China Military Watch

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 07 Feb 2008 13:06

alokgupt wrote:Your Conclusion: It is useless to prepare for a full scale war two front war with China and Pakistan. Also in case of China is useless to prepare for a war in which China brings much of its assets to fight India.

My conclusion: Your conclusion is wrong. We need to be ready to withstand full force of China without having to beg from America.


For once you have a post which is less rant and takes a stab at deduction. I will therefore reply with more respect than I showed previously --

Wrong conclusions about my conclusion (glad you figured it out on your own)

I) GoI is aware of a two front war -- it prepares for it. However there are many possibilities that GoI must prepare for; a two front war is possible perhaps even probable but not certain. There are many other matters which require GoI attention and are important; thus GoI can not make preparation for a two front war as if it was certain.

To give but one example of many things; GoI needs to figure out what to do if Iran is attacked by US; what will be the Mil fallout.

GoI needs to worry about a Jehadi attack on Indian soil etc etc...

There is a difference between probable and will happen and looking at one aspect exclusively to the tune of leaving others behind.

II) As we see; raising divisions; building roads; A III its all happneing. Can it happen faster? Yeah sure. Would it be better if it happens faster?

Even my great grandmom would agree and she is dead. Obviously obvious.

Its a different thing to say its not at a pace where a clear cut gap exists. In fact based on all that is being posted the gap narrows.

III) A India China war is not a cricket match; let alone a three party war. In the current Geo-pol scenraio; others would get involved.

Note they would not get involved to save us; but they would have their own agenda which they must meet.

To say that it will be a three party war and only a three party war in today's linked world is being either juvenile or really stupid.

IV) China's build up is about Taiwan first and foremost; the rest come in later. It would be extraordinarily improbable that they will commit all their forces (which they cant due to logisitics anyway) to a war and leave other fronts unguarded.

They don't want a scenario in which their forces are completely smashed leaving a huge void.

V) ALL war games done so war (one example is H Hawksley's dragon strike) suggest that a conventional war between Indian and China will quickly bog down into a stalemate with horrendous losses on both side. With Chinese lossing 3 for 1 indian loss. Not they cant afford that.

India will lose some terriorty China will lose a lot of men and material and it will be generaly very ugly.

You are free to claim what ever you want; but the rants of scardy cat does not a real war game scenario make.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 07 Feb 2008 13:13

I think defense/offense against China still has to plan for the following apart from Mountain strike corps:-

1. Integrated (IAF-IA-Air defense-Infantry) formation to cut open a corridor through Bangladesh if required. This formation can also be used to teach a lesson to Nangadesh if it remains pesky. This formation can also be used to control terrorists operating through its territory.

2. Integrated (IAF-IA-Air defense-Infantry) formation to cut open a corridor through Burma if required. This formation can also be used to control terrorists operating through its territory.

3. SF to infiltrate through Burma-Thailand to hit economic centres of China in South and Coast.

4. More up-front open alliance with Bhutan to keep access to NE open

5. Moral Confidence to continue fighting on front in NE if Chicken corridor is still cut off

6. Better equipment & arms caches for Keep back forces in NE, if overrun + infiltrate SF in Tibet

7. Most importantly the will to use IAF and to keep fighting long enough to let winter hit & degrade logistics of China

8. Better intel, better intel, better intel, better intel – which seems like junk at the moment

9. More concentrated effort on infrastructure and international alliances

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 07 Feb 2008 13:55

Map of Bangladesh (UN.org)

Indian army needs to ensure decisive control within the first day of the conflict over the broad-guage railway line going from Raiganj in West Bengal through Dinajpur, Rangpur and Lalmanir Hatt in Bangladesh, and subsequently emerging at Koch Bihar in West Bengal with an alternate connection to Dhubri in Assam. The bridges on the river Trista are crucial and must be taken intact. Alternatively, narrow river Trista can be easily crossed by employing bridge laying vehicles of the army.

During war, Bangladesh needs to be cut off at 25.25 degrees latitude just south of Gaibandha. And if they whine or try to tangle, yindoos must blow up an uninhabited island just south of the kangladeshi coast with a sub-kiloton nuke and tell them to stay the f**k out of the way of the Indian Army, or a hell of a lot of kangladeshis will get to meet allah prematurely.

Airstrikes and cold-start are not going to do jack. The can afford to loose an air-base or two and still continue to be a pain guerilla warfare style. Only the mushroom cloud will instantly turn them into peace-loving creatures for the duration of the fight. There will be no loss of life, and Panda, Kangladesh and Pukis will get the message. Especially pukis, that interference in the indo-china war now means nuclear war and yindoos have already blown up an island in kangla-desh i.e. gone 400% psycho and this is the time to 'bark' but not bite.

But ICBM has to be explicitly tested (no depressed trajectry bull) to keep the 7th fleet out of the Bay of Bengal this time around. Then kick china's musharraf in the North East and let the international community put some sense in Uncle Hu cause yindoos are not listening...

Also yindoos have to tie-up with Japan. Japan doesnt have to go to war with China in the east, but just take their navy out of ports and go on offensive patrols in the Taiwan strait. Chinkis will be begging yindoos to stop the war and will sign any dotted line presented.

We should ask Japan what they want in return and deliver! Period!

Map of Sikkim (utexas.edu)

Indo-China Border - Eastern Sector (utexas.edu)

Indo-China Border - Western Sector (utexas.edu)
Last edited by Rahul Shukla on 07 Feb 2008 14:11, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 07 Feb 2008 14:09

Just for fun consider the scenario -- China does not really have what it takes to get into a battle with India. However they are aware if push comes to shove they are the big gorrilla.

So they rattle the cage of GoI; by making noises to upset the GoI into making a false move -- the false move can be anywhere from
1) Too aggressive prematurely -- like in 62 with advance posts and like -- so they can give us a nice jhappad when we have over extended ourselves and then retreat. -- 62 redux
2) We get too defensive. Start accepting Chinese demands for lots of stuff -- ex lets say we end up supporting the Chinese policy on next Dalai Lama.
3) We get into a numeric arms race; more troops more planes; basically play the Chinese games on their boards by their rules and hence on a terriortry they are strong at consequently we go bust in overall scheme of things long term.

This is a game not for terriotory; but for Geo-pol prominence and victory of ideas.

Staying the balanced course is important with both long and short term points considered.

If they get us to become a Indian version of China with a autocratic Babu driven govt. then India has already lost hasnt it?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 07 Feb 2008 19:24

alokgupt wrote:
JCage wrote:It is upto to you provide the data to show that those airfields can support 272 Flankers. Currently the Scramble site and other sites clearly show they cant. Please educate yourself about the basics of what even ONE Flanker squadron requires before posting arguementative drivel.


Wrong.


Why? Not used to people pointing out the glaring loopholes in your claims are you!

Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is, or stop spamming this forum with your silly one liners.

No- you tell us what all they have crossed! You cant, because YOU dont know. Nobody does. It just suits your silly arguement to fix an arbitrary date and manufacture evidence accordingly. But that is NOT good enough.


No data. Discarded.


Its up to you to provide the data. You are the one making bizarre claims.


Your silliness knows no bounds. Sunil has already posted an article showing that there MAX production rate is at 17 a year. Your lack of knowledge is also evident from the fact that you dont even realise that the newer Flankers are to use Chinese engines which would entail even longer development, manufacturing timelines not to mention operationalization.


Some data but wrong again.


Ah, so the UPI article is wrong then. Why? Because it proves you were lying?


http://www.ir.irkut.com/_data/pages/0000143/Irkut_development_stages_October_2006.pdf


Your behaviour gets more and more bizarre. The above is an Irkut document. China's Flankers are from Knaapo. Know the difference?

Yet you persist with your make believe claims. By 2011, India aims to field another 13+15+15+16+40 Flankers of its own- actual HAL production numbers. But you havent even considered those, or their capabilities vs the PLAAFs older Flankers. Why would you, since you debate using manufactured claims!


When I do the ratio do I include projected Flankers for PRC? No. I did the ratios based on current numbers for both IAF and PRC. So nothing manufactured. If you want to do ratio based on 2010 projected numbers, be my guest. It is you who seem to be desperate to manufacture things.


You made up numbers assuming that PRC would get 400 Flankers by 2010. When you couldnt justify those, out came the backtracking. The numbers above show that your manufactured claims of the PRC getting automatic air superiority in the 2010-11 timeframe were bilge. Deal with it.



A-5 radius is 400 km at full load (2000kg). What kind of payload degradation do you see in Tibet?


Are you even aware of the operating height at which that payload is achieved? Please investigate further- I would have provided the data, but your silly arguementative behaviour evokes no reason for me to do your work for you.


What happened? You don't have data to back up your claim. You said Q-5 is not usable in Tibet. Why don't you provide data to back it up pretty boy?


No "pretty boy", you do it. Secondly, please lay off the double entendres - I am not interested in knowing which way you swing and whom you hit on.

You were the genius who didnt even know operating altitude matters. This forum is not meant to spoonfeed every child who walks in and treats everyone else with disrespect. Heres a source, so that you dont go bawling- check out Janes All the Worlds aircraft 2001-02 on the Q5.



How many escorts can IAF provide vs PRC?

PRC Flankers 272+J-10 70 = 344
IAF Flankers 50 + Mig 29 50 + Mirage 2000 50 = 150
Ratio of modern fighters PRC/ IAF > 2


Once again, you blithely assume that the entire PLAAF can be shifted lock stock and barrel vs the IAF. Were things were that simple! You are yet to prove that even a fraction of that number can be staged from the area- kindly look into the other thread to understand the effort necessary to make airfields transferrable for multi-ops! Second, you demonstrate your ignorance again by assuming that huge escorts have to be provided- all that is needed is to hold off a PLAAF force while the strikers attack, and there is no evidence that PLAAF even has a credible night attack capability! Whereas the IAF will attack at night.


It is totally clear you basing your analysis on just assumptions. What makes you think it cannot? Hold off PLAAF force while stikers attack? And how do you hold off the force by putting ropes is it? Wouldn't you send fighters to "hold off"? And how do you assume that IAF will achieve air superiority over Tibet with the numbers as above?


Your ignorance is not only baffling - it is shameful. You cant even point out that the PLAAF can field all its Flankers in theater, and you dont even understand the basics of air warfare. Escorts arent there to win air superiority, they exist to hold off the attacking force. Go ask some actual strike pilots about tactics or at least read about previous conflicts, including Shlomo Alonis works or Tom Coopers books.



No don't list the satellite airfields in India because I know where they are. Just list PRC air fields which cannot handle fighters!


The Scramble list is available in the thread. Go ahead and mark them yourself.


No I am not going to mark it for you. If you want to back your argument provide data. Otherwise here is my response - discarded.


I am not here to spoonfeed you after your shameful ranting on the forum. If you want to connvince people on this forum that you are capable of worthwhile analysis apart from copy and paste, then do some legwork. Otherwise, you are the usual troll who rants and raves but responds with abuse when asked to justify his claims.




Not related. Fusion test of 1998 was actually a flop.


Of course its related. It proves your great source is prone to errors. And about 1998, FAS et al did muck raking about all tests. Please educate yourself about who runs FAS and what FAS stands for.


Wrong again. Goes to show how much you know! :lol:


Yelling wrong, wrong with your hands over your ears may work on a playground. It wont work with me or this forum.


Please do us all a favour and research some basics before posting. If you had any evidence that the PRC had actually made a huge investment in logistics and air to air refuelling (bar the handful of H-6s they have now) to move the entire Flanker fleet vs India *if need* be, your comments could be taken seriously.


I think you are the one who is in need to undertaking basic research. You haven't provided single data so far.


I have provided enough data- it is you who is too juvenile to look at it. If you had a tenth of the capability of the other posters on the forum, you would have been able to dig out enough info to fill this thread. It is clear you cant. Since you want spoonfeeding, heres some more- try looking at the logistics requirements of a Single Flanker, do back of the envelope calculations and come back. Please dont waste my time and this forums with your silly claims.



India doesnt dream of invading Bangladesh and Bangladeshs military strength is pitiful. PRC otoh has built up exactly to overwhelm ROC and it will safeguard enough units so as to retain a balance vs the ROC. It will not wipe away decades of work over nothing.


So you believe that ROC will attack PRC if PRC moves its entire air force for fight with India. Well that explains why you think India does not have to fight the entire PRC air force....moron :!:


I normally dont indulge in name calling, but I think the entire forum can make out who is a moron and who is attempting to set the moron straight.

Your stupidity is beyond reason. If it is still not clear enough for you, the PRC CANT move its entire AF to attack India and secondly, it will hoard assets for a possible ROC conflict. It cant not denude its bases and relocate them against india. If you understand the basics of how logistics work and the depth of issues in even the most basic of moves, you wouldnt be wasting our time with your drivel.




Hardly exactly. The line was reopened because they needed a counterpoint to strong defences. And FYI all bombers ARE dead ducks unless air superiority is achieved. Please read up about how and when bombers have been used till date.


Big "unless". See you suddenly realised they are useful afterall.


Your lack of command over the English language is wonderful. In your world perhaps, when someone tells you that they disagree with your hyperbole you pat yourself on your back about how correct you are and how everyone agrees with you. In real life, I am telling you that your bombers are dead ducks vs a reasonable air defence and they exist only because the PRCs regular AF is severely lacking in precision strike. Keep patting yourself on your back, but it doesnt make it the reality.



Your nonsense knows no limits- try honesty for a change, it will be refreshing. I said your claims of 400 Flankers are an utter exaggeration, and so they were. You should be ashamed of posting such tosh, but you obviously lack the moral fiber to even admit your mistake. Your Sinodefence site posts maximal figures AND even there the numbers dont add upto 400 but 250 odd- in case you have issues with the English language, odd means a rounded figure approaching the number mentioned!! I talk about serviceability for the PRC because I know they fudge and hide figures - even so I even gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed a high 70% figure overall.


What is your projection of Flanker fleet in PRC by 2010? Just keep your empty rants to yourself and provide the data. Where did you pull out 250 number from? JCage confusing himself. You seem to have an IQ of a bird.


Your stupidity reaches new depths. If you could care to read Sunil Upa has posted a UPI article with a clear estimate of the PRC Flanker fleet. Kindly read through it and educate yourself.
No, I wont keep my "empty rants" to myself given I have an aversion to reading absolute drivel passed off authoritatively as you have been doing.
And I see that you have now withdrawn from your claims of 400 Flankers by 2010- looks like you bit off more than you could chew.

Learn how to read into context. You are the one who was scaremongering about India getting bombed- all of North India you said! Who cares if the PRC has better SAM coverage to protect Beijing as long as we dont go there.


And what limits PRC from deploying some of those systems to provide coverage for force in Tibet? Just your imagination.


Dont shift the goalposts sonny boy- I never said that the PRCs SAMs are not a threat to India. In fact, Austin, I & others discussed it a few threads back. You otoh were as usual engaging in flamewars and ruining threads.
Second, you were making the claim that the PRC would be bombing all of northern India. When I proved you wrong by showing your absymal lack of knowledge about India's ADGES, you sought refuge by claiming that the PRC had SAM systems too.
These kind of second grade debating tactics wont work here.


And what does an Indian division bring to the fight vs a PRC unit?


What?


Exactly what I said. Go on, tell us. Since you are the johnny come lately font of wisdom that BRF has to tolerate from time to time, its upto you to even do some basic research.



Ah, so the US militarys filibustering to get more funds is now grounds for fear. Grow up, will you.


So sinodefence is kiddy site. FAS is laughable. US military report to congress is fillibustering. PRC military doesn't even know basics of fight. IAF Air Marshal asking for 60 squadrons is just asking AF asking for things. But JCage must make the decision. You in one post discarded sources from sinodefence, globalsecurity or fas, IAF, US military. This got to be new record. Can it can get any more ridiculous?


Your silliness is incredible. The IAF has not asked for 60 squadrons son, they have asked for a full complement of 39.5 and a possible enhancement if necessary.
Sinodefence is run by some Chinese kid- probably your equivalent, no doubt. FAS is dead and gone as far as its webpages are concerned. Its talent and the man who set it up have shifted to Global security and they themselves admit that they dont have the resources to be accurate either. Your ignorance is not just startling, its shameful, the manner in which you wear it on your sleeve and respond in a juvenile manner when somebody attempts to correct you. If you were in any manner a mature individual, you would attempt to determine which sources are updated frequently and how reliably they can be used. No, what we are dealing with is a troll who isnt here to learn but to abuse. We must count ourselves so lucky.



It is the job of the AF to ask for more. It is the job of adults to understand what is being said and why, and not scaremonger.


Yeah of course you know more than IAF. :lol: :lol: :lol:


I know what the IAF wants because I treat them with the respect they deserve. Grow up, and perhaps you can understand the kind of effort that goes into source analysis. No, I dont know more than the IAF but I do put effort into understanding what their aims are and what they need. Something which is lost on you, with your 400 Flankers bilge.


Your self gratification amuses me, but your learning comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. In plain English, concern is good- useless panic and hyperbole (the kind you have indulged in) is worthy of contempt.


After your comments above I don't think your posts deserve any more response.


Mores the pity then that you have been spamming this thread and replying to me, with your ridiculous, abusive and nonsense filled posts which seem to be more a reflection of your ego and "I shall not lose face", rather than any serious concerns.

If thats the kind of debate you are used to, I am sure the internet is wide enough to accomodate you.

And kindly stop with the fevered one line replies- not only are they rude, your referring to the chinese as chinks and chinkland whatever is downright racist.


Oh yeah...did it hurt you when I called them Chinks? :D :D :D
[/quote]

No, it didnt hurt me.

It hurts BRFs reputation to have abusive, racist children like you post on the forum and treat it with disrespect.

If you wish to rant using racial epithets, there are other places on the internet, but kindly spare this forum and website. It has far more to its credit than people like you, who use it as a sounding board for their rants, but neither contribute anything to do it but even sully its reputation by inference, thanks to the garbage they dump on the forum.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 07 Feb 2008 20:25

Shortened the response:

JCage wrote:It is upto to you provide the data to show that those airfields can support 272 Flankers. Currently the Scramble site and other sites clearly show they cant. Please educate yourself about the basics of what even ONE Flanker squadron requires before posting arguementative drivel.



Alok :

PRC Flankers 272+J-10 70 = 344
IAF Flankers 50 + Mig 29 50 + Mirage 2000 50 = 150
Ratio of modern fighters PRC/ IAF > 2
Ratio of Flankers PRC/ IAF > 5

The numbers speak for themselves.

Your stupidity is beyond reason. If it is still not clear enough for you, the PRC CANT move its entire AF to attack India and secondly, it will hoard assets for a possible ROC conflict. It cant not denude its bases and relocate them against india. If you understand the basics of how logistics work and the depth of issues in even the most basic of moves, you wouldnt be wasting our time with your drivel.


Wrong. PRC is hoarding assets for possible attack on ROC. No attack is expected from ROC on PRC. You used the word "conflict" because otherwise the argument will look silly if you used the words "ROC attack". It will. There is no immediate military threat that China faces from any of its neighbours. It is at liberity to make war with India when it decides to do so without having to worry about second front.

Learn how to read into context. You are the one who was scaremongering about India getting bombed- all of North India you said! Who cares if the PRC has better SAM coverage to protect Beijing as long as we dont go there.


And what limits PRC from deploying some of those systems to provide coverage for force in Tibet? Just your imagination.

Dont shift the goalposts sonny boy- I never said that the PRCs SAMs are not a threat to India. In fact, Austin, I & others discussed it a few threads back. You otoh were as usual engaging in flamewars and ruining threads.
Second, you were making the claim that the PRC would be bombing all of northern India. When I proved you wrong by showing your absymal lack of knowledge about India's ADGES, you sought refuge by claiming that the PRC had SAM systems too.
These kind of second grade debating tactics wont work here.


Where did I post about India ADGES network? This is what you said then:

"Who cares if the PRC has better SAM coverage to protect Beijing as long as we dont go there."

But now you changing your tune:

"I never said that the PRCs SAMs are not a threat to India."
Last edited by alokgupt on 07 Feb 2008 23:54, edited 2 times in total.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 07 Feb 2008 20:49

Sanku wrote:Just for fun consider the scenario -- China does not really have what it takes to get into a battle with India. However they are aware if push comes to shove they are the big gorrilla.

So they rattle the cage of GoI; by making noises to upset the GoI into making a false move -- the false move can be anywhere from
1) Too aggressive prematurely -- like in 62 with advance posts and like -- so they can give us a nice jhappad when we have over extended ourselves and then retreat. -- 62 redux
2) We get too defensive. Start accepting Chinese demands for lots of stuff -- ex lets say we end up supporting the Chinese policy on next Dalai Lama.
3) We get into a numeric arms race; more troops more planes; basically play the Chinese games on their boards by their rules and hence on a terriortry they are strong at consequently we go bust in overall scheme of things long term.

This is a game not for terriotory; but for Geo-pol prominence and victory of ideas.

Staying the balanced course is important with both long and short term points considered.

If they get us to become a Indian version of China with a autocratic Babu driven govt. then India has already lost hasnt it?


You include all scenarios except the one which is most relevant - "We may not be ready for a fight with China".

Consider China having already built roads on the border with India. China moving ahead for not one but two rail lines to Lhasa. The size of Chinese Flanker fleet (272) which currently is almost five times India's Flanker fleet (50). Size of their army almost 1.5 times India. Massive modernization. Do you really think they are bluffing?

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 07 Feb 2008 20:57

alokgupt, question for you;

What is the effect of altitude induced atmospheric changes on aircraft flight parameters?

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 07 Feb 2008 21:01

Rahul Shukla wrote:alokgupt, question for you;

What is the effect of altitude induced atmospheric changes on aircraft flight parameters?


Well the amount of lift generated by aircraft's wing falls with altitude. So it will have impact on the payload and / or the take off speed and also length of runaway. No one is disputing it will have impact. What is being disputed what's the effective payload as a result? JCage refusing to provide data while claiming Q-5 just cannot take off from Tibet air fields.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2008 21:32

When this thread was started about a year ago, the idea was summed up in the first post by abhishekcc and Johann. I dont mind the discussion bu it needs to be toned down. Alok you are a special contributors. I suggest you dont go on auto respond. Cutting down your number of posts will contribute to eveyones longievity on the thread and the forum. And others please observe the same decorum/rules/courtsey.

I dont want to lose the thread due to argumentative ness.

Thanks, ramana

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2008 22:26

x-posted...
Igorr wrote:
Philip wrote:A most interesting commentary on the current situ between Russian defence sales to China and India,espcially the fall in sales to China because of Russian reluctance to sell China its besteqpt. which is sold to India.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... s.asp?pg=2

A Dead End?
Russian defense sales to the PRC.
by Reuben F. Johnson
02/05/2008 12:00:00 AM
.
I read the original of Litovkin's article. This is it:
http://www.ng.ru/economics/2008-01-29/1_tupik.html

According to his information, 'Rosoboron' is keeping the requests from China's military for follow systems:

1) 'Shmel' shoulder handed launcher
2) 'Nona-SVK' 120 mm SPH
3) 'Vena' 120 mm SPH
4) 'Msta-S' 152 mm SPH
5) 'Smerch' 300 mm MLRS
6) T-90S tanks
7) BTR-80, BTR-90
8 ) Mi-28N strike helicopter
9) Ka-50 strike helicopter
10)3-coordinate radars
11)ship-based AAS
12)EW systems and electronnic intelligence systems

They displayed interest also to
1) Su-33 ship based fighter
2) MiG-31 interceptor
3) Tu-22m3 long range bomber
4) cruisers
5) nuclear submarins

All those request were put on hold hovewer

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 07 Feb 2008 23:47

ramana wrote:When this thread was started about a year ago, the idea was summed up in the first post by abhishekcc and Johann. I dont mind the discussion bu it needs to be toned down. Alok you are a special contributors. I suggest you dont go on auto respond. Cutting down your number of posts will contribute to eveyones longievity on the thread and the forum. And others please observe the same decorum/rules/courtsey.

I dont want to lose the thread due to argumentative ness.

Thanks, ramana


Well something I have been thinking myself. I think too much personal back and forth is ruining the argument. So will stick to the argument now.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 00:41

Sanku wrote:I) There are many other matters which require GoI attention and are important; thus GoI can not make preparation for a two front war as if it was certain. There is a difference between probable and will happen and looking at one aspect exclusively to the tune of leaving others behind.

II) As we see; raising divisions; building roads; A III its all happneing. Can it happen faster? Yeah sure. Would it be better if it happens faster?Its a different thing to say its not at a pace where a clear cut gap exists. In fact based on all that is being posted the gap narrows.

III) A India China war is not a cricket match; let alone a three party war. In the current Geo-pol scenraio; others would get involved. Note they would not get involved to save us; but they would have their own agenda which they must meet.

IV) China's build up is about Taiwan first and foremost; the rest come in later. It would be extraordinarily improbable that they will commit all their forces (which they cant due to logisitics anyway) to a war and leave other fronts unguarded.

India will lose some terriorty China will lose a lot of men and material and it will be generaly very ugly.


1) There is nothing more significant than building capability to win the war with China and Pakistan. There is positive impact of having overwhelming military capability on internal security as well as external sponsors will be more careful.

2) I have asking for three things: a) We don't have enough fighters. We need 60 squadrons. b) We need to raise mountain strike corp (about 4-6 divisions). I see GOI already sanctioned 2 divisons. c) We need build 600-1000 AGNI 3. I hope once AGNI 3+ is tested and final we do raise to mass produce it.

We have to keep a close eye on the rate at which we modernize our forces vs what China does. So far the rate has been less than sufficient.

3) Pakistan in 1971 faced India alone despite all the posturing by America and China. We cannot make the same mistake of outsourcing our defence to America.

4) China will commit all their forces to which ever war they fight. It is naive to assume PRC military will start the war without knowing how to win it. So we got to be ready for this.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 08 Feb 2008 01:03

After the 1962 debacle, India started raising and modernising its forces. This modernization was checkmated when PRC went nuclear in 1964. Now the idea of war with PRC had a nuclear shadow. It was still managable due to Cold War circumustances. However the PRC-US rapproachment and Kissinger's inducements to PRC to intervene in the 1971 war lead to the Indian POKI. For now PRC could make a move against India with the knowledge that US would not mind it. Again this was not too bad as the PRC had the Taiwan issue and there was the FSU with the disputed borders. The Afghan war was keeping the two major super powers busy and PRC transferred nukes to TSP. The end of Cold War and the launch of four modernizations by Deng again tilted the balance. PRC now adopted a indirect startegy of transferring delivery vehicles to bolster TSP nuke capacity. Againt eh POKII tests sort of evened the playing field.

The slow reduction of TSP potential due to internal distrubances from War on Terror is again shifting the focus to PRC. We need to examine what will be the levels of conflict, what are the escalatory events und so weiter.

Will it be a one front war or two front war? If one front will it be all over the North East or localized? What are the hot spots where PRC has definite advantage? If there is a PRC break throught where are the escalatory options for India? What are the limits of conventional war? IOW what areas would such a war be limited to?

If two front war ie both TSP and PRC together than what are India's options?
Is the NFU still relevant in such a situation? Isnt deterrence to prevent such a calamitious event?

What are India's options regard to any breakout by PRC forces into the I-G plain?

Maybe we need to war game it as Leila?

the point of my narration is that India was the object of an undeclared war since 1962 by the major powers(PRC, US) using TSP as their proxy. India manged to survive due to the inherent hardwrok of its people and some shadow play like the Indo-SU treaty which was good to wave around.

What does the new India want to do about it?

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 01:23

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/creep ... on-20.html

1) A confidential report India Today has access to, suggests that as many as 130 incursions by the Chinese forces have been reported on the Sino-Indian boundary in 2007, taking the number to over 300 intrusions in just two years. Last month, on September 13, intelligence agencies had reported six intrusions on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) by the Chinese with some of their patrols coming as deep as 5.5 km inside the Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir sector. According to the reports sent to the South Block, the violations in Trig Height area in Ladakh have increased and the Chinese violated LAC by flying a helicopter across it for the first time. Even in the Pangong Tso lake area in the western sector of the border in Ladakh violations are being carried out by boats in conjunction with vehicular patrols, the report says. The Chinese have crossed deep into the Indian territory up to Hotigad near Joshimath without facing any resistance. Sources say they claimed 15x10 km in the meeting of the border joint working group in 1995, that was increased to 45 km and now 378 sq km during the exchange of maps in 2000.

2) For instance, they have developed a new air field in Shiquanhe in Gar Gunsa, which can have strategic ramifications for Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Then in the western sector, along the strategic lake of Pangong Tso, they have built a road from Chuti Chan La to Bush area on the Indian side of LAC. While India has a handful of airfields near the border, in the recent months Beijing has undertaken a massive upgrade of its air fields in Tibet. In Gongakar, two twin runways have been constructed and Kashi, Hotan, Yarkand and Xinjiang can allow PLA to hit most cities of north India.

3) According to South Block’s assessment, Chinese intrusions in Demchok area have a strategic significance. “It can bring infantry and armoured columns through Charding La, Jara La and Tashigong,â€

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 08 Feb 2008 01:40

alokgupt wrote:PRC Flankers 272+J-10 70 = 344
IAF Flankers 50 + Mig 29 50 + Mirage 2000 50 = 150
Ratio of modern fighters PRC/ IAF > 2
Ratio of Flankers PRC/ IAF > 5


These numbers are not relevant till you manage to prove that they can be fielded in theater. Second, India's strike assets, ie the Jaguars and MiG-27 Upgrades are far superior to the PLAAFs. Mentioning raw numbers are pointless since only a fraction of the above fleet can be used for strike.

Where did I post about India ADGES network? This is what you said then:

"Who cares if the PRC has better SAM coverage to protect Beijing as long as we dont go there."

But now you changing your tune:

"I never said that the PRCs SAMs are not a threat to India."


Kindly read in context instead of cherrypicking statements. You raised the bogey of the PLAAF bombing north India, wherein the IAF ADGES is relevant. To which you raised the claim about the PLAAFs SAMs being "better" when I hadnt raised the bogey of the IAF doing likewise to Beijing. Instead, put the PLAAFs SAM effect on IAF strike packages separately, why mix up two differing conversations. That can be discussed separately.
Last edited by JCage on 08 Feb 2008 02:06, edited 3 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 08 Feb 2008 01:54

JCage, Alok already agreed not to post such tit-for-tat posts. Thanks, ramana

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 01:55

alokgupt wrote:China has been indulging in creeping acquisition over the years, and the Government has tacitly accepted these incursions. We may have already lost several hundred square kilometre in the past few years.


For all the people claiming we are all ready to deal with China let us hear how will you want GOI to deal with this!

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 08 Feb 2008 01:59

ramana wrote:JCage, Alok already agreed not to post such tit-for-tat posts. Thanks, ramana


Ramana, done. I read your post after I posted, and my post above has been edited accordingly.
Last edited by JCage on 08 Feb 2008 02:13, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 08 Feb 2008 02:02

alokgupt wrote:
alokgupt wrote:China has been indulging in creeping acquisition over the years, and the Government has tacitly accepted these incursions. We may have already lost several hundred square kilometre in the past few years.


For all the people claiming we are all ready to deal with China let us hear how will you want GOI to deal with this!


1. "May" is not "is". While statements of this nature have been made by a MLA, I wouldnt be sure of them till the IA corroborates. In the past, whenever Indian interests eg Siachen were seen to have been compromised, the IA didnt back down and used every weapon including the media, to press its case, ie the national interest.
2. What is your proposal to deal with China?

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 02:06

Learn to read in context instead of cherrypicking statements. You raised the bogey of the PLAAF bombing north India, wherein the IAF ADGES is relevant. To which you raised the irrelevant statement about the PLAAFs SAMs being "better" when I hadnt raised the bogey of the IAF doing likewise to Beijing.


SEAD

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 02:07

JCage wrote:2. What is your proposal to deal with China?


I don't think we have one. The reason - we aren't ready for full scale conflict with China. Until we are ready, we can do nada about it.
Last edited by alokgupt on 08 Feb 2008 02:41, edited 1 time in total.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 08 Feb 2008 02:29

Our economic issues alone necessitate that we cant seek a conflict with China. The 15 year timeframe difference between us (when China started reforms compared to us) is what we are currently catching up with.

As long as India modernises in decent amount, PRC will not continue with its otherwise temptation of provoking a clash with India to put India down, a la 1962 to demote it from the position of a possible China opponent. IMHO, the MRCA contest will show which way GOI is leaning. We might well cultivate closer ties with the US as a possible failsafe, but I do hope we dont repeat the mistake of '62 wherein belief in a possible ally made us blunder into a trap.

Our aim should be to avoid conflict but not give up contested territory. Lull the PRC into a false sense of superiority if need be, but build up.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 02:40

JCage wrote:Our aim should be to avoid conflict but not give up contested territory.


The two might be conflicting goals. Either accept Chinese "Kargil" and be quiet about it hoping to get back that land in final settlement (not gonna happen). Or we might have to push them back in some sectors to defend the territory. But then we do risk a full scale confrontration with China. So seems like we have to live with Chinese Ladakh on our border.

mdhoat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 06:20
Location: California, US

Postby mdhoat » 08 Feb 2008 03:31

Alokgupt or Jcage, what are the chances that China is already planning and implementing a Cold Start strategy to be able to go to war immediately, with minimal preliminary fuss to capture or sabotage India's strategic assets before even the country reacts to any war alarms. What are the chances that kind of strategy will be effective against India and what are the possible outcomes.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 08 Feb 2008 03:37

^^^

As for a Chinese cold-start, they are not going to go for an extended conflict so they will try to be as swift as possible in their operations. All armies try to include the element of surprise in their attack plans and so will the Chinese. But, India has adequate intelligence gathering capability to detect such a buildup on the Chinese side. The eyes in the sky see all, and the Phalcons are coming...

We have distinct advantage vs. the Chinese in the NE sector. Their weakness is going to be their supply lines. Also, just extending the runway in an airbase is not everything. In terms of supporting logistics, one needs a lot more to fight a war.
Last edited by Rahul Shukla on 08 Feb 2008 03:43, edited 1 time in total.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 08 Feb 2008 03:41

In the first few days of the war, both sides will probably operate at equivalent surge rates and then have a rapid drop off in availability. That's when the higher numbers can play a significant role. When the units that participated in the surge are licking their wounds and conducting maintenance, the party with the greater number of units can bring a larger group of second stringers to the fight. To bring the second stringers to the fight swiftly, one needs a healthy logistical infrastructure. The numerical superiority can make a difference due to the party with the higher numbers can rotate units out more frequently from the OPAREA.

It's not that India is losing the numbers game that puts India at a disadvantage. It's that India is losing the numbers game compounded by the weak physical infrastructure in the OPAREA compounded by the Indian leadership's allergy to confrontation compounded by the 15 year head start the Chinese have on their RMA and modernization efforts, etc. that puts India on the back foot. This mess will take while to clear up and it starts with a change in attitude at the top leadership positons.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 03:52

sunilUpa wrote:Alok, what has Irkut's figures have anything to do with PRC's Flankers? Irkut doesn't manufacture any for PRC except may be trainers! Majoruty comes from KNAPO
And 17/year figure is for J-11, which are manufactured by Shenyang!


Sunil,

Can you validate any of this?

1) SIPRI record shows transfer of 225 Flankers between 1998-2006 and 100 engines for J-10 between 2001-2006. This shows acquistion at rate of about 25 Flankers a year. Sunil confirms that J-11 are being produced at 17 a year. This is in addition to any other purchases.

2) It shows an acquisition rate of 20 J-10 engines a year which most likely means equivalent number of J-10s.

2007: PRC had about 272 Flankers and 50-70 J-10.
2010: PRC Flankers 272 + 17*3 (lower estimate) = 323. If we just assume the average acquisition rate similar to past 9 years it will be 25 a year. This brings the Flanker fleet to 347 (50 short of 400).
PRC J-10: 50-70 + 20*3 = 110-130 J-10

PRC will have at least 323 +110 = 433 modern fighters by 2010.

(95) Su-27SK/Flanker-B FGA aircraft 1996 1998-2005 (95) Part of $1.5-2.5 b deal for 200 but rest cancelled; assembled from kits; Chinese designation J-11

28 Su-27SK/Flanker-B FGA aircraft 1999 2000-2002 28 $1 b deal (payment for debt); Su-27UBK version

38 Su-30MK/Flanker FGA aircraft 1999 2000-2001 38 $1.5-$2 b deal; Su-30MKK version

38 Su-30MK/Flanker FGA aircraft 2001 2002-2003 38 $2 b deal; Su-30MKK version

24 Su-30MK/Flanker FGA aircraft 2003 2004 24 $1 b deal; Su-30MKK2 naval attack version

(2) Su-27SK/Flanker-B FGA aircraft (2006) $100 m deal; Su-33 version; for evaluation; option on 12-48; contract not yet signed

54 AL-31FN Turbofan 2000 2001-2005 (54) For J-10 combat aircraft produced in China
100 AL-31FN Turbofan 2005 2005-2006 (50) $300 m deal; for J-10 combat aircraft produced in China

100 Zhuk radars for J-8 were transferred

100 Zhuk Aircraft radar 2001 2001-2005 (100) Zhuk-8 version; for modernization of J-8B (J-8-IIM) combat aircraft

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 08 Feb 2008 04:03

I would put the J-10 production around 17-18 per year. The additional engines are maintenance reserve.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 08 Feb 2008 04:21

JCage wrote:
alokgupt wrote:For all the people claiming we are all ready to deal with China let us hear how will you want GOI to deal with this!


2. What is your proposal to deal with China?


JCage-Alok
We know how to deal with china. We dealt with them in 1962, 1985(Som Drung Chu Valley incidence). We should use the same strategy as prescribed by our "Gandhi Policy of Non Violence, Disarm all Indian Military" if they don't back down we will go on satyagrah, hunger strike, will burn Indian Gov't property like buses and punish the poor ******** who happens to open his shop on the day of our strike. After all we are a nation that loves to go on strike in a heart beat.
If this doesn't work we will come up with Panchsheel-II agreement, sing praises of "Chacha Nehru" We don't want to make our "Bapu" and "Chacha" look bad. People will understand in 20-30 years. We can ask bollywood singers to write and sing songs.
If that doesn't work either than we should follow "Common Minimum Program" of CPI since they are a political force and if they say, "China iz a bery brery Frendlee Country" What is few thousand Acres of land among friends. After all we are all friends. :evil:

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 274
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Postby Raman » 08 Feb 2008 04:25

Bar salami slicing and obduracy, we also really need to understand China's doctrine for escalated local conflicts.
THE PLA’S EVOLVING CAMPAIGN DOCTRINE AND STRATEGIES
[quote]This essay shows how China’s military planners have articulated the doctrine of war zone campaign (WZC, or zhanqu zhanyi) as a major type of local war that may enhance local and temporary PLA superiority. It then shows how they have fleshed out three major campaign strategies that may enhance the probability of such superiority. The strategies include “elite forces and sharp armsâ€

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 04:29

mdhoat wrote:Alokgupt or Jcage, what are the chances that China is already planning and implementing a Cold Start strategy to be able to go to war immediately, with minimal preliminary fuss to capture or sabotage India's strategic assets before even the country reacts to any war alarms. What are the chances that kind of strategy will be effective against India and what are the possible outcomes.


In eastern sector we have about eight divisions of troops deployed within 300-400km of Arunachal and Sikkim border. In comparision China has at maximum two divisions deployed close to Arunachal or Sikkim border.

But Chinese expeditionary forces include three airborne divisions, two amphibious infantry divisions and two marine brigades. So possible deploy these expeditionary forces relatively quickly.

In Arunachal and portions of Sikkim China has enough force to pull a Kargil and then hold the ground till reinforcements arrive. This has to be on top of list of threats for MOD.

In Uttranchal, Himachal, and Ladakh they can possibly bring a couple of divisions and surprise India. But Indian deployment in this sector is much more dense.

China also has seven special operations groups but those will have to travel by road/ rail along with other infantry divisions. It will take a while to deploy these divisions.

Beyond the initial suprise India should be able bring more soldiers quickly to the fight than China. So unless Pakistan sends its troops on border China has no real advantage of doing a Kargil in Uttranchal, Himachal, or Ladakh.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 08 Feb 2008 04:31

mdhoat wrote:Alokgupt or Jcage, what are the chances that China is already planning and implementing a Cold Start strategy to be able to go to war immediately, .....


Mdhoat
It is not a question of chances any more. It is not a question of "IF" either but "When". If you want to understand the chinese mind, they always do their homework before striking. All these incursions are also known as probing attacks. For example if an incursion happened in laddakh they were able to penetrate 100km inside indian territory without finding a single post, their thought process is, "we know this is your land, you are not defending your land, since you are not defending your land it is a no man's land, we are not going to allow 500km area to be no man's land, so we are going to call it our land, hold the ground now if you want it back you can fight us or capitulate like you did in 1962, put your tail up your **se and go back to your country. You can't make it a big event otherwise you will embarrass yourself in the eyes of the world, it will announce to the world we are a super power, we will get what we want. Furthermore if your media gets hold of this story, your public will lynch you. So just agree to our demands and save your face."

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 04:32

Baljeet wrote:What is few thousand Acres of land among friends. After all we are all friends. :evil:


This is exactly what I have been trying to say all this time.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 04:36

Vick wrote:I would put the J-10 production around 17-18 per year. The additional engines are maintenance reserve.


Good point. I agree 17-18 counting reserves.

alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Postby alokgupt » 08 Feb 2008 04:39

Rahul Shukla wrote:Their weakness is going to be their supply lines.


That is correct. But MOD seem to have concluded that with new highways and railways it can support upto 24 divisions in Tibet.

mdhoat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 06:20
Location: California, US

Postby mdhoat » 08 Feb 2008 05:33

alokgupt wrote:
Baljeet wrote:What is few thousand Acres of land among friends. After all we are all friends. :evil:


This is exactly what I have been trying to say all this time.


The Reasons I believe if China is ever to attack India, it will attack sooner rather than later are many. For ex.

Deployment of ATV and leasing of Nuclear submarine next year from Russia. Nuclear-powered submarines armed with nuclear-tipped missiles (successful testing and deployment of K-15 and Agni-3SL) can provide real muscle to India’s strategic deterrence posture. Scorpene Submarines along with upgraded Amurs will also be decisive against most old generation submarines of PRC.

Realistically 200 MRCA planes (Which ever are chosen) with AESA will be technologically much superior to PRC Flankers or J-10 and along with 230+ Su 30 MKI, Upgraded Jaguars, Mirages with LCA bringing in the required numbers will definitely tilt the technological balance towards India by a lot. Successful testing and deployment of BMD and Akash II AD procured in numbers along with existing AD infrastructure will shift the odds more into India's favor by 2015. Remember India is defending so China SAM doesn't count.

Force multipliers for defensive formations such as Air Refuellers (more getting procured), 5 and who knows maybe more Phalcons and development and deployment of home grown AWE&C in no.'s won't make thigns easier. These proposed developments should be ringing bells in PRC generals ears. As most of the fight will happen over Indian skies PRC force multipliers can be discounted till they acquire air superiority over Northern India.

Planned up gradation of 30 airfields for fast troop mobilization. Planned development of infrastructure in NE.

Successful deployment of Barak NG, Ashwin, Nirbhay, Brahmos, Brahmos II, LCH and foreign procured combat helicopters, growing list of UAV's, new Artillery guns, 2 new mountain divisions, Project 15 A, 17A, PAK-FA, ADS, INS Vikramaditya just to name a few.

India's economic strength is growing every year and it will reflect in increasing funds for the Military in coming years and hence more funds for force modernization. I believe once AIII+ is deployed in substantial numbers along with all other projects in the pipeline, it will be that much harder for China to bully India like it is doing rite now.

My conclusion is China is too cunning to ignore all this. It knows the window of oppurtunity is fast evaporating. Simple numbers don't count much in modern warfare. One F-22 shot down so many F-16s before they ever record thier first kill in US war games. If and a BIG IF China is ever to attack India for any reason, it makes more strategic sense to attack it till it can before its too late. If it has any plans for agression with India it will act sooner rather than later.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 08 Feb 2008 05:46

Planned up gradation of 30 airfields for fast troop mobilization. Planned development of infrastructure in NE.

MDHoat
Planned upgrade in "Bharatiya lexicon" means 25yr--100 years. We planned for big ticket items in 80's, we are still testing validity. Upgrading infrastructure is only possible where it is in rudimentary state or stage not if doesn't exist. Chinese have been planning for a long time and they still are, when will it happen is anyone's guess. As a nation we have been planning for some smart, young turk to be the leader of this nation, all we have are "Post Senior Citizens" whose "Paer kabr mein hain, sir kadhai mein". Former Chinense President Jiang Zemin once made a comment to former French President Jaques Chirac, "Indians are the coward fighters, 62 war proved that fact, pakistanis are good fighters". It made headlines, there was never a acitonable rebuttal from our fearless leaders like Shekhar, Vajpaee etc.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 08 Feb 2008 06:12

China's Growing Number of Boomers

This refers to the undersea variety, of course

mdhoat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 06:20
Location: California, US

Postby mdhoat » 08 Feb 2008 09:24

Baljeet wrote:
Planned up gradation of 30 airfields for fast troop mobilization. Planned development of infrastructure in NE.

MDHoat
Planned upgrade in "Bharatiya lexicon" means 25yr--100 years. We planned for big ticket items in 80's, we are still testing validity. Upgrading infrastructure is only possible where it is in rudimentary state or stage not if doesn't exist. Chinese have been planning for a long time and they still are, when will it happen is anyone's guess. As a nation we have been planning for some smart, young turk to be the leader of this nation, all we have are "Post Senior Citizens" whose "Paer kabr mein hain, sir kadhai mein". Former Chinense President Jiang Zemin once made a comment to former French President Jaques Chirac, "Indians are the coward fighters, 62 war proved that fact, pakistanis are good fighters". It made headlines, there was never a acitonable rebuttal from our fearless leaders like Shekhar, Vajpaee etc.


I hear you Baljeet but I trust BJP (Likely next election winner) to give more importance and breathe a new life into the defense preparedness of this country, just like they did with Pokhran II. I believe it with all my life that Congress didn't had the balls to do the testing even till this date.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests