India-Pakistan LoC/IB Skirmishes in the Aftermath of August 5 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jaymax61

New Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
584
Likes
2,207
AMCA said:
Stop this YouTubeish thing of number vs number comparison. They cannot mobilise their entire army against India so this number vs number thing is useless. All we need is to counter their current deployments in Tibet and Xinjiang area.
This was discussed in detail on this very forum during dhoklam stand-off with china. Check out me reply from LoC thread

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum...ernational-border.79817/page-324#post-1412163


The Strategic Postures of China and India: A Visual Guide
| March 2020
Policy prescriptions following from this analysis have been published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. See Frank O'Donnell and Alexander K. Bollfrass, "India is Building Nuclear Submarines and ICBMs. That’s a $14 Billion Mistake," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 26, 2020.

Downloads and Resources:

Tables and maps embedded in full below.

Background
Fueled by aggressive rhetoric from both capitals, Indian and Chinese ground forces engaged in a standoff between June and August 2017. The Doklam crisis, as it became known, stimulated introspection among officials and experts in both states about the future of their relationship. Politically, both strategic communities largely concluded that the peaceful resolution of border disputes is now less likely, forecasting more rivalry than cooperation. Militarily, Indian discussions on the strength of its military position against China in their disputed ground frontier areas have converged on the view that China holds the conventional and nuclear edge over India in this domain.1

Based on our analysis of data on the location and capabilities of Indian and Chinese strategic forces and related military units, we conclude that this assessment of the balance of forces may be mistaken and a poor guide for Indian security and procurement policies. We recommend that instead of investing in new nuclear weapons platforms that our analysis suggests are not likely to be required to deter China, New Delhi should improve the survivability of its existing forces and fill the gap in global arms control leadership with an initiative on restraint and transparency.

China and India’s deliberately opaque strategic postures make objective assessments difficult. To overcome that problem, this brief introduces a new data compilation, consisting of a variety of published intelligence documents, private documents sourced from regional states, and interviews with experts based in China, India, and the United States. This data is combined with open-source force estimates to provide the most comprehensive public assessment of the location and capabilities of Chinese and Indian strategic forces. The appendix provides a link to an interactive map of Chinese and Indian nuclear and conventional air and ground forces, including descriptions of some simplifications and estimates necessary to display the forces on a map. Our analysis focuses on strategic military strike concentrations as they are postured against one other, excluding border patrol forces, as of January 2018. This makes it possible to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s forces.

What does this data tell us? We assess that India has key under-appreciated conventional advantages that reduce its vulnerability to Chinese threats and attacks. India appears to have cause for greater confidence in its military position against China than is typically acknowledged in Indian debates, providing the country an opportunity for leadership in international efforts toward nuclear transparency and restraint.

Indian strategists have not focused on this opportunity, in part because they draw pessimistic conclusions regarding China. For example, one Indian expert has observed that “India’s ground force posture and strength is not really comparable to that of China in their border regions. China has better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics.”2 A former commander of the Indian Army Northern and Central commands, which are tasked with defense against China, wrote during the Doklam standoff that he expected the episode to end in a barrage of Chinese missile strikes to expel Indian forces from the area and settle the dispute on Chinese terms.3

Even India’s comparative optimists, a minority, do not sound hopeful. A retired Indian Army brigadier close to internal discussions on China policy has observed that “even as conventional asymmetry prevails, it is being largely undermined by Indian strides in infrastructural build up, force modernisation and new raisings.”4

The next sections assess the nuclear forces India and China have arrayed against each other, followed by conventional forces relevant to a potential conflict.

5 The land- and sea-based elements are operated by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force, which executes nuclear strike orders issued by the Central Military Commission under Xi Jinping’s chairmanship.

Sea-based missiles do not have a fixed location. However, China’s land-based missile bases can be geo-located. Including only the nuclear forces and locations most relevant to targeting India, the map below shows that the bases are concentrated in the far north, with three DF-21 bases in the country’s south.6

In all, an estimated 104 Chinese missiles could strike all or parts of India. These include about a dozen DF-31A and six to twelve DF-31 missiles capable of reaching all Indian mainland targets. Another dozen DF-21s hold New Delhi at risk. The remaining missiles can target sections of India’s northeast and east coast.7 Moreover, as China deploys more road-mobile missiles over time, it will become easier to move further missiles from China’s interior to new survivable positions within range of India.

Figure 1: Map of China’s Nuclear Strike Range




[paste:font size="4"]9 As in China, nuclear warheads are held at separate locations from delivery vehicles in peacetime, although there are reports of pre-mating of some Indian missiles to warheads through canisterization.10 A nuclear strike order would be issued by the Political Council of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) and executed through the NCA Executive Council and military Strategic Forces Command.11

India’s professed goal has always been to field a credible second-strike capability. This assured retaliation doctrine depends on the creation of sufficient doubt in the adversary’s calculus that a disarming first strike would succeed.

India seeks to ensure the survivability of its forces through adequate force dispersal, distributing its forces across several bases and along several vectors (air, land, and sea), while seeking to ensure the secrecy of their locations.12 This existing approach probably does create doubt in Chinese strategic planning that it could militarily entirely erase India’s ability to reach Chinese targets.

Unsurprisingly, the bulk of India’s missile forces are located closer to Pakistan than China.13 We estimate that around ten Agni-III launchers can reach the entire Chinese mainland. Another eight Agni-II launchers could reach central Chinese targets. An estimated two squadrons of Jaguar IS and one squadron of Mirage 2000H fighters, totaling around 51 aircraft, are assessed to be tasked with nuclear missions.14 These aircraft could most likely reach Tibetan airspace equipped with nuclear gravity bombs. However, it is near certain that they would be identified and tracked by air defenses before proceeding deeper into China from Tibet. The potential early surprise achievable in Tibet-centric missions would no longer be possible for missions elsewhere in China, as Chinese air defenses would be alerted in the additional time necessary for Indian aircraft to transit Tibet.

Figure 2: Map of India’s Nuclear Strike Range





[paste:font size="4"]16 The total available Army strike forces near China’s border areas are assessed to be around 225,000 personnel. This incorporates the roughly 3,000 personnel attached to a T-72 tank brigade stationed in Ladakh and the estimated 1,000 personnel attached to a Brahmos cruise missile regiment in Arunachal Pradesh. For the Army, this total near China’s border areas is divided into about 34,000 troops in the Northern Command; 15,500 troops in the Central Command; and 175,500 troops in the Eastern Command.17

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has an estimated 270 fighters and 68 ground attack aircraft across its three China-facing commands.18 It is also expanding its network of Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs), which constitute small air bases in forward locations to provide staging grounds and logistics hubs for aircraft strike missions.19 In the Western Air Command, the IAF possesses around 75 fighters and 34 ground attack aircraft, besides 5 ALGs close to Chinese Tibetan areas. The Central Air Command features around 94 fighters, 34 ground attack aircraft, and one ALG. The Eastern Air Command hosts around 101 fighters and 9 ALGs. Crucially, the IA and IAF forces described above are all permanently close to China’s border, shortening their mobilization time and limiting the prospects of a successful Chinese cross-border advance.

[paste:font size="3"]
Chinese conventional forces
We estimate a total of 200,00-230,000 Chinese ground forces under the Western Theater Command, and Tibet and Xinjiang Military Districts. 20 However, this apparent numerical near-equivalence with that of Indian regional ground forces is misleading. Even in a war with India, a significant proportion of these forces will be unavailable, reserved either for Russian taskings or for countering insurrection in Xinjiang and Tibet. The majority of forces are located further from the Indian border, posing a striking contrast with the majority of forward-deployed Indian forces with a single China defense mission.

The new joint Western Theater Command is estimated to hold around 90,000-120,000 troops, principally divided into the 76th and 77th Group Armies. These Group Armies are headquartered toward the interior of Western China, in Chongqing and Baoji respectively.21 Because of ongoing unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang, the Western Theater Command’s ground operational authority does not extend to these regions. Instead, a special PLA Army-directed Military District (MD) has been created for each of these regions.22 In Tibet, the region closest to Indian border areas, the PLA presence is judged to number just 40,000 troops. More numerous forces are located in the Xinjiang region north of Tibet, totaling around 70,000.23 This means that China is regularly operating with a permanent Indian conventional force advantage along its border areas. In the event of a major standoff or conflict with India, it would have to rely upon mobilization primarily from Xinjiang and secondarily from the Western Theater Command forces deeper in China’s interior. By contrast, Indian forces are already largely in position.

The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) also suffers from a numerical disparity to the IAF in the border region. Unlike the tripartite organizational division of Chinese ground forces facing India, the Western Theater Command has assumed control of all regional strike aircraft.24 In total, this amounts to around 157 fighters and a varied drone armory. This includes an estimated 20 GJ-1/WD-1K precision strike UAVs, 12 WD-1 ground attack and reconnaissance UAVs, 12 WD-1 precision strike UAVs, and 8 EA-03 reconnaissance and electronic warfare UAVs.25 A proportion of these are reserved for Russia-centric missions. By comparison, as noted earlier, the Indian Eastern Air Command can field around 101 fighters against China alone. China also uses eight airbases and airfields relevant to India strike missions, although a majority are civilian airports that can be commandeered in wartime.26

Other comparative weaknesses permeate the PLAAF’s posture against India. On a strict comparison of available 4th generation fighters, authoritative assessments hold that China’s J-10 fighter is technically comparable to India’s Mirage-2000, and that the Indian Su-30MKI is superior to all theater Chinese fighters, including the additional J-11 and Su-27 models.27 China hosts a total of around 101 4th-generation fighters in the theater, of which a proportion must be retained for Russian defense, while India has around 122 of its comparable models, solely directed at China.

The high altitude of Chinese air bases in Tibet and Xinjiang, plus the generally difficult geographic and weather conditions of the region, means that Chinese fighters are limited to carrying around half their design payload and fuel. In-flight refueling would be required for PLAAF forces to maximize their strike capacity.28 China had only inducted 15 such tanker aircraft nationally as of 2017, meaning only a handful of its forces will benefit from this solution.29 Against these underpowered fighters, IAF forces will launch from bases and airfields unaffected by these geographic conditions, with maximum payload and fuel capabilities.30

The most significant PLAAF forward air bases and airfields near Indian border areas—which will be pivotal in combat operations—are located at Hotan, Lhasa/Gonggar, Ngari-Gunsa, and Xigaze. Each hosts regular PLAAF detachments, and these are the nearest facilities to Indian targets in Kashmir, northern India, and northeast India.31 They are vulnerable to a dedicated Indian offensive. Ngari-Gunsa and Xigaze reportedly have no hardened shelters or blast pens for their aircraft, which sit in the open.32 Lhasa/Gonggar has recently developed hardened shelters able to protect up to 36 aircraft, while Hotan reportedly hosts “two aircraft shelters” of unknown capacity.33 An Indian early initiative to destroy or incapacitate these four bases—and achieve air superiority over them—would compel China to rely more upon aircraft from its rear-area bases, exacerbating its limited fuel and payload problems. Moreover, China lacks the redundancy and related force survivability compared to India in their comparative numbers of regional air bases. In sum, India has a stronger regional air position, with “a large number of airfields in the east and west, so even if some airfields are down, operations can continue from other locations.”34

PLAAF training and experience shortcomings that are not shared by the IAF amplify China’s air disadvantage.35 Recent PLAAF exercises with unscripted scenarios have found that pilots are excessively reliant upon ground control for tactical direction. In unanticipated combat scenarios, this dependence on explicit control tower guidance becomes extreme, while “ground commands” are simultaneously often unable “to keep up with the complex and changeable air situation.”36 This suggests that PLAAF combat proficiency may be significantly weaker than often estimated.

A comprehensive study found that scenarios with combat conditions where “some of the key first-line airfields were destroyed” would be especially concerning for Chinese strategists.37 Progressive base hardening in the eastern US-facing PLAAF facilities has reduced this risk in that area.38 A lack of similar measures in the India-facing west suggests that Indian destruction or temporary incapacitation of some of the four above air bases would further exacerbate these PLAAF operational inflexibilities and weaknesses. By contrast, recent conflicts with Pakistan give the current IAF a level of institutional experience in actual networked combat.

Recognizing this dilemma, instead of a regional aircraft offensive, Chinese strategic planners envision early long-range missile strikes against Indian air bases in the event of conflict. However, India benefits from the greater number and redundancy of regional air bases, and the daunting number of Chinese missiles that would be required to truly incapacitate relevant IAF forces. A former IAF official, referring to the high number of disparate targets per air base, the requirement for at least two missiles per target, and the ability of base officials to repave the blast crater with quick-drying concrete within six hours, has articulated the operational problem:

“To keep one airfield shut for 24 hours, the PLAAF will require 220 ballistic missiles. This will not make any difference to IAF operations in the east or in the west since the IAF has a large number of other operational airfields to operate from. If the PLAAF attacks just three airfields, it will require 660 ballistic missiles per day for attacking the runway and taxi track alone. China’s stock of 1,000-1,200 MRBMs/SRBMs will be over in less than two days when attacking just three airfields, with no other major target systems like C2 centres or air defence units being addressed.”39
This analysis was authored before India began its process of integrating runway replacement fiberglass mats into its base defense systems, meaning it was likely calculated upon a previous “labour-intensive,” civilian-heavy method of runway repaving, as described by a former Indian Air Marshal.40 However, India is presently inducting these fiberglass mats and associated paving equipment, which will further reduce its runway reconstitution timeframe.41 It is therefore unlikely that the numerous PLAAF disadvantages detailed above can be overcome by China’s superior missile forces. This is critical beyond the air competition itself: “In any India-China conflict, the PLA cannot launch an attack without the support of the PLAAF.”42

To address its force shortfalls in the event of war, China could surge air and ground forces from its interior toward the border. However, what our analysis suggests is that the IAF’s superiority would mean that critical logistical routes—such as air bases and military road and rail links—could be cut by bombing or standoff missile strikes, limiting the extent to which China’s position could be reinforced.43 Such a Chinese surge would also attract attention from the United States, which would alert India and enable it to counter-mobilize its own additional forces from its interior.

Ammunition shortfalls have been a limiting factor for Indian conventional force operations in the past, especially for the Indian Army. India’s official audit agency assessed in 2016 that India lacked sufficient reserves in around 85 out of 170 critical ammunition categories for a scenario of an intense 10-day war.44 Since then, New Delhi has bolstered its stockpiles, and continues to reduce this operational constraint.45

China could permanently station forces similar to or larger than India’s nearer to the border. An Indian counter-buildup would surely follow. In total, India is in a stronger conventional position vis-à-vis China than much of the analysis on this topic concludes.




Strategic Postures
Click to expand...
Opening force structures dont matter for much if you factor in attrition. A better model will be to evaluate where each side stands after 10 days of moderate to high intensity conflict.
 
Craigs

Craigs

New Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
1,405
Likes
3,387
Country flag
Jaymax61 said:
Opening force structures dont matter for much if you factor in attrition. A better model will be to evaluate where each side stands after 10 days of moderate to high intensity conflict.
Click to expand...
Chinese weapons are like Chinese coronavirus test kits. Have Chinese weapons been used in any major conflict? If tomorrow China announces they have 2000 'stealth' fighters should we believe them and start Randi Rona?
 
J

Jaymax61

New Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
584
Likes
2,207
Craigs said:
Chinese weapons are like Chinese coronavirus test kits. Have Chinese weapons been used in any major conflict? If tomorrow China announces they have 2000 'stealth' fighters should we believe them and start Randi Rona?
Click to expand...
Read my comment again. This time slowly and try to comprehend.
Read to understand and not to merely reply
 
MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00

MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00

VICTORIOUM AUT MORS
New Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
3,108
Likes
10,296
muzzies slayer said:
good news coming in.....................
Click to expand...

Can Anybody Confirm this as new Kill or Old Kill by the Indian Army or is this a Kill from Balochistan by the Balochi Rebels? I found this while looking through Facebook. I am pretty sure the Porki was sent to Naraka by the Indian Army Recently. Somebody please confirm
 
Knowitall

Knowitall

New Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
7,930
Likes
35,898
AMCA said:
Stop this YouTubeish thing of number vs number comparison. They cannot mobilise their entire army against India so this number vs number thing is useless. All we need is to counter their current deployments in Tibet and Xinjiang area.
This was discussed in detail on this very forum during dhoklam stand-off with china. Check out me reply from LoC thread

https://defenceforumindia.com/forum...ernational-border.79817/page-324#post-1412163


The Strategic Postures of China and India: A Visual Guide
| March 2020
Policy prescriptions following from this analysis have been published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. See Frank O'Donnell and Alexander K. Bollfrass, "India is Building Nuclear Submarines and ICBMs. That’s a $14 Billion Mistake," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 26, 2020.

Downloads and Resources:

Tables and maps embedded in full below.

Background
Fueled by aggressive rhetoric from both capitals, Indian and Chinese ground forces engaged in a standoff between June and August 2017. The Doklam crisis, as it became known, stimulated introspection among officials and experts in both states about the future of their relationship. Politically, both strategic communities largely concluded that the peaceful resolution of border disputes is now less likely, forecasting more rivalry than cooperation. Militarily, Indian discussions on the strength of its military position against China in their disputed ground frontier areas have converged on the view that China holds the conventional and nuclear edge over India in this domain.1

Based on our analysis of data on the location and capabilities of Indian and Chinese strategic forces and related military units, we conclude that this assessment of the balance of forces may be mistaken and a poor guide for Indian security and procurement policies. We recommend that instead of investing in new nuclear weapons platforms that our analysis suggests are not likely to be required to deter China, New Delhi should improve the survivability of its existing forces and fill the gap in global arms control leadership with an initiative on restraint and transparency.

China and India’s deliberately opaque strategic postures make objective assessments difficult. To overcome that problem, this brief introduces a new data compilation, consisting of a variety of published intelligence documents, private documents sourced from regional states, and interviews with experts based in China, India, and the United States. This data is combined with open-source force estimates to provide the most comprehensive public assessment of the location and capabilities of Chinese and Indian strategic forces. The appendix provides a link to an interactive map of Chinese and Indian nuclear and conventional air and ground forces, including descriptions of some simplifications and estimates necessary to display the forces on a map. Our analysis focuses on strategic military strike concentrations as they are postured against one other, excluding border patrol forces, as of January 2018. This makes it possible to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s forces.

What does this data tell us? We assess that India has key under-appreciated conventional advantages that reduce its vulnerability to Chinese threats and attacks. India appears to have cause for greater confidence in its military position against China than is typically acknowledged in Indian debates, providing the country an opportunity for leadership in international efforts toward nuclear transparency and restraint.

Indian strategists have not focused on this opportunity, in part because they draw pessimistic conclusions regarding China. For example, one Indian expert has observed that “India’s ground force posture and strength is not really comparable to that of China in their border regions. China has better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics.”2 A former commander of the Indian Army Northern and Central commands, which are tasked with defense against China, wrote during the Doklam standoff that he expected the episode to end in a barrage of Chinese missile strikes to expel Indian forces from the area and settle the dispute on Chinese terms.3

Even India’s comparative optimists, a minority, do not sound hopeful. A retired Indian Army brigadier close to internal discussions on China policy has observed that “even as conventional asymmetry prevails, it is being largely undermined by Indian strides in infrastructural build up, force modernisation and new raisings.”4

The next sections assess the nuclear forces India and China have arrayed against each other, followed by conventional forces relevant to a potential conflict.

5 The land- and sea-based elements are operated by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force, which executes nuclear strike orders issued by the Central Military Commission under Xi Jinping’s chairmanship.

Sea-based missiles do not have a fixed location. However, China’s land-based missile bases can be geo-located. Including only the nuclear forces and locations most relevant to targeting India, the map below shows that the bases are concentrated in the far north, with three DF-21 bases in the country’s south.6

In all, an estimated 104 Chinese missiles could strike all or parts of India. These include about a dozen DF-31A and six to twelve DF-31 missiles capable of reaching all Indian mainland targets. Another dozen DF-21s hold New Delhi at risk. The remaining missiles can target sections of India’s northeast and east coast.7 Moreover, as China deploys more road-mobile missiles over time, it will become easier to move further missiles from China’s interior to new survivable positions within range of India.

Figure 1: Map of China’s Nuclear Strike Range




[paste:font size="4"]9 As in China, nuclear warheads are held at separate locations from delivery vehicles in peacetime, although there are reports of pre-mating of some Indian missiles to warheads through canisterization.10 A nuclear strike order would be issued by the Political Council of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) and executed through the NCA Executive Council and military Strategic Forces Command.11

India’s professed goal has always been to field a credible second-strike capability. This assured retaliation doctrine depends on the creation of sufficient doubt in the adversary’s calculus that a disarming first strike would succeed.

India seeks to ensure the survivability of its forces through adequate force dispersal, distributing its forces across several bases and along several vectors (air, land, and sea), while seeking to ensure the secrecy of their locations.12 This existing approach probably does create doubt in Chinese strategic planning that it could militarily entirely erase India’s ability to reach Chinese targets.

Unsurprisingly, the bulk of India’s missile forces are located closer to Pakistan than China.13 We estimate that around ten Agni-III launchers can reach the entire Chinese mainland. Another eight Agni-II launchers could reach central Chinese targets. An estimated two squadrons of Jaguar IS and one squadron of Mirage 2000H fighters, totaling around 51 aircraft, are assessed to be tasked with nuclear missions.14 These aircraft could most likely reach Tibetan airspace equipped with nuclear gravity bombs. However, it is near certain that they would be identified and tracked by air defenses before proceeding deeper into China from Tibet. The potential early surprise achievable in Tibet-centric missions would no longer be possible for missions elsewhere in China, as Chinese air defenses would be alerted in the additional time necessary for Indian aircraft to transit Tibet.

Figure 2: Map of India’s Nuclear Strike Range





[paste:font size="4"]16 The total available Army strike forces near China’s border areas are assessed to be around 225,000 personnel. This incorporates the roughly 3,000 personnel attached to a T-72 tank brigade stationed in Ladakh and the estimated 1,000 personnel attached to a Brahmos cruise missile regiment in Arunachal Pradesh. For the Army, this total near China’s border areas is divided into about 34,000 troops in the Northern Command; 15,500 troops in the Central Command; and 175,500 troops in the Eastern Command.17

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has an estimated 270 fighters and 68 ground attack aircraft across its three China-facing commands.18 It is also expanding its network of Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs), which constitute small air bases in forward locations to provide staging grounds and logistics hubs for aircraft strike missions.19 In the Western Air Command, the IAF possesses around 75 fighters and 34 ground attack aircraft, besides 5 ALGs close to Chinese Tibetan areas. The Central Air Command features around 94 fighters, 34 ground attack aircraft, and one ALG. The Eastern Air Command hosts around 101 fighters and 9 ALGs. Crucially, the IA and IAF forces described above are all permanently close to China’s border, shortening their mobilization time and limiting the prospects of a successful Chinese cross-border advance.

[paste:font size="3"]
Chinese conventional forces
We estimate a total of 200,00-230,000 Chinese ground forces under the Western Theater Command, and Tibet and Xinjiang Military Districts. 20 However, this apparent numerical near-equivalence with that of Indian regional ground forces is misleading. Even in a war with India, a significant proportion of these forces will be unavailable, reserved either for Russian taskings or for countering insurrection in Xinjiang and Tibet. The majority of forces are located further from the Indian border, posing a striking contrast with the majority of forward-deployed Indian forces with a single China defense mission.

The new joint Western Theater Command is estimated to hold around 90,000-120,000 troops, principally divided into the 76th and 77th Group Armies. These Group Armies are headquartered toward the interior of Western China, in Chongqing and Baoji respectively.21 Because of ongoing unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang, the Western Theater Command’s ground operational authority does not extend to these regions. Instead, a special PLA Army-directed Military District (MD) has been created for each of these regions.22 In Tibet, the region closest to Indian border areas, the PLA presence is judged to number just 40,000 troops. More numerous forces are located in the Xinjiang region north of Tibet, totaling around 70,000.23 This means that China is regularly operating with a permanent Indian conventional force advantage along its border areas. In the event of a major standoff or conflict with India, it would have to rely upon mobilization primarily from Xinjiang and secondarily from the Western Theater Command forces deeper in China’s interior. By contrast, Indian forces are already largely in position.

The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) also suffers from a numerical disparity to the IAF in the border region. Unlike the tripartite organizational division of Chinese ground forces facing India, the Western Theater Command has assumed control of all regional strike aircraft.24 In total, this amounts to around 157 fighters and a varied drone armory. This includes an estimated 20 GJ-1/WD-1K precision strike UAVs, 12 WD-1 ground attack and reconnaissance UAVs, 12 WD-1 precision strike UAVs, and 8 EA-03 reconnaissance and electronic warfare UAVs.25 A proportion of these are reserved for Russia-centric missions. By comparison, as noted earlier, the Indian Eastern Air Command can field around 101 fighters against China alone. China also uses eight airbases and airfields relevant to India strike missions, although a majority are civilian airports that can be commandeered in wartime.26

Other comparative weaknesses permeate the PLAAF’s posture against India. On a strict comparison of available 4th generation fighters, authoritative assessments hold that China’s J-10 fighter is technically comparable to India’s Mirage-2000, and that the Indian Su-30MKI is superior to all theater Chinese fighters, including the additional J-11 and Su-27 models.27 China hosts a total of around 101 4th-generation fighters in the theater, of which a proportion must be retained for Russian defense, while India has around 122 of its comparable models, solely directed at China.

The high altitude of Chinese air bases in Tibet and Xinjiang, plus the generally difficult geographic and weather conditions of the region, means that Chinese fighters are limited to carrying around half their design payload and fuel. In-flight refueling would be required for PLAAF forces to maximize their strike capacity.28 China had only inducted 15 such tanker aircraft nationally as of 2017, meaning only a handful of its forces will benefit from this solution.29 Against these underpowered fighters, IAF forces will launch from bases and airfields unaffected by these geographic conditions, with maximum payload and fuel capabilities.30

The most significant PLAAF forward air bases and airfields near Indian border areas—which will be pivotal in combat operations—are located at Hotan, Lhasa/Gonggar, Ngari-Gunsa, and Xigaze. Each hosts regular PLAAF detachments, and these are the nearest facilities to Indian targets in Kashmir, northern India, and northeast India.31 They are vulnerable to a dedicated Indian offensive. Ngari-Gunsa and Xigaze reportedly have no hardened shelters or blast pens for their aircraft, which sit in the open.32 Lhasa/Gonggar has recently developed hardened shelters able to protect up to 36 aircraft, while Hotan reportedly hosts “two aircraft shelters” of unknown capacity.33 An Indian early initiative to destroy or incapacitate these four bases—and achieve air superiority over them—would compel China to rely more upon aircraft from its rear-area bases, exacerbating its limited fuel and payload problems. Moreover, China lacks the redundancy and related force survivability compared to India in their comparative numbers of regional air bases. In sum, India has a stronger regional air position, with “a large number of airfields in the east and west, so even if some airfields are down, operations can continue from other locations.”34

PLAAF training and experience shortcomings that are not shared by the IAF amplify China’s air disadvantage.35 Recent PLAAF exercises with unscripted scenarios have found that pilots are excessively reliant upon ground control for tactical direction. In unanticipated combat scenarios, this dependence on explicit control tower guidance becomes extreme, while “ground commands” are simultaneously often unable “to keep up with the complex and changeable air situation.”36 This suggests that PLAAF combat proficiency may be significantly weaker than often estimated.

A comprehensive study found that scenarios with combat conditions where “some of the key first-line airfields were destroyed” would be especially concerning for Chinese strategists.37 Progressive base hardening in the eastern US-facing PLAAF facilities has reduced this risk in that area.38 A lack of similar measures in the India-facing west suggests that Indian destruction or temporary incapacitation of some of the four above air bases would further exacerbate these PLAAF operational inflexibilities and weaknesses. By contrast, recent conflicts with Pakistan give the current IAF a level of institutional experience in actual networked combat.

Recognizing this dilemma, instead of a regional aircraft offensive, Chinese strategic planners envision early long-range missile strikes against Indian air bases in the event of conflict. However, India benefits from the greater number and redundancy of regional air bases, and the daunting number of Chinese missiles that would be required to truly incapacitate relevant IAF forces. A former IAF official, referring to the high number of disparate targets per air base, the requirement for at least two missiles per target, and the ability of base officials to repave the blast crater with quick-drying concrete within six hours, has articulated the operational problem:

“To keep one airfield shut for 24 hours, the PLAAF will require 220 ballistic missiles. This will not make any difference to IAF operations in the east or in the west since the IAF has a large number of other operational airfields to operate from. If the PLAAF attacks just three airfields, it will require 660 ballistic missiles per day for attacking the runway and taxi track alone. China’s stock of 1,000-1,200 MRBMs/SRBMs will be over in less than two days when attacking just three airfields, with no other major target systems like C2 centres or air defence units being addressed.”39
This analysis was authored before India began its process of integrating runway replacement fiberglass mats into its base defense systems, meaning it was likely calculated upon a previous “labour-intensive,” civilian-heavy method of runway repaving, as described by a former Indian Air Marshal.40 However, India is presently inducting these fiberglass mats and associated paving equipment, which will further reduce its runway reconstitution timeframe.41 It is therefore unlikely that the numerous PLAAF disadvantages detailed above can be overcome by China’s superior missile forces. This is critical beyond the air competition itself: “In any India-China conflict, the PLA cannot launch an attack without the support of the PLAAF.”42

To address its force shortfalls in the event of war, China could surge air and ground forces from its interior toward the border. However, what our analysis suggests is that the IAF’s superiority would mean that critical logistical routes—such as air bases and military road and rail links—could be cut by bombing or standoff missile strikes, limiting the extent to which China’s position could be reinforced.43 Such a Chinese surge would also attract attention from the United States, which would alert India and enable it to counter-mobilize its own additional forces from its interior.

Ammunition shortfalls have been a limiting factor for Indian conventional force operations in the past, especially for the Indian Army. India’s official audit agency assessed in 2016 that India lacked sufficient reserves in around 85 out of 170 critical ammunition categories for a scenario of an intense 10-day war.44 Since then, New Delhi has bolstered its stockpiles, and continues to reduce this operational constraint.45

China could permanently station forces similar to or larger than India’s nearer to the border. An Indian counter-buildup would surely follow. In total, India is in a stronger conventional position vis-à-vis China than much of the analysis on this topic concludes.




Strategic Postures
Click to expand...
One thing that stands out in this article and has been noted by many here us the complete lack of aggressiveness or faith in oneself held in the inner circles of the military.

This mindset really needs to change one must understand the complete picture and learn to do the best from whatever is present.

You simply cannot dismiss things just like that.

This quote especially:-


A former commander of the Indian Army Northern and Central commands, which are tasked with defense against China, wrote during the Doklam standoff that he expected the episode to end in a barrage of Chinese missile strikes to expel Indian forces from the area and settle the dispute on Chinese terms.

To think this guy was out there during the standoff shocks me to the core. Idiots like this must be picked and kicked out the military as soon as possible.
 
Babloo Singh

Babloo Singh

New Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Messages
532
Likes
3,365
Country flag
Today some 288 hoors will flee jannat and come to world to stay as mortals to escape being with these 4 pigs....
"Four terrorists, who according to Police are involved in killing of 4-5 civilians in Kulgam in last 3 weeks, have been trapped in an encounter in same area of South Kashmir. Two of them are believed to be dead as officials say 2 bodies are visible"

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
hit&run India Pakistan conflict along IB and LoC (July 2021 onwards) Indian Army 34189
Underground Soldier India Pakistan conflict along LoC and counter terrorist operations Indian Army 22656
Zebra LoC firing, drone shot down: Is Pakistan army deliberately derailing peace talks with India? Pakistan 14
Kshatriya87 Pakistan's desperation: Modi-led India rising evoke LoC attacks Foreign Relations 98
Similar threads

Articles

Top