Ladakh Flash Point

@ougoah

This isn't about Kashmir or Article whatdamacallit. It's about where India sides in the future global order. China has put in way more pressure on India than simply Galwan and Ladakh. It's not a mere border skirmish that's gotten out of hand; Indian media reports that China is complaining that Modi has violated the Wuhan Consensus and is making clear that India is a hostile power with multiple provocations. Indian domestic sentiment likewise is suggesting that India is a hostile power. In response, likewise, Nepal's pro-China government is making territorial claims against India, China has made territorial claims against India's puppet / satellite Bhutan, and Pakistan is showing a strong anti-Indian sentiment.

I think China is trying to present India with a choice; either back off or get your nationalist dreams crushed. There's no other explanation for it; China is calling for calm because it wants to present India time to make its decision, but Indian nationalism is boldly stating that it wants a fight.

There is still a possibility that India backs down, but it'd be a sort of miracle. At this point in time, I am prepared for China to declare India a write-off, move to enable the Pakistanis to take Kashmir, and neutralize India as a regional power. The repercussions will be terrible; India is naturally the leader of South Asia and given enough time it will be hegemonic in South Asia, but it'd take decades or even more than a century for Indian anti-Chinese sentiment to die down.

I think US (or anyone else) is unlikely to fight along side of India against China on behalf of India. Unless India weakens China significantly.



In any global conflict involving China, I think EU, Africa, and South America would stay out of it.

Middle East, Russia, South America will use opportunity to reshape the regions if US becomes occupied.

Over time, Japan and South Korea will have less appetite to act as forward bases for the US.

Brumby said:

I

Key to achieving air superiority is the ability to sustain air operations by way of sortie generation. On this score the Chinese is constrained by a number of key factors. As mentioned, there are limited airbases in the Lhasa region and unfortunately all the bases are located basically at high elevations of 3000 m and above. Due to air density there are significant load penalties on fuel and/or weapons loadout. Additionally, of the five available air bases only two are located at a distance to each other that can be considered operationally supportive. In other words, operations out of non- available supportive air bases will greatly impact planning and constrain mission tasking. Finally, to my knowledge only the Konga airbase has blast pens. This effectively limits prospective basing of any J-20 to this airbase should China decides to utilise them. This airbase I believe is well within the strike range of Brahmos even when launched from within India’s LAC.

The other main consideration is a list of unknowns. We don’t know the respective air forces and their capability to execute SEAD/DEAD missions. We don’t know their respective capabilities with their targeting pods and weapon precision in executing CAS and strike missions especially at night. We don’t know their respective air space management capabilities in preventing fratricide which historical examples has demonstrated to be as much as 20 % of total air losses. Adoption of long range AAM such as PL-15 and modern IADS will just greatly add to the problem. We don’t know their respective data link capabilities which can be a force multiplier. We don’t know their respective EW capabilities which potentially can blind sensors and degrade battlespace situational awareness. Lastly, conflict at high attitude is unique and we know can significantly impact systems precision accuracy and recalibration is needed to adjust to the unique environment.

Click to expand...

That is hoqwash assuming standard length of 3km for the airfield But most Chinese airfiedl in Tibet is way much longer 4 to 5Km that way they can gain faster runway speed to gain altitude.

And those myth about airfield shortage is wrong China has civilian airport that will support any operation in Tibet
Weasal in CDF has a list

AndrewS said:

If Pakistan could had air superiority over the Kashmir Valley, how would you imagine Pakistan Army operations?

Click to expand...

Let me first say that the term 'air superiority' is used too casually these days, I think, because there has not been a near-peer war in a while. Air Superiority is usually not achieved until the later stages of a proper war (if at all.) For most of the war, air space is contested and strike/CAS/interdiction sorties require escort. The game has changed though, because of cruise missiles and hypersonics, as they are practically immune to air defenses and can be used to strike SAMs/C4I/Airbases etc.

However, there are many unknown variables, because the world has not yet experienced this new dimension of warfare. Many of these newer systems (and their kill chains) are untested in combat, plus their availability is always classified. Also, the 'AI' factor is crucial now, as that would be needed to survive the degredation of networks... So we don't really know what will happen empirically... It's possible that one side will establish air dominance early, even in a near peer conflict. But it's not a given.

Now, as for your question, the operational plans of the Pakistani Army don't really matter much, because they are secondary to those of the PAF. The Army will need to adjust its plans on the ground, according to what is happening in the air. This lesson was first learned by Rommel, in North Africa. The Pakistani Army has (finally) learned this as well, which is why most of the focus (procurement /logistics /interoperability) has been given to the PAF in the past couple of decades. I hope this trend continues.

siegecrossbow said:

You've answered one of my questions with your post! Looks like the Indian military doesn’t have a proper chart for ammunitions in high altitude conditions. The justification provided in the video is that it takes tens of thousands of test rounds to calibrate a weapon and since India imports most of its defense equipment, there aren’t enough spare ammunition for calibration.

Click to expand...

Yep. If we just look at just the infantry's requirements, every soldier needs a few rounds (let's say 10) to recalibrate their sights. So for 200K soldiers, that's 2 million bullets right there. And that's just for the infantry.

Inst said:

The main problem is the Indian tank force. As I've stated before, the Indians have more T-72s and T-90s in active service....

Click to expand...

We shouldn't focus on bean counting for 2 reasons:

1) It doesn't matter how many tanks you have if you're not even training for offensive combined arms maneuver warfare, and we know that the Indians aren't. See Pravin Sawhney's analysis. The Indian Army has been exclusively focusing on COIN since the 90s.

2) Trying to equal India in sheer numbers is not the game Pakistan is playing. India is much bigger than Pakistan, by an order of magnitude. We need to be better trained, more integrated with air power, have some key advantages in tech and logistics, and on top of that we need to be more willing to accept risk.

Mohsin77: My point is that the Indian tank fleet is a threat to Pakistan and not in Kashmir, but by attacking through other Indo-Pakistani border regions.

I haven't even brought up Pakistani tanks in Pakistan vs India competition. That's because the Pakistanis don't have a sufficient number of tanks to offset the Indians. The question is more Pakistani ATGM capabilities, which are absolutely abysmal and force Pakistan to rely on nuclear weapons in the event of a major Indian ground incursion in tank territory.

Hendrik_2000 said:

That is hoqwash assuming standard length of 3km for the airfield But most Chinese airfiedl in Tibet is way much longer 4 to 5Km that way they can gain faster runway speed to gain altitude.

And those myth about airfield shortage is wrong China has civilian airport that will support any operation in Tibet
Weasal in CDF has a list

Click to expand...

Chinese can build airfields faster than India can build missiles.

Hendrik_2000 said:

That is hoqwash assuming standard length of 3km for the airfield But most Chinese airfiedl in Tibet is way much longer 4 to 5Km that way they can gain faster runway speed to gain altitude.

And those myth about airfield shortage is wrong China has civilian airport that will support any operation in Tibet
Weasal in CDF has a list

Click to expand...

India also has civilian airports, so?

The bigger problem is that if the Chinese use civilian airports in Tibet, they don't necessarily have the ammunition and fuel set up for a sustained campaign.

Another issue would be the ballistic missiles China needs to turn off InAF airfields. Most Chinese ballistic missile concentrations are set up facing Japan and Taiwan, or the South China Sea. These missiles are heavy and difficult to transport.

A big issue would be for the Chinese to move DF-25s into Tibet. If the United States seeks to intervene, Tibetan DF-25s could potentially hit American bases in the Gulf and carriers in the Indian Ocean. The Indians likewise boast of using naval interdiction to cut off Chinese exports. One way for the Chinese to respond to that would simply be to move DF-25s and knock out Indian capital ships, while bringing their own capital ships and modern destroyers to clean up the remainders. But the DF-25s are huge and bulky and difficult to transport.

===

Basically, the fun of it all is that China has built up its military to take on the USN and USAF in a Taiwan / SCS scenario. But most Chinese equipment is overkill for India, hell, even the ZTQ-15 light tank can be upgraded to reliably take on T-72s. China just needs to move assets from its coast to the Tibetan plateau.

Inst said:

Mohsin77: My point is that the Indian tank fleet is a threat to Pakistan and not in Kashmir, but by attacking through other Indo-Pakistani border regions.

I haven't even brought up Pakistani tanks in Pakistan vs India competition. That's because the Pakistanis don't have a sufficient number of tanks to offset the Indians. The question is more Pakistani ATGM capabilities, which are absolutely abysmal and force Pakistan to rely on nuclear weapons in the event of a major Indian ground incursion in tank territory.

Click to expand...

We recently discussed the issue of ATGMs and armor in the Army forum (in the IFV and MBT threads) you may want to check those discussions. You don't 'offset' armor with ATGMs in traditional warfare. You offset armor with armor/gunships/CAS/guided artillery etc.

Secondly, you're still ignoring the fact that India's armored formations are not geared to "attack" anything right now. This is a major doctrinal and training issue in the Indian army. Now, with that said, Pakistan shouldn't rely on our enemy's ineptness, and we need to continue focusing on building up our capabilities. Yes, we should have more tanks and other key systems required to 'offset' India's armor, but the most important aspect is always air power and that is what we are currently focusing on. We have limited funds and right now those funds are being focused on the PAF more than the Army. Once the PAF is in a comfortable spot, the army will get its toys as well.

And lastly, armor will still play a major role for the outcome in Kashmir, as it did in 1965. Ultimately, in order to capture Kashmir on the ground, the PA will need to cut off Kashmir from the rest of India with an armored thrust in the Chamb Sector and/or the surrounding area.

This is getting completely off topic again, but India is not going to do a massed armour blitzkrieg against Pakistan because:

a) it needs to keep at least 1/2, maybe even 2/3 of its total operationally deployable tank fleet (which will again only be a fraction of total inventory numbers) in reserve against China;

b) they are not going to be able to achieve the force build up necessary without being detected by all and sundry, with Pakistani and potentially even Chinese counter deployments happening in response, which would make any possibility of a rapid and deep penetration into Pakistan a long and costly grind rather than a rapid advance as you seem to believe.

c) you are about 20 years behind the times if you think the only or even best counter to an enemy massed tank charge is a wall of your own tanks these days. The most effective counter to enemy massed armour assault is massed artillery interdiction. You only need to look to Ukraine to see what competent artillery does to massed armour. And those artillery weren’t even using sensor fused weapons. Modern artillery and air launched sensor fused cluster munitions will absolutely annihilate massed armour. That’s why you cannot open up with a tank charge, as that will just be a modern charge of the light brigade. You need massive and sustained air campaign to clear the route, with your tanks intending to punch through what is left.

d) China will do whatever is necessary to check and counter such a move up to and inclined direct military intervention.

With BRI infrastructure already in place, China could deploy massed land forces to Pakistan pretty much as quickly and effectively as it could within its own boarders via high speed rail, with airborne rapid reaction forces able to get in theatre even faster. So within hours of your wet dream Indian massed tank charge, if they have not been obliterated by Pakistani artillery, your Indian tanks will start to run into increasing numbers of superior PLA front line MBTs with full PLAAF air cover.

The entire Pakistani and a huge part of Chinese western theatre command would be geared towards stopping precisely the kind of attack as you are suggesting, so it’s chances of success are categorically low to start with. But the cherry on top is that the more successful the Indians are at fighting this war, the more likely it is that they will create them own worst nightmare of facing the full force of the PLA in open battle across open terrain. Good tank country works both ways you know. After the PA and PLA has blunted and obliterated the Indian attack, what’s stopping them mounting their own counter invasion into India the other way?

If Indian is stupid enough to try to turn a boarder dispute into a full on invasion of Pakistan and forcing the hand of Beijing into direct military invention to stop it, do not expect China to simply stop at the boarder once it has destroy the Indian army attacking Pakistan. At a minimum India would loose all of Kashmir in such a move, potentially much more depending on the mood in Beijing.

@Mohsin77:

The reason I suggest ATGMs as ways to counter armor as opposed to armor / gunships / CAS / guided artillery is because the air situation for Pakistan does not look good.

To begin with, Pakistani's air defense network is horribly antiquated with mostly short-range defensive SAMs from China (Russian air defense missiles are generally better). American SAMs, likewise, are considered inferior to Russian air defense and the Americans, until China began modernizing its air forces, never much developed SAMs as they relied on their aircraft to maintain air superiority.

Second, while China, at least until India imports F-35s or Su-57, has a technological advantage over India and more 4th gen or above aircraft, Pakistan doesn't. The capability of Pakistan to technologically offset India is time-limited, likewise. JF-17 Block IIIs with AESA and PL-15Es can offset most of Indian inventory quite well, but once you get Rafales that have powerful ECM, Meteors, and 11G emergency maneuverability, you can only offset them with superior numbers. Likewise, by the time Pakistan gets J-31s or J-31 derivatives, the Indians will get either F-35s or Su-57s and the J-31 is basically a reject version of the J-20.

The armor / gunship / CAS / guided artillery options you've suggested are all quite vulnerable to airstrikes. Armor is least vulnerable, but Pakistan can't get enough of them. Attack helicopters are incredibly vulnerable to aircraft given their low speed, poor armor, and lack of terrain protection. Close air support, likewise, has difficulty functioning when you don't have air superiority. Guided artillery, likewise, is airstrike bait because it's poorly armored and exposed.

ATGMs, on the other hand, whether vehicle mounted (TOWs on M1 Bradleys killed more T-72s than Abrams during the Persian Gulf War) or infantry-mounted are extremely cheap and extremely dispersed. Infantry is relatively resistant to airstrikes, especially if they have terrain advantages, because infantrymen are cheap and aircraft are expensive.

@plawolf :

The problem with everything you're saying is geography. If India had all of its territorial claims, China and Pakistan wouldn't even be neighbors. The only track connecting China to Pakistan is through the Pakistani-held sector of Kashmir, and what's more, the geography is in India's favor when it comes to a two-front war against China and Pakistan simultaneously. The Himalayas block China's entry to India for the most part, and in the eastern sector, Yunnan isn't even contiguous with India. You can only get to Indian territories from Tibet. That means China is going to have great difficulty deploying Type-99s to Indian terrain; the majority of Chinese tanks in any potential Second Sino-Indian War would be ZTQ-15s and they'd be hard pressed to match T-90s, even with top-attack gun-launched ATGMs.

Moreover, if you look at the Indian Army tank build-up, it's essentially pointed at Pakistan, not China, since the T-72s and T-90s are ill-equipped for Tibetan operations. Where the terrain is in their favor is on the Indo-Pakistani border, which is often desert.

====

Lastly, the party to the action that we're not considering is Russia. India is a major customer for Russian arms exports, and China bashing down India is extremely destabilizing for Russia. While Russia is necessarily trapped in the Chinese camp, it favors multipolarity and a balance of power. China taking down India would deprive Russia of a major balancing power and one of the few countries it retains good relations with after American containment operations. The sight, likewise, of Chinese equipment destroying Russian equipment exported to India would be quite destabilizing for Russian arms exports and threatening to the Sino-Russian border, as it'd imply that the Chinese, if they chose, could pose a major threat to the obsolescent Russian Army.