Ladakh Flash Point

Does it really matter, though? The Indian policy elites acknowledge that the Chinese have more military strength, barring airfields, on their side of the border.

The big change to look for is when Rafale with Meteor arrive on July 27th. Some people claim the R+M combo can defeat the J-20, others claim it can't. IRST can likely pick up the J-20 at least at 30 km, while the 11G maneuverability means that the J-20 has to get closer than its nominal NEZ to get a secure kill on the Rafale. On the other hand, the Meteor missile is currently not even PESA, and the J-20 has jamming ability.

The question is not really whether the Rafale can counter the J-20; the Indians are getting only 6 of them, so even if the Rafale does well the J-20 wins by attrition. The question is rather whether Indian bellicosity increases once they have Raffy on their side.

===

The main problem is that China will likely lose Europe if Biden gets into power in 2021. With the loss of Europe, it'd be increasingly important to resolve Sino-Indian ties.

The border dispute, at the end of the day, has to go. The Indians are not a strategic threat to China insofar as they're worth only 100 billion or so in terms of PLA deployments to wholly neuter them, and Sino-Indian relations are valuable both in the mid-term and in the long-term.

Brumby said:

If the buffer zone means off limit for patrols, then the Chinese and Indian patrols both stop at finger 5.

Click to expand...

Ah, but Shukla's statement from a month ago (before the agreement) clearly predicted that this is exactly what the Chinese will try to do, because that is what they actually wanted in Pangong Tso.

The map you presented suggest a much more bigger problem for the Chinese in terms of delineation of border. The border line supposedly affirmed by the Chinese Premier Chou En Lai and the territory at Pangong Tso is well within recognised Indian side of the border. In other words, the Chinese have long violated Indian territory and the issue dates back way before this recent border incidents.

If your point is did India loose territory? Yes it did but it lost it a long time ago. However it also shows that China has infringed on Indian territory even by China's own territorial claims.

Click to expand...

....? I'm not sure how you figured that India losing territory is somehow China's problem (lolz?) In any case, China doesn't recognize the imperial borders India inherited from the British which violate its own claims. Moreover, China does not recognize India's claim to any part of Ladakh/Kashmir, as it made clear in 2010.

Inst said:

Does it really matter, though? The Indian policy elites acknowledge that the Chinese have more military strength, barring airfields, on their side of the border.

The big change to look for is when Rafale with Meteor arrive on July 27th. Some people claim the R+M combo can defeat the J-20, others claim it can't. IRST can likely pick up the J-20 at least at 30 km, while the 11G maneuverability means that the J-20 has to get closer than its nominal NEZ to get a secure kill on the Rafale. On the other hand, the Meteor missile is currently not even PESA, and the J-20 has jamming ability.

The question is not really whether the Rafale can counter the J-20; the Indians are getting only 6 of them, so even if the Rafale does well the J-20 wins by attrition. The question is rather whether Indian bellicosity increases once they have Raffy on their side.

===

The main problem is that China will likely lose Europe if Biden gets into power in 2021. With the loss of Europe, it'd be increasingly important to resolve Sino-Indian ties.

The border dispute, at the end of the day, has to go. The Indians are not a strategic threat to China insofar as they're worth only 100 billion or so in terms of PLA deployments to wholly neuter them, and Sino-Indian relations are valuable both in the mid-term and in the long-term.

Click to expand...

China never won Europe, doesn't make sense what you mean by losing Europe.
And how can the new US admin win Europe?
By accepting Nord Stream II's completion and watching US energy export ambition collapse?
By accepting that EU can impose digital data tax onto US IT companies that thrive on harvesting data?
By accepting an EU that opposing Israel's stance on eating up West Bank?

With the loss of Europe, it'd be increasingly important to resolve Sino-Indian ties ???
You are over-estimating the worth of India to China. And the onus to "repair" Sino-Indian ties is on India since she is the one that initiated the destabilisation of borders.

hullopilllw said:

China never won Europe, doesn't make sense what you mean by losing Europe.
And how can the new US admin win Europe?
By accepting Nord Stream II's completion and watching US energy export ambition collapse?
By accepting that EU can impose digital data tax onto US IT companies that thrive on harvesting data?
By accepting an EU that opposing Israel's stance on eating up West Bank?

With the loss of Europe, it'd be increasingly important to resolve Sino-Indian ties ???
You are over-estimating the worth of India to China. And the onus to "repair" Sino-Indian ties is on India since she is the one that initiated the destabilisation of borders.

Click to expand...

The alternative to winning isn't losing.

The problem is, since the Trump administration, EU ties with the US and implicitly NATO have been on the wane, with Trump threatening to trade war everyone. Unfortunately, with Biden likely coming in in 2021, EU-US relations are likely to be patched up, and the EU may join American containment efforts against China, with tariffs, export / import restrictions, and so on.

India is not THAT important to China, but it can't afford total isolation. If US policy elites get what they want, China's trading partners end up being reduced to Russia, Africa, and South America.

Keeping India neutral, anyways, is a more complex question as when Q2 GDP reports come out, everyone will be shown having taken a battering from the coronavirus, and the US and India will likely take a battering in Q3 as well as coronavirus remains out of control in both countries.

That means the Indians have bigger problems than the border dispute on their hands. In return for Chinese aid with coronavirus, they might be willing to settle the border dispute indefinitely.

===

China is acting very aggressively because it's trying to preempt aggression from the other side, but it can't afford to be completely isolated as a result of its aggression.

As others have mentioned, it's viable for China to win a preemptive attack on Indian border forces, but why bother? Chinese views its military as an extension of its politics; the military is used to obtain political results, and better Sino-Indian ties are a desirable political result.

Inst said:

Does it really matter, though? The Indian policy elites acknowledge that the Chinese have more military strength, barring airfields, on their side of the border.

The big change to look for is when Rafale with Meteor arrive on July 27th. Some people claim the R+M combo can defeat the J-20, others claim it can't. IRST can likely pick up the J-20 at least at 30 km, while the 11G maneuverability means that the J-20 has to get closer than its nominal NEZ to get a secure kill on the Rafale. On the other hand, the Meteor missile is currently not even PESA, and the J-20 has jamming ability.

The question is not really whether the Rafale can counter the J-20; the Indians are getting only 6 of them, so even if the Rafale does well the J-20 wins by attrition. The question is rather whether Indian bellicosity increases once they have Raffy on their side.

===

The main problem is that China will likely lose Europe if Biden gets into power in 2021. With the loss of Europe, it'd be increasingly important to resolve Sino-Indian ties.

The border dispute, at the end of the day, has to go. The Indians are not a strategic threat to China insofar as they're worth only 100 billion or so in terms of PLA deployments to wholly neuter them, and Sino-Indian relations are valuable both in the mid-term and in the long-term.

Click to expand...

Rafale + Meteor is pretty much roughly equal to J-10C + PL-15. If the case for Rafale defeating J-20 lies in its IRST which btw doesn't help you shoot at the J-20. The Rafale needs to get close enough to use its IR guided missiles or close enough for radar track and lock. Why would the J-20 need to get so close to take out a Rafale? Even if the Rafale can sustain 12G which it cannot, that's not indicative of missile dodging at all. It has far more to do with energy levels throughout the missile engagement. Why do I bother with you though. So I guess PLAAF's 12G capable flankers and J-10s cannot be hit by missiles either? What makes the Rafale so good? Like actually explain it thoroughly instead of saying something cheap and shallow like 11G bruh. You sound like an Indian fanboy with zero idea how air combat works.

Rafale and J-10C both use advanced electronics. J-10C is rumored to be using J-20 based electronics and sensor technology. The latest J-10C are equipped with the best China has. The Rafales are 10 years old nearly. India may be getting Rafales with AESA but this is France's first fighter AESA and the J-10C is using China's nth fighter AESA. The Meteor has older seekers. Maybe they're still all as capable or slightly better than China's but they're going to be J-10C levels. If this isn't true then prove otherwise. I'm just saying the J-10C has been constantly upgraded and is as modern a fighter as Rafale so how far behind can it be? Comparing Rafale to J-20? IAF can be our guest and give it a go. So far their Su-30MKIs were spanked by F-16 and JF-17s, failing to shoot a single thing down or preventing PAF from having its way with India's air and ground forces. If 30 year old F-16s and JF-17s can do this, imagine what J-20s could achieve. 36 Rafales or whatever.

Mohsin77 said:

Ah, but Shukla's statement from a month ago (before the agreement) clearly predicted that this is exactly what the Chinese will try to do, because that is what they actually wanted in Pangong Tso.

Click to expand...

When did the conversation became how accurate was Shukla's prediction? The only reason I responded to you is because you disagree with the description on the demarcation of the buffer zone.

Do you still disagree or that was never your point of contention?

Mohsin77 said:

....? I'm not sure how you figured that India losing territory is somehow China's problem (lolz?)

Click to expand...

If you acknowledge that you are squatting on someone's else property and that isn't a problem then you and I have a very different view of the world.

Mohsin77 said:

In any case, China doesn't recognize the imperial borders India inherited from the British which violate its own claims. Moreover, China does not recognize India's claim to any part of Ladakh/Kashmir, as it made clear in 2010.

Click to expand...

The last time I checked Chou En Lai was China's Premier. If his official position doesn't represent anything why would China's statement made in 2010 have any value? Why would you present a map with boundaries to make an argument but then by the same token argue that those boundaries are meaningless? You need to make up your mind.

India inherited the borders from the British through an international legal convention known as "uti possidetis juris" which is based on customary international law. Obviously China doesn't agree because it makes up its own version whenever it suits its own position.

Also in before idiots come back with "b... b... but France is better than China". Sorry no it's not. If you want to say Chinese weapons aren't proven against French ones then it can also be said French weapons aren't proven against Chinese ones. In fact Chinese weapons used by Pakistan managed to spank India silly including Indian operated French, Israeli, and Russian weapons. Those IAF Mirages were blinded and harassed by F-16 and JF-17. F-16s in PAF don't carry any significant or modern EW at all. So Chinese weapons are more proven against French then the other way round if anything.

Consider how many land based, airborne, and shipborne AESA radars China's deployed and replaced with better and newer generations. China's had AESA fighter radar in service with J-16 since 2012, when the French AESA RBE2-AA went into service Rafales too. We're well ahead of that now and France is supplying India with the RBE2-AA, an AESA comparable to 2012 PLAAF AESAs. So why is it that only J-20 is potentially good enough to defeat Rafale? In my mind J-10C is going to give the Rafale more than a match and there are well over 36 J-10Cs already in PLAAF.

Inst said:

The big change to look for is when Rafale with Meteor arrive on July 27th. Some people claim the R+M combo can defeat the J-20, others claim it can't. IRST can likely pick up the J-20 at least at 30 km, while the 11G maneuverability means that the J-20 has to get closer than its nominal NEZ to get a secure kill on the Rafale. On the other hand, the Meteor missile is currently not even PESA, and the J-20 has jamming ability.

The question is not really whether the Rafale can counter the J-20; the Indians are getting only 6 of them, so even if the Rafale does well the J-20 wins by attrition. The question is rather whether Indian bellicosity increases once they have Raffy on their side.

Click to expand...

Sorry mate. Rafale will not change the equation for India due to a variety of reasons.
(1) Fundamentally the IAF is not buying enough Rafale and so its direct impact will be limited
(2) It takes years to build tactics and to integrate effectively with the other systems within the IAF. French and Russian systems don't talk to each other besides the hybrid of Indian indigenous system mixed with Israeli systems in between. It is highly problematic to operate coherently which unfortunately modern warfare demands. It is equally likely that the Indians will shoot its own assets rather than at the Chinese. We have evidence of fratricide from the Feb incident last year. What the IAF is facing is simply a bad by product of the IAF acquisition process driven by its historical non alignment policy i.e. a mixture of everything.
3)Long range missiles like Meteor or PL-15 don't win wars. It might impact tactics but long range kills do come with it a variety of problems and that include fratricide. In a F-15 vs F-14 debate I read, the reason why the F-15 was never inducted with the Phoenix missile is because of the risk of fratricide. The F-14 in the middle of the ocean has a lesser issue with it.
4)The Indian armed services still operate with a silo mentality. The Chinese understand the importance of joint services and in 2018 reorganised themselves. The Chinese is one up on this.
5)The IAF is sadly deficient on important assets like AWACs which is an important force multiplier. The PAF is better resourced in this area even when operating with a smaller budget. The Indians understand the problem but refused to put money behind it. The IAF lack leadership to do the right thing.
6)Like it or not, the back bone of the IAF is the SU-30 MKI. If it cannot take on the Chinese air force (whether J-10 or others) then the IAF will have a hard time winning any conflict. There are some obvious problems that the IAF is having which I have not seen any tangible solutions.
(a)The RCS of the SU-30 by design is high and so is more susceptible to radar lock The counter is a capable SPJ suite but is stuck with the Russian wingtip ECM pods that are known to degrade kinematic performance. I suspect during the Feb 2019 incident the SU-30 MKI was not protected by any ECM system and was able to be locked on by the PAF F-16. Development of an indigenous is stuck because of lack of Russian cooperation.
(b)The IAF lacks an upgrade path to install AESA radar on its fleet of SU-30 MKI. That puts the IAF in a disadvantage position viz-a-viz the Chinese.
(c)The induction of a Brahmos capable fleet of SU-30 MKI is moving very slowly. As of the beginning of this year only 2 have been modified against a goal of 40. The problem is the electronics have to be hardened against EMP which is not standard on Russian planes unlike the US. Should the IAF need to take out all the 6 Chinese airbases there are simply not enough such assets to conduct such a strike. I estimate it will require at least 130 SU-30 MKIs assuming 1.5 munition is needed for every aim point.

Brumby said:

India inherited the borders from the British through an international legal convention known as "uti possidetis juris" which is based on customary international law. Obviously China doesn't agree because it makes up its own version whenever it suits its own position.

Click to expand...

Typical western arrogance here. Accusing China of making things up every time when it suits China.

Yes, using Latin and law trying to force it's version on the world. But typically left out the most important reason why China disagree. That is....... China never agreed to land grab by the British, and as such the "Uti possidetis juris" has no meaning as the Indian inherit a territory that is disputed! But let's not get this little details gets in the way, so we, my good fellow from down under!

Brumby said:

Long range missiles like Meteor or PL-15 don't win wars. It might impact tactics but long range kills do come with it a variety of problems and that include fratricide. In a F-15 vs F-14 debate I read, the reason why the F-15 was never inducted with the Phoenix missile is because of the risk of fratricide. The F-14 in the middle of the ocean has a lesser issue with it.

Click to expand...

One wonders how much of this viewpoint is American sour grapes over their lack of comparable BVRAAMs vs. an actual problem with fratricide. Given the capabilities of modern IFFs, I suspect it's the former. I also suspect that such "problems" will go away once America introduces the AIM-260.