Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion

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.
Post Reply
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nam »

We have 12 Su30 at Nashik and 16 LCA at Blore per year capability. Since LCA are smaller aircrafts, if I assume we can built a 16 per year line at Nashik instead of Su30, that would give an overall 32 per year for LCA MK1A & MK2. If we really want to, we can get the numbers needed. Alas.

LCA at Blore replaced hawk lines. Wonder what is happening at the Jag line? Su30 line might go with upgrades. jag as well.

I feel HAL is not fully utilizing it's production capacity.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

LakshmanPST wrote: Resharing my older post in Chinese ORBAT Thread FWIW--->
Strength of PLAAF which I collected and tabulated from scramble.nl is as follows:-
.
Thanks for this update!!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

LakshmanPST wrote: We also need to consider other factors like how many of those jets PLAAF can realistically deploy in Tibet in case of a war. I believe IAF can successfully defend a PLAAF attack and also carry out significant offensive operations just across the LAC/border in Tibet. I don't think IAF need to attack deep inside Chinese mainland. May be that is why IAF Chiefs are quite confident about being able to stand up to PLAAF with 36-37 squadrons in case of a war.
The red bolded part is a point that is consistently overlooked in this entire debate. They will overcome that disadvantage by stationing assets in Pakistan. How many remains to be seen, but that is coming.

The blue bolded part is also quite true. Well done Lakshman. Good job.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

kit wrote:China sends warships to Alaska
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chin ... -fckh6jh22
14 Sept 2021


Responding to so-called freedom of navigation exercises by the US in the South China Sea last month, Xijin said: “Hopefully when Chinese warships pass through the Caribbean Sea or show up near Hawaii and Guam one day, the US will uphold the same standard of freedom of navigation. That day will come soon.”
China has been sailing its warships near Alaska since at least 2015. These are all legal transits and have been recognized as such. Same for the Liaoning sailing off of Guam more recently.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-na ... 1441350488
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

LakshmanPST wrote: I don't think IAF need to attack deep inside Chinese mainland.
May be that is why IAF Chiefs are quite confident about being able to stand up to PLAAF with 36-37 squadrons in case of a war.
And if this is indeed the attitude of the IAF chief, which I doubt, then India will always be on the defensive. Consider that if the IAF can strike upto 100 km across the LAC, at most 1 million people will be at risk in China, because the entire population of Tibet is 3. 5 million and at most 1 million people live within 100 km of the LAC. But if the PLAAF were to strike 100 km inside India all across the LAC/border, then 250 million to 300 million Indians are at risk. So on a risk reward matrix the Chinese will always be ahead unless India can place an equal number of Chinese at risk should they initiate hostilities. But to put that many Chinese at risk, India has to have the ability to strike deep in China either alone or via alliances. Otherwise the risk-reward ratio for potential hostilities is asymmetrically in China's favor.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

The entire population of the armed forces of India numbers around 1.4 to 1.5 million people. There is another 1+ million reserve force in various institutions. At 250 to 300 million people, we are now talking about civilians. How is the PLAAF going to kill this many number of people or put that many number of people at risk? With what platforms and what weapons? Is the PLAAF now going to bomb villages in India just for kicks?

The only way to achieve this kill ratio is nuclear war. And if that is the path China wants to walk on, then India can walk down that rabbit hole as well. Be realistic please.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

Rakesh wrote:The entire population of the armed forces of India numbers around 1.4 to 1.5 million people. There is another 1+ million reserve force in various institutions. At 250 to 300 million people, we are now talking about civilians. How is the PLAAF going to kill this many number of people or put that many number of people at risk? With what platforms and what weapons? Is the PLAAF now going to bomb villages in India just for kicks?

The only way to achieve this kill ratio is nuclear war. And if that is the path China wants to walk on, then India can walk down that rabbit hole as well. Be realistic please.
As in 250-300 million people who could face a missile or air attack, not that they will all die, but they will live in fear of that. Consider how many cities there are with infrastructure in that 100 km distance, roads, rail lines, rail and road bridges, oil storage depots, power plants and all of the other infrastructure needed to maintain the life and livelihood of those 250 to 300 million. All of that is at risk. In contrast Tibet is a vast empty plateau with some mountain regions with small settlements. The density of infrastructure to be destroyed is minimal as it needs to support a very small population. The economic damage to India will be vastly greater within that 100 km distance as will the disruption in lives of a massively greater part of India's population. Such a war will be "felt" in India. In China's east coast heartland life will be pretty much normal as the war will be being fought on a distant frontier 3000 km away. Unless Chinese lives and livelihood is equally at risk of being disrupted there will always be a temptation to risk fate and attack.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

If 250 - 300 million are at risk, by attacking all that infrastructure and even if a quarter of that 300 million die in those attacks, so around 75 million people...the Govt of India will retaliate, even if they do not want to. 75 million is a lot of people and China will have to answer for that. This will result in going up the escalatory ladder which will eventually end up in nuclear war.

China will attempt to obliterate all military installations, in which civilians will die. But once you start attacking civilian population centres, to destroy infrastructure, you are asking tit for tat. And you don't need the IAF's air assets for that. China is not some Islamist jihadi that are desperate for 72. They value their way of life and they are not about to risk it.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

Rakesh wrote:If 250 - 300 million are at risk, by attacking all that infrastructure and even if a quarter of that 300 million die in those attacks, so around 75 million people...the Govt of India will retaliate, even if they do not want to. 75 million is a lot of people and China will have to answer for that. This will result in going up the escalatory ladder which will eventually end up in nuclear war.

China will attempt to obliterate all military installations, in which civilians will die. But once you start attacking civilian population centres, to destroy infrastructure, you are asking tit for tat. And you don't need the IAF's air assets for that. China is not some Islamist jihadi that are desperate for 72. They value their way of life and they are not about to risk it.
The Chinese RMA started after they saw the US in GW1. So they will destroy economic assets and human lives lost will be a byproduct of those attacks on India's economic assets. Actual casualties in India's civilian population will be low, maybe not even 1 million or much lower, but the economic cost to the infrastructure will be massive e.g. If the PLAAF either via air or via missiles takes out the Dibrugarh refinery which is <100 km from the border, what equivalent target can the IAF get at with it's present reach? A map of Chinese oil refineries is given below. None of them is within 1500 km from the border. So while it is important to compare ORBATs I think it is equally important to study "effects". And what capability either alone or via alliances does India need to achieve equivalent results.
Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

ldev wrote:The Chinese RMA started after they saw the US in GW1. So they will destroy economic assets and human lives lost will be a byproduct of those attacks on India's economic assets. Actual casualties in India's civilian population will be low, maybe not even 1 million or much lower, but the economic cost to the infrastructure will be massive e.g. If the PLAAF either via air or via missiles takes out the Dibrugarh refinery, what equivalent target can the IAF get at with it's present reach? A map of Chinese oil refineries is given below. None of them is within 1500 km from the border. So while it is important to compare ORBATs I think it is equally important to study "effects". And what capability either alone or via alliances does India need to achieve equivalent results.
So from a risk of 250 - 300 million people, you have now changed the goalposts to perhaps under 1 million people or much lower. And from the loss of life we now change to India's economic assets. Okay :)

As I said earlier, air assets will not be used to take out corresponding Chinese assets which are beyond their reach. These scenarios are gamed out at Air HQ and with the other two sister services. What you are saying is not something new to them. They are aware and have taken the requisite measures. They have studied "effects" much earlier before you even became familiar with them. That is their job :)

They know what economic/military assets to strike and have the capability to strike them.

P.S. I liked how you slid "alliances" in there. That train is never late :lol:
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

LakshmanPST wrote:We also need to consider other factors like how many of those jets PLAAF can realistically deploy in Tibet in case of a war. I believe IAF can successfully defend a PLAAF attack and also carry out significant offensive operations just across the LAC/border in Tibet. I don't think IAF need to attack deep inside Chinese mainland.
Thanks for the post. My numbers vary slightly and are closer to 3/month for J-10C and J-16, but I haven't yet verified them with multiple sources. Need to dig a little more into those.

On your part in bold, this is something that the PLAAF has also recognized and begun addressing. As Rakesh said, part of this offset will come by encroaching into Pakistan but they are also expanding infrastructure in the region.

Tracking China's Sudden Airpower Expansion On Its Western Border
Major fixed-wing airbases that are either under construction or being deeply upgraded along China's western flank
Image
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

Rakesh wrote: As I said earlier, air assets will not be used to take out corresponding Chinese assets which are beyond their reach. These scenarios are gamed out at Air HQ and with the other two sister services. What you are saying is not something new to them. They are aware and have taken the requisite measures. They have studied "effects" much earlier before you even became familiar with them. That is their job :)

They know what economic/military assets to strike and have the capability to strike them.

P.S. I liked how you slid "alliances" in there. That train is never late :lol:
Maybe they do, maybe they dont. I am stating what I know. What do you know? Any thoughts? Or will it be left to the nebulous them? I thought the purpose of such threads is to discuss scenarios or is your ultimate defence that Indian defence planners know what they are doing and so it is not worth discussing.

As far as alliances are concerned, India has entered into alliances in the past and it could enter into them in the future. i didn't hear much jeering when India entered into a defence pact with the USSR and used it to good measure to bifurcate Pakistan. Maybe Russia will have a change of heart and ally with India against China because of Afghanistan? Would you be against that? Specially if that were to enable an attack on China's soft underbelly in Xinjiang? Via Tajikstan. What is there to jeer about? Instead of making it personal why don't you address specifically how India will target Chinese assets of equivalent value if the Dibrugarh refinery, Barauni refinery or Haldia petrochemical complex are destroyed or disabled.

It is not not lives that will be lost, and my apologies if it came across as that. But the daily lives of 250-300 million people will be impacted. If the Dibrugarh oil refinery is disabled then transportation across all of the north eastern states will be impacted, ditto Barauni for eastern UP and Bihar. If the bridges across the Brahmaputra in eastern Assam are destroyed, then the lifeline to AP is disrupted. In comparison what Chinese assets are reachable by India to cause equivalent damage and destruction in Tibet is limited.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh, the IAF needs to start saying that it needs a force a lot larger than 42 if it is even remotely going to exceed the 42 squadrons that it says it needs. The timeframe is the next 20 years.

There is sufficient time for the policy consensus to be built on that number. But the driver has to be the IAF.

I believe that if we focus on potential solutions available within India we can easily achieve that force goal. While contributing to domestic economy and industrial capacity.

The PLAF is operating from a policy consensus that it will need to be able fight USA in the 2040s and beyond.

IAF has to make a case for a force which is capable of dealing with PRC on its own.
Which by extension means that India will have a fighting force capable of handling an aggressive PRC in the absence of any support from USA.

Only then any alliance partner will stand by us. If India cannot handle PRC on our own then our potential partners will seek seperate terms with PRC. This is how international relations work.

If USA thinks that it will not be able to deal with PRC in alliance with QUAD. They will not hesitate for a minute to offer terms to PRC and throw others under the bus.

They have already tried something like that with G2.

What I am saying is that India with or without quad has to be able to stand on its feet and be able to deal with PRC and it's bitch. Only then can we be sure about the value of quad.

I think that the most important thing to do is not looking at the past as a guide to what the future is going to be. Learn from it. make sure that we don't repeat the same mistakes we made in the past.

Additionally, I find it amusing that we in India automatically assume that our capabilities are 40% or what PRC will have at the same level of economic and technical development. We might be a decade or half behind. But are we so inefficient that the best we can do will be 40% of what PRC can do. If all things were equal.
Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Avinandan »

thanks for the clarification Idev Saar, yes most of the people were probably considering 300 mn civilian casualties.

So don't we have ready made list of high priority targets for China ? Probably have to revisit them.
Additionally, need to prepare Air-Strips or Other military bases to counter new developments in Tibet.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

ldev wrote:Maybe they do, maybe they dont. I am stating what I know. What do you know? Any thoughts? Or will it be left to the nebulous them? I thought the purpose of such threads is to discuss scenarios or is your ultimate defence that Indian defence planners know what they are doing and so it is not worth discussing.
India's infrastructure - like roads, rail lines, rail and road bridges, oil storage depots, power plants - is largely around massive population centers. In your own words ---> 250 to 300 million people are at risk. When China starts attacking that infrastructure, they will invariably kill a very large number of civilians in the process. And like I said, even if 25% of those people die - 75 million people - what do you think India will do? Start beating her chest and wailing? At that stage, China has basically forced India's hand to retaliate in a similar manner.

And India will respond with missiles that can hit the mainland of China. When China detects those launches, how are they to know that those missiles are armed with conventional or nuclear warheads? What assurance does China have - especially in conflict and under this Indian PM - that India will hold true to her NFU policy? The Chinese in turn will launch nuclear tipped missiles, assuming India is doing a first strike decapitation. When those Chinese missiles explode in India and kill millions more, India in turn will then launch her own set of nuclear tipped missiles and do the same. You now have nuclear winter. What is the point of teaching the evil Yindoos a lesson, when millions of their own are guaranteed to die?

Now since you claim ignorance as to the kind of missiles that India has to hit the mainland of China, I would point you to the Agni series of missiles that can strike all of China. These missiles can be armed with nuclear or conventional warheads. And India does not need a large number of them to do significant damage. But these are weapons that are used as a last resort and results in climbing an escalatory ladder that China would be wary not to do. It serves no purpose for China to defeat India, but have severe damage - via nuclear or conventional means - of her own in return. That is not how the Han people operate. The idea that India is somehow incapable or does not have the platforms to conventionally destroy China's infrastructure is not grounded in reality.

But from India's perspective, it has never been the goal to match China one-for-one. Every Service Chief - Army, Navy and Air Force - in recent memory has been saying this. India does not have the resources for it. That is what bankrupted the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Rather it has always been India's position that we can inflict severe damage on China. And the possibility of that severe damage is where our deterrence lies. China has even publicly come and out stated that India is not being honest and open about the ranges and capability of the Agni series of missiles. Agni has given China a moment of pause and serves India's purpose.

There are other missile programs that, while they cannot strike in mainland China, have significant ranges that can destroy or at the least severely cripple, all the forward and second tier military installations and airbases that threaten India. Actual maximum ranges are never published for obvious reasons of national security. Here are two programs that have been revealed publicly;

1) Shaurya tactical missile. Maximum range is 1,900+ km and speed is hypersonic (Mach 7 or 8 if I am not mistaken). This is the info the DRDO has released. The missile has completed her testing and is in service with the Indian armed forces.

2) Nirbhay cruise missile. The missile reportedly had a challenging development and is just now entering service. Maximum range is 1,500 km, speed is subsonic and reportedly has a NOE flight profile. Again, all as per DRDO.

Both missiles can carry nuclear and conventional warheads. Actual numbers of both missiles in service will never be revealed and neither should they be. These things are best left under wraps. And all these missiles are either road or rail mobile, so good luck trying to find out where exactly they are for a first strike decapitation. You are aware that Indian military planners can read maps and know how sparse Tibet is compared to other population centers in China? So when I said Indian military planners have taken the requisite measures for such scenarios, I am under the assumption that you know at least this much. This lightbulb moment - that you just had - is not something they are unaware of.

China will try her level best to destroy India's military bases, kill a large number of military personnel and capture a significant amount of land in a future conflict. If that is a success, the war is over. India will have been defeated. But if India is able to successfully thwart such a military invasion and respond in kind, it will be a victory or at the least a stalemate between the two. That is not a scenario that China wants to entertain. The Chinese will not get into a conflict where it will end up in a stalemate or at a loss. The ChiComs will have Xi's head for that failure. But that is exactly the scenario that India would want. But if the Chinese state is threatened, then killing millions of civilians will be the next logical step in the escalatory ladder. And that is not something India would start. And these scenarios are thoroughly gamed out by China and India. They know what the other side is capable and what their own side is capable of. There are buttons to push at appropriate times.

There are other missile programs in the works, but I will not include them because they are very much in infancy i.e. HSDTV and only in testing. And in the security environment India is in and with the varied missile programs India publicly has, rest assured that there are other missile platforms in testing and even in service, but are not released publicly. Only someone who is blithely ignorant will believe otherwise. But for the purpose of this discussion, this is the publicly available info released by the DRDO and the GOI.

If there is any military program in India that has been a tremendous success, it is the missile program. KaranM has gone into great detail - in the Indian Missiles thread and others - about this. Do some basic research.
ldev wrote:As far as alliances are concerned, India has entered into alliances in the past and it could enter into them in the future. i didn't hear much jeering when India entered into a defence pact with the USSR and used it to good measure to bifurcate Pakistan. Maybe Russia will have a change of heart and ally with India against China because of Afghanistan? Would you be against that? Specially if that were to enable an attack on China's soft underbelly in Xinjiang? Via Tajikstan. What is there to jeer about? Instead of making it personal why don't you address specifically how India will target Chinese assets of equivalent value if the Dibrugarh refinery, Barauni refinery or Haldia petrochemical complex are destroyed or disabled.

It is not not lives that will be lost, and my apologies if it came across as that. But the daily lives of 250-300 million people will be impacted. If the Dibrugarh oil refinery is disabled then transportation across all of the north eastern states will be impacted, ditto Barauni for eastern UP and Bihar. If the bridges across the Brahmaputra in eastern Assam are destroyed, then the lifeline to AP is disrupted. In comparison what Chinese assets are reachable by India to cause equivalent damage and destruction in Tibet is limited.
This much dramabaazi. Oh boy! :)

Our missile program has given us enough independence to be confident that we can strike China where it will hurt. Even China knows that. That is why the GOI publicly reveals testing, puts out sanitized missile ranges and pictures of certain missiles. It is for this reason, we also parade these missiles at Republic Day functions. They are meant to send a message. Now if a missile or some other platform comes - via alliance or otherwise - and is valuable for us, then it would be a good addition to have. Like the S-400 perhaps? :mrgreen: I know what your response will be. China also has it, so now India is at a disadvantage. The GOI and the IAF who is pushing for this system, never knew that fact. Only you knew. OK.

But I am surprised that you feel Russia will have a change of heart. This coming from you who recently said, "...now Russia is "sitting" on the fence with regards to China and India as strategic partners." Do you really think it is wise for India to align with Russia? I mean after all, does any Russian platform even work? Or even worse, what if Russia gives all the secrets to China? That is the theme that you are constantly pushing on this forum.

Destroying any of the complexes - Dibrugarh refinery, Barauni refinery or Haldia petrochemical complex - will result in the death of a significant number of people. That would be a dangerous climb on the escalatory ladder from China. But it will be met with an appropriate Indian response, as I have indicated above.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:Rakesh, the IAF needs to start saying that it needs a force a lot larger than 42 if it is even remotely going to exceed the 42 squadrons that it says it needs. The timeframe is the next 20 years.

There is sufficient time for the policy consensus to be built on that number. But the driver has to be the IAF.
From my earlier posts....
Pratyush wrote:We will ALWAYS be at a quantitative disadvantage vis-à-vis the PLAAF. Even increased production will not change that fact. Perhaps on the forum, we should explore other options than just doing a one-for-one match up? Are numbers the only way to counter the quantitative disadvantage that the IAF has? I doubt that. If the IAF can counter that quantitative disadvantage (via other means that just one-for-one and will be more cost effective), should that option not be explored by the service?
Rakesh wrote:I do not believe the IAF needs to do a one for one match up. Right now, all I want is for the IAF to focus on achieving 42 and explore niche technologies, whatever they may be. Let us not put the cart before the horse. Let us invest our energies on what the IAF needs to focus on (achieving 42), rather than what is desirable. Once we hit 42, then we focus on desirables.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nam »

If China attacks our infra, then Chengdu is around 750KM from AP. We have enough solution in the form of Brahmos, Shaurya and Nirbhay. We can also target it's industrial production centers. We may be economically effected, but the Chinis will their massive productions factories will hate to seem them burnt by our missile attacks.

A few AgniP or Agni 1 with conventional PGM warhead will be very useful. All we need is numbers. The key is Chinis should know we can also play the "rocket force" game.

The comment from the CDS indicates we are now seriously looking at conventional BM.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... =TOIMobile
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Rakesh »

:wink: X-Post from the Artillery Thread....

Thank you VinodTK Sirjee for posting this. Few points to note...
VinodTK wrote:India looking at creating rocket force: CDS Gen Rawat
NEW DELHI: India is looking at "creating a rocket force", Chief of Defence Staff Gen Bipin Rawat said on Wednesday even as he underlined the need for EXTENSIVE USE OF NICHE TECHNOLOGY to combat various national security challenges, including possible aggression by China.

Referring to measures initiated to BOLSTER INDIA'S AIR POWER, he said, "We are looking at creating a rocket force". Gen Rawat, however, did not elaborate on the plan.
1) Who used the term *NICHE TECHNOLOGY* just last week? :D If there was any lingering thoughts about the animosity between the IAF and the CDS, let that get squashed right now.

2) If China had any doubt on the capabilities and the use (political will) of these missiles, that doubt has now been removed. India's deterrence against China has now been strengthened much more. This announcement by the CDS has certainly reached Beijing (as expected and designed) and now you will see ChiComs working overtime to counter this. Expect to see some new lizard propaganda - from China's wolf warriors - against this CDS announcement.

3) There are other ways to strengthen India's air power, than just manned combat aircraft. Missiles are cheaper, can be produced in large numbers and there is no potential loss of life i.e. sending pilots deep into enemy territory. Rather than increase the number of manned combat squadrons beyond 42, focus on niche technologies like this and unmanned combat units i.e. CATS. If the service can get the same results with niche technologies (that will be cheaper and result in no loss of life) versus 60 manned combat squadrons, then why not?

4) India's air power has now just got an "official" major boost via missiles of various kinds. Don't get caught up with the term rocket force. These are not unguided (or even guided) rockets that the CDS is talking about. He is an army man and for them, even mijjiles are rockets onlee :) And I use the term official, because usually these things are formalized much earlier and then finally revealed to the media in drip mode. This was the first drip. When ceremonially raised for media/public consumption, expect the official term to be something like Strategic Missile Command (SMC) and will be led by a three star air force officer.

5) I really admire General Bipin Rawat. Truly, a great visionary and making best use of India's limited military budget, but at the same time keeping the edge of the sword, sharp and ready. Kudos to the Govt of India for appointing him. Speaks highly of the Govt as well.

I am very happy and it also emphasizes & underscores my rather long reply to ldev.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

Pratyush wrote:Rakesh, the IAF needs to start saying that it needs a force a lot larger than 42 if it is even remotely going to exceed the 42 squadrons that it says it needs. The timeframe is the next 20 years.

There is sufficient time for the policy consensus to be built on that number. But the driver has to be the IAF.

I believe that if we focus on potential solutions available within India we can easily achieve that force goal. While contributing to domestic economy and industrial capacity.
Not sure how it helps for the IAF to ask for more squadrons when they aren't even going to get the number already sanctioned. There is no visible path to get to even 42 squadrons right now without a massive investment in production capacity. All aircraft currently coming in or even envisaged to be built years down the line (like the Mk2) are just 1-to-1 replacements for in service aircraft. I do not see a way to bridge the over 10 squadron gap that the IAF has currently unless we spend billions in not only establishing new production facilities but also in increasing the size of orders to make it worthwhile for vendors of subsystems to invest in increasing their own capacity. Unfortunately our economy and govt. revenues never seem to be in a strong enough state to make that increase in defense spending possible and the bureaucracy is prepared to delay and obstruct any deals that may be within our financial ability. "Policy consensus" is useless to have in such a scenario. We already have a policy consensus for 42 squadrons to the extent that the GoI long ago sanctioned them. Do you realistically see the IAF hitting that number in the foreseeable future?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Nachiket, I admit that looking at the past performance of the Indian strategic circles. It is hard to imagine India going beyond 42 squadrons.et alone reaching that number.

But 20 to 30 years from now are a different ball game. The IAF will grow more comfortable with domestic program. They are already in the middle of changing the orientation of the procurement stream.

Domestic industry programs are maturing quite nicely. Case in point, until 2.5 years ago, we were not even contemplating that HAL will come up with CATS. It has already shown 4 systems and 2 are still classified.

The focus on economy and general direction of movement is correct.

If we focus on domestic capacity building and not imported capacity building. Then it can be done while keeping inflation under control as well.

We have most of the tools to get the job done.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by kit »

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

Pratyush wrote:Nachiket, I admit that looking at the past performance of the Indian strategic circles. It is hard to imagine India going beyond 42 squadrons.et alone reaching that number.
My point is that the strategic circles aren't the problem. They are the ones who agreed on the need for 42 squadrons at some point. It is the rest of the apparatus that has been unable to deliver.
But 20 to 30 years from now are a different ball game. The IAF will grow more comfortable with domestic program. They are already in the middle of changing the orientation of the procurement stream.
Domestic industry programs are maturing quite nicely. Case in point, until 2.5 years ago, we were not even contemplating that HAL will come up with CATS. It has already shown 4 systems and 2 are still classified.
The focus on economy and general direction of movement is correct.
If we focus on domestic capacity building and not imported capacity building. Then it can be done while keeping inflation under control as well.
We have most of the tools to get the job done.
My concern is neither for the IAF's interest in domestic programs nor the domestic R&D pipeline which seems solid as of now. It is about production capacity. IAF has already committed to the Mk1A and seems to be eager for the Mk2 and AMCA. But the Mk1A deliveries themselves will go on till 2029. Mk1A and Mk2 production doesn't seem envisaged to happen side by side. And all these aircraft are only replacing existing ones. By the time AMCA is ready for serial production, the oldest MKI's may be close to retirement and the AMCA will end up replacing the same essentially. How will capacity addition happen? For that the orders for both Mk1A and Mk2 need to be high enough from the start with the funds cleared quickly to enable a huge expansion of production capacity. But the powers that be have neither the financial muscle nor the inclination to do that. Otherwise they wouldn't be sitting on a measly 15 LCH order for what seems like eternity and the price negotiations between 2 govt. departments for the 83 Mk1A order would not have lasted as long as they did. The IAF seems little better in this regard when you realize they refused more Mk1's and insisted on Mk1A's while still flying several squadrons of Mig-21's. If the Mk1's could have replaced some of those Mig-21's, the Mk1A's could have been capacity additions increasing the squadron strength. Not going to happen now. Meanwhile HAL is struggling to maintain the production rate that they have themselves promised.

None of these problems can be solved by better strategic policy making. Our problems as always are in execution.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

If execution is related to project management and we have had successfully executed a few domestic programs, such as Dhruv and Akash. We have learnt a great deal about how to execute programs. Our Pvt sector players have become a part of the khan's MIC. With the production of c130 fuselage parts, or the AH64 parts.

The same Pvt sector companies can easily achieve scaling required to build selected parts of the indigenous product.

Significant Pvt sector competence is being created in contract manufacturing which can be used for a domestic program as well.

So execution is not really going to be a major challange.

All I am saying is that all the pieces are in place for India to build a much more capable military over the next 20 to 30 years. Provided our economy continues to grow.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nam »

As I expected, the Chinis are investing in to higher powered drones.

https://twitter.com/wghxBboM4ogp498/sta ... 7630937090

From our perspective, instead of dilly dallying and cribbing about 42 sqd manned fighter, we should put our resources towards F404/F414 powered unmanned supersonic drones.

You would probably get a super-cruise with F414 thrust level. Would help towards filling up to 42 sqd.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

The problem with "high performance" drones is that they need to have high degree of autonomy (autonomy and even AI for combat drones is a 15 year and not a 5 year problem), or very high performance LOS and BLOS data links that need survivability (LPI/LPD and high degree of jam resistance), low latency, and high data rates that are quite challenging to develop and execute within the budgets set aside for tactical platforms. If you look at the highly survivable combat drone (UCAV) programs like Neuron, X-47B, Taranis..all three went exactly nowhere. Part of this problem is making their comms suite (which is critical to their effectiveness whereas on manned platform it can degrade and still not impact mission effectiveness to a degree) as survivable and effective as their aero signature or performance is a major challenge. Same reason why the Avenger drone has been purchased in relatively low levels). You basically need very large programs addressing this which then puts a premium on these platforms which add restrictions. For the Chinese large drones, the question would be how many can operate (at all let aside effectively) inside an area sanitized by EA-18's/EC-37B's or other air or ground based EW effects. The USAF is retiring a part of its MQ-9 fleet for this very reason and why there is very little unmanned activity in between MQ-9 (not very survivable but very affordable to own and operate) and the very high end (RQ-180 - expensive, niche, and not expected to exist beyond 50-60 aircraft fleet). The biggest hurdle in getting something to exist in the middle of that space (where you are still designing to reasonable budgets but also need assured performance so that you can task missions to these platforms) is making sure that they are survivable in an EW, cyber, and PNT contested environment. Autonomy will help but the level of autonomy needed for them to find, fix and decide on targeting on their own isn't coming any time soon and you may not want that doctrinally. So the hurdles are survivable PNT, and long range communication links.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nam »

Ofcourse, which is why it makes sense to start asap. No harm in having a prototype with F404 and carry out a risk reduction project.

Given the politics around manned fighter purchases, it is better off investing in to future un-manned variants.
sudham
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 26 Mar 2004 12:31
Location: bangalore

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by sudham »

nachiket wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Nachiket, I admit that looking at the past performance of the Indian strategic circles. It is hard to imagine India going beyond 42 squadrons.et alone reaching that number.
The IAF seems little better in this regard when you realize they refused more Mk1's and insisted on Mk1A's while still flying several squadrons of Mig-21's. If the Mk1's could have replaced some of those Mig-21's, the Mk1A's could have been capacity additions increasing the squadron strength.
I think this makes sense, since if they invest in the MK1, while it will help in the short term, in the long term they have platforms which do not meet their needs. This now has tied up funds which prevent the long term goal. If they wait for the MK1A and get it, they have a platform which will serve their needs better in the long term. I assume they think that it is a risk worth taking.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

Pratyush wrote:If execution is related to project management and we have had successfully executed a few domestic programs, such as Dhruv and Akash. We have learnt a great deal about how to execute programs. Our Pvt sector players have become a part of the khan's MIC. With the production of c130 fuselage parts, or the AH64 parts.
The same Pvt sector companies can easily achieve scaling required to build selected parts of the indigenous product.
Significant Pvt sector competence is being created in contract manufacturing which can be used for a domestic program as well.
So execution is not really going to be a major challange.
All I am saying is that all the pieces are in place for India to build a much more capable military over the next 20 to 30 years. Provided our economy continues to grow.
When I said execution I did not mean just the R&D for a new product. I meant the whole process where you see a system being inducted in large numbers leading to a large capability improvement. The R&D part worked fine for the LCH. How many are in service? I pointed out several separate challenges in execution with the IAF, govt/MoD and production agencies like HAL which have together resulted in this situation. What exactly is the roadmap to reaching 42 squadrons based on current and currently envisaged aircraft programs (Mk1A and Mk2)? The timelines even if they don't slip by too much will only result in new aircraft replacing ones which need to be retired (Bisons first followed by older Jaguars, Mig-29s and M2ks). MRFA is not going to happen notwithstanding how much the IAF bats for it. We are going to have to live with around 30 squadrons for quite a while. Talking about a new strategic policy to expand the requirement to beyond 42 is futile IMHO. That was my point.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

nachiket wrote: My concern is neither for the IAF's interest in domestic programs nor the domestic R&D pipeline which seems solid as of now. It is about production capacity. IAF has already committed to the Mk1A and seems to be eager for the Mk2 and AMCA. But the Mk1A deliveries themselves will go on till 2029. Mk1A and Mk2 production doesn't seem envisaged to happen side by side. And all these aircraft are only replacing existing ones. By the time AMCA is ready for serial production, the oldest MKI's may be close to retirement and the AMCA will end up replacing the same essentially. How will capacity addition happen? For that the orders for both Mk1A and Mk2 need to be high enough from the start with the funds cleared quickly to enable a huge expansion of production capacity. But the powers that be have neither the financial muscle nor the inclination to do that.
That has exactly been my concern. I truly believe that MK1A shudnt be produced in 12s or 24s but in 50s per year. by 2029 , we should induct 200, not 123 MK1As. Also yes Mk2 & Mk1A production has to go in parallel. Total Mk1A + Mk2 production numbers should equal 50 per year.

I seriously wonder, if the LCA production is being kept low to create the urgency to import more planes.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

Nachiket, I think I am beginning to understand your position.

I am hopeful that the MOD is getting whipped into shape under the RNS.

MOD actions over the next few years will decide if my hopes for the future are well founded.

Or MOD will remain prisoners to its past incompetence.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Manish_P »

Another aspect to the critical urgency is our political setup.

Heavens forbid the NDA loses and the UPA is back. Then what are the possibilities?

One possibility is such imports like in the past. The spin will be given as to make up the numbers deficiency fast. The real reason might would be the kickbacks which will fill the empty coffers.

The IAF might get the numbers but our fledgling MIC will be crippled, perhaps irreversibly. The West (exporters) as well as the East (enemy) will be the ones most happy about it.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

China Unveils Gigantic New Electronic Attack Jet CH-6

Its overall length is 49 feet, its wingspan 67 feet, and its height 16 feet

Image
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

S-400, MRSAM fodder.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Cain Marko »

Manish_P wrote:Another aspect to the critical urgency is our political setup.

Heavens forbid the NDA loses and the UPA is back. Then what are the possibilities?
.
It is for this reason that the current goi at least put thru some major hardware orders well before elections... Additional Rafale, p75, Tejas+Arjun MK2, minesweepers are a must.

We can't have another fiasco like the one when nda and George Fernandes let the m2k deal slide.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Cain Marko »

nam wrote:If China attacks our infra, then Chengdu is around 750KM from AP. We have enough solution in the form of Brahmos, Shaurya and Nirbhay. We can also target it's industrial production centers. We may be economically effected, but the Chinis will their massive productions factories will hate to seem them burnt by our missile attacks.

A few AgniP or Agni 1 with conventional PGM warhead will be very useful. All we need is numbers. The key is Chinis should know we can also play the "rocket force" game.

The comment from the CDS indicates we are now seriously looking at conventional BM.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... =TOIMobile
This is something that cannot be forgotten. There are juicy targets well within Indias reach... Conventional. Plus the fact that Indias ADS had undergone a radical change over the last decade. I daresay, ABM wise we have the edge.

Offensive capability has to come online fast though. Nirbhay will go a long way here. And possibly backfires... Or some other missile carrier
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/evazhengll/status/1 ... 3651614726 ----->
PL-15E air-to-air missile spec
Image
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nam »

So PL-15 is around 10cm longer than Astra, but much of larger diagram. With Astra2 increase in diameter and dual pulse, it has probably managed achieving a similar range of around 150KM.

Also the talk about better propellant to increase launch speed of Astra, it will get more refined.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by NRao »

https://twitter.com/nathanattrill/statu ... 0763880452 ----->
The Five Eyes foreign ministers deliberately discussed highly classified intelligence about their investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic on an unsecured line in a bid to gauge the reaction of Chinese authorities intercepting the call.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Vivek K »

J-20A: China has upgraded its best stealth fighter jet with domestic-made engines
Good? Bad? Or signs of cracks in Russia and China's rapproachment?
Post Reply