Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Inst

Captain
Mate,
You are spreading cow droppings all over the place.

India is not getting any F-35 in the foreseeable future. It is just not happening - period.

You should advise the Syrian to put up the VHF radar because the Israeli F-35s are bombing the crap out of the Syrians even with their much vaunted S-300. VHF radars by nature are easy to target and easy to jam and not much use except to tell you that there is something out there.

I would refrain from the F-35 vs J-20 as it would ruffle too many feathers.

The foreseeable future for you might be 5 years, the foreseeable future for me is 10 years.

If India joins the Quad and becomes a US ally, then F-35s are now potentially available.

As to countering the F-35, most countries tend to knock stealth until they actually get stealth; both the Chinese and Russians changed their tunes once they got deeply enough into the Su-57 and J-20 programs. As it has been stated before, the problem with the F-35 etc isn't simply seeing it, but being able to complete a kill-chain with it. Counterstealth radar by itself isn't enough; you also need platforms capable of knocking it down. So Syria etc wouldn't be able to do that much with counterstealth other than be able to tell the F-35 is coming.

In the Chinese case, on the other hand, they have the J-20 and fairly good IR missiles. If we can describe the problem in another way, J-20s vs F-35s in the South China Sea or East China Sea might be a question of who can knock down the other's counterstealth AEW&C first, since the AEW&C unmasks the stealth aircraft at reasonable ranges and can cue IR sensors on nearby aircraft to search an area. But on the China India border, on the other hand, the Indians haven't been focusing on counterstealth technology. Even if they did import a E-2D, the E-2D is expensive and ground-based counterstealth is cheap.
 

Inst

Captain
There are so many mistakes above, but I'll address the major ones which blow away the rest of your analysis.

---

Your assertion that the EU is only an economic power is incorrect.

Active Military Personnel:
Combined EU (1.4 million) versus (0.9 million) Russia

Military Spending:
Combined EU (255 billion USD) versus (65 billion USD) Russia

You can see that the EU is clearly a bigger military power than Russia, even if that spending is inefficient.

So why would the EU need Russia as a military partner?
If Russia and the EU ever get into a long conventional war, Russia is going to lose badly, and Russia knows this.

---

Your assertion that the EU is not technologically competitive is also incorrect.
Have a look at the R&D spending comparison below.
You can see the EU is in the same ballpark as the USA and China.
In comparison, Russia lags behind in R&D spending, both in terms of quantity and *quality*

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In summary:

Russia is at a large disadvantage with respect to both China and the EU
It doesn't matter if Russia is dealing with China or the EU.
But Russia is big and self contained enough to play in the middle.

I mean from the first part of your argument, the Indian armed forces is superior to the Chinese armed forces because they have more men under arms than China does.

As for modern equipment, the Germans run roughly 244 LeoA2s. The French have roughly 200 Leclercs. The Russian Army ,in contrast, has roughly 3000 tanks in active service, ranging from T-72s to T-90s.

The Russian Army, also, has about 2000 SPGs in 152mm caliber. The French and German combined have only roughly 400 SPGs. Likewise, when we get to airpower, there's a massive force disparity between the RuAF and various EU states.

The key to EU defense, anyways, isn't the EU member states themselves, but rather NATO. The present force parity and deterrence is guaranteed by the fact that the EU is backed by the United States, which has taken it on as one of their defense obligations. But if you take out the United States, the obvious force replacement is Russia, if the Europeans can get an agreeable modus vivendi.

===

Like I told Brumby, I tend to have a longer perspective than many people, even if I don't blame it on being ethnic Chinese. There are two other key factors, one that I need to further elucidate.

First, the EU has been propping itself up mainly by absorbing former Soviet-bloc states. What they get out of former Soviet-bloc states is that they get a supply of cheap labor and potential for economic growth. But all of these former Soviet states are by themselves, small, and with limited population power. Russia, on the other hand, is large, and would basically be the final step in the EU development project.

Second, you have to remember, that China is a unitary state. You can cajole Fujian vs Anhui or Heilongjiang vs Henan for business purposes, but if it all of a sudden becomes a strategic affair, the CPC central government will crack down hard on you. The European Union, on the other hand, is an alliance of sovereign nations. Moreover, these sovereign nations tend to have limited populations. The most populous nation in the EU is Germany, with 83 million people, and people are already complaining about the EU essentially being German-dominated; or alternately, that the EU is dominated by Germany as an economic power and France as a military power. If you stuff Russia into the EU, though, what's the chances that Russia would end up dominating the EU given a population almost twice as big as Germany's?

That's to say, for Russia, if it were to join the EU, wouldn't be joining as a satellite, but as potentially the first among equals. This is a powerful reason for the EU to deny Russia entrance to it, but a powerful incentive for Russia to join the EU.

===

In truth, I admit that there are many important problems that need to be overcome before Russia joins the European Union. That's why I say it's a long-term event, not a short-term one that can be expected in the next decade or so. But the strategic complementation of Russia and EU is far too great for it not to be an event that should be considered; Russia in the EU would more than double the physical landmass of the European Union, turning the EU from a geopolitical has-been and American satellite into a true pole, one that can successfully compete with the ABCA alliance, the Sinosphere, and the Indosphere.
 

muddie

Junior Member
The foreseeable future for you might be 5 years, the foreseeable future for me is 10 years.

If India joins the Quad and becomes a US ally, then F-35s are now potentially available.

As to countering the F-35, most countries tend to knock stealth until they actually get stealth; both the Chinese and Russians changed their tunes once they got deeply enough into the Su-57 and J-20 programs. As it has been stated before, the problem with the F-35 etc isn't simply seeing it, but being able to complete a kill-chain with it. Counterstealth radar by itself isn't enough; you also need platforms capable of knocking it down. So Syria etc wouldn't be able to do that much with counterstealth other than be able to tell the F-35 is coming.

In the Chinese case, on the other hand, they have the J-20 and fairly good IR missiles. If we can describe the problem in another way, J-20s vs F-35s in the South China Sea or East China Sea might be a question of who can knock down the other's counterstealth AEW&C first, since the AEW&C unmasks the stealth aircraft at reasonable ranges and can cue IR sensors on nearby aircraft to search an area. But on the China India border, on the other hand, the Indians haven't been focusing on counterstealth technology. Even if they did import a E-2D, the E-2D is expensive and ground-based counterstealth is cheap.

India is not going to join the Quad, it makes no sense. Also what you are saying is WAYYY off topic.

Joining the Quad doesn't solve India's border problems. The Quad is not going to help India solve the Kashmir issue and it's not going to help India solve its border dispute with China. Joining the Quad will only aggregate not only China but Russia and Iran.
 

Inst

Captain
India is not going to join the Quad, it makes no sense. Also what you are saying is WAYYY off topic.

Joining the Quad doesn't solve India's border problems. The Quad is not going to help India solve the Kashmir issue and it's not going to help India solve its border dispute with China. Joining the Quad will only aggregate not only China but Russia and Iran.

India's optimum strategy is to play the US and China off each other for hopefully economic and development concessions.

What I worry about is that Indian nationalism will squeak India stuck into the Quad and end this little game.

China's reprisal at Galwan seems to be about trying to send a signal to India that it can't join the Quad, and if it does, it'll get Vietnamized as Chinese military spending squeezes India until its development is crippled by military spending.
 

Rustom

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
Well could be true. But it requires a beginning.middle & ending in every story. If india can kill more chinese soldier, i wonder why US simply doesn't bomb the artificial islands china built like it did in Afghanistan. May be even US knows that India is the only ultra power,if it wakes up, universe will be shaken. So it is keeping things quiet? US,Russia & all other needs to learn from ultra power India.
As for ". No country in the world trusts CCP" is concerned, nobody in world trusts the indians & fake Americans either.
Perspective can be made up from any POV. However the equation has to be balanced on both side. Indian narration already has changed color 4 times.
Sir, right now US carrier group, not one but two are pissing in SCS and your PLAN is trying Sun Tzu techniques showing images of carrier killer missile on twitter to scare the adversary , who is not impressed at all . At this rate Xi's competitors in CCP will topple him send him to face firing squad soon.
 

Rustom

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
16 years ago, I moved to Japan and settled here since. 16 years, Japanese media were keep talking about (they hope) Chinese leader get toppled by some secret faction within the CCP. I think you guys should try hope harder.

If someone wants to be president for life, then I'm sure his competition will do the needful, during weak moments.
 

Rustom

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
India's optimum strategy is to play the US and China off each other for hopefully economic and development concessions.

What I worry about is that Indian nationalism will squeak India stuck into the Quad and end this little game.

China's reprisal at Galwan seems to be about trying to send a signal to India that it can't join the Quad, and if it does, it'll get Vietnamized as Chinese military spending squeezes India until its development is crippled by military spending.
Sir, china has burnt its finger in Galwan, so much so that not squeak from CCP mouth piece media about causalities. Your X PLA solider in US media is claiming 100 + casualties which is simply shameful if it has not been acknowledged . For CCP PLA soldiers life is worthless, but propaganda victory is important. About getting vietnamized , they literally raped your PLA with heavy casualties and POW and it will be far worse with facing india. PLA cannot handle high casualties like IA and you can guess the reason why i say this.
 

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
Sir, china has burnt its finger in Galwan, so much so that not squeak from CCP mouth piece media about causalities. Your X PLA solider in US media is claiming 100 + casualties which is simply shameful if it has not been acknowledged . For CCP PLA soldiers life is worthless, but propaganda victory is important. About getting vietnamized , they literally raped your PLA with heavy casualties and POW and it will be far worse with facing india. PLA cannot handle high casualties like IA and you can guess the reason why i say this.
The Indians "raped" the PLA even though over 60 Indian soldiers were captured by the Chinese? I'm not sure how I understand this logic ... if the Indian side truly dealt the Chinese a massive blow like you are claiming, then why did the Indians not capture a single Chinese soldier? Surely it would not make sense for the "victor" to not capture a single soldier and the "loser" to capture 60 soldiers ...

Sir, right now US carrier group, not one but two are pissing in SCS and your PLAN is trying Sun Tzu techniques showing images of carrier killer missile on twitter to scare the adversary , who is not impressed at all . At this rate Xi's competitors in CCP will topple him send him to face firing squad soon.
You really really need to lay back on the political flame bait ... I know you must not like Xi for what happened to the 20+ Indian soldiers killed and over 60 captured but what you're saying is too inflammatory.
 

daifo

Major
Registered Member
At least troll more discreetly ....

Sir, china has burnt its finger in Galwan, so much so that not squeak from CCP mouth piece media about causalities. Your X PLA solider in US media is claiming 100 + casualties which is simply shameful if it has not been acknowledged . For CCP PLA soldiers life is worthless, but propaganda victory is important. About getting vietnamized , they literally raped your PLA with heavy casualties and POW and it will be far worse with facing india. PLA cannot handle high casualties like IA and you can guess the reason why i say this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top