hey this is not an opportunity...**** are sitting on a brink of disaster, stop generalizing it to politics...little bit praying and sensitivity would do...
Manum - I know you didn't intend it, but that word for the Japanese is considered a slur. Please do not repeat - JE Menon
China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
There is so much rhona-dhona going over missed opportunities - it is boring.
Any more grainy fotus of fatbox flying, with saplings (now holi is in air) planted in between. Where are the chipandas when we need them.
Any more grainy fotus of fatbox flying, with saplings (now holi is in air) planted in between. Where are the chipandas when we need them.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
BRF could do without names like ****** and ****.
How is this terrible disaster an opportunity? Are we vultures now?
Do try to think before you post a comment.
How is this terrible disaster an opportunity? Are we vultures now?
Do try to think before you post a comment.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
India’s Quiet Counter-China Strategy
The devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck north-eastern Japan last week may well delay a proposed naval exercise between India, the United States and Japan scheduled for early April. But irrespective of when it takes place, Exercise Malabar will see the Japanese Navy involved for the second year running in this joint India-US exercise.
At first glance, this may seem routine. But in the context of recent tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as last year’s intensifying rhetoric among countries with interests in the South China Sea, this annual exercise is assuming greater significance.
Exercise Malabar, originally envisaged as a bilateral US-India venture, had already assumed a higher profile in 2007 when Singapore, Japan and Australia joined the manoeuvres in the Bay of Bengal, prompting Beijing to issue demarches to all five participating countries. From China’s point of view, the coming together of these five countries marked the beginning of a loose anti-China naval barrier in the Indian Ocean region.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdi/j ... _1_n.shtml
Briefing: Time for the US and EU to lift arms embargoes against China?
Does any one have access to the full article ?
Briefing: Time for the US and EU to lift arms embargoes against China?
Does any one have access to the full article ?
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... l_opinions
THE WASHINGTON POST
America’s Navy and the rise of China
By George F. Will, Wednesday, March 16, 7:50 PM
NEWPORT, R.I.
Scholars at the Naval War College here probably nodded in vigorous agreement with a recent lecture delivered at another military institution 130 miles away. Speaking at West Point to leaders of tomorrow’s Army, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.” This underscored Gates’s point that “the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements — whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf or elsewhere."
Here at this 127-year-old college, where the American practice of war-gaming began in 1887, the faculty members are professional worriers, especially about Asia, meaning China. Its naval doctrines, procurements and deployments invite inferences about its geopolitical intentions. Faculty members noted that when Libya descended into chaos, China sent a frigate through the Suez Canal to be in position to assist Chinese nationals in distress. This was the first time the People’s Republic had positioned a high-end combatant ship for a possible evacuation.
From such scraps of evidence, scholars here try to solve a high-stakes puzzle involving a decades-long process of designing and building ships: How should the U.S. Navy be configured for a world in which China’s maritime capabilities and intentions will be . . . what?
These scholars note that America has not always been good at predicting its next adversary. In Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers have ruefully said, “This isn’t what we gamed.” But for 22 years before Pearl Harbor, war games successfully anticipated the nature of a war with Japan — from amphibious attacks to capturing islands for bases, to floating dry docks.
Before the gaming, the assumption of America’s battleship-centric Navy was that it would steam west and fight something like the Battle of Jutland, the World War I engagement of the British and German fleets. After the gaming and the war, Adm. Chester Nimitz, commander of the Pacific fleet and U.S. signatory at Japan’s surrender on the battleship Missouri, said kamikaze attacks were the Pacific theater’s only major surprise.
The Chinese, too, have studied World War II and, according to some here at the college, have concluded that Japan’s experience should be pertinent to China’s planning. Japan was defeated by sea and air blockades plus the threat of invasion. As one person here puts it, America ensured its victory when it controlled the Luzon Strait, a choke point between the Philippines and Taiwan.
China has no foreign bases, but myriad ocean-borne needs: It is ravenous for imported raw materials — oil, coal, minerals — and its economic dynamism is built on exports. It has huge domestic constituencies — oil refiners, shippers and shipbuilders, among others — utterly dependent on certainty in global transportation.
Today, China is a free-rider on a global maritime order built upon a network of treaties enforced by the U.S. Navy. The Chinese frigate that came through the Suez then entered the Gulf of Sidra, which Libya no longer claims to control. It does not because of President Ronald Reagan’s forceful insistence in 1981 that the gulf is international water.
The arrival of U.S. ships off Libya’s coast underscores the primacy of the Navy for projecting power. Mark Helprin of the Claremont Institute notes that “40 percent of the world’s population lives within range of modern naval gunfire, and more than two-thirds within easy reach of carrier aircraft.”
Whatever China’s navy becomes, some thoughtful people will be surprised. What they do here is scholarship, not intelligence — they devour the flood of Chinese military publications. And the scholars differ about the most fundamental question, which is: Will China, for the next three to five decades, concentrate on economic growth — on prospering from globalization’s unimpeded flow of raw materials, goods and services — and be content to let America bear the burden of policing this?
The answer will be yes — if China makes a purely economic calculation. But nations usually have deeper and stronger motivations. This is particularly true of ascendant nations feeling their oats and spurred by long memories of impotence and humiliations.
Russia is still at sea with submarines carrying ballistic missiles. But these, like renewed Russian air patrols that echo Cold War practices, are probably primarily psychotherapy for Russian leaders eager for the world’s respect. China’s naval purposes, the subject of a subsequent column, are more interesting and potentially more ominous.
[email protected]
THE WASHINGTON POST
America’s Navy and the rise of China
By George F. Will, Wednesday, March 16, 7:50 PM
NEWPORT, R.I.
Scholars at the Naval War College here probably nodded in vigorous agreement with a recent lecture delivered at another military institution 130 miles away. Speaking at West Point to leaders of tomorrow’s Army, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.” This underscored Gates’s point that “the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements — whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf or elsewhere."
Here at this 127-year-old college, where the American practice of war-gaming began in 1887, the faculty members are professional worriers, especially about Asia, meaning China. Its naval doctrines, procurements and deployments invite inferences about its geopolitical intentions. Faculty members noted that when Libya descended into chaos, China sent a frigate through the Suez Canal to be in position to assist Chinese nationals in distress. This was the first time the People’s Republic had positioned a high-end combatant ship for a possible evacuation.
From such scraps of evidence, scholars here try to solve a high-stakes puzzle involving a decades-long process of designing and building ships: How should the U.S. Navy be configured for a world in which China’s maritime capabilities and intentions will be . . . what?
These scholars note that America has not always been good at predicting its next adversary. In Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers have ruefully said, “This isn’t what we gamed.” But for 22 years before Pearl Harbor, war games successfully anticipated the nature of a war with Japan — from amphibious attacks to capturing islands for bases, to floating dry docks.
Before the gaming, the assumption of America’s battleship-centric Navy was that it would steam west and fight something like the Battle of Jutland, the World War I engagement of the British and German fleets. After the gaming and the war, Adm. Chester Nimitz, commander of the Pacific fleet and U.S. signatory at Japan’s surrender on the battleship Missouri, said kamikaze attacks were the Pacific theater’s only major surprise.
The Chinese, too, have studied World War II and, according to some here at the college, have concluded that Japan’s experience should be pertinent to China’s planning. Japan was defeated by sea and air blockades plus the threat of invasion. As one person here puts it, America ensured its victory when it controlled the Luzon Strait, a choke point between the Philippines and Taiwan.
China has no foreign bases, but myriad ocean-borne needs: It is ravenous for imported raw materials — oil, coal, minerals — and its economic dynamism is built on exports. It has huge domestic constituencies — oil refiners, shippers and shipbuilders, among others — utterly dependent on certainty in global transportation.
Today, China is a free-rider on a global maritime order built upon a network of treaties enforced by the U.S. Navy. The Chinese frigate that came through the Suez then entered the Gulf of Sidra, which Libya no longer claims to control. It does not because of President Ronald Reagan’s forceful insistence in 1981 that the gulf is international water.
The arrival of U.S. ships off Libya’s coast underscores the primacy of the Navy for projecting power. Mark Helprin of the Claremont Institute notes that “40 percent of the world’s population lives within range of modern naval gunfire, and more than two-thirds within easy reach of carrier aircraft.”
Whatever China’s navy becomes, some thoughtful people will be surprised. What they do here is scholarship, not intelligence — they devour the flood of Chinese military publications. And the scholars differ about the most fundamental question, which is: Will China, for the next three to five decades, concentrate on economic growth — on prospering from globalization’s unimpeded flow of raw materials, goods and services — and be content to let America bear the burden of policing this?
The answer will be yes — if China makes a purely economic calculation. But nations usually have deeper and stronger motivations. This is particularly true of ascendant nations feeling their oats and spurred by long memories of impotence and humiliations.
Russia is still at sea with submarines carrying ballistic missiles. But these, like renewed Russian air patrols that echo Cold War practices, are probably primarily psychotherapy for Russian leaders eager for the world’s respect. China’s naval purposes, the subject of a subsequent column, are more interesting and potentially more ominous.
[email protected]
-
Christopher Sidor
- BRFite
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
^^^
What this also implies is that US will not likely pit US Army or Marines against PLA. Rather it would be upto regional actors to do the same. This is similar to what UK did in WWI and WWII. The beauty of this is that most of the casualties that occur, occur on land and US would be able to avoid such causalities.
In the attack on Pearl harbor, some 2400 men were killed and 1200 were wounded. In the battle of midway, some 3000-3100 Japanese perished while some 300 odd americans died. Compare this to the number of dead in Stalingrad or Leningrad or Normandy or Dunkirk.
In "The rise and fall of the Third Reich", there is an interesting conversation which Stalin had with the French and British Representatives prior to signing of the Nazi-soviet non-aggression pact of 1939.
Stalin: So how many divisions would Britain send to France initially in case of war?
The French and British Representatives: 5-6 initially and some more later.
Stalin: 5-6 huh.. You know how many divisions we would have to put on our front in case of a war with the nazis, 200.
In case of a PRC-Taiwan conflict, would US put its army and marines in harms way or would it be a token representation? What about a PRC-North Korea threat to South-Korea and Japan? Makes one wonder if India would be benefited to align itself with a nation, which expects others to do the heavy lifting while it keeps out of harms way. This also signals a tendency to play the "balance-of-power" card.
What this also implies is that US will not likely pit US Army or Marines against PLA. Rather it would be upto regional actors to do the same. This is similar to what UK did in WWI and WWII. The beauty of this is that most of the casualties that occur, occur on land and US would be able to avoid such causalities.
In the attack on Pearl harbor, some 2400 men were killed and 1200 were wounded. In the battle of midway, some 3000-3100 Japanese perished while some 300 odd americans died. Compare this to the number of dead in Stalingrad or Leningrad or Normandy or Dunkirk.
In "The rise and fall of the Third Reich", there is an interesting conversation which Stalin had with the French and British Representatives prior to signing of the Nazi-soviet non-aggression pact of 1939.
Stalin: So how many divisions would Britain send to France initially in case of war?
The French and British Representatives: 5-6 initially and some more later.
Stalin: 5-6 huh.. You know how many divisions we would have to put on our front in case of a war with the nazis, 200.
In case of a PRC-Taiwan conflict, would US put its army and marines in harms way or would it be a token representation? What about a PRC-North Korea threat to South-Korea and Japan? Makes one wonder if India would be benefited to align itself with a nation, which expects others to do the heavy lifting while it keeps out of harms way. This also signals a tendency to play the "balance-of-power" card.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
You are mistaking the American attitude to conflict to the British and especially European attitude to conflict. The Europeans and especially the British are opportunists and would rather use "others" to do the heavy lifting while they claim the glory and boast about their prowess. But the Americans are different. Just take a look at Afghanistan and Iraq and the numbers they employed there ? Sure, the Americans won't head in boots first and would take a more prudent course but never doubt the American zeal for combat. Their willingness to go to war is quite formidable even with all the war they have seen this last century.Christopher Sidor wrote:
In case of a PRC-Taiwan conflict, would US put its army and marines in harms way or would it be a token representation? What about a PRC-North Korea threat to South-Korea and Japan? Makes one wonder if India would be benefited to align itself with a nation, which expects others to do the heavy lifting while it keeps out of harms way. This also signals a tendency to play the "balance-of-power" card.
If you want to see how committed the Americans are to bloody conflict you need not look any further than the numbers they employed during WW2 against the Japanese. If the Nazis were brought down by the Soviet tank hordes, then the Japanese were brought down by the US Marines who out fought them at ever turn while the British and the French turned tail and fled before the "yellow midgets" ala Singapore. Also, look to the Korean war, which they fought just a few years after WW2 and how many troops they committed to that, to defend South Korea, to defend democracy (or so they claim). The Battle of Chosin Reservoir that took place in that war is the stuff of US Marine Core legend. Of course you can say they were saving their own hides and retreating but they went in there pretty aggressively and stood till the end unlike the Euros who bailed when things get uncomfortable for them and the Singaporeans paid the price for that under JAP occupation.
Of course, their real commitment comes only when they are directly attacked and any attack on South Korea or Japan would involve attacking Americans stationed there as well and thus would bring in US Pacom which would rain hellfire on the PLA and the North. Taiwan is a different case as there is no American presence there (luckily for the Chinese!) . If it's a choice between putting our lot with the Euros or the Americans, the Americans are heads and shoulders about the Euros in reliability when the SHTF.
-
Christopher Sidor
- BRFite
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
The post was not about questioning the "American Zeal for combat" but it was whether America would try to shrink from carrying equal burden, when push comes to shove.
And since you bring up the marine campaign in the so called "island hopping strategy," I did a bit of research on the Marine operations of WWII. I have complied a list (the figures are approximate)
In fact if we were to add up all the armed personnel casualties, in WWII, the Americans would suffer the least among all the belligerents. The Soviets, the Chinese, the japs and the nazis would shed most of the blood.
It may be that the Americans joined the war last. The Britishers/British Commonwealth/Chinese/Soviets were fighting long before that. But even after they joined, after the battle of moscow 1941, the major part of fighting and the disproportionate burden for the fighting still was on others.
Or it may be that the americans were more efficient at killing or the japs more egg-headed than we given them credit to.
Let us talk about the Korean war of 1951. A little know secret of the Korean war is that the American consignment was not the largest but was the 2nd largest. The largest was of south Korean. The number of casualties for south Korea would be bigger than that of American. Maybe because the South Koreans took on more risk or some other reason. Further there were more than 17 different nationalities fighting on behalf of south Korea. While 5 countries, including India, sent medical teams. But still Korean war is remembered as an American war.
About the fairy tail that the American were the only fighting the japs while everybody else had folded is a myth. It does not include the campaign of the British 14th Army, the so called forgotten army. It does not include the guerrilla warfare conducted by British Commonwealth and French soldiers in East Asia. It does not include the Chinese KMT campaigns against IJA and the manchurian Army.
Long before Americans were capturing islands in pacific the soviets were halting the Japanese on the plains of north-china. In fact it was this reversal that forced Japanese to turn south and east.
Long before Americans captured their first island in pacific, which ironically they lost to the japs in the first place, the KMT Chinese soldiers drew a stalemate with the the Manchurian army.
So in the future, if America views that its primary engagements is going to be in air and sea and then the least amount of blood that will be shed will be of the americans in any future conflict of East Asia. The maximum amount of blood that will be shed will be of others.
And the ironic part, half of the belligerents might be fighting on behalf of an American world order.
I apologies for bringing in a discussion about American casualties and campaign into a thread devoted to Chinese Military Watch. But it seems that many of us are advocating ganging up with US on its so called engagements. This is not limited to forum members but is even more widespread than that. Which I believe is a folly on our part. We are showing enthusiasm for an endeavor whose meaning is not fully grasped by us. Or the cost to be paid.
And since you bring up the marine campaign in the so called "island hopping strategy," I did a bit of research on the Marine operations of WWII. I have complied a list (the figures are approximate)
- Battle of Guadalcanal, 1942. US Marines Strength = 60000. Casulaties = 7000.
- Battle of Guam, 1944. US Marine Strength = 36000. Casulaties = 1700.
- Battle of Saipan, 1944. US Marine Strength = 71000. Casulaties = 3000.
- Battle of Iwo Jima, 1945. US Marine Strength = 70000. Casulaties = 7000.
- Battle of Okinawa, 1945. US Marine Strength = 1.8 Lakhs. Casulaties = 12000.
- The campaign of the 14th Army, 1942-44. British Commonwealth = 60000. Republic of China = 1 lakh. Casulaties = 70000.
- Battle of Dunkirk, 1940. Axis Powers= 8 Lakhs, Allied powers 4Lakhs.
- Battle of Moscow, 1941. Axis powers = 10 lakhs. Soviets = 12 lakhs.
- Battle of Kursk, 1943. Axis powers = 7.8 lakhs. Casulaties = 2.5 Lakhs
In fact if we were to add up all the armed personnel casualties, in WWII, the Americans would suffer the least among all the belligerents. The Soviets, the Chinese, the japs and the nazis would shed most of the blood.
It may be that the Americans joined the war last. The Britishers/British Commonwealth/Chinese/Soviets were fighting long before that. But even after they joined, after the battle of moscow 1941, the major part of fighting and the disproportionate burden for the fighting still was on others.
Or it may be that the americans were more efficient at killing or the japs more egg-headed than we given them credit to.
Let us talk about the Korean war of 1951. A little know secret of the Korean war is that the American consignment was not the largest but was the 2nd largest. The largest was of south Korean. The number of casualties for south Korea would be bigger than that of American. Maybe because the South Koreans took on more risk or some other reason. Further there were more than 17 different nationalities fighting on behalf of south Korea. While 5 countries, including India, sent medical teams. But still Korean war is remembered as an American war.
About the fairy tail that the American were the only fighting the japs while everybody else had folded is a myth. It does not include the campaign of the British 14th Army, the so called forgotten army. It does not include the guerrilla warfare conducted by British Commonwealth and French soldiers in East Asia. It does not include the Chinese KMT campaigns against IJA and the manchurian Army.
Long before Americans were capturing islands in pacific the soviets were halting the Japanese on the plains of north-china. In fact it was this reversal that forced Japanese to turn south and east.
Long before Americans captured their first island in pacific, which ironically they lost to the japs in the first place, the KMT Chinese soldiers drew a stalemate with the the Manchurian army.
So in the future, if America views that its primary engagements is going to be in air and sea and then the least amount of blood that will be shed will be of the americans in any future conflict of East Asia. The maximum amount of blood that will be shed will be of others.
And the ironic part, half of the belligerents might be fighting on behalf of an American world order.
I apologies for bringing in a discussion about American casualties and campaign into a thread devoted to Chinese Military Watch. But it seems that many of us are advocating ganging up with US on its so called engagements. This is not limited to forum members but is even more widespread than that. Which I believe is a folly on our part. We are showing enthusiasm for an endeavor whose meaning is not fully grasped by us. Or the cost to be paid.
-
ManishH
- BRFite
- Posts: 974
- Joined: 21 Sep 2010 16:53
- Location: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democractic republic
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Epoch Times cites report by chinese national radio reporting shortfall of recruits due to growing industrial demand for manpower in this article.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
trying to divert chippanda discussion from LCA thread
We can do all we want on chippanda.. but we have reaction only policy.. and strike second. So what weapons, and features are required when say an armada and fleets and swarms are half way through? And, most importantly how many we would like to lose in the battle?
We can do all we want on chippanda.. but we have reaction only policy.. and strike second. So what weapons, and features are required when say an armada and fleets and swarms are half way through? And, most importantly how many we would like to lose in the battle?
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Govt: China linking highways, military units with border
China has constructed roads from its major highways and defence installations to all strategic passes and military units along its border with India, the Defence Ministry has said in its latest report on infrastructure development along the Sino-Indian border.
The ministry has noted that as many as 37 roads have been constructed to key passes and military units along the Line of Actual Control in the Eastern Sector that predominantly consists of the state of Arunachal Pradesh that is claimed by Beijing.
“China has constructed roads from all highways, logistic centres and major defence installations to all the passes and military on the Line of Actual Control/International Border,” the ministry has said in its action taken report on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Defence presented in Parliament on Thursday.
It says while all major highways near the border have been converted into black-topped two-lane roads, several smaller roads connect them to the border. The ministry says eight roads in the western sector, four in the central and 37 in the eastern sector link all Chinese military bases with its highways.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
yawn ..................... so....................... what else ............. is new?
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
While China builds roads, airfields, ships, fighter planes and tanks...our Govt is only talking of being able to handle a two front war. We need to start a chudiya (bangles) fund and buy some for our babus and politicians in Delhi to wear. Shame, Shame... 
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Rakesh tell me where to send the money for the FIRST donation for this fund!! Also please start a RECALL CHIDAMBARAM the traitor fund while you're at it. This guy in his first stint as FM killed 1000s of small to middle Indian firms by selling out to foreign industry!!
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
.er - since we are heading OT may I point out that the "bangles/chudiayan" taunt is a sexist comment that suggests that the men must wear bangles to appear like women who are assumed to be less capable/intelligent/courageous.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
OT. But you are misinterpreting their intention. The idea in sending bangles is to make them as brave as Indira Gandhi, Rani Laxmi Bai etc.
-
Christopher Sidor
- BRFite
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Taiwan’s Intelligence Chief Warns about the PLA’s Growing Strategic Weapon Systems
While this article focuses on implications of Chinese 2nd Artillery on taiwan, it has implications for India too.
Also this article is a compendium of other news articles and what the Taiwanese Intelligence chief said to his parliament.
Noteable points
Keeping on the DF-21D,
While the Defense news article is a rehash of the above mentioned DF-21D and DF-16 article from jamestown, the defense news article goes in a bit more depth and treads over the satellite capabilities which will be required to make DF-21D operational, i.e. tracking and surveillance.
Returning back to the jamestown article, it sheds some light over the PLAN strategic capabilities. As China can target India from Tibet, Southern China and the south china sea this is worth recording
Not only can the Chinese deployments in south-china sea be used against south-east Asia but also against India.
Another aspect of the deployment of missiles against Taiwan, it frees up missiles which can target India
And Finally why is this so called DF-16 such a threat to India
While this article focuses on implications of Chinese 2nd Artillery on taiwan, it has implications for India too.
Also this article is a compendium of other news articles and what the Taiwanese Intelligence chief said to his parliament.
Noteable points
So we can expect our Naval ACs to be the target of this DF-21D missile. Also please note that DF-16 will be deployed against India too, to meet the challenge of the Indian BMD Shield that we are building.According to Tsai Der-Sheng, Taiwan’s National Security Bureau (NSB) director-general, China has deployed a 'new' type of missile that will increase the PLA's capability in terms of range and accuracy to attack hardened targets like airfields and command and control centers.
...
...
Tsai revealed that the missile is a "whole new type" in the Second Artillery's series of intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles: "It’s more powerful, advanced and has a greater range than older types of Dong Feng [DF] missiles"
...
...
Tsai also reasserted the claim he made back in August 2010 that the PLA has already tested and is now deploying the "carrier killer" DF-21D, which in February was confirmed by a report in a State-sponsored media (China Review News, August 20, 2010; Global Times, February 18). According to one military intelligence source cited by Taiwan-based Liberty Times, the estimated range of the DF-16 may be somewhere between 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers (km),
Keeping on the DF-21D,
The Defense news article which is being referred to over here is this.Furthermore, the PLA deployed some 20 DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM), and increased its arsenal of medium-to-long range missiles from 150 to 160
...
According to U.S.-based Defense News citing a Taiwan defense source, China has already fielded up to a dozen DF 21-D in Qingyuan, Guangdong Province (Defense News, March 21)
While the Defense news article is a rehash of the above mentioned DF-21D and DF-16 article from jamestown, the defense news article goes in a bit more depth and treads over the satellite capabilities which will be required to make DF-21D operational, i.e. tracking and surveillance.
Returning back to the jamestown article, it sheds some light over the PLAN strategic capabilities. As China can target India from Tibet, Southern China and the south china sea this is worth recording
Till now IN was the only asian navy to posses aircraft carrier. Now Chinese will be another. Apart from the prestige and bragging rights which this would give the Chinese the worrying part is that probably their aircraft carrier is going to be a nuclear powered one. None of our proposed aircraft carriers IAC-1 and IAC-2 are going to be nuclear powered. What this means, is that along with DF-21D Chinese will have one more weapon to break the blockade of the Malacca straits. Till now the unsaid threat that India held over the Chinese was, if you push us far enough, we will cut off your oil supply from middle east. That is why we were not that much disturbed when Iran and Pakistan said that we would rope in china and convert the IPI to IPC.one unit of the PLA’s Type 094 ballistic missile submarine is deployed in the South China Sea. Yet, since the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile is not yet in active service, the submarine is not combat ready. Alternatively, two units of the Type 093 nuclear attack submarine are deployed in the South China Sea, and the nuclear powered aircraft carrier, Varyag, is not scheduled to go into service until the end of 2012
Not only can the Chinese deployments in south-china sea be used against south-east Asia but also against India.
Another aspect of the deployment of missiles against Taiwan, it frees up missiles which can target India
DF-15 has some 600 kms of range and is known as M-9 while DF-11 has a range of 300 kms and is also known as M-11.With the deployment of more capable missiles aimed at Taiwan, the DF-11 and DF-15 missiles may be deployed in other theaters. This is a clear reflection of how China's missile technology and accuracy have improved in recent years.
And Finally why is this so called DF-16 such a threat to India
I hope that our BMD will be able to cope with DF-16.Moreover, "the faster re-entry of a longer-range ballistic missile such as the DF-16 would greatly reduce the effectiveness of Taiwan’s PAC-3 missile interceptors
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
China's Unveils New Global Hawk Class UAV
What is the maximum range Indian UAV's have...?
China has unveiled it's first long range UAV - Xiang Long (flying dragon). Given how late China entered this market it has now produced the 2nd longest ranged UAV (7000kms as opposed to the global hawks 22,000 and Heron TP's 3,300kms) on the market - with 1 addendum - it has UCAV like AG weapons capability. It carries a slightly reduced payload than the Global Hawk with a significant reduction in MTOW with 1/3rd its range.
What is the maximum range Indian UAV's have...?
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
subhanallah, thank god this new threat has emerged.
will ensure good funding for the Rustom projects and follow ons.
will ensure good funding for the Rustom projects and follow ons.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Nope the Thais have one - the ChakrinareubetChristopher Sidor wrote: Till now IN was the only asian navy to posses aircraft carrier.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
What is the thing with the Malabar Series of Exercises hain ji?
They started in the Arabian sea, then moved to the Bay of Bengal the next season, and is now moving into the South China Sea!
The coast of Malabar is supposed to be India's western seaboard isn't it?
Wonder where the exercise will move to next season? Off the coast of Shanghai??
They started in the Arabian sea, then moved to the Bay of Bengal the next season, and is now moving into the South China Sea!
The coast of Malabar is supposed to be India's western seaboard isn't it?
Wonder where the exercise will move to next season? Off the coast of Shanghai??
-
chackojoseph
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
- Location: From Frontier India
- Contact:
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
More of a helio carrier. But, technically it is an "air - craft."shiv wrote:Nope the Thais have one - the ChakrinareubetChristopher Sidor wrote: Till now IN was the only asian navy to posses aircraft carrier.
Indons are also building a helio carrier in their own yard.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
The most fascinating thing about these Chinese copies is they looks so exactly similar to their American "originals" that one can easily be fooled into thinking that they are of equivalent capability or quality and all claims made regarding these "copies" are taken at face value. (Naturally the claims are appropriately modest compared to the originals lest they stretch credulity beyond the belief of the gullible! )nits wrote:China's Unveils New Global Hawk Class UAV
Unless the USAF or some other source can independently track this UAV on a radar screen and verify its capabilities, all this is merely some chinese "art of war" - perception is better than reality crap. First they pull a stealth plane out of their hat and now build a 7000km Air-Ground capable UAV from scratch. What next ? Clone Regan ?
Last edited by Brando on 28 Mar 2011 23:56, edited 1 time in total.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
You cannot talk about low American casualties without considering the fact that the American mainland was never really under any threat. The Soviets, the Chinese, the japs and the nazis were involved in a "fight to the finish" war on their own soil which is why they make up for the bulk of the military casualties. And if you do want to compare casualties I think it would be far more appropriate to compare those of the UK Australia or India.Christopher Sidor wrote:The post was not about questioning the "American Zeal for combat" but it was whether America would try to shrink from carrying equal burden, when push comes to shove.
....
In fact if we were to add up all the armed personnel casualties, in WWII, the Americans would suffer the least among all the belligerents. The Soviets, the Chinese, the japs and the nazis would shed most of the blood.
The thing with us is that China has left us far behind and we will not be able to catch up economically or militarily for another 50-80, and this is our reality. We can either go it alone , be on the defense and have to bend every time they turn the screws on us OR gang up with the other major power and try to control. We have to choose one of the two. But a lot of people who voice their opinions here choose the first option or shun the second simply because of their bias or prejudice.We should do what is in our best interests.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Are you sure it is nuclear propulsion? The last pictures released, if true had smoke coming out. If true, then another subhanallah, for IAC2 then has some hopes of going nuclear?Christopher Sidor wrote: Till now IN was the only asian navy to posses aircraft carrier. Now Chinese will be another. Apart from the prestige and bragging rights which this would give the Chinese the worrying part is that probably their aircraft carrier is going to be a nuclear powered one. None of our proposed aircraft carriers IAC-1 and IAC-2 are going to be nuclear powered. What this means, is that along with DF-21D Chinese will have one more weapon to break the blockade of the Malacca straits.
The more such news that comes out the better, even if they are false. Whatever it takes to get our spending levels up.
-
Patrick Cusack
- BRFite
- Posts: 112
- Joined: 11 Aug 2009 21:01
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
The Chinese aircraft carriers cannot out run BrahMos http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/postin ... 58e3769987#
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/ful ... 73769.html
Indonesia and China agree on joint production of missiles
JAKARTA, INDONESIA : Indonesia and China on Tuesday agreed to strengthen their defense cooperation, including the joint production of missiles, the Antara news agency reported.
Indonesian Deputy Defense Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin and Chen Qiufa, head of the Chinese Technological and Industrial Development Agency signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the technical cooperation in the defense sector.
The agreement includes the supplying of military equipments, transfer of technology of certain military equipment, joint-marketing, and training programs, according to Brig.Gen. Wayan Midhio, spokesman for the Defense Minsitry.
Indonesia and China also agreed on establishing a joint-missile production in the future through strategic weaponry industry. The Indonesian army currently uses Chinese made missiles.
The Indonesian Defense Forces (TNI) equipped some of its warships with the Chinese C-802 rockets. China is recognized worldwide for it successful development of military equipment.
The Asian giant has been able to develop a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) called Dong Feng 21 (DF-21), which is two-stage, solid-propellant, single-warhead system.
On Thursday, Indonesia announced that it plans to produce 1,000 R122 rockets to support its defense system through the Technology Assessment and Application Agency.
The project would be carried out from 2012 to 2014, time in which the Indonesian government also plans to develop a "remote pilot vehicle" and an "area vehicle" as well.
--BNO News
Indonesia and China agree on joint production of missiles
JAKARTA, INDONESIA : Indonesia and China on Tuesday agreed to strengthen their defense cooperation, including the joint production of missiles, the Antara news agency reported.
Indonesian Deputy Defense Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin and Chen Qiufa, head of the Chinese Technological and Industrial Development Agency signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the technical cooperation in the defense sector.
The agreement includes the supplying of military equipments, transfer of technology of certain military equipment, joint-marketing, and training programs, according to Brig.Gen. Wayan Midhio, spokesman for the Defense Minsitry.
Indonesia and China also agreed on establishing a joint-missile production in the future through strategic weaponry industry. The Indonesian army currently uses Chinese made missiles.
The Indonesian Defense Forces (TNI) equipped some of its warships with the Chinese C-802 rockets. China is recognized worldwide for it successful development of military equipment.
The Asian giant has been able to develop a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) called Dong Feng 21 (DF-21), which is two-stage, solid-propellant, single-warhead system.
On Thursday, Indonesia announced that it plans to produce 1,000 R122 rockets to support its defense system through the Technology Assessment and Application Agency.
The project would be carried out from 2012 to 2014, time in which the Indonesian government also plans to develop a "remote pilot vehicle" and an "area vehicle" as well.
--BNO News
-
Christopher Sidor
- BRFite
- Posts: 1435
- Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Abhi i beg to differ. We are not 50-80 years behind China in defense and economic spheres.abhik wrote:The thing with us is that China has left us far behind and we will not be able to catch up economically or militarily for another 50-80, and this is our reality. We can either go it alone , be on the defense and have to bend every time they turn the screws on us OR gang up with the other major power and try to control. We have to choose one of the two. But a lot of people who voice their opinions here choose the first option or shun the second simply because of their bias or prejudice.We should do what is in our best interests.Christopher Sidor wrote:The post was not about questioning the "American Zeal for combat" but it was whether America would try to shrink from carrying equal burden, when push comes to shove.
....
In fact if we were to add up all the armed personnel casualties, in WWII, the Americans would suffer the least among all the belligerents. The Soviets, the Chinese, the japs and the nazis would shed most of the blood.
In spite of the GDP numbers tell, we are not that far behind. While China has been able to sustain double digit growth for a decade or more, we have not been able to do the same. This does not mean that China's lead over India is insurmountable. Far from it. The more you look closely at china, the more fragile it looks, economically. China took in some 40 billion US Dollars FDI to produce a double digit growth. We took in some 8-10 billion US Dollar FDI to produce a 7-8% growth rate. With due respect to the low base on which our growth is based, we are much more efficient at utilizing capital than China will ever be.
Let us now take up the militarily sphere. After this decade, the PRC will realize that it will not be the country which can field the largest and youngest army. Rather it is going to be India. PRC also realizes that its logistics lines are stretched w.r.t to Tibet and Xianjing. With respect to Central China the situation reverses, Our logistics lines get stretched to breaking point. We have been slow in building up logistics to our north-eastern and north-western Himalayas, but it was due to the some egg-headed thinking in MoD and GoI. It is changing slowly and when it does change entirely we will see a sea change. Dont forget in 1987-89 we successfully deterred Chinese threat to our north-eastern borders.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Cross post
Here are some videograbs of scenes that caught my eye
Crucified
Identify please
Whoz this?
These are man portable flame throwers. I have not seen videos of flame throwers in action since WW2 documentaries
PLAAF Pilots march
Is that a Sagger copy?
Look like wooden missiles
Some UAV
Tu-16 clone
- the video took all day to loadNikhil T wrote:Shows the lengths they go for PR...Every frame is touched and glossed ...
Here are some videograbs of scenes that caught my eye
Crucified
Identify please
Whoz this?
These are man portable flame throwers. I have not seen videos of flame throwers in action since WW2 documentaries
PLAAF Pilots march
Is that a Sagger copy?
Look like wooden missiles
Some UAV
Tu-16 clone
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Well we could say whatever we wish.. but its a fact they are better prepared then us.Nikhil T wrote:Shows the lengths they go for PR...Every frame is touched and glossed ...
Sun Zhongshanshiv wrote: Whoz this?
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
^^^^ Better known as Sun Yat-Sen.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
I see. The Emperor of Communist China.
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
actually it is Sun Yixin which is pronounced as Yat-Sen or sometimes Jat-Sin (mostly in Guangzhou where language of choice is Cantonese and Not Mandarin, also this is the name used by English people)tejas wrote:^^^^ Better known as Sun Yat-Sen.
Sun Zhongshan also pronounced as Zung-saan and Chung-shan is the name used in Official Mandarin communications as well as by most of the Chinese.
His real name was Deming.
-
Selamat Pagi
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 50
- Joined: 05 Apr 2011 09:53
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
Also revered in Taiwan.NRao wrote:I see. The Emperor of Communist China.
Taiwan money
Re: China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
China axis with TSP must be factored in military scenarios. For example any analysis of IAF vis-a-vis PLAAF must also factor in the PAF. India will be flanked by China unless reverse flanking is prepared via Vietnam, Japan. India is not that behind economically, but we must admit that it is not even, and Pakistan hangs like a weight around India that China doesn't have with Taiwan, as there is no deep civilizational rift to leverage. Accepting the status quo won't do, something transformational is needed.Christopher Sidor wrote:Abhi i beg to differ. We are not 50-80 years behind China in defense and economic spheres.abhik wrote:
The thing with us is that China has left us far behind and we will not be able to catch up economically or militarily for another 50-80, and this is our reality. We can either go it alone , be on the defense and have to bend every time they turn the screws on us OR gang up with the other major power and try to control. We have to choose one of the two. But a lot of people who voice their opinions here choose the first option or shun the second simply because of their bias or prejudice.We should do what is in our best interests.
In spite of the GDP numbers tell, we are not that far behind. While China has been able to sustain double digit growth for a decade or more, we have not been able to do the same. This does not mean that China's lead over India is insurmountable. Far from it. The more you look closely at china, the more fragile it looks, economically. China took in some 40 billion US Dollars FDI to produce a double digit growth. We took in some 8-10 billion US Dollar FDI to produce a 7-8% growth rate. With due respect to the low base on which our growth is based, we are much more efficient at utilizing capital than China will ever be.
Let us now take up the militarily sphere. After this decade, the PRC will realize that it will not be the country which can field the largest and youngest army. Rather it is going to be India. PRC also realizes that its logistics lines are stretched w.r.t to Tibet and Xianjing. With respect to Central China the situation reverses, Our logistics lines get stretched to breaking point. We have been slow in building up logistics to our north-eastern and north-western Himalayas, but it was due to the some egg-headed thinking in MoD and GoI. It is changing slowly and when it does change entirely we will see a sea change. Dont forget in 1987-89 we successfully deterred Chinese threat to our north-eastern borders.
Also rather OT but your analysis of 'low' American casualties in WW2 reveals only facts of geography, not anything about American fighting culture (maritime war vs land war- they didn't fight a land war because the thing was in Eurasia! America is a maritime because Eurasia is the world-heart, not North America). What were they supposed to do, have their marines fight more poorly so they could look good on the blood scale? one sees Americans were quite efficient, on average only one casualty for every 5 or 6 Japanese despite being attackers on unfamiliar jungle warfare. Or get attacked by Canada (right) so they could lose tons of men fighting a land war for the home soil?