China Military Watch

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Sep 2009 12:49

RayC wrote:Notwithstanding, a very interesting idea!

Thats what Jaichand did to Prithvi raj Kapoor and it resulted in a thousand years of occupation. Thats how the English East India company's occupation of our country. I wouldnt touch these "interesting" ideas with a barge pole.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 12:53

ravi_ku wrote:
RayC wrote:Notwithstanding, a very interesting idea!
Thats what Jaichand did to Prithvi raj Kapoor and it resulted in a thousand years of occupation. Thats how the English East India company's occupation of our country. I wouldnt touch these "interesting" ideas with a barge pole.

Of course, Jaichand and Prithiviraj Kapoor! Though I don't see the connection. One is a historical figure and the other is an actor!

Haven't we already sold ourselves?

Have you not seen how the US lamented the death of YSR? Did they do so for Indira Gandhi?

It is not that we have to give a base. It is just the idea.

And the way we are going, Lola gets what Lola wants.

Even the Chinese are overtaking us. There are so many articles full of apologists on China's behalf, as if standing up to the Chinese is something terrible for Indians to do!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Sep 2009 12:56

RayC wrote:
ravi_ku wrote: Thats what Jaichand did to Prithvi raj Kapoor and it resulted in a thousand years of occupation. Thats how the English East India company's occupation of our country. I wouldnt touch these "interesting" ideas with a barge pole.
Of course, Jaichand and Prithiviraj Kapoor! Though I don't see the connection. One is a historical figure and the other is an actor!

Haven't we already sold ourselves?

I was about to correct when the post has been giving me as locked

Of course it is Prithvi raj Chauhan, and I believe you understood it too.

Well, at some levels yes. But do we really want to go deeper and sell more?

P.S: Is there any special button with the bradmins which can selectively lock posts

? interesting.......

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 13:00

ravi_ku wrote:
Of course, Jaichand and Prithiviraj Kapoor! Though I don't see the connection. One is a historical figure and the other is an actor!

Haven't we already sold ourselves?

I was about to correct when the post has been giving me as locked Of course it is Prithvi raj Chauhan, and I believe you understood it too.

Well, at some levels yes. But do we really want to go deeper and sell more?

P.S: Is there any special button with the bradmins which can selectively lock posts ? interesting.......

I locked it so that you could not act 'innocent'.

The Mods know the tricks of the trade.

Seeing too many cinemas I presume!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Sep 2009 13:00

RayC wrote:
ravi_ku wrote:Thats what Jaichand did to Prithvi raj Kapoor and it resulted in a thousand years of occupation. Thats how the English East India company's occupation of our country. I wouldnt touch these "interesting" ideas with a barge pole.
Of course, Jaichand and Prithiviraj Kapoor! Though I don't see the connection. One is a historical figure and the other is an actor!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Sep 2009 13:16

RayC wrote:
I locked it so that you could not act 'innocent'.

whine and then a big tantrum

effect: nothing

Note to self: These days, innocence is never valued

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 14:02

Prithiviraj Kapoor was hardly innocent either!

Nor was Jaichand, to be fair.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 17 Sep 2009 14:20

Not to mention the endless supply of toilet papers provided by India by way of dossier after dossier

Haven't we already sold ourselves?

Have you not seen how the US lamented the death of YSR? Did they do so for Indira Gandhi?

It is not that we have to give a base. It is just the idea.

And the way we are going, Lola gets what Lola wants.

Even the Chinese are overtaking us. There are so many articles full of apologists on China's behalf, as if standing up to the Chinese is something terrible for Indians to do!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Sep 2009 14:37

there was a full one page coverage in TOI today on various activities of our serpent neighbours.

Maroof Raza had a good piece there.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 15:18

Singha wrote:there was a full one page coverage in TOI today on various activities of our serpent neighbours.

Maroof Raza had a good piece there.

Any links to Raza's article?

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 17 Sep 2009 15:31

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

Throughout most of the 19th century Great Britain and the expanding Russian Empire were jockeying for influence in Central Asia, and Britain decided to hand over Aksai Chin to Chinese administration as a buffer against Russian invasion. The newly-created border was known as the MacCartney-MacDonald Line, and both British-controlled India and China now began to show Aksai Chin as Chinese.[14] In 1911 the Xinhai Revolution resulted in power shifts in China, and by 1918 (in the wake of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution) the British no longer saw merit in China's continuing possession of the region. On British maps the border was redrawn as the original Johnson Line,[6] but despite this reversion the new border was left unmanned and undemarcated.[6][14] According to Neville Maxwell, the British had used as many as 11 different boundary lines in the region, as their claims shifted with the political situation.[15] By the time of Indian independence in 1947, the Johnson Line had become India's official western boundary.[6] On 1 July 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru definitively stated the Indian position.[16] He claimed that Aksai Chin had been part of the Indian Ladakh region for centuries, and that the border (as defined by the Johnson Line) was non-negotiable.[17] According to George N. Patterson, when the Indian government finally produced a report detailing the alleged proof of India's claims to the disputed area, "the quality of the Indian evidence was very poor, including some very dubious sources indeed".[18][19]
During the 1950s, China constructed a road through Aksai Chin, connecting Xinjiang and Tibet, which ran south of the Johnson Line in many places.[6][14][17] Aksai Chin was easily accessible to the Chinese, but access from India, which meant negotiating the Karakoram mountains, was more problematic.[17] Consequently India did not even learn of the existence of the road until 1957 — finally confirmed when the road was shown in Chinese maps published the following year.[2]

I believe the history of disputed region starts with imperialism. The unresolved issues are here to stay.
btw.. historical facts on wiki are not always as accurate as possible. I would love to read Indian Point of view.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 17 Sep 2009 15:38

it must be prithviraj chauhan and p kappor

)))

I believe that indian statecraft is at a kindergarten stage when compared to the chinese ( who are PG's in this art).

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 17 Sep 2009 15:48

a_kumar wrote:
AmitR wrote: That is one thing that India can avoid not just cause it upsets the Chinese but because AP was in not so long ago part of the Tibet. This does not bode well for India too.
Whats the source for highlighted text? This is dangerous statement in that in helps the PRC propagandu machine!

The answer 2 ur query

In 1826 India and China gained a common border, including the area of what is now called Myanmar, following British annexations in the Anglo-Burmese Wars. In 1847, Major J. Jenkins, Agent for the North East Frontier, reported that the Tawang was part of Tibet. In 1872, four monastic officials from Tibet arrived in Tawang and supervised a boundary settlement with Major R. Graham, NEFA official, which included the Tawang Tract as part of Tibet. Thus, in the last half of the 19th century, it was clear that the British treated the Tawang Tract as part of Tibet

In 1913, representatives of Great Britain, China and Tibet attended a conference in Simla regarding the borders between Tibet, China and British India. Whilst all three representatives initialed the agreement, Beijing later objected to the proposed boundary between the regions of Outer Tibet and Inner Tibet and did not ratify it. The details of the Indo-Tibetan boundary was not revealed to China at the time.

China took the position that the Tibetan government should not have been allowed to make a such a treaty, rejecting Tibet's claims of independent rule.[17] For its part, Tibet did not object to any section of the McMahon Line excepting the demarcation of the trading town of Tawang, which the Line placed under British-Indian jurisdiction.[17] However, up until World War II, Tibetan officials were allowed to administer Tawang with complete authority. Due to the increased threat of Japanese and Chinese expansion during this period, British Indian troops secured the town as part of the defense of India's eastern border.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 15:57

The entire problem is not in Imperial times, partly, but the real source of the problem was JLNs haste to accept Tibet into China.

Indian position should never have been to accept Tibet's occupation of China, a sore lose of a Indic bastion.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 17 Sep 2009 16:07

Ray Sir...Here is the Maroof Raza's article :

How the powers-that-be bungled ’62 war
Maroof Raza

As Chinese troops continue their probing actions along the Sino-Indian boundary, the passive response of the government in New Delhi brings to mind the experience of the 1962 border conflict with China, when slogans of Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai deluded the Indian leadership into allowing the Chinese to roll into the plains of Assam. Subsequently, the leadership in New Delhi did everything to cover the debacle, but if Neville Maxwell’s (the author of India’s China War) comments are anything to go by, then the responsibility for the disaster of 1962, lies with both the political leadership and the military commanders of 1962. These have been highlighted by the Henderson Brooks Report, which remains a strongly guarded document in the vaults of South Block.

But to dispel the common belief, that the report exposes the blunders of the political leadership, and therefore is a closely guarded secret, it must be made clear that it, in fact, looks only at what went wrong militarily. The government of the day clearly did not wish this inquiry to look into high-level policies and plans. In fact, Lieutenant General Henderson Brooks was clearly directed not to fix responsibility onto specific individuals but the investigation was to look at mundane tactical issues like training, equipment, physical fitness of troops and the role of military commanders! Even the functioning of Army Headquarters was beyond the purview of this investigation, that Brooks, a second-generation British army officer, domiciled in India, from the Maratha Light Infantry Regiment, was asked to undertake.

The report was an unforgiving analysis about the problems along the frontier, discovering along the way what Lieutenant General B M Kaul, regarded by many as a lackey of then defence minister Krishna Menon and the government of the day, would liked to have kept hidden. It laid the blame on Army Headquarters for its direct interference, by bypassing the established chains of command, with deployment of troops on the frontline against the Chinese. The example of the General Staff in Delhi giving orders to the Dhola Post on the Thagla Ridge in then NEFA and now Arunachal Pradesh, was seen as incredible as the order for the charge of light brigade.

But all in all, the report doesn’t have any surprises and the publication of its 200 pages would only undo the myth that the 1962 conflict was a Chinese aggression. A series of studies have, over the years, clearly shown that Indian soldiers were in fact ordered to challenge the Chinese in a military confrontation which it could only lose. And the culprits were at Army Headquarters who, time and again, ordered troops into a forward policy and gave them no hope for a fighting withdrawal, an operation of war — like Lieutenant General B M Kaul, then Chief of General Staff and Brigadier (later Major General) Monty Palit, VrC, then director of Military Operations. But the investigation, even if it wanted to, had no access to records of meetings in the ministry of defence, since then defence minister Krishna Menon had categorically disallowed any notes or minutes to be kept of his conferences, saying these were top secret in nature.

While the Indian Army has clearly learned its lessons from 1962 debacle, the muted response of India’s politicodiplomatic establishments to China’s brazen muscle flexing from Aksai Chin to Arunachal Pradesh, clearly leaves a lot to be desired. In 1963, Y B Chavan, who took over from Krishna Menon, made a statement in Parliament ascribing the reasons for the debacle to the leadership failures in the Indian Army and the tactical mishandling of troops. He made no mention of the political fumbling that led to India’s humiliation.

Today, India’s military commanders would do well to answer the question: Are they prepared to take the blame for yet another fiasco if the Chinese walk across our frontline, not just to paint a few stones in Ladakh, but perhaps the walls of monastery in Tawang, which they have always claimed?

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 17 Sep 2009 16:21

@sanku

IMO the border dispute was of imperial origin. But India and China almost settled its border disputes.
infact Tibet, not DL was the trigger point. China was sure upset in 1959, but took no actions against it. it was only the combined reasons which triggered the war. ie tibet for JLN and DL for Zhou.
For Zhou, another factor was suspicion on India's motive for Tibet. They were alarmed on perceived Indian subversion in Tibet.

also..
Also an interesting point to add..
China timed the war with cuban crisis where both world power were preoccupied. China's only fear was support of any of the two powers for India. But still JLN administration and decisions before war were much bolder than today's gov. Probably the power ratio across the Himalaya being one of the reason.(Also JLN never expected a china attack).
But i see no intelligence in UPA underplaying the threat. Over Defensive or Hyper Defensive strategy. Total mum by opposition, who were alway on their toe to tear each other apart.. surprising!

forgive my ignorance. But i have learnt and mugged up regarding impotency of JLN.
Its not a right time to peek into history, but it is surely a right time to learn from history.
Could you please elaborate more on pre and during war mistakes.

I will quote some imp points regarding scenario leading to buildup and eventually war bw india and china in 1962, if Moderators permit me to do so.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Sep 2009 16:38

animesharma wrote:@sanku

......

Animesh, I am not sure if I understand your point, I am not even sure if we disagree. So let me state what I am saying once more.

1. The unclear border issue existed in Imperial times, true, but they were only the backdrop.
2. The real issue was that India accepted the Chinese ownership of Tibet, where as we should not have. We could have put forth a chai-biscuit variety disclaimer and once DL came to India and we found what was really happening we should have called Chinese aggressors. There should have been no hurry to accept their claims.
3. JLN is to be credited for much of the above chaos due to his love of socialism/communism and Hindi-Chini bhai bhai.
4. If we did not accept the Chinese claim on Tibet, all our boundaries with Tibet would have been setteled with bi-lateral claims with the Tibetians, who of course would have been quite happy to support the Indian boundary positions for quid-pro-quo of us supporting their claims on Independent Tibet.

As far as the real fracas of 62 and the chaos thereof, the above synopsis by Maroof Raza is the basic issue in nutshell, but if you want a discussion on the details I suppose the India china thread in the strat forum is the right place.

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 17 Sep 2009 19:51

@sanku

I am really sorry for being unclear.

i just wanted to convey:

1) I was comparing india's stand in pre 1962 period and today. and I believe steps taken by JLN were more courageous. It is wrong to blame JLN for every thing.
2) I used to blv china was the aggressor, but instead the wikipedia article says it was india.

Also.. i am continuing this discussion in india china thread. A copy of this post will be posted there as well. I request you to please carry on this discussion. I need to learn more history before i learn present.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Sep 2009 20:07

Let us revisit history.

Korean war was on from 1950 and dragged on till 1953. China was totally involved. About 70% of the PLA were involved.

In June 1950 the UK Government in the House of Commons stated that His Majesty's Government "have always been prepared to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous" In October 1950, the People's Liberation Army invaded the Tibetan area of Chamdo, defeating sporadic resistance from the Tibetan army. In 1951, representatives of Tibetan authority, with Dalai Lama's authorization, participated in negotiations in Beijing with Chinese government.

Now, if 70% of the PLA was engaged in Korea, what should India have done?

We are now suffering from a lack of strategic vision!

We built up China into the horror she is today. Bandung etc!

sumeet_s · Post by **sumeet_s** » 17 Sep 2009 21:32

Brando wrote:
Singapore is quite heavily populated by ethnic Han and the PRC has huge influence in that country. Even the Indian origin ministers in Singapore have Chinese wives to help them connect with the powerful Chinese community in Singapore.

Yeah..true..Singapore's population consists of 75% of various Chinese groups..with Indians only about 8%..

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 18 Sep 2009 00:38

http://www.4shared.com/file/133410037/6 ... hina2.html

Pt. J.L.Nehru : Chinese are arrogant, devious, hypocritical and thoroughly unreliable.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 18 Sep 2009 01:00

Then why did Mr. Nehru not agree to Patel's advice about China ? The problem is that our country has too long held hostage by Congi Politicians who have no strategic vision.

Sudhanshu · Post by **Sudhanshu** » 18 Sep 2009 04:10

Time to do massive scale military "exercise" along J&K, Sikkim and AP border, while giving Chinese embassy an advance notification about it. With full compliment air force bomber/fighter/AWACS squadrons and other advance artillery elements like Brahmos etc.

I think such exercises are overdue anyways. Never heard of any exercise on our eastern border. Just always hear things happening in western border.

All this, just to encourage our neighbor to give us some respect. And let them realize the fact, it is neither 1962 nor there is someone like Nehru Chacha in command anymore, and we will mean business if you ever tried to test us.

Also, nice time to litmus test some of Shankar/Vivek's strategies too.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Sep 2009 06:22

On equal terms with China on the Pangong Lake

Now, the Pangong Tso playing field will become more level. The army will soon patrol in modern, indigenously-built Fast Interceptor Boats (FIBs) that can travel faster than the Chinese boats, while carrying 16 fully equipped jawans to respond to a crisis.

Rear Admiral K C Sekhar, Chairman and Managing Director of the public sector Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), Kolkata, confirmed to Business Standard, “We have received a Request for Proposal (RfP) from the army. They want 17 FIBs for deployment in a high altitude, extreme cold environment. We have prepared a design which we hope will be accepted.”

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 18 Sep 2009 06:34

I'm a new user to this community. I've been righting to other blogs and mediums but I'm very humbled by the opinions expressed by Bharat Rakshak community. Nice to see there are people who deeply feel about the country. Our great country was raped for 200 years by British, French, Portugese and may be Japanese in the east. The last thing I want to see is filthy, disloyal Chinese taking advantage of Mera Bharat. Our impotent (I hope I can use this word here...) politicians think that with few nukes on hand we can deter China. The problem is much much bigger and majority seem to be missing it.

What pisses me off is how Chinese troops can openly cross the border and challenge our military is mind boggling. Why can't we send bunch our guys across their border and do some monkey business. Growing up, I've come across many bullies who always tried to take advantage of others, but when it comes to national security, the same people can't be found anywhere. Some of the politicians have very bad reputation and sometimes considered evil, but the funny thing is that these same politicians will allows Chinese ******** to screw around with our border and not say a word.

I can phrase what India's strategy should be in words of my Lebanese friend who told me about a saying in his country. For your enemy, "I WILL EAT YOU FOR LUNCH, BEFORE YOU EAT ME FOR DINNER".

JAI HIND

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Sep 2009 09:10

chanakyaa, welcome to BRF.

as to your question, while you may use such words people will treat your posts as juvenile if that is all there is to them. IMHO, it is better to avoid abusive words altogether and base your posts solely upon facts and reasoning.

another thing, you will be well advised to lurk for sometime and generally get a feel of the place before jumping right in with proposals and advices.
trust me, it would be a more fruitful experience that way.
also people don't appreciate repeating topics which have been already discussed in the immediate past so it is a good idea to read up the older pages and archives.
regards.

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 18 Sep 2009 13:22

RayC wrote:Let us revisit history.

Korean war was on from 1950 and dragged on till 1953. China was totally involved. About 70% of the PLA were involved.

In June 1950 the UK Government in the House of Commons stated that His Majesty's Government "have always been prepared to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous" In October 1950, the People's Liberation Army invaded the Tibetan area of Chamdo, defeating sporadic resistance from the Tibetan army. In 1951, representatives of Tibetan authority, with Dalai Lama's authorization, participated in negotiations in Beijing with Chinese government.

Now, if 70% of the PLA was engaged in Korea, what should India have done?

We are now suffering from a lack of strategic vision!

We built up China into the horror she is today. Bandung etc!

Just adding one more incident to india's lack of strategic sight problem.

62 war was initially low level power showdowns on mountains between PLA and IA. India cut off the supply line of chinese and they retreated.. as they were busy with revolution in taiwan. Only after assurance from US, they diverted massive troop to india border.. obviously india didn't knew about it.

India should have and should do atleast two things to take care of china:
1) keep a defence that can't be penetrated.
2) create scenario to keep china(PLA) busy. A focused enemy is not in our best interest.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 18 Sep 2009 13:33

Air Force lands plane near China border in Ladakh

The AN-32 plane has landed at Nyoma airfield in Ladakh. The landing at Nyoma enhances India's troop transportation capability. The Nyoma airstrip at 13500 ft is 23 km from the Chinese border.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 18 Sep 2009 14:02

Now, to lighten the mood up a bit...

Chinki AF Pinkys

:

http://tp.chinamil.com.cn/news/2009-09/ ... 042904.htm
http://tp.chinamil.com.cn/news/2009-09/ ... 042903.htm
http://tp.chinamil.com.cn/news/2009-09/ ... 042901.htm
http://tp.chinamil.com.cn/news/2009-09/ ... 042902.htm

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Sep 2009 14:04

Nyoma airfield is much better in terms of usage during wartime, it is surrounded by mountains and is away from the LAC. It can be used well into the war and can supply the southern part of the LAC

The IAF already has plans for 4 advanced landing grounds in Ladakh to be opened, some for An-32 operations. All these are already functioning for helicoptor ops I think.
1. Daulat Beg Oldi
2. Fukche
3. Chushul
4. Nyoma

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 18 Sep 2009 15:19

is this the only flying they do

http://tp.chinamil.com.cn/news/2009-09/ ... 042902.htm

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 18 Sep 2009 17:59

An observation - Quite contrary to what is pretended to be, it is the Chinese that have been bitten by the we-want-to-be-like-Amerikka cum hollywood bug. We can call it a PR drive also but it is very clear that they want to look 'awesome' like the Americans. The dress of the previously posted pics by Ranvijay (page 33) of the Chinese soldiers reminded me of the Desert Storm pattern of the US troops dress. Then the gleaming commandus during the Olympic rehearsals. And now these pics of silhouetted ladies.
It is striking as the PLA is thought to be still old fashioned and dominated by the old timers. The recent discussion about the Communist party wanting no war and PLA wanting to go to war with us. Gives some insight into the panda's mind. This strong desire to be seen and respected as the Americans.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Sep 2009 18:19

one of the weakest links in PLA is the weak NCO system. although they have given top attention to this aspect since the 90's there is still some time before it is fully up to date.
here's a report on their efforts.
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/9077 ... 00525.html

and one from PLA daily.
http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channel ... 027781.htm

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 18 Sep 2009 18:34

In Chinese Armed Forces, ideology is more important and that curbs its professionalism.
In India, I do not understand, why we over rate them. Please note that India is no longer a pushover. In case of a war, I am sure, we will get "useful" support from Russia as well as Americans. That will help us ensure, that they do not gain anything in terms of territory.

It will only give Chinese a very negative publicity on International forums. We should improve our defences, and don't get provoked into anything. This will ensure that we will have favorable opinion in International forums. It is in interest of the West and Russians to support India against the Chinese. This is because, US and Russia have to fight a war with China in future. While, they do not need to fight against India.

Chinese Communist Party understands the losses that it can incur in a misadventure against China. Vietnam could defend itself against China in 1980s. So, there is no reason, why we cannot do the same. All we have to do is, understand that
-- China is a threat and cannot be trusted
-- Improve our force projection capabilities by improving Infrastructure
-- Continue to host tibbetans
-- Defence spending should be intelligent by having asymmetric response for every likely scenario in the eastern sector.

And most important, be united. And for this to happen, we have to

-- Solve left wing insurgency
-- Ensure communist parties don't come to power in any state

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 18 Sep 2009 18:35

Rahul M wrote:chanakyaa, welcome to BRF.

as to your question, while you may use such words people will treat your posts as juvenile if that is all there is to them. IMHO, it is better to avoid abusive words altogether and base your posts solely upon facts and reasoning.

another thing, you will be well advised to lurk for sometime and generally get a feel of the place before jumping right in with proposals and advices.
trust me, it would be a more fruitful experience that way.
also people don't appreciate repeating topics which have been already discussed in the immediate past so it is a good idea to read up the older pages and archives.
regards.

Suggestions, much appreciated. May be I haven't written in last 3 months, so I hope the forum members excuse my emotional outburst....

JAI HIND

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 18 Sep 2009 23:07

Gagan wrote:Nyoma airfield is much better in terms of usage during wartime, it is surrounded by mountains and is away from the LAC. It can be used well into the war and can supply the southern part of the LAC

The IAF already has plans for 4 advanced landing grounds in Ladakh to be opened, some for An-32 operations. All these are already functioning for helicoptor ops I think.
1. Daulat Beg Oldi
2. Fukche
3. Chushul
4. Nyoma

All these fields will be in range of Short range Ballistic Missiles. The question is are the hangars in Air fields in East where Sukhois are deployed BM proof? There is no point in keeping a $40 million plane in sub standard Hangars. Are the hangars created by a PWD type org within Air Force? Tough questions need to be asked so preparation is optimal.

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 19 Sep 2009 03:38

Karna_A wrote:All these fields will be in range of Short range Ballistic Missiles. The question is are the hangars in Air fields in East where Sukhois are deployed BM proof? There is no point in keeping a $40 million plane in sub standard Hangars. Are the hangars created by a PWD type org within Air Force? Tough questions need to be asked so preparation is optimal.

Can't we have air defence for this air fields considering these air fields are highly vulnarable to BM's ?....
Does any one has information abt the AD for any of the vital installations in the country ?
and also when is the supposed AAD & PAD are set to operational...last news came in as 2010 any updates on the same ...

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 19 Sep 2009 06:47

Hope this was not posted before

India Maintains Goal of China Deterrent

Siddharth Srivastava | 08 Jul 2009

NEW DELHI -- While India's immediate military aim is to build a potent strike force against Pakistan, it also harbors long-term plans to field a credible deterrent against China.

This reflects the fact that although military efforts to counter Pakistan, such as the strengthened deployment along India's western frontiers, are usually given precedence, the perceived threat from China remains very much on the radar.

A case in point is India's recent decision to buttress its military presence in the Northeast frontiers by basing its latest "air dominance" Russian Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters there. The move is meant to check China's buildup of military infrastructure in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and south China.

Planned for more than two years now, the move finally happened last month when four of the jets formally touched down at Tezpur airbase in Assam. Official sources say that Tezpur will have two Sukhoi squadrons, for a total of 36 jets, in the near future. Chabua, also in Assam, is likely to be another base. Fully-loaded Sukhois can log a cruising-speed range of 3,200 km, allowing them to strike targets deep inside of China from the base in Tezpur.

India's military response has been due to a calculated Chinese buildup in the area over the past few years. It is believed that Beijing has built at least four airbases in TAR and another three or four in south China, all with India specifically in mind, while also keeping an eye on oil-transiting sea lanes further south.

China's energy stakes in the region will only rise in the near future, necessitating the military contingency plans. Starting in September 2009, China will begin to lay parallel oil and natural-gas pipelines from Myanmar's Arakan coast in the Bay of Bengal to China's Yunnan province. The 1,100-km gas pipeline will be fed by Myanmar's energy-rich Shwe gas fields.

China is also building multiple air, road and rail infrastructure along the 4,000-km Line of Control that marks the border with India, allowing for easy troop movement.

In addition to these conventional preparations, New Delhi believes that Beijing has built about 60 launch pads for nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles near Delingha and Da Qaidam in central China, within range of northern India and southern Russia.

In response, India has been developing the 3,500-km Agni-III ballistic missile, capable of nuclear payload delivery, which should be ready for operational deployment by 2011. Meanwhile, work is in progress for the maiden test of the 5,000-km Agni-V missile by mid-2010.

New Delhi has also announced the addition of two infantry divisions -- roughly 30,000 troops -- to the 10 mountain divisions already tabbed for defense against China. The move was to meet "future security challenges" posed by China. There are reports that a new artillery division equipped with 155mm howitzers guns and multiple-launch rocket systems will also be deployed soon.

Indeed, despite continuous diplomatic exchanges and burgeoning trade, the air of suspicion and rivalry between the two countries has not receded. For example, China recently objected to a $2.9 billion funding plan for India by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), due to the inclusion of projects in Arunachal Pradesh, areas of which China claims as its own. The ADB's charter mandates that it shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member and that only economic considerations shall be relevant to its decision. The agency approved the plan despite Beijing's objections, making it clear that it took no position on territorial disputes between its members.

To their credit, the two countries maintain a system of diplomatic and military exchanges to ensure that any potential incidents do not spin out of control. Continuous interaction and communication channels are in place, and the imminent establishment of a "red phone" hotline connecting the two countries' prime ministers was recently announced.

The appointment of a new Indian foreign secretary, Nirupama Rao, with considerable experience in India-China matters has been seen as an indicator of the importance being attached to such relations.

Burgeoning trade also remains an important buffer, even as the two countries compete aggressively to win energy blocks around the globe. Bilateral trade between India and China is expected to reach $60 billion in 2010. According to official statistics, Sino-Indian trade volume hit nearly $52 billion in 2008, with growth of 43 percent over the past eight years.

Recently the two nations conducted joint military exercises, and another one is scheduled for later this year. On August 7-8, special representatives of the two governments will meet to discuss the boundary issues that have affected ties for decades. Delhi and Beijing are also preparing to celebrate their 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations in 2010. A visit by Indian President Pratibha Patil to China and a return visit by Xi Jinping, China's vice-president, are being planned.

The two nations have also decided to devise common strategies on emerging global financial matters. For this, an early meeting of their bilateral Joint Economic Group has been proposed. The approach was firmed up when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit.

Yet, given the two countries' history of war, and with the U.S. keen to play up India as a regional counterweight to China, neither New Delhi nor Beijing is willing to compromise on the military front.

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist covering foreign and strategic affairs, security, politics, defense, business and lifestyle issues. He has been a correspondent for the Times of India and is widely published in newspapers and magazines in Asia, Europe and America. His Web site can be found here.

Photo: Indian soldiers (Flickr user cell105, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License).

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=4039

are the nuke missiles at Delingha and Da Qaidam really india specific?

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 19 Sep 2009 07:02

self edited

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Sep 2009 07:27

this is the china military watch thread. all other posts should be edited and x-posted in appropriate threads in strat forum. I'll delete the above OT posts after some hours.
thanks for the cooperation.