China Military Watch

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Naidu
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Aug 2001 11:31
Location: New Joisey, USA

Postby Naidu » 25 Feb 2008 23:57

Chinese Submarine Fleet Is Growing, Analysts Say (NY Times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world ... ?ref=world

American and other Western military analysts estimate that China has more than 30 advanced and increasingly stealthy submarines, and dozens of older, obsolete types. By the end of the decade, they say, China will have more submarines than the United States, although it will still lag behind in overall ability.


wesley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Feb 2008 19:40

Postby wesley » 26 Feb 2008 15:26

vivek_ahuja wrote: . . . the Lavi engine, the PW1120, produces 91.5KN of thrust.
. . .
we know that the J-10 engine produces around 76KN thrust.


Vivek:

It appears as if you are comparing the afterburning performance of the Lavi to the dry performance of the J-10. The performance figures that I have seen published for each engine (Sea Level Static of course) are as follows:

PW1120
91.7 kN Augmented
60.3 kN Dry

AL-31F
122.6 kN Augmented
79.4 kN Dry

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 26 Feb 2008 16:16

It appears as if you are comparing the afterburning performance of the Lavi to the dry performance of the J-10. The performance figures that I have seen published for each engine (Sea Level Static of course) are as follows:


Thanks for pointing that error out. I did that quick analysis at office in a hurry. My apologies.

In the meantime, I have now corrected the values and included a more realistic inclusion of the increase in the drag areas for increased diameters of the engines and the corresponding increase in the fuselage frontal areas.

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 29 Feb 2008 07:22

Guys,

The following is my analysis conducted as a build up on the airbase performance data previously presented for the J-8II deployment in an Indo-China air war using aerial refueling...

J-8II REFUELING SCENARIO

The previous analysis showed the reasons why the J-8II remains unusable from Tibetan airbases. Needless to say, the J-8II is available in very large quantities in the current and near-future PLAAF. It is therefore necessary to consider the possibility of its deployment using in-flight refueling from farther off airbases. Unfortunately, the geography of mainland china has meant that the airbases throughout most of western China have severe high-altitude airbase penalty on the J-8II unless the aircraft takes off from the most eastern airbases at a ridiculous expense in both in-flight refueling assets, time-over-target, aircraft density over the battlefields and flight hours.

To elaborate this point, this analysis is conducted with a simulated in-flight refueling exercise from airbases beyond Tibet. To generalize the analysis, four airbases were chosen in various sectors of China and having varying geographical nature. These four airbases are Kunming in Chengdu military region, Golmud, also in Chengdu military region, Zhangye in Lanzhou military region, and Shigatse in southern Tibet as a case reference point. The target region is taken as central Arunachal Pradesh, and the flight profile is taken as an air-to-air mission in escort format to a ground strike package heading to the above mentioned target zone.

This analysis builds upon the previous analysis that tested the J-8II for airbase penalties for altitude and runway length and forms the basis for the refueling analysis. However, the cases for MAX-LOAD and MAX-RANGE no longer apply, as the aircrafts are now simulated as receiving fuel in mid air to compensate for low take-off payloads. In other words, since the aircraft can theoretically take-off with near-zero fuels and immediately refuel from a tanker hovering above the base, what reduced payloads the J-8II suffers can now be equated entirely to the weapons load. However, since refueling above the airbase is highly unlikely, chances are that the J-8II will in fact have to carry some significant fuels amounts with it. What the analysis will work with then is the FUEL+WEAPONS LOAD in kilograms that the aircraft is theoretically able to lift off the runway with. Within this, fuel and weapons load are varied with as the case requires.

The following table summarizes the airbase parameters that affect the analysis:
Image

As can be seen from the above table, the first three airbases are beyond the normal flight range of the J-8II without refueling. This classifies these airbases as requiring tanker support for the deployment of J-8II interceptors over the target zone. The last airbase does not require tanker support just on the basis of range alone, but airbase penalties can cause that to happen, and requires further analysis as discussed below.
At this point we consider several operational considerations. One of these is that the tanker involved in these support operations are of the H-6 type. Secondly, any tanker cannot be closer to the border by lesser than four hundred and fifty kilometers for security reasons.

Finally, the idea is to be able to carry as much load as possible at lift-off from these airbases and compensate for range with fuel from the tankers. These will be the limitations on the tanker refueling flight profile scenario. Based on this, possible suggested flight profiles are shown on the map overlay below:

Image

BLUE FLIGHT: (Zhangye airbase, 1 H-6 tanker)

For this mission, the J-8IIs lift off from Zhangye airbase with enough fuel for a single non-return range of 630 Km and the remaining load in weapons as determined from the airbase penalty charts presented earlier. This amounts to a throw weight of ~1200Kg per airframe. The single H-6 meets the J-8IIs at the stipulated range and refuels them for a round trip range of 630Km and then again refuels them for an additional non-return range of 630Km back to the airbase. The amount of fuel then calculated to be for each J-8II is 5450Kg. This is the amount of fuel required from the tanker for each J-8II. The H-6 refueling capacity is said to be 18500Kg, which amounts to 3 J-8IIs with 2000Kg transfer fuel to spare.

Image

YELLOW FLIGHT: (Zhangye airbase, 2 H-6 tankers)

For this mission, the J-8IIs lift off from Zhangye airbase with enough fuel for a single non-return range of 220 Km and the remaining load in weapons as determined from the airbase penalty charts presented earlier. This amounts to a throw weight of ~2425Kg per airframe. The first H-6 meets the J-8IIs at the stipulated range and refuels them for a non-return range of 800Km. The second tanker meets the J-8IIs at the end of this flight and refuels them for a round trip range of 450Km. once the aircrafts return from their flight, this tanker once again fills the J-8IIs for a non-return range of 800Km where the first H-6 again meets the returning J-8IIs and refuels them for the return flight of 220Km back to airbase.
As can be seen, the deciding factor here is the offload from the second H-6 to the south. This amounts to be 4887.5Kg. This is the amount of fuel required from the tanker for each J-8II. The H-6 refueling capacity is said to be 18500Kg, which amounts to 3.78 (~3, assuming analysis over-performance factor) J-8IIs with no transfer fuel to spare.
Image


GREEN FLIGHT: (Golmud airbase, 1 H-6 tanker)


For this mission, the J-8IIs lift off from Golmud airbase with enough fuel for a single non-return range of 500 Km and the remaining load in weapons as determined from the airbase penalty charts presented earlier. This amounts to a throw weight of ~2200Kg per airframe. The single H-6 meets the J-8IIs at the stipulated range and refuels them for a round trip range of 450Km and then again refuels them for an additional non-return range of 500Km back to the airbase. The amount of fuel then calculated to be for each J-8II is 4050Kg. This is the amount of fuel required from the tanker for each J-8II. The H-6 refueling capacity is said to be 18500Kg, which amounts to 4 J-8IIs with 2300Kg transfer fuel to spare.
Image

ORANGE FLIGHT: (Kunming airbase, 1 H-6 tanker)

For this mission, the J-8IIs lift off from Kunming airbase with enough fuel for a single non-return range of 630 Km and the remaining load in weapons as determined from the airbase penalty charts presented earlier. This amounts to a throw weight of ~2700Kg per airframe. The single H-6 meets the J-8IIs at the stipulated range and refuels them for a round trip range of 800Km and then again refuels them for an additional non-return range of 630Km back to the airbase. The amount of fuel then calculated to be for each J-8II is 6400Kg. This is the amount of fuel required from the tanker for each J-8II. The H-6 refueling capacity is said to be 18500Kg, which amounts to 2 J-8IIs with 5700Kg transfer fuel to spare.
Image

WHITE FLIGHT: (Shigatse airbase, no tanker)

For this mission, the J-8IIs lift off from Shigatse airbase with enough fuel for a single non-return range of 500 Km and the remaining load in weapons as determined from the airbase penalty charts presented earlier. This amounts to a throw weight of 0Kg per airframe (i.e. the aircrafts are on gun load only).

The following table summarizes the results obtained from the analysis for a single mission:
Image


Notes:

a) The above analysis shows the limitations of the J-8II operational deployment even in a tanker availability scenario. The deployments show a much better performance per airframe when staged from airbases outside Tibet with tanker support as opposed to staging them from within Tibet. However, given the limited fleets of H-6s, the possibility of higher end aircrafts being staged with these tankers is much larger, further reducing the possibility of J-8s being involved in an air war with India.

b) The stated Chinese fleet of H-6 tankers hovers around the 12-20 mark, with more conversions possible in the future. This means that should ALL of these tankers be devoted SOLELY to the J-8II fleet, the aircrafts that can be brought over the battlefield is still surprisingly low, and the corresponding threat level to the IAF as very small.

c) Websites like Sinodefence.com openly overstate the PLAAF capabilities by suggesting that the H-6 tankers can be used to refuel up to SIX aircrafts for a single mission to increase the range of the J-8II from 800 to 1200Km while refusing the state that this is only for a highly limited set of parameters and airbase data (i.e. sea level and so on). The above analysis clearly shows that once airbase penalty issues are considered, the number of aircrafts supported by each tanker is dramatically reduced. Hence, caution should be shown while interpreting data from these websites.

-Vivek

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

Postby alokgupt » 29 Feb 2008 08:04

PRC will instead stage J-10 and Su 27/30 than dedicate so much tanker resources for J-8 or J-7. So we should instead carefully watch the growth of J-10 and Su 30 numbers in PLAAF inventory and associated air base upgrades in Tibet.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 29 Feb 2008 08:12

PRC will instead stage J-10 and Su 27/30 than dedicate so much tanker resources for J-8 or J-7. So we should instead carefully watch the growth of J-10 and Su 30 numbers in PLAAF inventory and associated air base upgrades in Tibet.


Exactly. That was the expected decision even without the analysis. nevertheless, this analysis should provide numbers in any argument rather than pure speculations.

Once you calculate the time required to approach and then leave the battlefield for these aircrafts, I am afraid the aircraft density over the battlefield is still only a fraction of what the IAF can put up in the same time. the PLA better have some decent air defences with them on the ground, because the PLAAF is going to be seen only slightly overhead.

-Vivek

shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Postby shetty » 29 Feb 2008 19:11


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

Postby Vick » 04 Mar 2008 07:13

China's New Carrier Rocket To Debut In 2014
China's new generation of carrier rocket, the Long March 5, with a maximum payload capacity of 25 tons, will come into use in 2014, said an official with the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology on Sunday.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10055
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 04 Mar 2008 09:08

Russians arms supplies slowing down
Finally,Russians waking up to the Chinese threat to their far east?

rajkhalsa
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 43
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 09:55

Postby rajkhalsa » 04 Mar 2008 10:22

Something I stumbled upon

http://bwl.top81.cn/war_cn/india.htm

Pages and pages of articles about the 1962 Chinese war with India. It's in Chinese, but altavista translator can give you a gist.

Amazing the amount of rhetoric and propaganda....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 04 Mar 2008 15:02

Info on Chinese SSBMs.Compare available data on the ATV.Interesting analysis that Russia had little to do with the new Chinese nuclear boats ,judging from their "vintage design".

China's nuclear expansion at sea
By ANDREI CHANG
Column: Military MightPublished: February 29, 2008TOOLBAR
Print Story
Add CommentsHONG KONG, China, Some high-resolution images of China's Type 094 SSBN have shed new light on this mysterious strategic missile nuclear-powered submarine of the People's Liberation Army Navy. Satellite photos released by Google Earth reveal two of these new submarines at the Huludao Shipyard in northeast China.
The 094 SSBN's hull structure has been upgraded from the 092 SSBN, which means the later version is not a new submarine design. This indicates that despite almost 30 years of development, China's technological standard in the design of nuclear-powered submarines is still not very advanced.

Between the tall bulging SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) compartments and the submarine hull, there are quite large drainage holes. Nearly 100 drainage holes dot the SLBM compartment. This type of coarse structure is a sharp contrast to the clean and streamlined design of nuclear submarines in the United States, Britain and France.

The September 2007 issue of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly featured a comparative analysis of the subtle differences between the Type 092 and 094 SSBNs. The sail of the 094 is obviously higher than that of the 092. The section connecting the rear of the sail and the SLBM compartment is at an angle of 90 degrees on the 094, while this angle is approximately 85 degrees on the 092.

This is the most obvious difference between the two submarines; because of this, the SLBM compartment on the 094 is higher. This indicates that the 094 SSBN is fitted for the new 8,000-kilomter-range JL2 SLBM.

Nonetheless, the two 094 SSBNs at the Huludao Shipyard have not been fitted with JL2 SLBMs, because the draught is quite high. From the satellite photos it appears that the two 094 SSBNs are supposed to have the same draught and the same length.

In that regard, it is apparent that the 094 SSBN has not directly fired JL2 SLBMs up to the present time. This also confirms the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies that JL2 SLBMs are not yet operational in the Chinese Navy.

Sea tests of the 094 SSBN began in the summer of 2005. A general impression is that these submarines were constructed in a rush, which would explain the obvious traces of the earlier 092 model on the newer SSBN.

This also shows that the gap between China's technological standard in nuclear submarine design and the world's leading military powers is widening, and the mentality of the Chinese designers is somewhat ossified.

The hull design structure alone tells that the 094 SSBN's noise control technology is not comparable to that of European or U.S. submarines. This could be made up for by the 8,000-kilometer range of the JL2 SLBM, however.

The structural designs of the 094 SSBN and 093 SSN -- China's new nuclear attack submarine -- provide evidence that Russia was never involved in the design of these two Chinese strategic nuclear submarines. An authoritative designer at the Russian RUBIN Central Design Bureau has confirmed this on several occasions.

This author reported earlier that China had imported one Russian automatic welding machine for building nuclear submarines at the end of the 1990s, indicating that Russian technical assistance and guidance would have been expected in the construction of the 094 project. However, Russian experts in this field say they never knew what the automatic welding machines China imported were used for.

It is typical Chinese practice to import Russian equipment, but to seek technical guidance and maintenance work from Ukraine or Belarus. This not only helps China keep secret what it is working on, but also ensures that China does not have to rely solely on Russia.

China's internal military journals have disclosed that in the course of building the 094 China did invite experts from the Ukrainian Badon Research Institute, who provided technological guidance in the welding technologies for the submarine's reactors.

It seems that China built its latest SSBN using the fundamental design concept of the earlier 092 version as a shortcut to enable rapid deployment of strategic nuclear submarines as part of its effort to deter the United States from intervention in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

The 094 SSBN still has only 12 SLBM compartments. Modern strategic nuclear submarines in Europe and the United States are normally fitted with 16-24 SLBM compartments. Too few strategic ballistic missiles might not pose an effective nuclear deterrence against opponents.

The number of nuclear missiles fitted on board alone indicates that the overall operational capability of the 094 SSBN is only equivalent to the standard of U.S. or Soviet SSBNs in the late 1960s. Nonetheless, China has unveiled images of a strategic nuclear submarine fitted with 24 SLBMs, the design structure of which is still quite close to that of the 092/094 SSBN. This indicates that the next upgrade, the 096 SSBN, will carry more nuclear warheads.

The upgrading of the 092 SSBN in the mid-1990s gave the PLA Navy the 092M, which was later used as the platform for the 094 SSBM development project. Since the first 094 SSBN has not yet officially entered service, the fact that the navy is building more 094 nuclear submarines implies it is satisfied with the results of a series of tests on the upgraded version 092M.

The 092M and 094's command and control systems appear to be basically the same, judging from the same structure of the sonar rectifier hoods fitted on the two types of submarines. The 092M SSBN is fitted with a 262B sonar system.

China's official documents say that a H/SQ G-207 flank sonar array is fitted on the 093 SSN, but it is not known whether this same sonar system has also been fitted on the 094 SSBN.

--

(Andrei Chang is editor-in-chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto Canada.)

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

Postby alokgupt » 04 Mar 2008 17:48

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1204628 ... lenews_wsj

China Plans to Increase
Defense Spending by Almost 18%
By GORDON FAIRCLOUGH and JASON LEOW
March 4, 2008 6:14 a.m.

BEIJING – China said it plans to boost defense spending by nearly 18% this year, using proceeds of the country's rapid economic growth in an effort to modernize its military – and stirring unease in Washington and Asian capitals.

Tamang
BRFite
Posts: 695
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Nai Dilli, Bharatvarsh

Postby Tamang » 05 Mar 2008 00:32


Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 524
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Postby Ankit Desai » 05 Mar 2008 01:20

An interview It is time to wake up to Chinese incursions

Rijiju has pointed out for long that the Indian Army is not prepared for a conflict with China and today this is an accepted fact. The young MP still regrets that only cosmetic actions are being taken to correct this imbalance


Ankit

wrdos
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31

Q&A: China's military budget

Postby wrdos » 05 Mar 2008 08:02

Q&A: China's military budget

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7277382.stm

Image

China has announced another huge increase in its military budget, and the US and other nations have expressed concern over what they see as a continuing military build-up.

How much is China spending on defence?

Chinese soldiers in Guangzhou, file image
The People's Liberation Army is the largest in the world
The Beijing government has announced a 17.6% rise in its defence budget, meaning it will spend about 417.8bn yuan ($59bn; £30bn) over the next year.

This increase was not unexpected. Between 2003 and 2007, defence spending increased by an average of 15.8% a year.

Officials say the rises were necessary to make up ground on other nations, because between 1979 and 1989 military spending declined by an average of 5.8% a year.

"These increases were of a compensatory nature to make up for the weak defence foundation," said Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for China's legislature, the National People's Congress.

But other nations and international organisations fear that China spends far more than it admits.

In a report released just before Beijing announced its budget, the US Defense Department estimated China's military spending in 2007 at between $97bn and $139bn - more than double the figure given by Beijing.

How does China compare with other countries?

The US spends far more on defence than any other nation.

Not including the cost of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, US President George W Bush recently asked for a budget of $515bn for the next fiscal year.


It's impossible for neighbouring countries and others in the world to understand 20 straight years of double-digit increases
Nobutaka Machimura
Japanese government spokesman

According to recent figures, the US spends more than 4% of its GDP on defence. China admits to spending just 1.4%.

In cash terms, the UK government admits to being the next biggest spender on defence, setting aside $64.7bn for the next year. This accounts for 2.5% of the GDP.

Beijing's official figures put its spending about on a par with France - although if the Pentagon's figures are correct, China has the second-biggest defence budget in the world.

What will China spend the money on?

Mr Jiang says the huge budget is needed to safeguard "independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity".

Officials say military personnel need better salaries, better training and higher-quality meals.

They also claim there will be more spending on fuel after recent hikes in oil prices.

billboard promoting China's People's Liberation Army on display in Beijing, Tuesday, March 4, 2008
China is determined to be a powerful international player
Technological hardware is also needed to enable China to conduct military operations under what officials term "IT-based conditions".

The BBC's China analyst, Shirong Chen, says the country is developing its own costly GPS technology - called the Big Dipper - which will involve sending 35 satellites into orbit.

And he says the government is faced with a spiralling pensions bill, with the number of retired soldiers rising each year.

What do other nations think about China's expenditure?

The US is not happy. During the past few years, Washington has repeatedly accused China of spending as much as three times its officially-declared budget.

The BBC's world affairs correspondent, Nick Childs, says the US is determined to maintain its position as a major Pacific power, while Beijing seems equally determined to assert what it sees as its rightful place on the world stage.

He says both sides know that China has the greatest potential of any country to challenge US military power in the long term.

It is a fluid and edgy regional strategic dynamic that also sucks in the other big Asian powers - like Russia, Japan and India, our correspondent adds.

These countries, too, are wary of China's military rise.

Japanese government spokesman Nobutaka Machimura said of China's latest spending announcement: "It's impossible for neighbouring countries and others in the world to understand 20 straight years of double-digit increases".

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby Hitesh » 05 Mar 2008 13:22

No way it is 1.4% of China's GDP in real terms. It is actually over 3%.

Gaurav_S
BRFite
Posts: 786
Joined: 16 Mar 2006 15:40
Location: Out on other planet
Contact:

Postby Gaurav_S » 05 Mar 2008 19:02

Image

This is one of the most interesting finds in Google Earth in quite some time. A few weeks ago a first time poster, called KenGrok, at the Google Earth Community (GEC) discovered a very exact scale model of some mountainous region located in the middle of a desolate area in north central China. Seen in Google Earth the huge scale model is .9 km tall by .7 km wide. It is adjacent to what looks like a military base with many camouflaged vehicles. Last week, the same poster found the location the scale model represents - a region occupied by China but claimed by India near north central India. If you turn on the "Borders" layer in GE you will see they are colored red to indicate the dispute.


Dunno what is being to referred to?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 05 Mar 2008 19:10

Dunno what is being to referred to?


Oh, its nothing. Just a reproduction of the Aksai-Chin region. No biggie.

All they are doing is planning an invasion or preparing to defend against one.

I wonder how the Indian Army does the same. I bet they do it like I do: on Google-earth :lol:

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 05 Mar 2008 23:28

China announces big rise in military spending, amid US tensions
Beijing (AFP) March 4, 2008
China said Tuesday its defence spending would jump 17.6 percent this year but insisted the rise was moderate, amid a flare-up in tensions with the United States over Beijing's growing military muscle.

Military spending in 2008 will reach 417.8 billion yuan (57.2 billion dollars at the end-2007 exchange rate), a spokesman for China's parliament told reporters ahead of the legislature's annual session beginning Wednesday.

As Jiang Enzhu announced the figures, he also renewed a warning to rival Taiwan that its plans for a March 22 referendum on United Nations membership was putting an already uneasy peace between the two sides at risk.

Nevertheless, Jiang said the budget rise, following a similar jump in 2007, was not excessive, with the spending coming off a low base and helping to boost soldiers' incomes as well as beef up the military's high-tech capabilities.

"In recent years the Chinese government has moderately increased its spending on national defence on the basis of sustained, steady and fast economic growth and rapid build-up of government revenues," Jiang said.

Jiang said China's military spending was just 1.4 percent of its gross domestic product last year, compared with 4.6 percent in the United States and three percent in Britain.

The release of the budget figures came after the Pentagon published a report that expressed concern about China's growing military might and said a lack of transparency from Beijing posed risks to regional and international stability.

The Pentagon said China's military spending in 2007 was between 97 and 139 billion dollars, well in excess of Beijing's official budgeted figure of 45 billion dollars.

The Pentagon further raised concerns over China's development of cruise and ballistic missiles, its testing of an anti-satellite weapon last year and an apparent rise in cyber-espionage emanating from the Asian nation.

"China's expanding and improving military capabilities are changing East Asian military balances; improvements in China's strategic capabilities have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region," the report said.

China's foreign ministry reacted angrily to the Pentagon's claims, saying it was a "serious distortion of facts".

"China is resolutely against this and has made solemn representations to the United States... this will do no good to our bilateral relations," ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters.

"We urge the United States to drop its Cold War mentality."

Japan also said on Tuesday that the international community remained concerned about a lack of transparency by China's military.

The Pentagon report warned that although the situation in the Taiwan Strait remained stable, the balance of military power was continuing to shift in China's favour.

In response, foreign ministry spokesman Qin bluntly told the United States to stop selling weapons to Taiwan and to end all military ties with the island.

Parliamentary spokesman Jiang, meanwhile, warned Taiwan would pay a "heavy price" if its referendum on joining the UN was endorsed by the public.

"We will make well our preparations and firmly curb the dangerous activities of Taiwan independence forces," Jiang said.

China and Taiwan split following the end of a civil war in 1949 and Beijing insists the two sides must eventually reunify, by force if necessary.

China's parliament, the National People's Congress, will formally endorse the 2008 military budget during its annual session, which will last until March 18.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is scheduled to give an annual government work report to the parliament on Wednesday, during which official economic growth and inflation forecasts for the year are expected to be announced.

"(The Pentagon report) is a serious distortion of facts and attempts to interfere in China's affairs," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters.

"China is resolutely against this and has made solemn representations to the United States... this will do no good to our bilateral relations."

Qin insisted China was not a threat to any country.

"We urge the United States to drop its Cold War mentality and have a correct understanding of China and China's development, correct its wrongdoings and contribute to mutual trust and constructive cooperation," he said.

The Pentagon on Monday expressed a range of concerns about China's growing military might, including what it called a lack of transparency that posed risks to regional and international stability.

"China's expanding and improving military capabilities are changing East Asian military balances; improvements in China's strategic capabilities have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region," the Pentagon report said.

The Pentagon further raised concerns over Beijing's development of cruise and ballistic missiles, its testing of an anti-satellite weapon last year and an apparent rise in cyber-espionage emanating from China.

It also said China's military spending in 2007 was between 97 and 139 billion dollars, well in excess of Beijing's official budgeted figure of 45 billion dollars.

On Tuesday, China announced its defence budget for 2008 would be about 57 billion dollars, a rise of 17.6 percent from 2007 but far less than the US estimate.

Qin said the military build-up was defensive in nature, aimed purely at safeguarding the country's extensive borders, and was in keeping with the country's rapid economic development.

He also criticised what he called attempts in the United States to concoct a "China threat" and said that the Chinese government had every right to build a sound military.

"For any country to keep a justified military power is natural," he said.


Although spokesman Qin did not highlight it, China's official budget for 2008 remains about 10 times less than the nearly 600 billion dollars US President George W. Bush proposed for US defence and military spending this year.

Experts have said China's build-up appeared aimed at retaking democratically ruled Taiwan, which it views as a renegade province, and countering possible US intervention on Taiwan's behalf in the event of war.

But Qin said the United States was adding to the military tensions by selling weapons to Taiwan and he called for that to stop.

"We urge the United States to... stop selling weapons to Taiwan, cease military ties with Taiwan, stop sending erroneous messages to Taiwan secessionist forces and work with China to safeguard peace and security across the Taiwan Strait," he said.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 05 Mar 2008 23:46

Analysis: China's nuke expansion at sea
Hong Kong (UPI) Mar 03, 2008
Some high-resolution images of China's Type 094 SSBN have shed new light on this mysterious strategic missile nuclear-powered submarine of the People's Liberation Army Navy. Satellite photos released by Google Earth reveal two of these new submarines at the Huludao Shipyard in northeast China.

The 094 SSBN's hull structure has been upgraded from the 092 SSBN, which means the later version is not a new submarine design. This indicates that despite almost 30 years of development, China's technological standard in the design of nuclear-powered submarines is still not very advanced.

Between the tall bulging SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) compartments and the submarine hull, there are quite large drainage holes. Nearly 100 drainage holes dot the SLBM compartment. This type of coarse structure is a sharp contrast to the clean and streamlined design of nuclear submarines in the United States, Britain and France.

The September 2007 issue of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly featured a comparative analysis of the subtle differences between the Type 092 and 094 SSBNs. The sail of the 094 is obviously higher than that of the 092. The section connecting the rear of the sail and the SLBM compartment is at an angle of 90 degrees on the 094, while this angle is approximately 85 degrees on the 092.

This is the most obvious difference between the two submarines; because of this, the SLBM compartment on the 094 is higher. This indicates that the 094 SSBN is fitted for the new 8,000-kilomter-range JL2 SLBM.

Nonetheless, the two 094 SSBNs at the Huludao Shipyard have not been fitted with JL2 SLBMs, because the draught is quite high. From the satellite photos it appears that the two 094 SSBNs are supposed to have the same draught and the same length.

In that regard, it is apparent that the 094 SSBN has not directly fired JL2 SLBMs up to the present time. This also confirms the analysis of U.S. intelligence agencies that JL2 SLBMs are not yet operational in the Chinese navy.

Sea tests of the 094 SSBN began in the summer of 2005. A general impression is that these submarines were constructed in a rush, which would explain the obvious traces of the earlier 092 model on the newer SSBN.

This also shows that the gap between China's technological standard in nuclear submarine design and the world's leading military powers is widening, and the mentality of the Chinese designers is somewhat ossified.

The hull design structure alone tells that the 094 SSBN's noise control technology is not comparable to that of European or U.S. submarines. This could be made up for by the 8,000-kilometer range of the JL2 SLBM, however.

The structural designs of the 094 SSBN and 093 SSN -- China's new nuclear attack submarine -- provide evidence that Russia was never involved in the design of these two Chinese strategic nuclear submarines. An authoritative designer at the Russian RUBIN Central Design Bureau has confirmed this on several occasions.

This author reported earlier that China had imported one Russian automatic welding machine for building nuclear submarines at the end of the 1990s, indicating that Russian technical assistance and guidance would have been expected in the construction of the 094 project. However, Russian experts in this field say they never knew what the automatic welding machines China imported were used for.

It is typical Chinese practice to import Russian equipment, but to seek technical guidance and maintenance work from Ukraine or Belarus. This not only helps China keep secret what it is working on, but also ensures that China does not have to rely solely on Russia.

China's internal military journals have disclosed that in the course of building the 094 China did invite experts from the Ukrainian Badon Research Institute, who provided technological guidance in the welding technologies for the submarine's reactors.

It seems that China built its latest SSBN using the fundamental design concept of the earlier 092 version as a shortcut to enable rapid deployment of strategic nuclear submarines as part of its effort to deter the United States from intervention in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

The 094 SSBN still has only 12 SLBM compartments. Modern strategic nuclear submarines in Europe and the United States are normally fitted with 16-24 SLBM compartments. Too few strategic ballistic missiles might not pose an effective nuclear deterrence against opponents.

The number of nuclear missiles fitted on board alone indicates that the overall operational capability of the 094 SSBN is only equivalent to the standard of U.S. or Soviet SSBNs in the late 1960s. Nonetheless, China has unveiled images of a strategic nuclear submarine fitted with 24 SLBMs, the design structure of which is still quite close to that of the 092/094 SSBN. This indicates that the next upgrade, the 096 SSBN, will carry more nuclear warheads.

The upgrading of the 092 SSBN in the mid-1990s gave the PLA navy the 092M, which was later used as the platform for the 094 SSBM development project. Since the first 094 SSBN has not yet officially entered service, the fact that the navy is building more 094 nuclear submarines implies it is satisfied with the results of a series of tests on the upgraded version 092M.

The 092M and 094's command and control systems appear to be basically the same, judging from the same structure of the sonar rectifier hoods fitted on the two types of submarines. The 092M SSBN is fitted with a 262B sonar system.

China's official documents say that an H/SQ G-207 flank sonar array is fitted on the 093 SSN, but it is not known whether this same sonar system has also been fitted on the 094 SSBN.

(Andrei Chang is editor in chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto.)

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

Postby alokgupt » 06 Mar 2008 08:21

The Pentagon's 2008 Report on China's Military is out:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Ch ... ort_08.pdf

wesley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Feb 2008 19:40

Postby wesley » 06 Mar 2008 17:20

alokgupt wrote:The Pentagon's 2008 Report on China's Military is out:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Ch ... ort_08.pdf


Given how many news articles have quoted the report, it's good to see the original finally referenced. A few items that caught my eye:

  • "China has the most active ballistic missile program in the world." (page 2)
  • "Officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have referred to China as the leading espionage threat to the United States." (page 6)
  • "In November 2007, despite a general improvement in bilateral relations over the course of the year, PRC troops destroyed an abandoned Indian bunker near the tri-border area in Bhutan, ignoring the protests of Indian officials." (page 11)
  • China's official defense budget exceeded that of Japan for the first time in 2007, and is approaching the defense expenditures of Russia. Needless to say, it also exceeded the resources devoted by India. Estimates of China's actual military spending, however, range from two to three times the official total. (page 33)

shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Postby shetty » 07 Mar 2008 18:25

Be combat ready, China asks armed forces

Personally, I believe once they tackle the Taiwan issue (one way or the other) they will come at us with everything. I have no doubts about that. Question is will we do something about it at war footing NOW or will we wait till its too late.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6846
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Postby shyamd » 08 Mar 2008 07:17

“Being only 180 nautical miles from the exit of the Straights of Hormuz, Gadwar will enable Pakistan to control the world’s energy jugular and interdiction of Indian tankersâ€

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

Postby alokgupt » 08 Mar 2008 17:48

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 846675.cms

With the number of its fighter squadrons (each has 12 to 18 jets) dipping below 30 for the first time, IAF is obviously worried that it's nowhere near even its sanctioned strength of 39.5 squadrons.

This when IAF has identified a requirement of 44 squadrons to meet the 'possible contingency' of 'a full conflict' with Pakistan and 'a dissuasive posture' against China. A simultaneous conflict with Pakistan and China, with the capability to hold Pakistan and defend against China, will require 55 squadrons

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 08 Mar 2008 18:36

Distributed Network warfare:
Chinese hackers: No site is safe

The three belong to what some Western experts say is a civilian cyber militia in China, launching attacks on government and private Web sites around the world...

... One hacker says he is a former computer operator in the People's Liberation Army; another is a marketing graduate; and Xiao Chen says he is a self-taught programmer.

"First, you must know about the Web site you want to attack. You must know what program it is written with," says Xiao Chen. "There is a saying, 'Know about both yourself and the enemy, and you will be invincible.'"

....

Private computer experts in the United States from iDefense Security Intelligence, which provides cybersecurity advice to governments and Fortune 500 companies, say the group's site "appears to be an important site in the broader Chinese hacking community."


"former PLA" is like "former CIA" or "former ISI".

But most interesting of all:

.. Xiao Chen says it has been operating for more than three years, with 10,000 registered users. The site offers tools, articles, news and flash tutorials about hacking.

:eek: :shock:

Wonder if they have a Cricket thread. :roll:

shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Postby shetty » 09 Mar 2008 21:49

[url=http://www.forceindia.net/cover18.asp]China’s electromagnetic rail guns and ballistic missiles spell danger to Indian warships
By Prasun K. Sengupta[/url]

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3567
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 09 Mar 2008 23:32

These dips in Squadron strengths are the result of poor planning and unanticipated decline in economic output in the early to mid 1990s.

Diplomacy and soft power needs to manage the local geo-political scenario in our neighbourhood for the next 12 years. After 2020 Indian muscle can take over and even take the initiative in the north and west simultaneously.

soutikghosh
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Location: new delhi
Contact:

Postby soutikghosh » 11 Mar 2008 17:58

Interesting link on PRC. A bit old but still interesting.

http://www.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/us ... -2006.html[/img]

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10055
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 11 Mar 2008 18:59

Link is not working!!! :-?

JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Postby JimmyJ » 11 Mar 2008 19:39

sum wrote:Link is not working!!! :-?



Try this, I believe this is what is the report stated above
http://www.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/us ... -2006.html

wrdos
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31

Pair of Chinese fighter planes form PLAAF’s high-low mix

Postby wrdos » 12 Mar 2008 14:31

Pair of Chinese fighter planes form PLAAF’s high-low mix
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-ne ... 11b9605731
By David Donald
February 21, 2008
Aircraft

China’s march to overhaul its front-line fighter fleet is making good progress, thanks to two major indigenous production programs involving the Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11 models. The Chengdu product is an all-Chinese design that is now entering service in numbers. The J-11 is a license-built Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, which in its latest production version incorporates important Chinese components.

Together, the two types are providing the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) with a “high/lowâ€

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 807
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Y. Kanan » 13 Mar 2008 08:15

shetty wrote:Personally, I believe once they tackle the Taiwan issue (one way or the other) they will come at us with everything. I have no doubts about that. Question is will we do something about it at war footing NOW or will we wait till its too late.


The conventional wisdom says China's arms buildup is directed at Taiwan.

WRONG!

To invade Taiwan would probably bring China's armed forces into combat with the US itself. This would be a monstrous undertaking. Even without the entry of the US into such a conflict, taking on Taiwan alone would be extremely costly.

No, I don't see China doing this -- too risky, too much to lose. Especially with virgin armed forces that lack any combat experience whatsoever.

What seems a lot more likely to me, is that China will beat up on a weaker opponent first.

That would be us.

They'll manufacture another 1962-style conflict, somewhere along our border, probably with Bangladeshi and/or Pakistani help. Or such a conflict could start with Chinese incursion\intervention\meddling in Bhutan, Nepal, or Burma. There are any number of scenarios where China could manufacture a convenient war with us.

From the Chinese POV, fighting a war with India has several advantages:

1) They can muster a lot more combat power against us than they ever could against Taiwan, because we don't have an ocean separating us.
2) Unlike the US, we lack the capacity to bomb China's most vital areas (short of firing nukes at them).
3) Speaking of nukes, our arsenal is puny compared to China's - thus we have no reason to escalate. Nor any stomach for such a thing.
4) There's no risk we're going to wipe out China's costly sattelite network - we lack the capability.
5) If things go badly for China, they can always declare we've been taught a lesson and withdraw. It's not like we have the capacity to counterattack, or bomb China's thriving coastal cities.
6) There's little economic risk in attacking India - China's doesn't depend on our trade and we can't hurt them with broad-ranging sanctions or get other countries to follow suit.

So win or lose, there's no real risk involved in attacking India. China's armed forces will need combat experience before they're ready to take on the US.

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Re: Pair of Chinese fighter planes form PLAAF’s high-low m

Postby asprinzl » 13 Mar 2008 08:38

wrdos wrote:Pair of Chinese According to reports in the Chinese media, the J-10 and Flanker have met several times in mock combats, with the J-10 reportedly coming out on top in most engagements.


There are several things I have heard. One that horse manure mixed with a good load of soy sauce and blue cheese dressing make good Valentine's Day dinner. Second that ants from make good midwifes. So, I trully believe this part of the report. That is why the Pak-Is-Satanists are going gaga over Chinese electronics and weapons aboard their planes.
Avram

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

Postby mdhoat » 13 Mar 2008 11:45

Even without the entry of the US into such a conflict, taking on Taiwan alone would be extremely costly.

No, I don't see China doing this -- too risky, too much to lose. Especially with virgin armed forces that lack any combat experience whatsoever.

What seems a lot more likely to me, is that China will beat up on a weaker opponent first.

That would be us.


Y. Kanan what evidence or line of thinking are you basing you assumptions on? As measured with Google Earth, the average distance between China mainland and Taiwan is only 100 miles. For current Chinese capabilities, thats nothing. Without US help, China can overwhelm Taiwan in a day or so. And what is too risky? And what exactly China has to lose if it goes to war with Taiwan minus any US intervention? Chinese generals will get goose bumps just by the thought of it.

On the other hand warring with India is a different playing field. Indian navy's supremacy in IOR vs China naval capabilities is well known fact. China has very limited options to go on the offensive via land coz of Tibet's average height, Himalayas, lack of strategic air bases in Tibet or northeast in sufficient no, far too many bottlenecks India can capitalize on. India has a qualitative edge over Chinese equipment. Just look at the sheer numerical and qualitative strength of Indian defense forces vs Taiwan's.

As for your assumption that China can muster more combative power against us than it can against Taiwan. I believe it should be the other way around. I am surprised what make you think India is weaker than Taiwan or any other country in Asia. All other listed points in your post apply equally to any nation in South Asia.

Please don't confuse India's present military strength and that of 60's era. Both are worlds apart. Contrary to normal thinking, since early 90's, Indian defense preparedness is more inclined to contain the threat of China than Pakistan. Today I dare say bring it on.....
Last edited by mdhoat on 13 Mar 2008 13:59, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Pair of Chinese fighter planes form PLAAF’s high-low m

Postby mdhoat » 13 Mar 2008 11:58

asprinzl wrote:
wrdos wrote:Pair of Chinese According to reports in the Chinese media, the J-10 and Flanker have met several times in mock combats, with the J-10 reportedly coming out on top in most engagements.


There are several things I have heard. One that horse manure mixed with a good load of soy sauce and blue cheese dressing make good Valentine's Day dinner. Second that ants from make good midwifes. So, I trully believe this part of the report. That is why the Pak-Is-Satanists are going gaga over Chinese electronics and weapons aboard their planes.
Avram


Well said Asprinzl. I can already see PDFeers (Pakistani Defence Forum) thumping their chests and performing a yagya over this report. Amen to their dreams of shotting down 10 MKI's with their all almighty JF-17's. (Infact they are ignorant enough or brainwashed to such a degree that they seriously discuss these kind of numbers on the mentioned forum..) :D :roll: :eek:
Last edited by mdhoat on 13 Mar 2008 12:17, edited 1 time in total.

gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Postby gopal.suri » 13 Mar 2008 12:05

The only reason I see India loosing is political indecision and treachery.

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

Postby mdhoat » 13 Mar 2008 12:21

gopal.suri wrote:The only reason I see India loosing is political indecision and treachery.


BINGO, If you are pointing to the Left parties, than you are right on the mark. They are bane of a Vibrant and United India.

wesley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Feb 2008 19:40

Re: Pair of Chinese fighter planes form PLAAF’s high-low m

Postby wesley » 13 Mar 2008 16:32

wrdos wrote:According to reports in the Chinese media, the J-10 and Flanker have met several times in mock combats, with the J-10 reportedly coming out on top in most engagements.


Thanks for posting the news article wrdos.

I have heard these claims numerous times regarding Chinese engagements between Su-27, Su-30 or J-11 squadrons and the J-10. A number of thoughts cross my mind.

  • I believe it has been fairly well established that the Su-30MKK fighters supplied to China were intentionally down-graded by the Russians.

    Unlike the Su-30MKI's supplied to India, the Chinese aircraft are equipped neither with canards nor thrust vectoring, and the avionics package is also understood to be inferior that supplied to India. The Chinese and Indian aircraft were not even built at the same Russian plant.

    Russia has its own, obvious reasons for limiting the capabilities of the weapons that it supplies to its Chinese neighbor.
  • A contest between an Su-27/-30 and a J-10 would be a classic exercise in dissimilar air combat. I'm not surprised that the Chinese pilots, who receive far less flight time per year than their counterparts in India, would have difficulty understanding how to take full advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft.

    The Su-27/-30 should have a clear advantage in thrust-to-weight ratio. That can be translated into acceleration and climb rate. The J-10, meanwhile, should have an advantage in terms of wing loading, providing it with a better intantaneous turn rate. The last thing that a Flanker pilot should want to do is to get into a turning contest with a J-10. A skilled pilot would know how to make the most of each airplane's qualities. Not so the PLAAF.
  • Given the massive radar signature of the Su-27/-30 (especially without RAM coatings on any of the bulkheads), and the down-graded radar systems that the Russians would have supplied to China, the two aircraft are probably at near parity in the BVR arena.


In short, I do not believe that we can take the Chinese experience (even if the media reports are true), as a full indication of what a confrontation between an Indian Su-30MKI and a Chinese J-10 would look like. Indian pilots have far more flight experience than their counterparts in the PLAAF, and have a more capable electronic suite to rely on.

Nonetheless, the J-10 remains a force to be reckoned with, particularly if produced in large numbers. I would also expect the level of professionalism displayed by the US-trained, Pakistani air force (which will also be deploying the J-10 sometime soon) to be greater than that of their Chinese counterparts. Between the two aircraft, I believe that India has more to be worried about from Chinese J-10s, than from Chinese Su-30s.

Avid
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 11:31
Location: Earth

Postby Avid » 13 Mar 2008 17:32

The Chinese aren't about to take on India.

Would the PLA-F-N like to? Possibly. Will the political leadership -- very highly unlikely!

On a recent long conversation with an elderly and very wise Chinese political science professor, I picked up this. This might give an added dimension to the thinking of folks

As the younger generation of Chinese come to forefront in political as well as armed forces, this threat is going to escalate faster than anyone realizes. This is a generation that has been raised completely on the Communist propaganda (which the communists themselves did not believe but fed the people). Note that this is second and third generation post revolution, so their disconnect from the revolution and pre-revolution is complete. Their parents had more than half bought into the propaganda, and so for these generations the notion of Han supremacy is complete and they are dying for chance to prove it. This younger leadership is at the helm or almost at the helm of PLA/F/N but not completely in control of the political leadership.

The threat is not as much from the buildup of economy and armed forces as it is going to come from the change in leaders and their mindset in control of these. He mentioned that while his generation and subsequent ones look at India fondly, the generations heading towards head of the power have been raised on suspicion and supremacy.

According to him this is one of the underlying reasons for recent spur of confidence building actions between India and China. a) Stem and possibly reverse the threat escalation through personnel level interactions, b) Resolve the border dispute to de-escalate this threat, and c) Realization on part of Chinese leadership that their "India containment strategy" is failing and they are very wary that it will end up turning on its head to turn in "China containment strategy"

Combine this with likely emergence of younger leaders in India down the road to complete the top ranks of political leadership (10 yrs at most) and purge of the armed forces leaders who are even 1 removed from those who experience 1962, but are well aware of 1971 thumping given by IA/F/N - these are going to be more assertive and not so tentative in their approach. Beefed by modernization and higher comfort with hi-tech everything, the changes we are seeing in IA/F/N are set to accelerate and not likely to be linear.

Summary point -- the tensions between India and China will likely be at their worst about 10 yrs down the road, unless actively managed to continually reduce the number of points of contention.

If we want to watch this Chinese threat, we ought to keep an eye on their leadership and not as much on their buildup. Track the ages of people at the helm and you will get much better idea.

Surprisingly enough his thinking was that for India should in short-term force the hand of the senior Chinese political leadership to come to table and work on solutions. Since the economy build up is already on way, the only remaining element is to ensure a more rapid high profile military buildup without sabre rattling. A delayed build up from India will likely face a younger leadership which will more possibly choose the route of arms-race because of ingrained belief in their supremacy and not work on solutions.

I can go into more details... if folks are interested.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests