China Military Watch

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 25 Jun 2009 09:44

Deepening Naval Cooperation between Islamabad and Beijing

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 25 Jun 2009 13:02

p_saggu wrote: Chinese outposts even along the border have a 'factory' where their soldiers make electronics or some product for the defense factories that the PLA seems to run. Along with soldiering...

May be they manufacture these for NE terrorist groups....
"Import of mobile handsets without International Mobile Equipment Identify (IMEI) number or with all-zero IMEI is prohibited with immediate effect"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2009 16:16

The IN is concerned with the IOR unlike China who intends to rule the seven seas...

Not true.

MMS, as recently as a fe wmonths ago, among others others, has stated that Indian interests extend beyond the IOR. All the way to the Pacific.

Currently it is between the Gulf and the Malacca Straights.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 25 Jun 2009 16:25

NRao wrote:
The IN is concerned with the IOR unlike China who intends to rule the seven seas...
Not true.

MMS, as recently as a fe wmonths ago, among others others, has stated that Indian interests extend beyond the IOR. All the way to the Pacific.

Currently it is between the Gulf and the Malacca Straights.

Agreed, however I interpret the Gulf and the Malacca straights differently....the IOR region is our backyard, has been for thousands of years, I see that area as being dominated by IN. The rest of the areas are ofcourse important from an interest perspective and also from a Blue water IN perspective.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jun 2009 16:39

I, currently, am not too certain as to what the Indian thinking is term of segmentation between IOR and other areas. But, one thing for sure, as Rehman (see Indo-China thread under strat issues) calls it India has started her "Counter-Containment" of China - just like the String of Pearls.

IMHO, India needs a contiguous region of influence. She cannot afford to be strong in the IOR and relatively weaker in the China Sea or the Pacific. Perhaps she may need "help" in those areas, but so will China in the IOR.

Fully expect India to push her weight in the IOR. The first to see this push would be SL.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 25 Jun 2009 17:43

^^^ True that my friend the sooner the better....I like my Lizards well done not rare...

and on that note aapke muh mein ghee shakkar....

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 25 Jun 2009 21:31

India-China border peaceful: Gen. Singh
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/25/stories ... 941800.htm

Formation of “Arunachal Scouts” proposed

He had proposed to the Centre, the formation of “Arunachal Scouts” with an initial strength of 4,000 to 5,000 young men. This would serve as “a force multiplier” and give the local population a stake in “the defence of their homeland.”

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 25 Jun 2009 22:07

RahulM,

I think we might be underestimating Chinese navy while over estimating sea worthyness of Indian navy. There are gaping holes in our capabilities especially underwater and air surveillance which would allow PLAN to ambush IN's assets in its own backyard. I doubt that China will have much trouble protecting its sea lines from IN. IN if bold enough may be able to disrupt their cargo but they'll surely manage to impose a heavy cost on IN which would force it to back-off. I only see a limited opportunity for IN to make game changing impact in case of war. Although it can surely choke Pakistan for substantial length of time.

Things might change if we manage to induct three Aircraft carriers with two available on water at any given time.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 25 Jun 2009 22:11

NRao wrote: Fully expect India to push her weight in the IOR. The first to see this push would be SL.

I feel that even though China's rising influence in Sri Lanka is a worry, if we decided to throw our weight on the condition, there is not much SL can do rather than getting in line again, just like Nepal. SL is completely our backyard I feel, and even though bullying is not the perfect solution, I think there is little stopping it if the matter comes to it.
What the gurus think?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jun 2009 22:25

katare sahab, have you tried evaluating these ideas by comparing with actual PLAN battle fleet ?

we can do that here on BR, it might be instructive. do note that IN will operate mostly closer to home while PLAN will have to operate far from its home bases. IMHO one of the aspects of the string of pearls strategy would be to find a suitable and reliable base for PLAN, gwadar is one candidate, there might be others.

could you just put up a list of PLAN assets you think might be earmarked for ops against India in case of a blockade ?
I understand any such exercise is bound to be highly speculative but even so, even if we do it in the most general terms in types of ship and so forth, we might understand the situation better,
regards.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 28 Jun 2009 02:00

Chinese Defence Minister meets Pakistan Air Force Chief of Staff
Sources: Navy was tracking Chinese sub

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 29 Jun 2009 23:18

Chinese ASBM Developement:knowns and unknowns-Article
http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... s-and.html

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 30 Jun 2009 04:54

Rahul M wrote:katare sahab, have you tried evaluating these ideas by comparing with actual PLAN battle fleet ?

we can do that here on BR, it might be instructive. do note that IN will operate mostly closer to home while PLAN will have to operate far from its home bases. IMHO one of the aspects of the string of pearls strategy would be to find a suitable and reliable base for PLAN, gwadar is one candidate, there might be others.

Rahul-ul-ebil-ul-adminullah I have a question in regards to gwadar, looking at the loaction of the port if the dragon was to use it as a replenishment base then they woul have to circumvent the subcontinent triangle in doing so if one takes into account anti shipping sorties by IN aviation (the Mig 29Ks, IL38s, Tu142s, Jaguar INs, (near future P-8s), etc and the IAF Su-30MKIs, ityadi) then they would have to travel quite a fair bit to avoid any sort of strikes by Brahmos/Sea Eagle/Harpoon carrying devils in the air. To this we might add IN surface combatants and sub surface devils as well.

Considering that if the IN decides to set up a blockade in the IOR assisted by the IAF Gwadar will indeed be a hard base to get assistance from for the Dragon IMVHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gwadar.jpg

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Jun 2009 07:16

The utility of the string of pearls is not during war, they are useful as listening and replenishment posts for PLAN when there is peace. The chinese are well aware that their assets in the pearls will be the first to be taken out, simply because these bases lie in areas where the Indian Navy holds insurmountable force levels.

Since there is no possibility of war breaking out, these posts will continue to be used against India and in support of china.

China sees itself as a great trading nation and as a seafaring nation. It has recently aggressively inserted into the African mainland in trade and investments. These bases are more useful to protect their trade routes from pirates etc and for the odd force projection to the weak africans.

It will be very difficult for the Chinese to ever withstand the US Navy or the Indian Navy in the Indian Ocean. While India has never said so overtly, the harsh truth is that the Indian Ocean is indeed India's ocean.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jun 2009 07:28

the rationale behind gwadar probably stems from the fact that if push comes to shove PLAN will base subs there and threaten Indian shipping and force IN to back out of a blockade that way.
and to prevent that we would need enormous amounts of ASW assets, especially MPAs.

on the flip-side, full fledged PLAN occupation in gwadar is unlikely to happen before amir khan vacates the area.

otherwise I agree with your post, I can't see how gwadar will be a viable counterpoint to IN's activities.

p.s. I'm no sir !

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 30 Jun 2009 07:47

I did not call you a Sir I called you a "ebil - aminullah" who is probably sponsored by the CIA

thats different from sir...yes...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jun 2009 07:59

check post #2 of this page !

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 30 Jun 2009 17:06

Not new but well summarised

China’s counterfactual history

A new, low-level conflict is threatening to brew between New Delhi and Beijing. China’s other neighbours, especially those embroiled in border disputes with the rulers of the Middle Kingdom, should pay close attention to how this incident unfolds.
Tensions over border issues between China and India arise from Beijing laying claim to about 90,000 sq. km of Indian territory. During a Sino-Indian conflict in 1962, Chinese troops flooded into and occupied a large tract of disputed territory. While Beijing withdrew forces from what is the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, it expanded its control over an additional swathe of the Tibetan plateau.

In a move to take a mile while appearing to give back an inch, China continues to lay claim to the territory of Arunachal Pradesh. And it has been making probing moves into Sikkim while improving infrastructure near disputed areas that have military as well as commercial uses. In 2006, China’s ambassador to India declared the “whole state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory...we are claiming all of that. That is our position”.
For its part, New Delhi recently announced the deployment of two additional army divisions and two air force squadrons to positions near its border with China. Despite its own actions, Beijing denounced India’s recent troop movements and insisted there will be no “compromises in its border disputes with India”.
China’s disagreements over borders are not limited to those with India. For its part, Beijing has made irredentist claims on all its borders and over all the waters that wash up onto its coasts. Indeed, it claims about 80% of the South China Sea, including the Spratlys and Paracels that are on a broad plateau up to 1,000 miles (1,609km) from China’s eastern coastline.

Since China is not an archipelago country, it cannot use its continental shelf to claim natural resources on the continental shelves of the Philippines and Vietnam. Even so, an assertion of sovereignty over the Spratlys would allow it to apply the 200-nautical-mile economic zone from there to extend its claims.

Another ruse to consolidate claims over border territory shared with the Koreas involves an egregious distortion of the past. Beijing published books and articles known as the “Northeastern Project”, asserting that much of Korea’s ancient history began in China.
The claim is that the geographic overlapping of two Korean kingdoms with north-eastern China implies that they belong to China’s ancient history. This prompted vigorous protests from South Korea’s political parties and many in its academic community.
It is likely that the incident is part of a well-orchestrated and purposeful attempt to increase its political influence in north-east Asia. This probably reflects concern over the large numbers of ethnic Koreans living in the north-eastern provinces of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang that were granted considerable autonomy during the early 1950s.

Koreans confronted a historical affront relating to these kingdoms when China tried to rewrite the past in a similar matter in 2004. Then, officials in Seoul issued an objection when Korean learned societies demanded that Beijing put the kingdom of Koguryo in its proper historical perspective. In turn, the Chinese government issued a verbal agreement not to repeat such remarks.
On the face of it, fudging a historical moment might seem small potatoes. But territorial claims based on history have enormous strategic, political and diplomatic importance.
If Beijing successfully fakes history to extend its borders, it can then rigorously apply its doctrine of “absolute sovereign rights” that is a central tenet of its foreign policy. Under this dogma, it rejects outside criticisms about events or policies within its declared borders and refuses to compromise on this point regardless of the consequences.
As it is, Beijing insists that other countries exercise the highest standards of historical probity. For example, Chinese media and diplomatic channels have been used to criticize the content of Japanese history textbooks. Beijing is blatantly hypocritical in insisting that others engage in correct renderings of past deeds and misdeeds.

But hypocrisy, duplicity and deception are recognized skills, and among the most valuable tools, of international diplomacy. To ignore Chinese intent and ability to wield these dark arts to promote the interests of the Middle Kingdom would be to do so at one’s own peril.
To extend its reach in the region, China has developed a “string of pearls” along the southern coast of Asia consisting of naval bases, commercial ports and listening posts. These include port facilities in Bangladesh, radar and refuelling stations in Myanmar, a deep-water port in Gwadar, Pakistan, and access to the port of Hambontota in Sri Lanka.
Given these steps, it remains to be seen whether China’s insistence on being engaged in a “peaceful rise” will be contradicted by its future actions.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 30 Jun 2009 20:33

For starters I work in an IT services company. Listened to a talk by a higher up in the organization. He was upbeat about China churning out quality software codes. He pointed out they are so because they tend to follow the manual to a tee. But there in lies their weakness as well. They do not think out of the box and hence not creative.

Now you might wonder why I am talking about this. If their cultural mindset drives them so, the same would apply to their warfare, tactics, military organization, etc as well. I thought may be we can kick off a rational analysis of the Chinese military strengths and weaknesses out of such traits.

Also, they may meddle with reverse engineered tech. But if they did get hold of all the details and as per their trait pursued to the tee, then personally I wouldnt loathe their tech much as poor in quality.

Thanks and regards,
Kiran

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 03 Jul 2009 00:39

An Undersea Deterrent?
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=1907

China's investment in a nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine force and the accompanying infrastructure indicates a major effort to take the boats to sea.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jul 2009 19:51

X-post :

Rahul M wrote:I had started writing a piece on the political power of PLA for SRR but haven't managed to complete it. only a third has been completed till now with no signs that requisite time will be available to complete it in the near future.

here is the incomplete draft : http://ifile.it/cexajhy

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 10 Jul 2009 15:01

“There is need to monitor China’s defence modernisation”

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 12 Jul 2009 01:03

Cross Posting from Intelligence & National Security Discussion

Why China may attack India by 2012

Indian might met with Chinese threats

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Jul 2009 03:49

VinodTK wrote:Cross Posting from Intelligence & National Security Discussion

Why China may attack India by 2012

Indian might met with Chinese threats

Exciting topic. Discussions in the other thread please.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 12 Jul 2009 16:48

Dear Chinaman wargaming..Look at the map more closely.

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 12 Jul 2009 17:02

Photo may be PsyOps

Yogesh · Post by **Yogesh** » 12 Jul 2009 17:34

rohiths wrote:Photo may be PsyOps

May be it is, but we got to be alert, pragmatic, proactive

arjun_vs · Post by **arjun_vs** » 12 Jul 2009 19:27

Yogesh wrote:
rohiths wrote:Photo may be PsyOps
May be it is, but we got to be alert, pragmatic, proactive

They must have read ahuja sir's & shankarji's scenarios and are afraid to the bones

All of them are thinking hard how to change the climax

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 12 Jul 2009 22:24

The chinese would definitely be playing out their war games and considering various scenarios.
Preparedness is definitely expected by any reasonable power.
Even India's armed forces will also be war gaming against china.
Even we in BR are doing that.

Publication of a NASA type command center filled with chinese soldiers planning an invasion/attack of India is nothing but pure psy ops. Had the chinese been really planning an attack on India ,they would not have published such pictures openly on their official news networks. Instead they would have tried to deceive us like in 1962.
It will impress no one other than TOI types.

The main reason why china will not attack India is that they do not have anything to gain from attacking India except scoring some psychological victory. India will become a major trading partner of china and Chinese certainly do not want to lose an important market. Enmity with India will only hurt china's aspirations of becoming a super power since India will join the US Initiative of encircling china.

If the chinese govt really seeks to divert the attention of the people then they will attack Siberia or Spartly Islands or other disputed territories. Chinese people hate Japanese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese more than Indians and an attack and occupation of Arunachal pradesh will serve China no good.

All I wanted to say is that we have some innate paki paranoia within us and let us not overestimate the chinese threat.
My 2 cents.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jul 2009 10:04

rkhanna wrote:Dear Chinaman wargaming..Look at the map more closely.

Check the Kashmir in the mop without nay boundary

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 13 Jul 2009 10:23

Katare wrote:RahulM,

I think we might be underestimating Chinese navy while over estimating sea worthyness of Indian navy. There are gaping holes in our capabilities especially underwater and air surveillance which would allow PLAN to ambush IN's assets in its own backyard. I doubt that China will have much trouble protecting its sea lines from IN. IN if bold enough may be able to disrupt their cargo but they'll surely manage to impose a heavy cost on IN which would force it to back-off. I only see a limited opportunity for IN to make game changing impact in case of war. Although it can surely choke Pakistan for substantial length of time.

Things might change if we manage to induct three Aircraft carriers with two available on water at any given time.

The Chinese Navy to be effective will first have to break through the chokepoint at the Straits of Malacca.

However, if they can base some ships in bases in SL and Gwadar, it will make things a wee bit interesting.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 13 Jul 2009 11:23

What i feel strongly is the west is creating war scene for getting india to purchase MRCA planes and other equipment from them. Its just part of their marketing campaign.
Spread rumors of war so that India will purchase MRCA planes in hurry and Russians get thrown out of the contract as mig-35 is not ready yet.

We should play it cool without creating any hype and keep increasing our war preparedness steadily without any bubbles.

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 13 Jul 2009 14:07

rkhanna wrote:Dear Chinaman wargaming..Look at the map more closely.

why in the world would the Chinese camouflage the desks....taking wargaming to a whole new level?

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 13 Jul 2009 14:08

Sanjay wrote:Sum, we want the best and always the best. Sometimes the IA shoots itself with that attitude. We could have had our own 155 some time ago and it isn't too late now. Start with the Metamorphosis. Right now what you have are a mix of 130s and 105s which are reasonable performers.

I understand that the Krasnopol has been used on the Bofors FH77B gun...is there a version for the 130 mm M46 guns as well?

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 15 Jul 2009 19:43

If you're in the intelligence business, Google Earth makes hiding big things nearly impossible. This image is believed to be of a 1.8-square-mile scale model of a disputed region on the border of China and India. Google Earth spotters found it in a remote area in north central China (Google Earth coordinates 38.265652,105.9517)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/134186-6 ... earth.html

Why would they need such a thing? War Simulation?

News from Aus paper says that it is used to train the tank drivers...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/chine ... 17781.html

On Google Maps-
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.26565 ... &hl=en&t=h

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 20 Jul 2009 19:53

Gurus, given below is a stealthy version of J8 , please tell us ,how authentic and effective is this design :
http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/J8/J803.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2009 03:03

^^^ all this is the product of the writer's mind only, not actual projects.

PLAAF will be better served by an attempt to make a stealthy J-10 (which reports say they are doing) rather than this.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 21 Jul 2009 03:45

Akshut wrote:

b]This image is believed to be of a 1.8-square-mile scale model of a disputed region on the border of China and India.[/b] (Google Earth coordinates 38.265652,105.9517)

Why would they need such a thing? War Simulation?

Could folks identify what portion of border is it? Or does it contain both Eastern and Western border?

yogi · Post by **yogi** » 21 Jul 2009 05:20

Akshut wrote:Could folks identify what portion of border is it? Or does it contain both Eastern and Western border?

I've done that comparison in this thread.

Ajit.C · Post by **Ajit.C** » 28 Jul 2009 22:37

Found this rediff.com

Tanks in Sikkim not sign of tension with China, says Tharoor
"It is not a sign of mounting tension....it is a sign that your government is determined to protect the borders of India and takes its responsibilities seriously," Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] said in Thiruvananthpuram while reacting to media reports on the matter.

"There is no additional tension (between India and China). We want good relations with our neighbours. But we are prepared to ensure that our borders and country are secure,"Tharoor added. Army officials in Delhi [ Images ] said the Russian-made T-72 tanks have been deployed in high altitude areas of North Sikkim for many years in defensive roles. "A squadron of the tanks has been there in high altitude areas in North Sikkim for many years now and it is part of our defensive plans. Earlier we used to have our T-55 tanks there and around three years ago, they were replaced by a squadron of T-72s, which are heavier tanks," they said. They said that no tanks have been deployed in the locality called 'Finger area', which is a one kilometre stretch of land on the border with China.