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.
Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1637
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 14 Dec 2018 20:26

^^ it has been looked at, quiet recently, in the small arms thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4016&start=4280#p2307905

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 15 Dec 2018 17:49

^^^ I should say it is more of me being plane- and ship-centric. I need to check the small arms thread sometimes. Though I have to admit I’m gun-shy about finding out too much knowing that we are scouring the globe from Russia to the UAE for a rifle.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 15 Dec 2018 18:00

Singha wrote:It looks like a drum mag russian weapon of ww2


I believe that that the squad light MG version, GD. The standard uses the usual commie banana clip like AKs.

Image

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 857
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kancha » 15 Dec 2018 19:41

chola wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:^^dont they participate in UN peace keeping missions?Anyways, they might be the ones keen to step into Afghanistan.


And I already posted many times on how that turned out. The PLA needed to be saved by our jawans. They won’t be going into Afghanistan. They’d rather negotiate and buy off the Taliban. That is their MO. They don’t go into warzones.



Indeed. Wrote a blog post on that some days ago.
People’s Liberation Army – Calling the Bluff

So I came across THIS 2015 news report, some days ago. A piece that I found V.E.R.Y interesting. The headline is catchy enough – ‘UN peacekeepers refused to help as aid workers were raped in South Sudan’. But it is the second part of the headline that caught my eye – Chinese troops abandoned their posts rather than engage in fighting and protect civilians.
So here is what I make of the entire issue – The PLA soldier didn’t move out of the safety of his compound, favouring his personal safety over his responsibility to his fellow human beings. To some extent (and I say this ‘coz I am not entirely aware of the rules of engagement they were bound by), this might be explained by the rules of engagement that MIGHT have prevented them from interfering in the factional fighting in the area. MIGHT have, ‘coz I am not sure it actually prevented them. More on that in the latter part of this blog. However, even the refusal to fire back in self defence, more so when two of their comrades had been fatally wounded, reeks of cowardice. And then the biggest ignominy a professional soldier can heap upon himself – they fcuking abandoned their posts and ran away. Not only that, they left behind their weapons and ammo.
n entire post cowering behind the apparent safety of their compound walls instead of discharging their duty when humanity is being raped and murdered all around. When the compound too becomes unsafe, they emulate their Pakistani friends’ favourite battlefield tactic – they run away! And this is the bunch of (fill in the blank) with which the PRC threatens the battle hardened Indian Army today!


Then there was another blog - People’s Liberation Army – A History of ‘Valour’

Huge parades, shiny ‘toys’, rows and rows of it. The President, or as he would like to be addressed – The Chairman, inspecting the troops in an open jeep with FOUR mikes, exhorting them to be loyal to him (Yes, apparently the PLA needs to be reminded of it’s obligation to be loyal to the CPC over and over again!). A shiny new aircraft carrier with beautiful introductory videos that would put Top Gun to shame. Or was it the other way round (LINK : China copied not only the music, but also the choreography of Top Gun)?

The PLA, PLAAF and PLAN are the future of warfare, as the People’s Republic of China would like us to believe. Well, there’s only one way to find out the amount of truth in this ‘fact’ – and given the sabre rattling happening on the other side of the LAC (or is it empty vessels. Let’s leave that for later), it might not be too far in the future.

But one thing that we CAN, and in fact MUST analyse is how the PLA has measured up when time has come to live up to their bombast. And there is plenty to talk about, given their ‘rich’ history of ‘valour’ too.

PRC established, the PLA soon marched into Tibet. There was NO resistance worth the name. Tick first ‘victory’ for the PLA. Fast forward three more years. Gen Eisenhower marched into North Korea, threatening to reach the very doorstep of the PRC on the Yalu River. Mao committed the PLA to ensure the survival of the commie regime.

Dig a bit deeper and what does one find? Waves after waves of PLA soldiers sent in to simply overwhelm the Americans by sheer numbers. No tactics. No manoeuvres. Nothing. Just keep sending them till the Americans run out of bullets to shoot them.

Less than a decade later came the 1962 war. Enough has been written about it. But still, I’ll add my own bit. As the Time Magazine wrote – ill armed, ill clad, ill trained, the only thing that the Indian Army didn’t lack was guts. The Indian army was thrust in a battle it was not prepared for. Couple that with questionable leadership and the result did NOT come as a surprise. BUT, one fact that is often left out is that wherever the local commanders did not panic, and actually LED their troops, the Indian soldier stood like a rock on his land. Till his very last breath.

Talking of grief on the LAC, the first instance came soon after 1962, at NathuLa in 1967 when Brigadier Sagat Singh ensured that his Grenadiers killed 300+ Chinese in response to they wounding their commanding officer. Soon thereafter came the incident at Chola, again in Sikkim, less than a month later wherein the Gorkhas of 7/11 GR did a repeat of that. And guess what, Sikkim has been so peaceful since then!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 15 Dec 2018 20:33

kancha wrote:Gen Eisenhower marched into North Korea, threatening to reach the very doorstep of the PRC on the Yalu River. Mao committed the PLA to ensure the survival of the commie regime.

Dig a bit deeper and what does one find? Waves after waves of PLA soldiers sent in to simply overwhelm the Americans by sheer numbers. No tactics. No manoeuvres. Nothing. Just keep sending them till the Americans run out of bullets to shoot them.

...

Talking of grief on the LAC, the first instance came soon after 1962, at NathuLa in 1967 when Brigadier Sagat Singh ensured that his Grenadiers killed 300+ Chinese in response to they wounding their commanding officer. Soon thereafter came the incident at Chola, again in Sikkim, less than a month later wherein the Gorkhas of 7/11 GR did a repeat of that. And guess what, Sikkim has been so peaceful since then!


The PLA of our fathers and grandfathers’ — Korea, 1962 and 1967 — listened to orders and marched off like robots to certain death for the CCP.

South Sudan shows us they cannot even do that any more.

As I said before, the danger is from their MIC flooding grayzones with machines in peacetime not their military’s warfighting in wartime.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2777
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby fanne » 15 Dec 2018 22:41

China has to travel 2000 km to come to border to fight. The land is the highest platue and a desert. It cannot sustain high population and because of high altitude, mainland Chinese have to adopt to this environment. The roads near the border (at least 100 KM on each side, more on ours) are mountainous and can easily be choked. The number of fronts where big wars can happen is limited and known (more points for limited intrusion, but hard to hold). Bad region (except for in Aksai Chin) for tanks and even SPG etc. It is mostly and infantry war with support from artillery and air. Our side, after 100 km, we have numerous air field at see level, Chinese have to go at least 2000 km for that) .Given all these, we hold tremendous advantage, We have close to 200k acclimatized and trained (for mountainous warfare) troops, while Chinese have 1/10th that number.

We hold overwhelming advantage. Chinese advantage in machine/man does nothing for this front. There numerous tanks, planes (to some extent this will harm us), ships (there is no sea at LAC and see distance is minimum 7000 km, 6-7 days of sailing, and vulnerable to IN planes) and men (where will Chinese place 200k if they manage to acclimatize them and bring them to border, given limited front, will Chinese stand on each other shoulders to fight?). It is shame we lost 1962 (being not prepared), but this time we are and we hold 1:10 advantage. In mountain, you need 7:1 advantage to win, Chinese have to increase their strength 70 times from present to overrun us.

These of course do not account for war experience etc. We need to further fortify our advantage, light artillery, dedicated IAF SQ with practice for mountain warfare, smart munitions, some strike element (MSC?) to keep the other side guessing and tie up his reserves etc etc.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 16 Dec 2018 01:47

^^^@kancha, just double checking, you wrote these articles???I had exactly that articles in my mind when I had posted rhetorically, came across these articles earlier this year

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 857
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kancha » 16 Dec 2018 07:29

ArjunPandit wrote:^^^@kancha, just double checking, you wrote these articles???I had exactly that articles in my mind when I had posted rhetorically, came across these articles earlier this year


Yes.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8259
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby anupmisra » 16 Dec 2018 20:10

kancha wrote:Talking of grief on the LAC, the first instance came soon after 1962, at Nathu La in 1967


I came across this article by Sheru Thapliyalfrom 2011 who describes the Nathu La skirmish in detail. Its a long but interesting read. Is this your source? See link below.

The Nathu La skirmish: when Chinese were given a bloody nose

Sino-Indian border has remained peaceful ever since to the extent that today Chinese soldiers come and ask their Indian counterparts at Nathu La for cigarettes, rum and tea


http://www.claws.in/595/the-nathu-la-sk ... liyal.html

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 857
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kancha » 16 Dec 2018 20:53

anupmisra wrote:
kancha wrote:Talking of grief on the LAC, the first instance came soon after 1962, at Nathu La in 1967


I came across this article by Sheru Thapliyalfrom 2011 who describes the Nathu La skirmish in detail. Its a long but interesting read. Is this your source? See link below.

The Nathu La skirmish: when Chinese were given a bloody nose

Sino-Indian border has remained peaceful ever since to the extent that today Chinese soldiers come and ask their Indian counterparts at Nathu La for cigarettes, rum and tea


http://www.claws.in/595/the-nathu-la-sk ... liyal.html


Not exactly. In fact, this is the first time I have come across this particular piece!
But then, there are enough folks who've written about the Nathu La and Cho La incidents. Too bad many of our own continue to be ignorant of these major landmark battles between the IA and the PLA.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 16 Dec 2018 21:01

the real victory of Cheen is tying up vast indian resources for what is a defensively oriented mountain warfare strategy using a few pinpricks from a couple of brigades and big talk of 'teaching a lesson like 1962' which costs nothing but hot air.

imagine if all the resources that has been poured into mountain region since 1962 been avialable to the army for other ends like modernization and to the other services.

this is assymmetric warfare at its best, because subsequent to 1962 we have no made any landgrabs to force them into a costly counter buildup

probably doklam was a good chance to push them hard and watch the fun - but its over now. other pressure points need to be found, when cheen is anyway anxious about its sea frontier and increasing murican threats.

as quid pro quo for our better behaviour we should seek that TSP be starved of funding so its radiated threat level is less. a country with 250 million AK47 + militant ideology will always be dangerous but we can render it ineffective and focus on some other fronts like the sea.

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 857
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kancha » 16 Dec 2018 21:58

By the way, just remembered this blog post too - SOUTH SUDAN – WHO KILLED THE CHINESE PEACEKEEPERS?

I have good reasons to believe that it was Chinese supplied weapons that directly, or indirectly caused the deaths of the Chinese peacekeepers in South Sudan.

Coming back to the topic at hand – who killed them? It would in all probability have been the SPLA, or the govt forces, since it is they who were reported to have destroyed the UN compound in vicinity of the Chinese manned post that was later abandoned by those manning it.
.
.
Ever since its outreach to Sudan, even before its partition, China has been arming various groups with reckless abandon and utter disregard to the human suffering brought about by the proliferation of weapons in the country, all in the hope of oil. The human rights violations perpetrated in Sudan are well documented. Human Rights Watch mentioned in a 2003 REPORT titled CHINA’S INVOLVEMENT IN SUDAN: ARMS AND OIL that China supplied not only small arms but even helicopter gunships and tanks, in the hope of recovering the costs in terms of access to oil (more on that later in this blog).
.
.
As the biggest consumer of Sudan’s oil and a major supplier of its weapons, China has shielded the Sudanese government against pressure from the international community
.
.
It shows that far from wanting to help Sudan, China has explicitly hurt it instead, by using its membership of the UNSC to veto action aimed at stopping genocide in Sudan.
.
.
The report says places on record that China had continued to supply arms and ammo to South Sudan despite recent violence. And what was the ‘violence’ like? The reports says, “..all parties to the conflict have been targeting civilians as part of their military tactics… Scores of civilians have been killed, maimed, tortured, burned alive inside their homes, displaced, raped and abducted, and children have been recruited and used as part of the war effort..”
.
.
Bottomline – China has played a huge role in destabilizing Sudan, all in the hope of access to its oil. For a country with perhaps the maximum clout in Sudan lately, China has come up short on its respect for humanity and the lands that feed its growing thirst for oil.
.
.
Not making a statement here, but just wondering whether the bullet / shell that killed the Chinese peacekeepers and the weapon that fired it was, in fact, supplied by the Chinese themselves?
.
.
Oh, in the end, talking about oil, the conflict has taken a predictable toll on oil exports, with the UN panel saying oil production had dropped from 245,000 barrels per day in late 2013 to 163,000 bpd in July 2015. So much for tactical brilliance in the quest for oil.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 16 Dec 2018 22:36

Singha wrote:
probably doklam was a good chance to push them hard and watch the fun - but its over now. other pressure points need to be found, when cheen is anyway anxious about its sea frontier and increasing murican threats.


The pressure cannot be applied on LAC, as Chini will blank out any "forward policy" stories. The side effect of the foreign office and media drama that happened during Doklam, would have raised a question "if PLA is defending Tibet well?" in the Chinese narrative. This would have caused them to divert some forces & resources towards Tibet.

They expected the media "shock and awe" would force India to backoff and their strategy of doing on the cheap would work. Next time they need to have the forces in place or not make a hue & cry.

Our objective would be to carry on be a focal point in the Chinese narrative, along with some regular visit across LAC leaving behind some Parle-G packets.

Our commentators should continue to indicate China as the reason for modernization & buildup. Regular exercises on Eastern front with media coverage etc. We should indicate a threat on LAC.

A pressure point on sea is expensive for us. However on LAC it is expensive for the Chinese.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7014
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 17 Dec 2018 09:13

For India to raise costs for Cina, in terms of presence, we don't need pinpricks on the border by IA. We need to up their internal security costs in Tibet & X. That will cost them considerably more in not just monetary terms but also politically in the international stage. They're already getting pushed a lot by the west over X in a coordinated manner. Hikvision is a particularly significant target.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2278
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby abhik » 17 Dec 2018 19:28

Entire Han land is repressed, not just Tibet or X. Chinese not being able to gradually and smoothly transition into a system with more rights for aam janta and democracy of some sort is still it biggest risk - and the biggest opening for us(and others).

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 18 Dec 2018 12:35

Their Type 055 cruiser on sea trials:

Image

Image

Image

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 18 Dec 2018 16:05

I will miss the good old days of proper antenna on ships. Rotating or fixed. With conformal antennas, soon we will difficult to visually find out the radars on the ship.

Zumwalt has done it quite well. .

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2018 16:37

my favourite remains the horizon class with the twin oto 76mm near the bridge for CIWS.


Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2018 16:41

we should adopt this 3 x 76mm design for solid anti missile work.
the big gun upfront will not be so useful and who does shore bombardment these days that too with a solitary gun?
its a relic and ought to go, just as Tesla showed the way to new paradigm of car dashboard design that had remained the same for 100 years, or F16 took in the side stick controller.

will permit more room on foredeck for meatier SAM loadout.

the RBU systems can be mounted on each beam shrouded by stealth housings.

MFSTAR obviously on a supertall mast. it should be able to handle saturations attacks on any quadrants. we need up our game with P15B than timid incremental changes.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 19 Dec 2018 13:41

nam wrote:I will miss the good old days of proper antenna on ships. Rotating or fixed. With conformal antennas, soon we will difficult to visually find out the radars on the ship.

Zumwalt has done it quite well. .


Not the Zumwalt aesthetically. Basically a slab of metal for a warship. At least the 055, Horizon and Visakhapatnam look the part, sitting low and broad on the water like a battleship.

The Zumwalt’s profile is just too high and too weird.
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 19 Dec 2018 13:57

it looks like a reject from the sets of "battleship" film the alien kind.

give me a horizon or even better the Tirpitz/Bismark any day. put some metal on target than namby pamby metrohexual LRASM types - way too clever.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36102
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby SaiK » 20 Dec 2018 09:17

China tests new sub-launched ballistic missile that will raise the stakes in a nuclear war with the US

https://amp.businessinsider.com/china-t ... ts-2018-12

China tested a new JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile in late November, moving closer to strengthening its sea-based nuclear strike capabilities.

The new missiles are expected to be carried by Type 096 submarines, which will replace the older Type 094 Jin-class submarines, China's first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent.

With a longer range than the current JL-2 missiles, these new missiles could give China the ability to strike the US mainland from Chinese coastal waters.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 20 Dec 2018 11:23


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22318
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 20 Dec 2018 13:03

Chinis has started delivering 737MAX from its new center in China

https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/boe ... on-center/

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 20 Dec 2018 18:11

Singha wrote:it looks like a reject from the sets of "battleship" film the alien kind.

give me a horizon or even better the Tirpitz/Bismark any day. put some metal on target than namby pamby metrohexual LRASM types - way too clever.


LOL. GD, I love reading your stuff. Funny as hell and always tempting us with the battleship talk.

Yamato and Musashi too!
Image

I like the spaceship form of the Yamato as well!

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Dec 2018 13:38


ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 21 Dec 2018 15:51

https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/china-c ... c-missile/

first known flight-test of the JL-3 solid-fuel, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)

took place in the Bohai Sea from a modified conventional submarine, the sources said. The Type 096 nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) remains under construction and is expected to begin sea trials in three to four years.

The test on November 24 did not see the JL-3 fly to its full range. The first flight test likely verified the system’s proper cold ejection from the submarine-based launch tube. The missile’s full range is likely to be in excess of 9,000 kilometers, according to U.S. intelligence estimates.

“China’s four operational JIN-class SSBNs represent China’s first credible, seabased nuclear deterrent,” the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2018 report on Chinese military power noted.

Code: Select all

The JL-3 is expected to offer a considerable range extension over the JL-2, which has been estimated by U.S. military intelligence to possess a range of just over 7,000 kilometers. That means the SSBNs carrying these missiles would be out of range of continental United States-based targets.

Surprisingly the writer of this article is ankit panda an indian.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Dec 2018 17:50

the matching 096 SSBN submarine that will supplement the 094 Jin class (4 boats) is going even larger to carry 24 missiles.
I would have thought if the enemy has more asw assets your SSBNs be lean and stealthy with maybe 8-12 missiles but looks like cheen is confident of sanitizing atleast upto the 2nd island chain and giving these large vessels a safe playground before pushing out further.

the real deal will be if they can cajole some country in latin america to get into a military pack and offer land and air base. right now, usa gets by with nothing spent on homeland defence in the sea realm. things will change if a chinese submarine base gets opened in latin america and subs and warships start prowling close to american waters

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 21 Dec 2018 18:37



Yah, talking about the Bismarck. This Cheeni naval buildup is most compared with the Bismarck buildup exactly 100 years at the turn of the last century.

ArjunPandit wrote:Surprisingly the writer of this article is ankit panda an indian.


Yah, I’ve read his stuff for years. American Federation of Scientists fellow who specializes in nuclear development overall and Chinese ones in particular. You see his writings at the South China Morning Post too. With a name like Panda he was destined to hug them. lol

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 21 Dec 2018 18:45

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sahib_No7/status/1075665980049817602

Sahib Singh
@Sahib_No7
A Chinese Yu-6 sub launched torpedo was picked up by #Vietnam fishermen in the South China Sea today. Probably failed to explode or missed the target. Made in China :)
Image



Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7014
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Prasad » 21 Dec 2018 19:20

Singha wrote:the real deal will be if they can cajole some country in latin america to get into a military pack and offer land and air base. right now, usa gets by with nothing spent on homeland defence in the sea realm. things will change if a chinese submarine base gets opened in latin america and subs and warships start prowling close to american waters

Americans are big on Monroe doctrine saar.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6924
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 21 Dec 2018 22:57

Singha wrote:
the real deal will be if they can cajole some country in latin america to get into a military pack and offer land and air base. right now, usa gets by with nothing spent on homeland defence in the sea realm. things will change if a chinese submarine base gets opened in latin america and subs and warships start prowling close to american waters


The problem with that is that, for this to work in a sustained and credible fashion, they must obtain a very large presence to support air and land based assets and proper defensive fortifications and re-supply. Something akin to a Guam or the US presence in Japan or South Korea. I just don't see them getting to that in the next few decades simply because on the economic and military costs that the US can impose on a nation that allows for such access. Anything less won't be credible and while sensational and a PR stunt would not apply the sort of sustained, long term pressure you seem to imply.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 64001
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 21 Dec 2018 23:00

well if they can rotate units into the east pacific and play harassment and spoiler roles flying the red flag off LA and SFO waters its mission accomplished for phase1. a lot of political heat will emanate in DC to do something about it and pull back forward units to build a great "home fleet".
so effect will be that of 1 doolittle raid a week. pinpricks that will be hard to ignore politically.

+deliberate SSBN sightings east of hawaii

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6924
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 21 Dec 2018 23:07

Nope it isn't going to make much of a difference as far as rejigging either the USN fleet architecture or the overall direction. This wasn't uncommon during the Cold-War so it isn't something they discount given China's rise. China exercising FON further legitimizes Navies from around the Asia-Pacific region doing the same in international waters as they already do. That is a welcomed move imho and navies can continue to disregard the arbitrary ADIZ that China wishes to create over international waters citing China's acceptance of FON as an example.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Rakesh » 22 Dec 2018 21:35

A Chinese company said it created a photo with such a high resolution that you can zoom from thousands of meters away to see people's facial expressions
https://www.businessinsider.com/high-re ... es-2018-12

Click on link to see the zoom feature ---> http://sh-meet.bigpixel.cn/?from=groupm ... nstalled=0

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17885
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chetak » 22 Dec 2018 22:11

Singha wrote:the real victory of Cheen is tying up vast indian resources for what is a defensively oriented mountain warfare strategy using a few pinpricks from a couple of brigades and big talk of 'teaching a lesson like 1962' which costs nothing but hot air.

imagine if all the resources that has been poured into mountain region since 1962 been avialable to the army for other ends like modernization and to the other services.

this is assymmetric warfare at its best, because subsequent to 1962 we have no made any landgrabs to force them into a costly counter buildup

probably doklam was a good chance to push them hard and watch the fun - but its over now. other pressure points need to be found, when cheen is anyway anxious about its sea frontier and increasing murican threats.

as quid pro quo for our better behaviour we should seek that TSP be starved of funding so its radiated threat level is less. a country with 250 million AK47 + militant ideology will always be dangerous but we can render it ineffective and focus on some other fronts like the sea.


there is little doubt that the huge han army is as yet decisively unblooded in any battle of consequence and their behaviour under battle conditions is just maybe a trifle unpredictable.

their present tactics seem to be patterned on those of the amerikis and their infantry may not be very amenable to the wave after wave of attacks theory to overwhelm the enemy, the very tactics that they employed in 1962 with India.

The han army have also, so far, coasted along on the shoulders of their political power, commercial reach and economic clout to give the impression of being all powerful and invulnerable.

All the han "commercial" dealings, be it OBOR/BRI/CPEC or the suborning of weak govts like srilanka, maldives and others in africa and central asia have been bribery led and they have given the impression that their huge army is right there to back them up.

They also do not have a much demonstrated expertise in sustained air operations as well as long deployment of warships in tension filled waters, whereas japan, India, US, australia are all countries with such naval expertise.

The game in this region will be logistics led for sustained operations.

India's agni series specifically meant just for them have flummoxed the hans and the hans well know that the missile ranges "declared" by India are just for TV talk shows.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2952
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 23 Dec 2018 00:46

chetak wrote:
their present tactics seem to be patterned on those of the amerikis and their infantry may not be very amenable to the wave after wave of attacks theory to overwhelm the enemy, the very tactics that they employed in 1962 with India.

The han army have also, so far, coasted along on the shoulders of their political power, commercial reach and economic clout to give the impression of being all powerful and invulnerable.



But I wonder is that really anyone’s impression? I think most nations see them as an untested military whose government had been unwilling to commit to battle in decades. I don’t think any of the nations taking loans from them is afraid of a chini military takeover. That is why they take the loans. They suffer little consequences if they don’t pay them back — except no new loans.

What gives them influence is the buildup of their navy in the global commons (not the actual wielding of naval power in a war) and weapon sales (frigates to Pakiland, subs to Thailand, fighters to Burma.) That power comes from their MIC not their military.

I don’t see Cheen being able to send the single child L’il Emperor generation in wave attacks. At any rate they are cutting their manpower massively for more machines. Their soldiers show little will to fight (Sudan) and their government has shown no will to commit them (last military actions in the 1970s.)

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17885
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chetak » 23 Dec 2018 02:33

chola wrote:
chetak wrote:
their present tactics seem to be patterned on those of the amerikis and their infantry may not be very amenable to the wave after wave of attacks theory to overwhelm the enemy, the very tactics that they employed in 1962 with India.

The han army have also, so far, coasted along on the shoulders of their political power, commercial reach and economic clout to give the impression of being all powerful and invulnerable.



But I wonder is that really anyone’s impression? I think most nations see them as an untested military whose government had been unwilling to commit to battle in decades. I don’t think any of the nations taking loans from them is afraid of a chini military takeover. That is why they take the loans. They suffer little consequences if they don’t pay them back — except no new loans.

What gives them influence is the buildup of their navy in the global commons (not the actual wielding of naval power in a war) and weapon sales (frigates to Pakiland, subs to Thailand, fighters to Burma.) That power comes from their MIC not their military.

I don’t see Cheen being able to send the single child L’il Emperor generation in wave attacks. At any rate they are cutting their manpower massively for more machines. Their soldiers show little will to fight (Sudan) and their government has shown no will to commit them (last military actions in the 1970s.)


The male female ratio in cheeni is badly skewed.

There are much more than 30 million males in excess over the females, leading to unwanted social tensions etc.

A war, with heavy casualties, would actually sort out many of their problems.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17885
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chetak » 23 Dec 2018 02:35

chola wrote:
chetak wrote:
their present tactics seem to be patterned on those of the amerikis and their infantry may not be very amenable to the wave after wave of attacks theory to overwhelm the enemy, the very tactics that they employed in 1962 with India.

The han army have also, so far, coasted along on the shoulders of their political power, commercial reach and economic clout to give the impression of being all powerful and invulnerable.



But I wonder is that really anyone’s impression? I think most nations see them as an untested military whose government had been unwilling to commit to battle in decades. I don’t think any of the nations taking loans from them is afraid of a chini military takeover. That is why they take the loans. They suffer little consequences if they don’t pay them back — except no new loans.

What gives them influence is the buildup of their navy in the global commons (not the actual wielding of naval power in a war) and weapon sales (frigates to Pakiland, subs to Thailand, fighters to Burma.) That power comes from their MIC not their military.

I don’t see Cheen being able to send the single child L’il Emperor generation in wave attacks. At any rate they are cutting their manpower massively for more machines. Their soldiers show little will to fight (Sudan) and their government has shown no will to commit them (last military actions in the 1970s.)


the cheeni MIC is owned by the cheeni military.

Where exactly is the difference between the two??
Last edited by chetak on 23 Dec 2018 02:35, edited 1 time in total.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8259
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby anupmisra » 23 Dec 2018 02:35

chola wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/Sahib_No7/status/1075665980049817602

Sahib Singh
@Sahib_No7
A Chinese Yu-6 sub launched torpedo was picked up by #Vietnam fishermen in the South China Sea today. Probably failed to explode or missed the target. Made in China :)
Image


Yu-6 - which reportedly entered PLAN service in 2005. Reverse-engineered U.S. Navy Mk 48 with design features lifted from the Soviet-era Type 53 series.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, chaitanya, kurup and 61 guests