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
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 »

I for one have consistently posted Wolfpacks' tweets on BRF. I have always seen the "reports" (which is how Wolfpack usually starts his tweet) that his tweet talks about, from other websites or news links. So I know he is not making it up. However, the problem with China - due to its closed society model - nothing can be verified. He copied this 35% number from somewhere, because he does not have access to this info. Why would he? The question remains where he got this info from. Perhaps someone has asked him that in his tweet, I don't know.

Setting aside the 35% fleet availability number, is it possible that the Z-10's engines are getting choked due to sand ingestion? Highly likely, as I have been told that something similar happened to Apaches and even with the Abrams in Gulf War 1. I do not know how serious that issue was, perhaps you can shed some light on that subject.

But the larger picture and takeaway from Wolfpack's tweet (and with Chinese maal in general)...is all is not well or perfect, as the Chinese claim. Back in the day, when Air Chief Marshal SK "Polly" Mehra met his PAF counterparts at some function, they surprisingly bemoaned to him about the Chinese turbofans that were powering their Chinese origin fighter aircraft. Obviously the situation has not changed since then. Thus the JF-17 has a Russian turbofan versus a Chinese one. The PAF wanted French avionics on the JF-17, but got turned down by France and had to settle with Chinese avionics. The PAF will never openly address their issues with the JF-17, as it will embarrass China and cause serious repercussions for Pakistan.

It is never wise to underestimate China, but to overestimate them is equally foolhardy.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

I have been trying to look for the readiness rates of their hardware in general and nothing credible appears to be out there. And you wouldn't expect either given their closed society. I have not tried to look for forward deployed readiness but needless to say if general data is not easy to come by then one from an actual ongoing deployment is going to be next to impossible. I'll continue to look and so should anyone interested before taking something as the truth without trying to dig up a primary source or at least some report for context.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Pratyush »

The simplest explaination regarding availability of equipment would be on the basis of the supply of spare parts in the Tibetan theatre of operations.

If the resources are not available 2000 kms from base then the machines will not be as serviceable as they would be on the home base.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Pratyush wrote:The simplest explaination regarding availability of equipment would be on the basis of the supply of spare parts in the Tibetan theatre of operations.

If the resources are not available 2000 kms from base then the machines will not be as serviceable as they would be on the home base.
Yes that is generally the case but what exactly are we trying to explain here? That they are having low availability? Are we assuming that they are and then working backwards from that or trying to attribute a reason to it or are we still figuring out whether they are or aren't having such poor availability in the first place (which has not yet been established)?
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 »

Chinese arms to Dhaka fail quality and longevity tests, one after the other
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 516127.cms
03 Nov 2021
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

The 2021 US Department of Defense assessment of China's military. Happy reading, all 192 pages of the document!!

Military and Security Developments Involving the
People’s Republic of China


PLAAN: 355 ships in total of which 145 are major ships. Major ships have increased in number by 15 year over year. US assessment that the total number of ships in PLAAN will grow to 420 by 2025 and 460 by 2030. This is vs a planned force of 315 for the USN by 2025 and 356 by 2030.

PLAAF: The 3rd largest airforce in the world (PLAAF + PLAN aviation) with 2880 aircraft of which 2250 are combat aircraft includes fighters, bombers, awacs and tankers. 4th generation aircraft numbers are constant so the increase appears to be driven by 5th gen, bombers and other support elements.

PLARF: Rocket forces have tested the DF-26 against a moving naval target. ICBMs being doubled in numbers also MIRVs have been introduced. 1000 warheads projected by 2030.

SPACE: 80 additional reconnaissance and remote sensing satellites launched in 2020 alone bringing the total fleet of such satellites to 200 by end 2020. This is a clear indication that China is rapidly improving satellite guidance for improving accuracy and guidance of it's rocket forces.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Most of the stuff was/is known given it has been widely reported (nuclear stuff) and that this is the unclassified version of the report. What stood out to me was the confidence within DOD analyst community that China is working on 2 stealthy bombers instead of one (this has been reported but not put in any prior report unless I've missed it in the past). Also, IIRC this is the first time that this annual report has acknowledged that the DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicle carrying MR missile is operational which would make it the first conventional boost glide weapon in the world to be put on operational deployment. On the DF-21, they have previously acknowledged that China had secretly conducted a test at range against a moving maritime target, but have never confirmed whether they assessed the test to be successful. Some interpreted that as low confidence of its success but that will come up in the future as you need several tests to validate that capability at range..
During the PRC’s 70th anniversary parade in 2019, the PLAAF publicly revealed the H-6N, a
derivative of the H-6K optimized for long-range strikes. The H-6N features a modified
fuselage that allows it to carry externally an air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) that may
be nuclear capable. In October 2020, an H-6N was observed carrying an air-launched ballistic
missile. The H-6N’s air-to-air refueling capability also provides it greater reach over other H6 variants that are not refuellable in air. As of 2020, the PLAAF has operationally fielded the H-6N bomber, providing a platform for the air component of the PRC’s nascent nuclear triad.
In 2021, the H-6N-equipped unit very likely will be developing tactics and procedures to
conduct the PLAAF nuclear mission. In addition, the PLAAF is seeking to extend its power
projection capability with the development of a new stealth strategic bomber, with official
PRC state media stating that this new stealth bomber will have a nuclear mission in addition
to filling conventional roles. The PLAAF is also developing new medium- and long-range
stealth bombers to strike regional and global targets. PLAAF leaders publicly announced the
program in 2016, however it may take more than a decade to develop this type of advanced
bomber.
The DF-21D has a range exceeding 1,500 km, is fitted with a
maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV), and is reportedly capable of rapidly reloading in the
field.

In 2020, the PRC fired anti-ship ballistic missiles against a moving target in the South China Sea
, but has not acknowledged doing so
. In 2020, the PRC had begun operational fielding of the
DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicle capable MRBM, with fielding possibly intended to replace
some older SRBM units, according to PRC media. The PLARF is developing and testing several new variants of theater-range missiles and
developing capabilities and methods to counter adversary BMD systems. This was more than
the rest of the world combined excluding ballistic missile employment in conflict zones. The
DF-17 passed several tests successfully and is deployed operationally.
While the DF-17 is
primarily a conventional platform, it may be equipped with nuclear warheads. In 2020, a PRC based military expert described the primary purpose of the DF-17 as striking foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

What struck me was the range of conventional strike that China possesses vs India and the relative disadvantage that India has in this respect. Conventional strike has the highest potential to come into play if a border war outgrows the border. The image posted below is from Page 66 of the DOD report. All rights in this image belong to US DOD:

Image
cdbatra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 13:59

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by cdbatra »

ldev wrote:What struck me was the range of conventional strike that China possesses vs India and the relative disadvantage that India has in this respect. Conventional strike has the highest potential to come into play if a border war outgrows the border. The image posted below is from Page 66 of the DOD report. All rights in this image belong to US DOD:
This range map only covers land based projectiles. With the huge flotilla of missile frigates that Beijing has they are a big threat to Southern part of India as well. Not to forget Andamans ..
Yes straights of Mallaca is a choke point but what if they take over some ports in Indonesia like they did with Himbantota and gwadar.This possibility may look farfetched right now but is potentially possible a decade from now.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Some of their Medium and perhaps Intermediate Range ballistic missiles could go on surface, and submarines as well in the future. They certainly have enough large combatants to go down that route like what the US Navy is doing with packing a dozen nearly 3000 km ranged hypersonic BG missiles on each of the Zumwalt (some of the L-class vessels could actually carry a much larger magazine). But that's probably something that will come later as I think their destroyer/cruiser types are going to need to figure out the doctrine and training elements focused around assembling carrier battle groups and some amphibious capabilities which is something they are still learning.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

I'll not be surprised if we see more and more american assessments on frankenstein Chinese weapons. US defence industry is large and post withdrawal in middle-east and near amelioration of Russian threat - it needs the Chinese bogey to spin themselves into more money. China will be the greatest gravy train for American defence industry - from pacific to Indian ocean, it will spur arms purchases. Expect them to plow huge sums into building the myth of Chinese super weapons.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

YashG wrote:I'll not be surprised if we see more and more american assessments on frankenstein Chinese weapons.
The annual 2021 report being discussed in the last few posts has been an constant fixture for nearly the last two decades. The classified, and unclassified components are required to be updated by the Pentagon based on a Congressional mandate. For example since the early 2000's, this report has mentioned that China was investing in researching LO technology for future application. They've tracked that progress over the last 15-20 year period. They rarely "assess" Chinese weapon capability in terms of things like accuracy, lethality, CEP for weapons etc etc. For example, on the DF-21, they stop short of mentioning success or failure of the DF-21 test against a moving maritime target. At least not on their unclassified report. This has led some to speculate that perhaps the confidence of the test having been successful was low or they knew it failed. We don't know as those details aren't going to be put into open source reports. China hasn't even acknowledged that test and the only way we know of it was because the US officials released that publicly and it is also mentioned in this report. This report merely recognizes that they conducted a test. It also provided a rough estimate for the ballistic missile tests / shots they conducted which they would know based on their EW.

If you have any factual information that could rebut any points made about systems in the report than that is worth discussing. While the unclassified report here is rather broad and talks in general terms, it does however give some key data points that previously were not validated by any other non-Chinese official or a non quasi official (SDF random accounts) source, or a credible intelligence agency assessment of their capability. For example, operational capability of DF-17. Nuclear role to their bomber..the second stealth bomber (medium sized) etc etc. Yet it does also provide some additional context on the path ahead being not as rosy as social media accounts at SDF may lead one to believe. For example, the report claims that while China is working on two stealth bombers, the ability to have a dual capable (nuclear and conventional) stealth bomber is going to take them another decade at the least. This comes from personal experience having fielded and operated these systems and probably also from some non open source knowledge on the status of these efforts. But you have to recognize what you see and report on it as long as it is not at the level of detail that would comprise their intelligence. They saw several DF-17 and other hypersonic tests, and have been able to pick up enough deployed units to confidently assess that the weapon is fielded by China. Prior reports had indicated of testing and imminent fielding. This one confirms that in the time period between the last report and this, they've done so.

For reference, here are a few paragraphs from the same report published in 2005. 16 years should give us enough time to see what they got right, and what was an under/over estimation of capabilities and intent.
2005:

Air Power. China has more than 700 aircraft within un-refueled operational range of
Taiwan. Many of these are obsolescent or upgrades of older-generation aircraft.
However, China’s air forces continue to acquire advanced fighter aircraft from
Russia, including the Su-30MKK multirole and Su-30MK2 maritime strike aircraft.
New acquisitions augment previous deliveries of Su-27 fighter aircraft. China is also
producing its own version of the Su-27SK, the F-11, under a licensed co-production
agreement with Moscow. Last year, Beijing sought to renegotiate its agreement and
produce the multirole Su-27SMK for the remainder of the production run. These later
generations of aircraft make up a growing percentage of the PLA Air Force inventory.

• China’s indigenous 4th generation fighter, the F-10, completed development in 2004
and will begin fielding this year. Improvements to the FB-7 fighter program will
enable this older aircraft to perform nighttime maritime strike operations. China has
several programs underway to deploy new standoff escort jammers on bombers,
transports, tactical aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicle platforms.

• China is acquiring from abroad or developing advanced precision strike munitions,
including cruise missiles and air-to-air, air-to-surface, and anti-radiation munitions.

• The PLA appears interested in converting retired fighter aircraft into unmanned
combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). China has hundreds of older fighters in its
inventory that could be converted for this purpose.

Importing Solutions from Russia and the West

Over the past decade, Russia and Israel
have been China’s primary foreign sources of weapon systems and military technology.
Russia has supplied over 85% of all of China’s arms imports since the early 1990s and
has been a significant enabler of China’s military modernization. According to the
Defense Intelligence Agency, Russian conventional weapon technology transfers,
including better aircraft, quieter submarines, and more advanced munitions, have
advanced the lethality of every major category of weapon system under development in
China.

As China’s defense industries continue to mature, Beijing is purchasing from abroad
systems to meet near-term requirements. For example, China received deliveries of Su30MK2 multi-role FLANKER aircraft in 2004 to fill a gap until the F-10 or a license produced multi-role FLANKER could be deployed. China is also purchasing the Russian
AL-31FN aero-engine for the F-10 fighter, while working on an indigenously produced
turbofan engine. China received advanced Russian SA-10 and SA-20 SAM systems as
interim air defense solutions while it develops its own. The purchase of KILO-class
diesel electric submarines and SOVREMENNYY-class destroyers from Russia helped
equip the PLA Navy with modern systems while China produces its own SONG-class
diesel electric submarine and LUYANG-class destroyers. China will likely acquire
additional Su-30MK2, IL-76 transport planes, and IL-78 MIDAS air refueling aircraft
from Russia during 2005.

China also cooperates with Russia on licensed production and technical advice. To
acquire a modern, fourth generation fighter, China contracted with Russia to licenseproduce the Su-27SK/F-11 FLANKER. In 2004, China requested to renegotiate the last half of this contract to build a multi-role version of the FLANKER, the Su-27SMK.
Russia and China reportedly are cooperating on the seeker, rudder control actuation
system design, and inertial navigation system for the PL-12 air-to-air missile, which
continued testing in 2004. In 2004, China launched a new class of submarine, which
appears to incorporate Russian design characteristics, including possible air independent
propulsion, greatly increasing submerged endurance. China received help from Russia
on a turret for a new infantry fighting vehicle. Russian design features also appear in a
new multiple launch rocket system, the A-100.
Although Israel began the process of canceling the PHALCON program with China in
2000, Beijing continues to pursue an AWACs variant built on an IL-76 airframe. The
Israelis transferred HARPY UAVs to China in 2001 and conducted maintenance on
HARPY parts during 2003-2004.
China receives assistance from other nations too. For example, in 2001, China bought
British Spey Mk202 engines to install on the FB-7 fighter-bomber until a licenseproduced version could be manufactured. Italy and France may be assisting China with a
new medium-lift helicopter. Over the last thirty years, China also has benefited from the
sale of munitions and dual-use use technologies from France, Germany, Italy, and the
United States.
Last edited by brar_w on 05 Nov 2021 20:44, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 57443?s=20 ---> Report: China aims to capture Taiwan in just five days after invasion, before the US is able to land forces.

Opinion: No one wants a war over Taiwan. But that won’t last forever.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-forever/
04 Nov 2021
Military planners can’t afford ambiguity. So China’s war plans for Taiwan assume that the U.S. military will become involved, according to a leading China analyst who requested anonymity. He said China’s goal is to seize Taiwan in five days, before the United States is able to land forces.
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 »

https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status ... 34468?s=20 --->Pentagon report on Chinese village in 'Indian territory' in Arunachal Pradesh conveniently omits the fact that the area has been under effective Chinese control since 1959. It is like saying China building military infrastructure in Aksai Chin (which is actually Indian territory).

https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status ... 12131?s=20 ---> Aksai Chin, like this area in Arunachal, was lost before 1962. Earlier Indian reports themselves mention this fact about Arunachal but Pentagon keeps it vague and allows people to start outraging without knowing full facts.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

The few lines in a nearly 200 page report that pertain to Chinese village activity merely points out that China has, since the last report of 2020, conducted construction activity on territory under dispute with India. That's factually correct. It is no way a detail account of the history of the conflict or an attempt to explain it beyond a passing reference to what has happened since they last reported on China's activities.
Sometime in 2020, the PRC built a large 100-home civilian village inside
disputed territory between the PRC’s Tibet Autonomous Region and India’s Arunachal Pradesh
state in the eastern sector of the LAC.
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 »

YashG wrote:I'll not be surprised if we see more and more american assessments on frankenstein Chinese weapons. US defence industry is large and post withdrawal in middle-east and near amelioration of Russian threat - it needs the Chinese bogey to spin themselves into more money. China will be the greatest gravy train for American defence industry - from pacific to Indian ocean, it will spur arms purchases. Expect them to plow huge sums into building the myth of Chinese super weapons.
YashG --> The China threat is very real. However, using that threat...assessments are being created to justify spending on military projects. This is a replay of what happened during the Cold War. Some of those projects are then exported to other countries for profit. Now the US has come up with a law called CAATSA designed to prohibit Russia who want to sell their wares. The gravy train must never stop. Lots of money to be made. Just hop on for the ride and read the reports in this thread. Makes for very interesting reading, but don't question anything. And remember, when the Chinese test pilot says (via Global Times) that the J-20 will surpass the F-22, you better believe it :)

Opinion: It’s time to break up the military-industrial complex
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... l-complex/
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 »

brar_w wrote:The few lines in a nearly 200 page report that pertain to Chinese village activity merely points out that China has, since the last report of 2020, conducted construction activity on territory under dispute with India. That's factually correct. It is no way a detail account of the history of the conflict or an attempt to explain it beyond a passing reference to what has happened since they last reported on China's activities.
Nitin Gokhale is correct. Page 159 of the DOD report mentions nothing about the history of the conflict, the skirmishes in the late 50s or the 1962 Indo China War. It gives a passing mention to the last loss of life was in 1975.

Thus a reader - who is unaware of the history - will assume that these civilian villages are being built on land that was recently (perhaps 2020?) grabbed by China. That is really not a correct assessment of the facts.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

Rakesh wrote: YashG --> The China threat is very real. However, using that threat...Makes for very interesting reading, but don't question anything. And remember, when the Chinese test pilot says (via Global Times) that the J-20 will surpass the F-22, you better believe it :)
Admiral agreed threat is real. But how you assess them matters. I do not read (maybe I'm ignorant) so much American literature on how chinese fighters are outranging US amraams as much as I hear US talking about hypersonic threat, carrier killer missiles from China. The latter plugs into the readymade cold-war narrative.

Sputnik was a wakeup call for the US. China's 'hypersonic missile' is a trickier challenge
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/chin ... index.html

But I cant complain - the narrative is indeed helpful in preparing everyone for Chinese threat better.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:The few lines in a nearly 200 page report that pertain to Chinese village activity merely points out that China has, since the last report of 2020, conducted construction activity on territory under dispute with India. That's factually correct. It is no way a detail account of the history of the conflict or an attempt to explain it beyond a passing reference to what has happened since they last reported on China's activities.
Nitin Gokhale is correct. Page 159 of the DOD report mentions nothing about the history of the conflict, the skirmishes in the late 50s or the 1962 Indo China War. It gives a passing mention to the last loss of life was in 1975.

Thus a reader - who is unaware of the history - will assume that these civilian villages are being built on land that was recently (perhaps 2020?) grabbed by China. That is really not a correct assessment of the facts.
Yes absolutely, any reader of the report who is completely unfamiliar with the history of the Indo-China dispute would not be able to paint a very clear picture based on a couple of paragraphs of information. I don't think the report is meant to be used as primer for folks who don't know history of several issues discussed or aren't tuned into the national security policy discussions. Its more as an annual update on what activities may have occurred in the period and anything that was uncovered since the last report. It is for people like Gokhale and others who are National security reporters to explain the contents of the report to a layperson.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by AkshaySG »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status ... 34468?s=20 --->Pentagon report on Chinese village in 'Indian territory' in Arunachal Pradesh conveniently omits the fact that the area has been under effective Chinese control since 1959. It is like saying China building military infrastructure in Aksai Chin (which is actually Indian territory).

https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status ... 12131?s=20 ---> Aksai Chin, like this area in Arunachal, was lost before 1962. Earlier Indian reports themselves mention this fact about Arunachal but Pentagon keeps it vague and allows people to start outraging without knowing full facts.

So what would be the correct way to report that, If they say the infra is on Chinese territory then that too is problematic since we have a claim that land belongs to India and only to India.

Describing it as being "on their side of the LAC" etc also gives credence to the Chinese claim that this land is not Indian.

If something is being built in Aksai Chin or GB should we not term it "illegal construction on Indian territory"?
Heck the Chinese do it to us when we're building roads well inside our lands
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 »

brar_w wrote:Yes absolutely, any reader of the report who is completely unfamiliar with the history of the Indo-China dispute would not be able to paint a very clear picture based on a couple of paragraphs of information. I don't think the report is meant to be used as primer for folks who don't know history of several issues discussed or aren't tuned into the national security policy discussions. Its more as an annual update on what activities may have occurred in the period and anything that was uncovered since the last report. It is for people like Gokhale and others who are National security reporters to explain the contents of the report to a layperson.
And that is exactly what Nitin Gokhale has done in that tweet.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ldev »

Check out the China after the 19th Congress thread in the Strat Forum. China's objective for the last 20+ years is a unipolar Asia and a bipolar world. Clinton almost gave China this position without a fight when he wanted to give them carte blance to "manage" the India-Pakistan conflict much to India's dismay at that time. The Chinese armed forces are tools for achieving that objective. China would prefer that India acknowledges it's preeminence in Asia without resorting to armed conflict but in case India does not agree, then China want's it's armed forces to be able to prevail over India with minimum collateral damage to China. While the relative strengths of the two armies at the LAC are similar with India having an advantage in certain sectors, the terrain will make capture of large land areas difficult for either side IMO. China's breadth and length of reach via conventional ballistic and cruise missiles in all parts of India will be the escalation that China will go in for should a conflict at the border start turning against China e.g. if Indian forces disrupt G-219 I can forsee China using some 2000 km cruise missiles against targets deep in India as a warning that Indian ground forces should retreat. In short I would look at China's conventional force capability as the tools that they will use to reach their political objectives. Not only as of today but in terms of the trend lines we are witnessing today regarding the increase in their capabilities.

The Indian heartland has not seen major upheaval and conflict. In contrast the Chinese people have been subject to one calamity after another engineered by their rulers in the pursuit of megalomaniac goals during the last 50-60 years in which tens of millions of Chinese have died and so are used to upheaval in their days to day lives. I suspect that China is banking on the Indian populace at large not being prepared for a conflict that is brought to their doors in the heart of India and that will put pressure on the Government of India to end an escalated war. Only time will tell if that assumption is correct.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

YashG wrote: I do not read (maybe I'm ignorant) so much American literature on how chinese fighters are outranging US amraams as much as I hear US talking about hypersonic threat, carrier killer missiles from China.
Several Air Combat Command commanders have pointed to China's continuous investment in long range air-air capability for its fourth and fifth gen fighters. In fact this is why the USAF launched sevreal classified and non classified programs to develop weapons and long range killwebs that can outstick what the Chinese intend on fielding. The AIM-260 JATM was secretly contested in 2015 and its development contract awarded in 2017. It will be operational next year. China was brought up when the program was acknowledged a couple of years ago.

The example you cite is a tactical thing and isn't something that policy wonks, or senior Pentagon officials (like Secretary of Defense) are going to discuss since they will focus on broader technology streams like hypersonics, AI, quantum, etc (and not individual tactical systems). Tactical systems are owned by SME's and leaders who own those lanes, like ACC if you're talking about air-air combat aircraft, or global strike command if you want to talk about bomber modernization etc. In relative terms, replacing the AIM-120 is a fairly tactical and small technology ask (you have 3-4 vendors who are constantly R&D'ing in this space and have industrial capacity to deliver within your desired timelines). Getting out of a treaty (INF) and fielding weapons that have limited technical and industrial base is at a completely different level because you need policy approval and then need to spool up your industrial and design base. This is why the long range fires gap, and particularly the hypersonic gap between the US and China is such an important focus. If left unaddressed it will mean that its a multi-decade problem to catch up (numerically) since the US divested of this capability when it destroyed its Pershing missile stock and has been treaty limited ever since until it withdrew from it. Same for other upcoming tech areas like AI, and quantum where China is pumping a lot of money and where it has some structural advantage given its civil-mil fusion. These are very broad, very expensive, and very important areas of military technology which is why they get a lot of airtime from senior officials. In contrast, tactical weapons or their replacement which might be of more interest to you are not likely to need that level of discussion, scrutiny or leadership. these opportunities are identified and sanctioned at much lower levels by their respective SMEs. You just have to ID who these folks are and hear what they have to say (and a lot of them, if not all of them, having been raising the issues you described).
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Nov 2021 02:04, edited 2 times in total.
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/PLA has a very robust AI program. Which *may* slow down due to a short term chip related issues.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Karan M »

Rakesh wrote:Chinese arms to Dhaka fail quality and longevity tests, one after the other
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 516127.cms
03 Nov 2021
One more for the record:

1. LY80 issues when supplied to PA
2. JF-17 issues
3. PAF drones having significant problems
4. MANPADS, Ships (including their radars) and these issues

China is all about making $$$ via exports bypassing quality control.
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 »

YashG wrote:Admiral agreed threat is real. But how you assess them matters. I do not read (maybe I'm ignorant) so much American literature on how chinese fighters are outranging US amraams as much as I hear US talking about hypersonic threat, carrier killer missiles from China. The latter plugs into the readymade cold-war narrative.

Sputnik was a wakeup call for the US. China's 'hypersonic missile' is a trickier challenge
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/chin ... index.html

But I cant complain - the narrative is indeed helpful in preparing everyone for Chinese threat better.
Despite all the hyperbole about long range Chinese AAMs, it is highly unlikely that what the Chinese claim the missile is capable of doing does not translate into actual reality. The Chinese claimed that the PL-15 has a range of 300 km, but the export variant stated that the range is only 145 km. Now it can be argued that because it is an export variant, the missile is purposefully downgraded. But it is nevertheless a significant drop from the Chinese claim of 300 km. There is a misconceived notion with a few on BRF that having a longer range missile automatically translates into 100% victory for that user. That claim however, has been thoroughly disproven.

It is actually to the advantage of US defense companies to keep hyping up the fire of the dragon and leaving much in ambiguity, because that is how money can flow into various projects that the US Govt will have to invest in. For the MIC to exist, you have to have a bogeyman. The Soviet Union played that role from the late 40s to the late 80s. While conflict ridden, the 90s had no large scale evil regime like the Soviet Union. Then when the 21st century rolled along, 9/11 happened and for the next two decades, America was involved in theatres of conflict in where her land forces were bogged down i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan. But by the early 2000s, the drums were already being beaten about China and now in 2021, China is this huge threat that suddenly is running multiple and strategic programs i.e. stealth bombers, stealth fighters for their air force and navy, a large missile force and acting all belligerent. So in comes in the American MIC and alliances like QUAD, AUKUS, etc to save the day.

Did you see page 3 of this 192 report? :) This is what it says, "A Report to Congress Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000, as Amended." So what is the NDAA? Google Chacha came up with this explanation...

"The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the name for each of a series of United States federal laws specifying the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense. The first NDAA was passed in 1961."

How do you justify investing billions in various military projects and doing the subsequent R&D? By creating an enemy larger that what it actually may be. Now the flip side to that argument is that America needs to invest this vast sum of money to maintain that edge over China. But it would be interesting to see if China has ever (or will ever) overcome the American advantage. And because we civilians don't have an educated guess as to what China is really capable of, we civilians are left to assume they have 'X' capability based on an unclassified DOD report. And the ChiComs are in the business of psy ops anyway, so they play up to that act.

Preparing for a threat - as you said - is a very wise and prudent thing to do. All responsible nations do that. However, over hyping a threat fosters an environment in which you are left second guessing every decision you make. And that is not a wise strategy to adopt. This overhyping is good for a country like the US because their MIC thrives on it. For a country like India that is far more pragmatic with regards to the China threat because, 1) it actually faces that threat right across the border (unlike the US), 2) has fought a war with China in 1962, 3) has had multiple skirmishes from the late 50s till to date 4) has lost few thousand men in various conflicts against China since late 50s....has a far more realistic and holistic view of what China is actually capable of doing to India in a war.

There are a number of suggestions that the service chiefs and even the CDS have recommended to the Govt to undertake. Some of them have been released to the media i.e. the rocket force announcement, but many are kept under wraps for obvious reasons of national security. Those suggestions, provided the budget is there, are being followed by the Govt. This DOD report is good for one thing though i.e. to understand the American mindset of what they perceive China to be capable of, even if some of it would be dubious. But understandable to justify the billions being spent on arms research.

BTW, did you happen to read Page 164 of this wonderful DOD report?
https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/03/2 ... -FINAL.PDF

So Saudi Arabia is the largest "single nation" exporter of crude oil to China. Oman, Kuwait and UAE are also in the list, but none come close to Saudi Arabia. Now Saudi Arabia is one of America's closest allies in the Middle East. Massive arms sales occur between the US and the Saudis. Arms sales also occur to Oman, Kuwait and UAE as well. The Stable Genius sold $110 billion worth of arms to the Saudis in 2017. Iraq is #3 on the list. To think that thousands of American lives were lost in freeing that country from the evil clutches of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is today the third largest exporter of crude oil to China, America's latest and greatest enemy. I could be wrong and I will stand corrected if pointed out, but has any discussion occurred between the US and Saudi Arabia to reduce her oil exports to China? Between the US and Oman? The US and Kuwait? The US and UAE? The US and Iraq?

The only reason I am asking, is because when India was buying crude oil from Iran....it was the United States of America that told India to reduce her crude oil imports from that nation. China is geopolitical foe no 1, while India is supposedly America's strategic partner.

Sirjee, India can always rely on China to be her enemy. That definition of enemy will never change, in fact it is only strengthened.

India can never rely on America to be her friend. The definition of friendship always changes from one administration to the next.

Who do you think is more reliable here?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Did you see page 3 of this 192 report? :) This is what it says, "A Report to Congress Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000, as Amended." So what is the NDAA? Google Chacha came up with this explanation...
All that is saying, is that the DOD is required to provide an annual update to Congress on China's military capabilities in both a classified, and unclassified form. I had mentioned that earlier as it was being claimed that this must have come up to raise cry for more funding after the Afghanistan withdrawal. But these reports have been required by Congress since 2002 due to the language built into the 2000 NDAA. For most if not all of this period they have required them to be annual updates. You can google all prior ones and read what they were saying at the time based on what was known then.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Nov 2021 02:39, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Did I dispute that? :)

It is the law of the land.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh wrote:Did I dispute that? :)

It is the law of the land.
My point was that NDAA is a vehicle for several things and not just the budgets. It is used to set requirements, compliance, put into action elements required to make policy decisions. If the Congress wants something from the Pentagon/executive branch, it has only the NDAA through which to ask for it so it goes beyond funding budget line items.

For the rest, I'll wait until any fundamental mis-representations present in the report is spotted. I haven't read beyond the systems I usually keep up on, but the report is pretty simple and just an update on activities China is known to be doing so with a status update on completion of some of those things that were known to occur (nascent bomber based nuclear delivery, Air launched ballistic missile, DF-17 becoming operational, and the emergence of a medium sized stealthy bomber program). It doesn't go into any stuff folks here might want it to go into (whether they have a 300 km missile or 140 km missile, whether it even has nuclear missiles or whether those silos are all duds etc). Its not an assessment of their individual systems but more of an update to what they've done over the past year with a clear focus on missile testing and demonstrations, missile system fielding and force modernization.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Nov 2021 02:52, edited 4 times in total.
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 »

brar_w wrote:My point was that NDAA is a vehicle for several things and not just the budgets. It is used to set requirements, compliance, put into action elements required to make policy decisions. If the Congress wants something from the Pentagon/executive branch, it has only the NDAA through which to ask for it so it goes beyond funding budget line items.
Point Noted. Thanks.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by kit »

Rakesh wrote:Sirjee, India can always rely on China to be her enemy. That definition of enemy will never change, in fact it is only strengthened.

India can never rely on America to be her friend. The definition of friendship always changes from one administration to the next.

Who do you think is more reliable here?
Reliable enemy always better than an unreliable friend
Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Kengsley »

Rakesh wrote:...
Great post Rakesh.

Want to comment on why the stable genius and by extension the US were and are open to large scale Saudi and Iraqi oil exports to the PRC despite China being the current public enemy no. 1; and why by extension the same is not true for exports from Iran.

The simple truth is American oil companies are deeply entrenched in Saudi oil exploitation, refinery, storage, transport and sale. The same is true for Iraq post the 2003 invasion.

US oil companies were the first few foreign commercial entities to enter Iraq's oil Industry after the war had ended. Securing licenses for exploration, exploitation, storage and export. The same is true for UK and European oil conglomerates.

Both markets provide billions in revenue for US, UK and European oil industries, even when the oil produced is being exported to China. Markedly, oil sales to China are the largest portions of total exports from OPEC countries in the Middle East.

Iran's oil industry on the other hand has insignificant participation from Western oil conglomerates. As a result, US, UK, and European economies barely feel the financial impact of restrictions to Iranian oil exports via punitive sanctions.

So even if Trump or any other US President wanted to place sanctions on oil exports to China, politically powerful groups including Oil conglomerates and lobbyists from OPEC countries would place enormous pressure to block them.

The same is not true for punitive sanctions on Iranian oil exports.
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 »

Kengsley wrote:...
Thank you for this lucid explanation.

While stopping or reducing oil exports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait and UAE (which accounts for around 40%) would be significant, they could potentially reroute their oil imports from others i.e. Russia, Iran (who are also on that list). I am unsure if these two countries can increase their output that significantly, to make up for any potential shortfall from the Gulf States.

I cannot help but seeing the irony of this situation i.e. US, UK and European oil companies get billions in oil revenues by exporting oil to China. And since these Western oil companies make little - if any - revenue from Iranian oil exports, it is perfectly okay to ask countries (like India) to stop their oil imports from Iran. Despite the fact that oil is a resource that is fundamental to India's war machine, just as it is to China's.

Who is the enemy here - China or India? Or is this just about revenue? :)

I read through this DOD report and the one thing that sticks out to me, is the hundreds of billions (perhaps even a trillion or more) in revenue that America's MIC is about to earn in the name of a bogeyman called China. And China herself is playing up to that role. The more powerful platforms that China develops has a direct correlation to the billions that the US Govt invests in to develop new platforms to counter them. Stop the oil exports from the Gulf nations and China's war machine could perhaps at least slow down. But that could result in reduced investments and subsequently reduced revenue for the American MIC. What a wonderful system this is or perhaps I should call it the Circle of Life!
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by nandakumar »

Rakesh wrote:
Russia can not increase exports of oil to China should the US impose restrictions on exports from the traditional suppliers. I am not an oil industry expert. From what I have read, it seems in the short term the scope for additional oil output from Russia is nil. Even the so called voluntary production cuts under OPEC + production group announced in recent times is a sham. Russia notionally suffered a reduction in output. But that was a gimmick. They simply changed the definition of oil output by excluding gas condensate a kind of heavy oil as not oil. The OPEC went along with it as a show of unity was more important for influencing market sentiment than any tangible reduction in output from Russia. Ditto with Iran from a production perspective. Iran needs money for capacity creation. While China has the money it cannot outright defy US sanctions. So all this talk of $400 billion investment in Iran to improve production capacity is yet to translate into tangible action on the ground. Even within current capacity clandestine imports through fake documentation is limited. So China is wily nily stuck with sourcing from existing Middle East producers with all the implications for reduction in profits for American oil companies should US impose a ban on exports to China.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by YashG »

NRao wrote:China/PLA has a very robust AI program. Which *may* slow down due to a short term chip related issues.
Indian civilian AI companies regularly do better than 10X funded chinese companies (personal experience). Zero doubt, if Indian govt. put together a *appropriately* funded AI taskforce, Indian engineers/Scientists will outdo anything chinese in AI in one year. Indian talent in software/algorithms/AI is another level - it's just that its not consolidated well enough.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Cyrano »

Why would the US want to pressure Gulf countries to curb oil exports to China? While US Oil & Gas exploration, production & refining industries benefit from their Gulf business on one end, US businesses that have outsourced manufacturing to China, and credit fed US consumers who buy cheap Chinese products benefit on the other end. Hitting Oil exports to China will upset all that.

It would be great if US could find a way to hit Chinese MIC (threat) alone and spare the rest (benefit) but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one, moreover US MIC obviously doesn't get more funding from such a measure.

The irony is that Chinese companies have been stealing IP from US universities & companies for decades (1000 talents, plain theft, infringement, espionage...) a significant portion of which has been funded by the American tax payer due to threat perceptions based on DoD reports and such. That abominable Wuhan Institute of Virology also got US Govt funding & ToT for a Level IV set up (France & Canada as well share the honours).

US should at least go all out to stop IP leak to China.
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by wig »

Engines developed in Germany can evade export control bans due to their status as a so-called dual-use technology,

https://www.dw.com/en/german-engine-tec ... a-59740301
Several types of Chinese navy warships are powered by engines that were either developed or built by German manufacturers, an investigation by public broadcaster ARD and the Welt am Sonntag newspaper revealed Saturday.

The two companies involved are MTU in Friedrichshafen and the French branch of the Volkswagen subsidiary MAN, according to the report.

Both companies told the media they have always complied with export control regulations and have put into the public record that they have been involved with China's military.

The details on MTU's engine deliveries in China were found on the publicly available website of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Dual-use technologies fall into a 'gray area'
the engines are used in
According to SIPRI, MTU was a regular supplier of engines for Luyang III class missile destroyers through a licensed production plant in China until at least 2020. China's Luyang class destroyers are equipped with state-of-the-art weapons systems

Additionally, MTU reportedly supplied engines that were used in China's Song-class submarines.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by brar_w »

Lisa wrote:Related,

https://twitter.com/theragex/status/1457626032656224256

https://twitter.com/theragex/status/145 ... targets%2F

Satellite images show China has built mock-ups of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier and destroyer in its northwestern desert, possibly as practice for a future naval clash as tensions rise between the nations.

Its on rails!
This is a very small step in actually creating a complete end to end kill chain either for development, test or training. Iran has something similar but theirs floats on water I think. The problem with trying to hit a CVN (the most well resourced system as far as defenses is concerned) at those range is going to be the complexity of the kill chain, and overcoming deception, cyber and counter-ISR and then end-game targeting of your guidance. Not to mention the defenses themselves. The longer any kill chain the more places it can be attacked. So it is not a very easy problem to solve and neither is it impossible to counter. China obviously knows this and this is why they will produce multiple examples of their Type 03 carrier (the US will have similar limitations to long range kill chains making it challenging to target a Chinese AC at those ranges with similar weapons). The biggest long term threat to an Aircraft Carrier is a very low observable bomber with a large magazine of anti-ship weapons. It is much more difficult to counter than a limited attack by 2000+ km maneuvering ballistic missiles that are detected and tracked as soon as they are launched.
Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by Hari Nair »

brar_w wrote:Right exactly. It has to be a balanced approach ... just as you cannot treat CCP propaganda as the truth.
Re-winding back-
Just a few points on the previous discussion on 35% serviceability of Z-10 Fleet in Aksai Chin (Wolfpack's tweet):
• The pics of upgraded Zhi/Z-10 appear to show normal intakes without engine particle separators (sand filters).
• Helipads in SSN and other areas adjacent to India are at elevations above 4500 m (14,800 ft). Unfortunately, the terrain is sandy. Operating on unprepared surfaces in that sector is asking for trouble.
• Sand filters replace the normal intakes on helicopters. Whilst they will prolong the life of the engines, which otherwise are drastically reduced in sandy area operations, the filters sap power. On the other hand, engine power is already drastically reduced at those elevations in that sector and more so in summers when we get some crazily high air temperatures.
• Unless the sand filters are appropriately designed and proven in flight tests, it imposes unacceptable power penalties at those altitudes.
• Even if the Chinese have been able to complete integration of Safran’s Ardiden 3C engines on the Z-10, its power-to-weight ratio (given the heavier airframe), will still require very judicious (very limited or no) use of sand filters in that sector. This may bring down engine life.
• The Z-10 being an attack helicopter has a whole heap of systems on board. Being a new platform, they are bound to have a fair amount of teething problems.
• So in all, it’s very much possible that the Z-10 fleet is having poor operational serviceability in its initial deployment in that sector.
• We obviously can’t vouch for any figure as precise as 35% - and I agree with you on the point you make.
• It’s also inevitable that they will improve on the serviceability as time goes by. However, their overall design is not optimised for high altitude performance and this must be affecting their payload and range capabilities.
ChanakyaM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 Feb 2018 05:39

Re: Chinese Armed Forces: News & Discussion Thread

Post by ChanakyaM »

ldev wrote:Check out the China after the 19th Congress thread in the Strat Forum. China's objective for the last 20+ years is a unipolar Asia and a bipolar world. Clinton almost gave China this position without a fight when he wanted to give them carte blance to "manage" the India-Pakistan conflict much to India's dismay at that time. The Chinese armed forces are tools for achieving that objective. China would prefer that India acknowledges it's preeminence in Asia without resorting to armed conflict but in case India does not agree, then China want's it's armed forces to be able to prevail over India with minimum collateral damage to China. While the relative strengths of the two armies at the LAC are similar with India having an advantage in certain sectors, the terrain will make capture of large land areas difficult for either side IMO. China's breadth and length of reach via conventional ballistic and cruise missiles in all parts of India will be the escalation that China will go in for should a conflict at the border start turning against China e.g. if Indian forces disrupt G-219 I can forsee China using some 2000 km cruise missiles against targets deep in India as a warning that Indian ground forces should retreat. In short I would look at China's conventional force capability as the tools that they will use to reach their political objectives. Not only as of today but in terms of the trend lines we are witnessing today regarding the increase in their capabilities.

The Indian heartland has not seen major upheaval and conflict. In contrast the Chinese people have been subject to one calamity after another engineered by their rulers in the pursuit of megalomaniac goals during the last 50-60 years in which tens of millions of Chinese have died and so are used to upheaval in their days to day lives. I suspect that China is banking on the Indian populace at large not being prepared for a conflict that is brought to their doors in the heart of India and that will put pressure on the Government of India to end an escalated war. Only time will tell if that assumption is correct.
And I think this is where they under estimate the Indian people and their resolve, we unite behind the country in time of need. So if you think China is going to lob 2000km missile in to hinterland of India what is preventing us from reciprocating? we do have some AGNI's in our quiver right? a couple of well placed on the eastern starboard is enough to rattle them, take out some of their major economic centers and we achieve parity.
Post Reply