China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 19 Nov 2018 10:37

nam wrote: Also tell you what was our situation, when our suppose allies was ready to sell to our adversary.


It tells you that being a “gentlemen” does nothing for your national security.

It is time to make our own MKI Naval Flanker. We cannot progress with the damn MiG-29K and we cannot allow the flanker line to die after the contract ends.

Please read the next post to understand the gravity of owning this ability and not preserving it.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 19 Nov 2018 11:07

An alternative look at the J-15, its record and potential.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/dont-underestimate-chinas-flying-shark/

Don’t Underestimate China’s Flying Shark
The evolution of the J-15 Into a world leading carrier-based fighter and its implications.

By Abraham Ait
November 17, 2018


Since their entry into service in 2012 onboard China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, the J-15 Flying Shark twin engine air superiority fighter has been frequently criticized for its highly limited capabilities.

...

Perhaps most significantly, however, the three accidents involving J-15 fighters in their first half decade of service were cited by many analysts as proof that China was far from capable of becoming a major carrier power for the foreseeable future

...

Despite the considerable criticism the Flying Shark has weathered and the underwhelming capabilities of the jets currently in service onboard the Liaoning, a deeper analysis of the airframe’s full potential — particularly when deployed from more modern carriers currently under construction — indicates that the Chinese jet could well emerge as one of the world’s foremost carrier-based fighters in the near future.

...

The Su-33, much like the J-15, is poorly suited to operations from carriers of the Kuzne­tsov class, which lack catapult launch systems – that class includes both the Liaoning and Russia’s own sole carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov...The Su-33, however, was never initially conceptualized to be operated from such carriers, and was intended to primarily operate from the decks of the Soviet Ulyanovsk class supercarriers — gargantuan warships comparable to the U.S. Nimitz class, which would have been equipped with steam catapults. When operating from such vessels, the Su-33 would have provided the Soviet (and later Russian) Navy with an analogue to the U.S. F-14 Tomcat — a lethal twin engine heavy fighter capable of dominating the skies and contesting air superiority at sea.

...

The J-15’s airframe, like that of the Su-33, has extremely high potential when operating from a more suitable carrier. It is important to take into account the Liaoning’s nature primarily as a training carrier, and as a result the role of J-15 fighters currently in service is to provide the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) with its first experience operating carrier-based combat jets. Future warships such as the Type 003 however, currently under construction, will have far larger decks capable of launching multiple aircraft simultaneously and, most critically, will field electromagnetic catapult systems allowing the J-15 to launch will a full fuel tank and missile payload. Flying Sharks have been observed by satellite for a number of years already testing land-based runways simulating carrier conditions with EMALS, a force multiplier for the fighter’s capabilities. This could very likely make the J-15 the most heavily armed and longest ranged carrier-based fighter in the world — with an operational altitude approximately 4 kilometers higher than the U.S. Navy’s far lighter F-18E and F-35 carrier-based jets and a significantly higher speed and longer range.

...

One key example is the F-14, which saw a phenomenal number of losses to crashes, approaching 40 jets in its first half decade of service alone. Of the 712 carrier-based Tomcats produced, over 160 were lost to accidents
...Judged by the standards of China’s J-15, the F-14 would be considered a failure many times over, but it went on to become one of the most successful jets of the Cold War ...The J-15’s potential thus cannot be dismissed as a result of its safety record, which all things considered is rather low.



The SU-33 and its clone when launched off a catapult with full load would be an entirely different beast.

And the PLANAF will pair this beast with the FC-31. Even as they are developing cat-capable and EW versions of the J-15.

Rather than just predicting (tbh, hoping) they’ll give up after three crashes, it is far better to look at why they are investing so heavily on the SU-33 airframe. Because eventually we — like the chinis — must go to the CATOBAR. This is where we can combine our knowledge gained from the NLCA with the MKI production line.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6803
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 21 Nov 2018 09:07

Just keep in mind that getting a prototype operational on the carrier deck, fully qualified and integrated with the mission systems is a 10-15 year effort. So no J-31 operational in the carrier in any meaningful way before 2030 if not later assuming they back it for that role. It will likely be a few years beyond that till they gain skills and actually are able to use it assuming that their carrier program is able to march along to meet that schedule. Until then the J-15 is all they have.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Nov 2018 10:17

imo india is not in a good position wrt to 5th gen fighters.

cheen has J20 as IOC++ and J31 as a TD enroute to IOC. they also a B2ski batwing bomber being cooked up. this covers the spectrum from heavy to light and parallels the US portfolio which they are fond of aping. we can reasonably expect J20 FOC1 and further evolution starting a couple of years from now. max 5 years. the J31 if they invest in it could be close to FOC in 2025. it has been stagnating for a while on the shelf as a TD. but just as JSF benefited from F22 systems and science, the J31 will uptake from the J20 to cut some timelines.

most of our energy is currently focussed on Tejas Mk1A of which we still do not have the #1 airframe flying.
then there is Tejas Mk2 which is not in flying stage.
these are 4.5 gen fighters which we need in volume, so no contest they need to be first priority.

what seems lacking perhaps due to manpower and funding issues is a parallel team to take the AMCA forward and atleast get into flying TD stage by 2022. Tejas is delayed, but we are letting that delay push back our AMCA timeline.

we must get AMCA into service as FOC1 by 2030 because there will be a solid mass of plaaf 4.5 and 5 gen fighter up in the air by then - only issue is how many. they will invest in numbers because their enemy is usaf/usn.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 21 Nov 2018 10:52

Singha wrote:
most of our energy is currently focussed on Tejas Mk1A of which we still do not have the #1 airframe flying.
then there is Tejas Mk2 which is not in flying stage.
these are 4.5 gen fighters which we need in volume, so no contest they need to be first priority.

what seems lacking perhaps due to manpower and funding issues is a parallel team to take the AMCA forward and atleast get into flying TD stage by 2022. Tejas is delayed, but we are letting that delay push back our AMCA timeline.

we must get AMCA into service as FOC1 by 2030 because there will be a solid mass of plaaf 4.5 and 5 gen fighter up in the air by then - only issue is how many. they will invest in numbers because their enemy is usaf/usn.


Actually, the VAST bulk of our resources in the past decade had been put into the SU-30 MKI not the Tejas of any mark. Funding was to the tune of $5B for the Flanker to around $1B for Tejas program.

Unless we make use of the MKI line, eco-system and experience then we just pissed away five-times the money to a foreign MIC instead of using that to invest in our own.

If a chini PSU like SAC can fund its own 5th TD, CATOBAR-capable and EW carrier prototypes and a long line of Flanker versions then why the hell can’t we expect the same from our PSU after we’d paid billions for this technology transfer for the SU-30?

Yes, yes, yes, I know HAL is a manufacturing firm not a design firm but every other manufacturer in the world from private conglomerates like Boeing to SOEs like SAC employs their own design team who know best what their firm is capable of.

HAL should provide that extra manpower and funding in the industry you talk about now that it is capable of producing 70% indigenously of both the Flanker airframe and the AL-31 TVC engine. It should be providing us with 5th gen and carrier fighter prototypes and maybe even an engine.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3470
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Paul » 21 Nov 2018 12:33

It will take PLAAF more than 3-4 yrs to get their Tibetian airfields capable of handling fighter bombers.

IAF seems to be consider this an imp barometer of PLAAF readiness assessment.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Nov 2018 13:57

^^ ramping up infra in tibet is inevitable and just a question of some funding. they have spent far more on the lhasa railway and are spending on a challenging new one from tibet to yunnan, overcoming huge civil engg challenges.

building up 12 ramstein or nellis sized bases in tibet is nothing compared to that.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 21 Nov 2018 14:32

PLAAF may be able to build 15 or 30 USAF TFTA airfields in Tibet. But how will it build the ecosystem to sustain it?

There is hardly any population in Tibet and given the altitude no incentive to grow food or other essentials for a large human population.Enough the basic rice noodles is not native to Tibet,what will the Hans eat?

Consider other things. Ammo. Can they setup large ammo factory in Tibet? If they do where are the raw materials nearby? Don't they have to bring everything from the east? More than thousands of km away.

Compared to this, right across the border is UP, Bihar, Bengal. So Chinis will be facing a large army, 4th largest airforce supported by probably the most densely populated region in the world(and access to sea).

As long as we don't fall in the trap of "limited war" in Tibet and throw whatever we got on the Chini logistics nodes, they cannot sustain a long war.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6983
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 21 Nov 2018 15:12

Why do they need to base bombers in Tibet? The Tu-16/H-6 has a 2000 mile unrefueled radius and their PLANAF base in Guiping is 2000km from Lhasa as the crow flies. Why would they come at us North to south from Tibet instead of from the East where the bulk of their bomber fleet is based and come at us from the south-east overflying Burma?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 21 Nov 2018 15:34

Sure they can. In return their bases in East of Burma would become targets as well. If Chinese won't recognize Burmese sovereignty during a conflict, neither we will. It would wrong to assume, we will not target these bases, if bombers are attacking us from these.

Only air bombing of our bases in NE is not going to stop us from destroying Chinese logistics node in tibet or Xinjiang. They have to physically capture NE. Our loc to the border is closer.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Nov 2018 16:05

unlike field armies , airbases do not involve that many people or footprint of logistics.
they have gas and oil pipelines from CAR to the eastern shore, likewise pipes can bring in supplies of fuel and gas as needed.
ammo or anything else can carted in by truck and stockpiled in underground bunkers , high value ammo like missiles, aviation spares can come on cargo aircraft like

as america/british has shown you can have giant bases in middle of nowhere sustained by air and sea - anderson AFB guam , Eielson and Elmendorf in alaska, diego garcia, scientific bases in antarctica....not a morsel of food or meat to be found and yet they are major kabila bases.

when enough money is thrown in, anything is feasible. tibet is actually much easier than running diego garcia or anderson show.

lhasa to kathmandu railway is being talked of.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 21 Nov 2018 16:25

Running airbases in desolate place during peace time is fine. Ammo, fuel or food consumption is within manageable limits.

During war times it is a completely different story.

Specially when it is pitted against 4th largest airforce in the world.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6983
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 21 Nov 2018 16:46

Xian is 2000km from Lhasa. That is in the heart of prc. And it has I think 3 PLAAF airbases full of H-6s.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby fanne » 21 Nov 2018 20:03

Also how will they overcome high altitude. They have some dry river beds made because of deep George’s, but that is only deep few 1000 feet’s. They have to be deep enough to avoid love from iaf. Not easy but not impossible. We need some 25 sq 500 planes just for plaaf.
These have to be high gen and long ranged.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Nov 2018 21:43

they have and will deploy largeish number of S300 type SAMs to protect their deeper staging areas, logistical stores etc. like the north koreans and iranians , they are also adept at tunnels and caves for military use.

while we may get better supplies into our airbases, its not as if we will deploy the 8th air force in the kind of numbers that usaf did into england or the hump ooperations....each involving 100s of heavy planes making rounds daily.

all I am saying is sitting comfortably that no large scale air threats will emanate from Tibet due to distance, height etc is not a great plan. that threat is going to come soon and in large numbers. Nepalese & Bhutanese airspace soverignty will be crudely ignored.

other than rai bareilly, hashimara and bagdogra there is no major fighter base between Dilli to Guwahati!

we need to get OTH radars, airborne GMTI platforms capable of 40,000 ft ceiling and basic AWACS like EMB145 into position armed with VHF radars for LO observables like cruise missiles streaking in over the passes and diving down into the valleys

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 21 Nov 2018 22:15

Singha wrote:they have and will deploy largeish number of S300 type SAMs to protect their deeper staging areas, logistical stores etc. like the north koreans and iranians , they are also adept at tunnels and caves for military use.

while we may get better supplies into our airbases, its not as if we will deploy the 8th air force in the kind of numbers that usaf did into england or the hump ooperations....each involving 100s of heavy planes making rounds daily.

all I am saying is sitting comfortably that no large scale air threats will emanate from Tibet due to distance, height etc is not a great plan. that threat is going to come soon and in large numbers. Nepalese & Bhutanese airspace soverignty will be crudely ignored.

other than rai bareilly, hashimara and bagdogra there is no major fighter base between Dilli to Guwahati!

we need to get OTH radars, airborne GMTI platforms capable of 40,000 ft ceiling and basic AWACS like EMB145 into position armed with VHF radars for LO observables like cruise missiles streaking in over the passes and diving down into the valleys


I can comfortably say there cannot be large scale air threat into India from Tibet because of geography and geo-politics. At the most they can make an IAF thrust into Tibet more painful.

You cannot change natural facts on Tibet or the fact that 95% of Cheen’s critical locations needed to be defended are on its east coast facing the USAF/USN.

The worst possible reaction I fear is to start buying phoren gear to counteract this “imminent” threat just as our MIC is gearing up.

I wanted war during Doklam and I can only hope that Cheen is stupid enough to attack us any time in the coming two decades because our advantages will remain massive. Even with the recent build up, there are no more than a dozen new J-11s or J-10s on bases far away from the border near Lhasa.

It will be hundreds of ours versus dozens of them.
I can only hope it will happen but I know the chinis will not oblige. They’ve stayed out of wars for over 40 years, minus some massacre of university students and I don’t see them changing a successful strategy of outproducing to win gray zones not war zones.

We need the MIC in this struggle with Cheen. By all mean be alert and aware but don’t panic into another buying spree to deal with immediate mortal danger. It is not. We are already far more powerful than to be in such danger. It would be different if we were sitting on their East but we are not, we are on the other side and we own OVERWHELMING advantages in both local quality and quantity.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 21 Nov 2018 22:59

I would say, at our current level, we will not be caught flat footed. The number are not adequate to carry out a aggressive campaign, however we should be able to defend quite well.

Khan used 50-60 CM to target one Syrian airbase. It was working the next day. For Libya to knock off one, 120 were fired. So for Chini to knock off one of airbase, similar numbers would be needed. In terms of airbase, even Pathankot is 500-600 from LAC. With SU30, most of our western airbases will come in to picture. Chini cannot afford to attack only the eastern bases. If the Northern airbase survive, their troops in Aksa Chin will get hit.

During the Doklam, I could see we lacked a cheap deep strike ability in the range of 800 -1000KM. This is now been been taken care by Pralya. Prahaar is most probably coming in as well, giving us 200KM strike capability. This add with SU30 and stand off weapons in the 100KM range should give enough capacity to bloody any Chini offensive. Draw PLAAF in to air fight outside of their air defence bubble and use our superior BVR tech we have.

Having said that, we need numbers. Numbers of what we currently have. Jets, missiles, BVR, standoff weapons etc.No arguments about that.

Regarding OTH..found a snippet on internet that LRDE is already on it..
Last edited by nam on 21 Nov 2018 23:03, edited 1 time in total.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby fanne » 21 Nov 2018 23:02

we don't have good DPSA over Tibet (Jags cannot prowl at that height, SU30MKI and Mirages can but there are only so many of them). Does Jag reengine help there? If it only makes it faster over what it can do already (and not extra that we need), is there a need for expansive Jag re-engine?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby fanne » 21 Nov 2018 23:04

But the point about air bases (in tunnels, under mountain) is well taken. We need at least 1 dozen to two, to stage attack. PLAAF will use missiles to knock these out.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby fanne » 21 Nov 2018 23:06

is there authorative public material on impact of altitude and temp on air bases?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 21 Nov 2018 23:07

fanne wrote:we don't have good DPSA over Tibet (Jags cannot prowl at that height, SU30MKI and Mirages can but there are only so many of them). Does Jag reengine help there? If it only makes it faster over what it can do already (and not extra that we need), is there a need for expansive Jag re-engine?


My opinion would be to let them come in to Himalayan passes and then choke them.

Most of the targets we want inside Tibet would be within 100-150km from LAC. Any low level deep strike can only be carried out by coming through the mountain valley. They will be sitting ducks if they fly over flat Tibet plateau.

For other deep strikes, we have missiles.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 21 Nov 2018 23:33

During one of the fists fest between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh area, they found Indian troops are too aggressive and complained in official communique. Someone needs to tell them during a war you give no mercy and expect none in return. We did these mistakes in past but expect none in the future thanks to NaPakis.

We are doing unnecessary dhoti shivering, Chinese will not shot unless the ruling Party is facing some serious challenges at home. Even if it is feeling the heat at home, they will find India powerful and blood thrusty to avenge 1962 and liberate Tibet. This time around, they will find Japan soft but valuable target to project their power.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 22 Nov 2018 17:35

RKumar wrote:We are doing unnecessary dhoti shivering, Chinese will not shot unless the ruling Party is facing some serious challenges at home. Even if it is feeling the heat at home, they will find India powerful and blood thrusty to avenge 1962 and liberate Tibet. This time around, they will find Japan soft but valuable target to project their power.


They have an increasingly hostile Amreeki alliance sitting off their east coast with hundreds of fifth gen F-35 set for induction not only with the USN and USAF but Korea, Japan and OZ as well.

We must know how to use the chini challenge effectively. The US and PRC are using their rivalry to ramp up local research and development. We are seeing an explosion in chini prototypes because they see the US challenge as a technology and production gap most of all. Their reaction was not to go and buy chit from Russia to provide numbers.

We, on the other hand, are using the Chini threat as an excuse to buy firangi gear to meet some 42-squadron requirement when a proper analysis sees us owning huge advantages in numbers over both Pak and Cheen even with 32 squadrons because the vast majority of the PLAAF can never be placed in Tibet because of geography and geopolitics. Read Raj47’s satellite analysis. No matter how much we try we cannot find literally more than a dozen fighters in total in Tibet. Very different for their east coast. The chini watchers community have serial numbers of hundreds of J-10s, J-11s, J-20s, etc. in their respective air brigades.

It is absolutely painful to me that we are going to embark on a $30B MMRCA 2 project because of this 42-squadron requirement based mainly on our dhoti shivering.

Between the MKI, the 36-Rafale MMRCA 1, the 45 MiG-29K, the 57 carrier ac bid and now the upcoming MMRCA 2, I estimate we will have spent or will be spending north of $50 BILLION for damn firangi aircraft!!!

Versus $1B in the research and development of Tejas. WTF?! Imagine those $50B in our own industry. I guarantee you that with that kind of money we would have had our 5th gen and a domestic engine and probably a domestic bomber and a large transport as well.

Instead, we are massively funding gora MIC to combat a Cheen that is massively funding its own MIC to combat their Amreeki threat.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6983
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 22 Nov 2018 19:51

chola wrote:We must know how to use the chini challenge effectively. The US and PRC are using their rivalry to ramp up local research and development. We are seeing an explosion in chini prototypes because they see the US challenge as a technology and production gap most of all. Their reaction was not to go and buy chit from Russia to provide numbers.

We, on the other hand, are using the Chini threat as an excuse to buy firangi gear to meet some 42-squadron requirement when a proper analysis sees us owning huge advantages in numbers over both Pak and Cheen even with 32 squadrons because the vast majority of the PLAAF can never be placed in Tibet because of geography and geopolitics.

Instead, we are massively funding gora MIC to combat a Cheen that is massively funding its own MIC to combat their Amreeki threat.


Let me shamelessly plug my own piece on that.

China’s Lead And India’s Lag: It Is Now Or Never For The Indian Electronics Sector

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 22 Nov 2018 22:36

As per my understanding and info:

1) Chinese build military equipment are facing a number of quality and performance related issues. The various versions and models of J-10 and J-11 are having reliability issues, high maintenance required and their performance is sub-optimal if not bad especially for wartime intensive operation. Let's don't count on earlier models which they can operator in Tibet only in defensive roles, with similar issues if not worst.

2) They have the only a handful of Su-30, Su-35 for front-line operations, I am not sure how hard they are training with these machines as numbers are really limited. I assume here our pilots are having an edge over them.

3) J-20 and J-31 are not even IOC capable at this point of time. Maybe in the next 2 years, they reach IOC capability and next 5-7 years ready to field it for real combat missions.

4) The most important point, the ground will be held by the foot soldiers. They can have some advantage on missile numbers but they can't take it out, dispersed soldiers. Their number of soldiers with real fighting capabilities are low, assuming they are not having an active border where real life fighting, snapping and artillery is being played on a daily basis. Thanks to again NaPakis, our soldiers are more prepared and innovative to fight under adverse conditions and knows how to survive during hardship. Let's don't get scared with shiny toys, fancy uniforms, luxury bunkers, metalled road and super cool vehicles. Have faith on rugged n reliable toys, simple uniforms, war-hardened men with simple vehicles.

Call me a fanboy if you like 8)

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Nov 2018 11:21

^^^^ You don’t have to be a fanboy to count the number of chini airbases and the aircraft on them to see that we have little to fight against. You don’t need to be a fanboy to read Indian Army accessment on the fact that there are 10 Indian divisions versus their three brigades. Or that they only had 8 fighters during Doklam and maybe 32 now.

https://theprint.in/opinion/china-dokla ... 39851/amp/
With India having been taught a lesson, and Chinese control of Tibet secure, by 2017 the Chinese had only three brigades left.

...
China appears to have quadrupled its permanently based fighters from 8 to 32 at four airbases.
...

When India has 10 divisions in Eastern Command, equal to the pre-1962 War division count, the addition of an extra brigade in Tibet makes no difference. What it signifies is that China will not vacate Doklam, now absorbed as part of China’s salami-slicing strategy.


That’s perhaps 250,000 Jawans (10 divisions of 25K) versus 21,000 of them (3 brigades of 7K.) A handful of aircraft in 4 bases versus hundreds of ours within striking distance of the border.

You don’t need to make guesses on training or quality. Those numbers were and are so overwhelming that an actual chini military adventure can only end in one way — a complete and overwhelming Indian victory. We should have attacked during Doklam.

But anyhoo, we cannot let this rump force and a failed nutcase state scare us into blowing billions in firangi gear instead of investing those billions in our MIC.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby RKumar » 23 Nov 2018 20:42

That's the one point, I will never understand - why India never fire the very first bullet to get the benefit of surprise while having an upper hand in every way - handing us an assured win with minimum losses.

Allah, might be having bigger plans for our decision makers :shock:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5999
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Rakesh » 23 Nov 2018 23:02

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1065191335156543489 ---> BTW, China's VT-4 Main Battle Tank ( urf 'MBT-3000') has a 'self-destruct' button, and this is being touted by the Chinese to the skies. And the Pakistanis have been evaluating this tank. Says everything, doesn't it?

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1065191985084911617 ---> I hope their much-hyped VT 5 'Mountain Warfare' Tank has one of these built in 'self-destruct' thingies as well. Because the VT 5 sure ain't going anywhere, if it tries to 'do' something via a Himalayan Pass.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 24 Nov 2018 10:38

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1065191335156543489 ---> BTW, China's VT-4 Main Battle Tank ( urf 'MBT-3000') has a 'self-destruct' button, and this is being touted by the Chinese to the skies. And the Pakistanis have been evaluating this tank. Says everything, doesn't it?

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1065191985084911617 ---> I hope their much-hyped VT 5 'Mountain Warfare' Tank has one of these built in 'self-destruct' thingies as well. Because the VT 5 sure ain't going anywhere, if it tries to 'do' something via a Himalayan Pass.



Who’s holding the remote to the self-destruct feature? Chinis or pakis?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 25 Nov 2018 00:24

Chinese radar development history. Notice how their Phase Array program started by wanting to match Aegis.

with the usual underdog story sprinkled in...



airborne radar history


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Nov 2018 09:50

nam wrote:Chinese radar development history. Notice how their Phase Array program started by wanting to match Aegis.

with the usual underdog story sprinkled in...

airborne radar history



Great posts, Nam ji. The way they used the Amreekis to learn and challenge themselves is commendable.

They see themselves as underdogs and entitled to cheat, steal and even innovate to match the “superpowers.” Kudos.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15742
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Karan M » 25 Nov 2018 10:39

Note how they dont mention anything about foreign assistance such as the import of the Ukrainian radar tech, the Israeli TOT for Phalcon AESA and how suddenly in half a year, the sea clutter issue was resolved. It's all about how hard they worked. Sealing a radar in a GFRP dome to protect against corrosion,
Which has been done for donkeys years worldwide is a Chinese innovation. Truly masters of propaganda.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Nov 2018 11:03

Karan M wrote:Note how they dont mention anything about foreign assistance such as the import of the Ukrainian radar tech, the Israeli TOT for Phalcon AESA and how suddenly in half a year, the sea clutter issue was resolved. It's all about how hard they worked. Sealing a radar in a GFRP dome to protect against corrosion,
Which has been done for donkeys years worldwide is a Chinese innovation. Truly masters of propaganda.


So saying it is just propaganda helps us how?

When Amreekis they see something this, they go to Congress and cranks up more funding.

What do we do? Proclaim Rafale is superior to any chini aircraft and we just need to import it to maintain our edge (never mentioning that we already have superiority based on numbers in the theater alone.)

We have either irrational fear (see Doklam; we hold at least a 10 to 1 manpower advantage and still fear an attack instead of initiating an attack) or irrational disdain (it’s all propaganda.) Nearly nothing in between.

It seems our reply comes down to importing some damn gora system and proclaiming victory because our imported stuff is better.

Far better to use the Chinese threat as a kick in the pants for our MIC — like the Chinis use their Amreeki threat and the Amreekis do with the chinis in turn.

Match their AEGIS and Phalcon equivalents by egging on our own. Right now we are putting in Israeli systems on the upcoming P15B and P17A.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 25 Nov 2018 16:10

The fact that Chinese started with a ship platform for their active array program ( took 15 years to deploy it), tells you the priority they had given for naval build up.

Ship based radar will always be fewer in number and expensive. So this naval build up is not sudden, planned long time back. Their first version was air cooled. The latest version on 52D is liquid cooled.

Along with the missiles,radar is one domain we have done well. All thanks to BMD program. When there is funding, we are able to get things done.

We should have been cranking out AESA radars in numbers and make it cheaper to operate and export. We have a great base with AESA, alas we have not been able to use this advantage.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 25 Nov 2018 17:56

nam wrote:The fact that Chinese started with a ship platform for their active array program ( took 15 years to deploy it), tells you the priority they had given for naval build up.

Ship based radar will always be fewer in number and expensive. So this naval build up is not sudden, planned long time back. Their first version was air cooled. The latest version on 52D is liquid cooled.

Along with the missiles,radar is one domain we have done well. All thanks to BMD program. When there is funding, we are able to get things done.

We should have been cranking out AESA radars in numbers and make it cheaper to operate and export. We have a great base with AESA, alas we have not been able to use this advantage.


Obviously, a naval buildup of this magnitude is not sudden. We know from our own programs that lead time is immense and so projects must be scheduled years if not decades ahead.

Nam ji, the difference between us and them is production — not just in the hull but in electronics as well.

They have their own Aegis in numbers with the Type 052C, Type 052D, Type 055, the Liaoning and their new carrier under sea trials.

The same with their AEW radar with the KJ-200, KJ-500, ZDK-03 and KJ-2000.

We, otoh, are putting in Israeli radars for all of our spanking new incoming systems. No matter whether it is the Vikrant, the Visakhapatnam, the P17A or the Tejas, the radar will be Israeli, Israeli, Israeli, Israeli in that respective order.

This is what happens when we run lab experiments with LRDE and provide no funding for actual use and production because the phoren stuff is always better.

The chini stuff could be shite and stolen and full of Ukrainian TOT but they have things in numbers and on ships and aircraft that provide income to improve and innovate. All because they are racing with the Americans.

It seems we will be happy enough with proclaiming the MF STAR to be superior. We need to be in a race with Cheen but we starve our own horses while feeding and riding phoren ones.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 25 Nov 2018 18:14

One of the prime reason for many versions from Chini, is because of number of entities involved, who bring out their version of a product to sell.

There are two electronics research houses in China competing among themselves. Other entities use their tech to create their offering and try to sell it to Chinese forces or export.

Here everything has to be done by DRDO, who are fund and human capital limited. Our DPSU hardly spend effort to even take DRDO products forward.

BEL should have taken DRDO's AESA programs further and create at the least a land based radar which can be exported. Private entities are starved of orders and they don't want to venture in to this.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1589
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 26 Nov 2018 00:05

Another video on Chinese radar.. now something we will be interested in.

Chinis tested out a AESA land based radar on top of Ganbala mountains south of Lhasa. Apparently a lighting bolt hit the radar, frying it's electronics!

The crew were there for 16 months, with some of them falling sick due to high altitude by the time tour ended.

Watch it all here.


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2841
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 26 Nov 2018 02:00

nam wrote:
Chinis tested out a AESA land based radar on top of Ganbala mountains south of Lhasa. Apparently a lighting bolt hit the radar, frying it's electronics!

The crew were there for 16 months, with some of them falling sick due to high altitude by the time tour ended.


Thanks again, Nam ji. Those videos are good stuff. I didn’t come across these in the chini watchers forums I visit. Weird. Maybe I’m too myopic being focused on ships and airplanes. lol

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 26 Nov 2018 04:35


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63631
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 26 Nov 2018 04:36

North of doklam raj47 identified a dome covered radar at 15000 feet height with a road snaking up to it

In peacetime it supposedly allows them to monitor our movements


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, chaitanya, Google [Bot] and 24 guests