Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates

[lcafanboy]

From US to Japan to Taiwan this new India Today cover has gone viral and Chinese are Red faced and angry.....
It shows Aksai Chin as part of India, Tibet, Taiwan as free country and Pakistan as a New CHICK of China....

 

[Ashwin]

From US to Japan to Taiwan this new India Today cover has gone viral and Chinese are Red faced and angry.....
It shows Aksai Chin as part of India, Tibet, Taiwan as free country and Pakistan as a New CHICK of China....
View attachment 16670

This is a few years old.

 

[hellbent]

That's what @hellbent wanted, a full invasion of Tibet. And that's what replied to. So the context was lost in your reply to him.

First learn to understand the context yourself before preaching to others

This is what I wrote few days back here and which was the overall context for all my posts.

To put into context something I wrote earlier ...........
Understand it in the context of what I wrote in my previous post . Don't look at it standalone.


I don't really what to discuss such things but let me make a exception

Reasons why India must not be drawn to a large scale war without adequate preparations.

Localised action in a tic for tat situation is ok and I fully support it provided we yield the power to contain it in the first place.

But for a full scale war we have to

1. Not limit ourselves to reclaiming lost territories in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh only

2. Retake Tibet completely

Why ?

Because if we reclaim Ladakh and AP only , in the future we will still be exposed to Chinese counter attacks at the time and place of their choice . The Chinese will definitely attempt revenge. Our economy will get tied down trying to defend everytime . Negative psychology effect will mount on our population over a period of time .

However if we retake Tibet then we will deny the Chinese the geographical proximity to undertake counter attacks in future as part of any possible retaliation.

Tibet will then become the buffer zone , with combined Indian and Tibetan forces who will hold the Chinese at risk in Chinese mainland itself . Their economy will at direct risk plus the psychological pressure will be immense on their leaders and population.

This way our population centers will not be at risk by Chinese artillery etc , currently our population close to border is at risk while Chinese population centers are not at risk.

If we retake Tibet then the situation becomes opposite , the Chinese population comes under threat from Indian forces . While our own population becomes safe.

Any plan to attack China must incorporate liberation of Tibet , otherwise India will be always vulnerable to Chinese counter actions .

And importantly we must do it in a single war only , cannot risk multiple wars with China because otherwise we will get bogged down progressively with each counter move by china .

So best we prepare and arm ourselves for a full scale war to retake Tibet completely and deny the Chinese geographical proximity so that they cannot threaten India ever again.

If any body has read Chanakya's mandala theory , he or she will agree with me , heck even chanakya would agree with me .

Irony is Indian planners don't follow Arthashastra , if they had we would never been in such situations. Solution to almost every problem has been described by chanakya , only need is to conform them to prevailing situations and importantly develop the will power to implement them .

Again long story short

India must plan to recapture lost territories and Tibet and it must do so in a single war effort .

One must get the big picture , and not restrict or get tied down to localized action and reaction chain .

For that to happen we must take our time , use all available resources to prepare the grounds for it , like stroke insurgency in Tibet and create unrest etc etc , close our economic gap and make it strong enough to sustain any war effort , get our MIC strong enough to sustain war efforts etc etc.

A war is best won when it is done it the time and place of one's choice.

And importantly read to understand the context before pulling up unwarranted assumptions .

And I am not proposing or suggesting anything , I am putting forward a possible way of action for the future just for the sake of it .

Unlike some here I am not naive or delusional to play as armchair generals or communist or congress wannabes

 

[TARGET]

Excellent.

0

The video explains ...you will be against the PLAAF fighters from specific airbases as shown in the video. Now IAF can narrow down the strategies for all the fighter planes from these airbases and due to high altitude if anything goes wrong with these airfields they will not have enough runways to take off.

The information about Chinese infrastructure in these airfields should be considered outdated. If war is likely, it's obvious the Chinese must be building up big time.

Also, the Flankers can be operated from dirt strips, so you have to consider they can be very widely distributed, without relying on a traditional air base with a black top runway. If the objective is air defence, likely to be their main objective, then you can expect the PLAAF to create detachments of Flankers and J-10s and place them all over Tibet, operating out of austere runways and highways.

I don't think they will take the risk to land their flanker on the dirt strip they may prefer a highway and about building new assets on the western front if they are interested... nobody will stop them. we also build the required infrastructure on our side.

 

[Saaho]

The information about Chinese infrastructure in these airfields should be considered outdated. If war is likely, it's obvious the Chinese must be building up big time.

Infra can be new but not geography. Tibet's issue is more on geography not infra.

Also, I highly doubt they can put together infra and supply chain to host, repair, maintain and resupply aircrafts in months, much less weeks. There is a reason their flankers are all sitting neatly in a row, prime to be bombed out of existance. They are using civilian airports as airbases. Won't go far. Good luck building and operationalizing an airbase in weeks.

Also, the Flankers can be operated from dirt strips, so you have to consider they can be very widely distributed, without relying on a traditional air base with a black top runway. If the objective is air defence, likely to be their main objective, then you can expect the PLAAF to create detachments of Flankers and J-10s and place them all over Tibet, operating out of austere runways and highways.

I don't want to be the guy who maintains the flankers landing on dirtstrips. Sure you can do that but then you can go only this far by putting two bikes together and calling it a truck. Also, devil have mercy on your planes neatly lying in open without any cover or proper air defences. Hope no one drops couple of Stand Off Weapons.

I will also love to know how will they be transporting all the fuel, weapons and spares to the planes operating out of middle of nowhere on dirt strips.

Lastly, any source for J-10s operating out of dirt roads?

 

[HariPrasad]

Our situation should have been much stronger by now. However, our lethargy costs us. We should have pralay and LCH ready and deployed. When we started making LCH, it was said that it would come soon as it is to be derived from ALH. Even after a decade and many missed deadlines, chopper is not in our hand. Pralay test postponed for many times. The weapons we tailored for this particular geographic location are still out of our rich making our situation weak Fortunately, we have Brahmos block III in our hand.

I have repeatedly said that specific weapons tailor made for this geographic location is going to make the difference. This is an era of small conflicts on border and hence we need more tactical weapons than strategic big weapons. Sniper rifles, bullet proof jackets, light weight artillery guns, guided munitions, cargo planes used in logistics etc are going to make difference. ICBMs, Nukes, heavy tanks, air superiority fighters etc will have limited use. These strategic weapons will remain as show of strength weapons.

 

[randomradio]

I don't think they will take the risk to land their flanker on the dirt strip they may prefer a highway and about building new assets on the western front if they are interested... nobody will stop them. we also build the required infrastructure on our side.

Flankers were made to be operated from dirt strips.

 

[randomradio]

Infra can be new but not geography. Tibet's issue is more on geography not infra.

Also, I highly doubt they can put together infra and supply chain to host, repair, maintain and resupply aircrafts in months, much less weeks.

It can be done in days.

I don't want to be the guy who maintains the flankers landing on dirtstrips. Sure you can do that but then you can go only this far by putting two bikes together and calling it a truck. Also, devil have mercy on your planes neatly lying in open without any cover or proper air defences. Hope no one drops couple of Stand Off Weapons.

I will also love to know how will they be transporting all the fuel, weapons and spares to the planes operating out of middle of nowhere on dirt strips.

Flankers were made to operate from dirt strips. That's why they have FOD screens in their inlets.

Lastly, any source for J-10s operating out of dirt roads?

Nothing. But they follow the Soviet doctrine of fighting from dirt strips. It's better to assume it can rather than not.

 

[HariPrasad]

I was listening to Dr swamy's interview. He made a very good point. He said that US had asked us to deploy troops in Afghanistan and in return, they had offered US high tech weapons from their inventory. We as usual denied and Pakistan took advantage of it. Pakistan strengthened its position in Afghanistan and lost US support. Till today, shitty Naheruian non alignment policy hurts us. We have kicked many opportunities ourselves.

In 1962, Naheru was very fearful and didn't use airforce out of retaliation fear. However, china because of their air bases situated far away was not in a situation to use its airforce. We may hope that Modi will not repeat that mistake and respond china with full force.

 

[Saaho]

Nothing. But they follow the Soviet doctrine for fighting from dirt strips. It's better to assume it can rather than not.

J-10 has more in common with Lavi from Israel than any soviet design. Also, since 90s gulf war China has been copying US doctrine and weapons than Russian.

In 1962, Naheru was very fearful and didn't use airforce out of retaliation fear. However, china because of their air bases situated far away was not in a situation to use its airforce. We may hope that Modi will not repeat that mistake and respond china with full force.

Modi seems to be even one step ahead of Nehru. He is reluctant to fight at all, ever. His personal image seemingly is too big of an asset to risk.

 

[Saaho]

It can be done in days.

Good luck on that. And you will need a hell lot of it if this is Tibet you are talking about. Remember, this is not deccan plateau but Tibet.

Let me put it in this way. We tried setting up a small astronomy outpost in Rockies few years back. We had pros to help us. What takes a week on plains took about 3 months there. Its that hard.

Everything is damn hard on mountains. Moving, cooking, lifting, running engine.

 

[TARGET]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1277134898529067008

16th Bihar snapping their neck had a deep effect on Chinese psyche...
So much for their martial arts training..



That was a good analysis of the PLAAF capability in ladakh. What about other parts like Arunachal?
Any such assessment available?
Also, hoe does IAF stack up in Ladakh wrt to PLAAF given some of the same constraints are applicable for us as well?

Hope CPC don't take fake propaganda seriously and shows some Chinese flying kungfu masters from high mountains

MMA guy exposing Chinese Kung Fu ...and the best part, remove him from the internet in China

 

[screambowl]

He made a very good point. He said that US had asked us to deploy troops in Afghanistan and in return, they had offered US high tech weapons from their inventory.

It's not feasible for India to deploy men in Afghanistan without direct land contact. Secondly, Afghanistan is a Muslim country which has more sympathizers from any other Muslim country. Thirdly, if you have sided with US, Pakistan would have sided with Russians and Chinese like now they are on their lap. Without Pakistan's involvement Russian would not be able to break deal with tangos in Afghanistan.

Let's not be in any misconception, Afghansitan is Pakistan's backyard.

Without any direct land contact through Wakhan corridor, India would have lost badly. For anything in Afghanistan you need land contact. Without that nothing is possible. Now India has closed it's 2 consulates in Afghansitan. You see.

 

[Saaho]

I was listening to Dr swamy's interview. He made a very good point. He said that US had asked us to deploy troops in Afghanistan and in return, they had offered US high tech weapons from their inventory. We as usual denied and Pakistan took advantage of it. Pakistan strengthened its position in Afghanistan and lost US support. Till today, shitty Naheruian non alignment policy hurts us. We have kicked many opportunities ourselves.

I don't know. Afghanistan is the last place I want Indian army to be deployed in. Its not worth it. For any weapons.

 

[Jaymax]

Thats is equivalent of saying something like indian media has no chinese influence. Or china cannot bribe those honest than thou Indian e portals.I have refuted your points everytime and you have a lot to learn.

You have merely ranted without a credible argument. This is getting boring. Ignored !!

 

[HariPrasad]

In this indo china conflict, US made weapons are going to play leading role. Apache, chinooks, globe master, M777, ex caliber round, P8 I etc are going to crucial. They will give india a leading edge.

 

[vstol Jockey]

The aircombat is a very complex issue and it needs lots of knowledge of actual operations to understand its nuances. We can't use an excel sheet to compare two airforces and numbers have little meaning and also at times can be the only deciding factor. This shows the complexity of air warfare. In the present context, we need to examine not just the numbers but other major factors also. In this case logistics will be the deciding factor.

IAF VS PLAAF.

We all have read a lot about airbases of the two forces and how PLAAF has a disadvantage in terms of operations. But more than the altitude of operating bases, The deciding factor will be number of sorties each can put up on a daily basis to achieve the overall aim. To generate high sortie rate, numbers are not as critical as the maintenance, quick turnaround and short transient time to target are. You may have read about hot refueling operations and hot crew change which has been demonstrated and also operationally cleared for LCA Tejas. Bases located very close to frontline can be targeted by long range arty/missiles and can be rendered inoperative. But a large number of bases, sufficiently close to battle zone with large number of satellite airbases can take care of a rival force 3-4 times its own size.

Let me explain, IAF has bases which are located just 200-250 kms from the LAC in whichever sector you may consider but PLAAF has only one such base called Ngari and that too has very limited infrastructure. If China has to build more bases in next few weeks, which they can do, the problem of altitude will remain. Blast pens can't be created overnight as they take time for the cement to reach its full strength. Quick drying cements can be used but they too have a time factor. IAF has a very unique system of runway repairs and we can also create more air bases within a very short span of time using metal sheets or using roads. China does not have many roads in Tibet which can be converted to runways. This will allow us to have very distributed operations set up to avoid being targeted but PLAAF has hardly any option along Tibet border.

Let us now come to next part of logistics and maintenance. Fuel for Ngari and Hotan comes from Lhasa fuel tanks. If we take out those fuel dumps, they will not be able to operate any aircraft. In case of IAF, we have fuel dumps not only on the airbases but also widely distributed network of civil petrol pumps which can be rapidly converted to ATF storage facilities. And all of them are underground tanks. Go to any petrol pump and see it.

Next is spares support for operations. PLAAF has aircraft which are made in China so they have no shortage of spares but those spares are located again very far off and their resupply can be intercepted or blocked off. India also has nearly all the aircraft made in India except for M2K & Mig-29. So both the forces have no problem of spares. But IAF supplylines are very close to the operating bases while that of PLAAF are situated very far off.

In the next post, I will discuss what all effect these issues have cumulatively on air battle between IAF & PLAAF.

 

[HariPrasad]

It's not feasible for India to deploy men in Afghanistan without direct land contact. Secondly, Afghanistan is a Muslim country which has more sympathizers from any other Muslim country. Thirdly, if you have sided with US, Pakistan would have sided with Russians and Chinese like now they are on their lap. Without Pakistan's involvement Russian would not be able to break deal with tangos in Afghanistan.

Doesn't make any sense. US has deployed its troops from 10000 km away. Pakistan is already trying to side with Russia without India doing this. Most of Afgha civilians consider Pakistan as the country which is root cause of all problems in Afghanistan.

 

[HariPrasad]

J-10 has more in common with Lavi from Israel than any soviet design. Also, since 90s gulf war China has been copying US doctrine and weapons than Russian.

Modi seems to be even one step ahead of Nehru. He is reluctant to fight at all, ever. His personal image seemingly is too big of an asset to risk.

Modi has already stopped china. Modi will not hesitate to use force if required at right time. War has not started nor we have lost our territory in this conflict. I will support you if we loose our territory which was there in April, I will support you. You just talk like Rajul Ghandhi.

 

[HariPrasad]

The aircombat is a very complex issue and it needs lots of knowledge of actual operations to understand its nuances. We can't use an excel sheet to compare two airforces and numbers have little meaning and also at times can be the only deciding factor. This shows the complexity of air warfare. In the present context, we need to examine not just the numbers but other major factors also. In this case logistics will be the deciding factor.

IAF VS PLAAF.

We all have read a lot about airbases of the two forces and how PLAAF has a disadvantage in terms of operations. But more than the altitude of operating bases, The deciding factor will be number of sorties each can put up on a daily basis to achieve the overall aim. To generate high sortie rate, numbers are not as critical as the maintenance, quick turnaround and short transient time to target are. You may have read about hot refueling operations and hot crew change which has been demonstrated and also operationally cleared for LCA Tejas. Bases located very close to frontline can be targeted by long range arty/missiles and can be rendered inoperative. But a large number of bases, sufficiently close to battle zone with large number of satellite airbases can take care of a rival force 3-4 times its own size.

Let me explain, IAF has bases which are located just 200-250 kms from the LAC in whichever sector you may consider but PLAAF has only one such base called Ngari and that too has very limited infrastructure. If China has to build more bases in next few weeks, which they can do, the problem of altitude will remain. Blast pens can't be created overnight as they take time for the cement to reach its full strength. Quick drying cements can be used but they too have a time factor. IAF has a very unique system of runway repairs and we can also create more air bases within a very short span of time using metal sheets or using roads. China does not have many roads in Tibet which can be converted to runways. This will allow us to have very distributed operations set up to avoid being targeted but PLAAF has hardly any option along Tibet border.

Let us now come to next part of logistics and maintenance. Fuel for Ngari and Hotan comes from Lhasa fuel tanks. If we take out those fuel dumps, they will not be able to operate any aircraft. In case of IAF, we have fuel dumps not only on the airbases but also widely distributed network of civil petrol pumps which can be rapidly converted to ATF storage facilities. And all of them are underground tanks. Go to any petrol pump and see it.

Next is spares support for operations. PLAAF has aircraft which are made in China so they have no shortage of spares but those spares are located again very far off and their resupply can be intercepted or blocked off. India also has nearly all the aircraft made in India except for M2K & Mig-29. So both the forces have no problem of spares. But IAF supplylines are very close to the operating bases while that of PLAAF are situated very far off.

In the next post, I will discuss what all effect these issues have cumulatively on air battle between IAF & PLAAF.

Excellent analysis sir ji. You touched some critical points. I too is saying repeatedly that logistics is going to play a very important role.