2012 12:31

Singha wrote:..
if the PLA is building up huge garrison towns in centralized places in tibet.
.

Very likely we will know about this from the steady stream of Tibetan refugees and are doing accordingly (hopefully). I would be surprised if we don't have humint in Tibet. It is at least as likely as Chinese spies in Dharamsala, Darjeeling etc.

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

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Kanson » 19 Jul 2012 20:12

rohitvats wrote:The biggest x-factor which no one talks about is that Indian Army is geared to fight the Chinese from the ground up...there are forces in being which are going to be supplemented in near future. The logistics for this deployment and war-fighting exist and has been streamlined over the years. This is in sharp contrast to the PLA...for any meaningful offensive in the area, PLA will need to get troops from outside Tibet.


Is it possible to elaborate on this. Info we are getting is, PLA is heavily increasing their infra and logistics but you described we have edge over that and it is our biggest X-factor.

member_23360
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby member_23360 » 19 Jul 2012 20:35

if we look at this map

http://gsuryalss.files.wordpress.com/20 ... border.jpg

In any ground offensive against India, Xinjiang and Tibet will play crucial role, if we can destabilise these areas, like they did to our naxal affected areas. Their capablities will be diminished drastically.

we should start supporting covert operations at least in Tibet, even I would say we should support Xinjiang as well.

china is already providing all sorts of help to pakistan and naxals.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Katare » 20 Jul 2012 00:24

I think it is a fact that 1962 war had hurt China more than it hurt India. Without that war, China would have been the sole Nuclear power in Asia, besides being sole asian UN veto holder. It'll have India supporting it against US incirclement but now it instead had to China support TSP against India.

After 62 war India increased it's 1963 defense budget by 10X (yes 1000%) and if you think it was 1 time/year thing, you are mistaken. The defence budget kept increasing each and every year after that. Chinese created a formidable threat where an eager supporter once lived. War didn't get them much territory or lasting strategic advantage but they got an eternal enemy that consists a fifth of the humanity.
What a moron!

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4097
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby hnair » 20 Jul 2012 02:44

interesting comment:

Johann wrote:
Since Deng's death the Chinese MIC has seen some significant qualitative improvements, but the overall quality of decision making regarding military posture has sharply declined.

The fact is that Hu Jintao is not truly in control of the PLA's defence posture. Hu's the only civilian with the official authority to exercise control, but he has little confidence, knowledge or experience with military and defence issues. He has no source of independent military advice either to compensate.

The PLA's generals now dominate the Central Military Commission and they set their own budget and policy priorities, without sharing the responsibility for the welfare of the rest of the PRC's population.


Deng was probably the first (and till now, the only one) of modern chinese leaders, who kinda cared about the public pulse, to the extent possible in a neo-representative governance system. He never really recovered from the Tianenmen fiasco and had to overcompensate in other areas towards the end. One area seem to be the control of CPC.

A bit OT, but: under certain circumstances, Deng and Zia would have made a scary combo for India. Fortunately never gelled, thanks to the khan-pasand factor of feudal types in those Mujahideen-bin-Righteousi era as well as a less-prosperous Deng's focus on internal affairs at that time. Still they swapped around conical phyjjiks packages!

Hu is a geek. He, his team and his alleged successor bunch are geeks too. All of them are either of the Tsinghua Clique or graduated as engineers. Other than college level politics (which in China, seem more or less a non-competitive affair shorn off attracting of hearts-n-minds of free and finnicky voters who would rather paw each other or get high), these guys seem to be administrators and policy-implementers all their career. They will certainly have problems in saying "no" to the jocks of CPC. Their separation of geeks and jocks are way too rigid and precise. Their jocks will not listen to a geek and their geeks do not have a constituency of the jocks, that they can use for influence.

In contrast, the American political system manages the jock constituency, by giving a leg-up for jocks (who served the country with distinction) to transition into politics. Plus the vast MIC, think-tank network etc provides an effective interface for geeks and jocks to jostle around and start appreciating each others' roles. India's system too has evolved mechanisms for ex-service folks to form a constituency inside the civilian systems (via ex-service political cells, governerships etc) as well as with geek communities like academia, industry etc.

The current Indian govt is headed by an Indian version of a geek, but there are enough seasoned Deng-types in his team, to feel the pulse and act to protect their constituencies. Same for India's opposition parties, however regional. Therefore some of the speed of decision making surprises the likes of Hu.

Like that graphic reaction of surprise from their long-time Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhu Bangzao, "Today? Two?" (after the second round at Pokharan II). A politically untrained response that any spokesperson from a country with a more fluid political background would be wary of in expressing.

Hu (or a leader of geek background) can be expected the only thing he has done till now - outsource the thinking to jocks, by writing more cheques. They will have silos of excellence, but there is no national story. Yet.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

Postby Johann » 21 Jul 2012 02:05

Hi H Nair,

Quite agreed. The PLA's factional politics is something that needs to be tracked and discussed on this thread.

One thing though; many of those who rise to the top of the system have distinguished themselves by showing that they know how to quickly crush dissent, especially organised dissent. Bonus points if its separatist dissent in Tibet or Uighur areas.

As provincial secretaries they work closely with People's Armed Police (PAP) which falls under CMC control.

The result is that (at least as far as I can tell) Hu's authority is strong when it comes to deciding what needs to be done when it comes to internal threats. There's plenty of personal and collective Party experience in that regard to order the CMC around. Plus there is a parallel chain of command to the PAP running through the Ministry of Public security.

Its the whole question of dealing with hard external threats though that these guys have little knowledge about these days.

Unlike the USSR, the PRC does not actually have to rely on conscription given the size of the labour pool and the PLA's prestige. Nor are there 'retired' service personnel who opt out of the military for a civilian career.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests