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

Falcon said:
EAM is speaking in terms of our foreign policy objectives. Do we really need an alliance when we have groupings of mutual interests already converging? I would label his assertions rather pragmatic. No alliance will ever allow us the flexibility of concentrating on our core interests. But by stitching up loose groupings based on shared interests, specific to the interests, we insure and ensure our own core objectives.

We have not gone blindly into US camp and sent troops into Afghanistan. It does not serve our purpose. But we have coordinated with them increasingly over matters of Freedom of Navigation, SCS, Indo-Pacific and now trade, technology, clean and green energy.

I would not fret too much over this.
Click to expand...

Entering an alliance with the US is a losing proposition in the long run.

eg. We would have been nudged into sending troops in Afghanistan.
Buying oil from Iran would be even more troublesome.
Dont get me started on the S400.
Rafales over US jets

We are best keeping a transactional relationship with the US.
 
Falcon said:
Exactly. In addition to bolstering the 'numbers' this deployment will prove very helpful in IN Aviation arm being 'aware' of the PLAAF (and as an extension PLAN) "routines".
Click to expand...

It will also help the IN in their turf war witht he IAF over land operated fighter jets. "Hey, when our carriers are down, we can participate on land as well, so let's get us a decent fleet mix so we can help".

I doubt they will move even then. Pakistan will only move in case India suffers very serious reverses, something that is very unlikely given that US and other friends are quite keen to see India punch China.
Click to expand...

If we are dealing with China alone, shouldn't we be able to bring in far more troops, especially the ones connected to the SCs?

The 14th seems to have been reorganised and moved to protect Himachal. There's 6th already in UK. Then there's 4th, 22nd and 54th to back them up. One can assume the punching power of the SCs with respect to Pakistan will be gone in case of a war with China.
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
@Falcon @vstol Jockey

Sir (s ) , I am slowly loosing faith in GOI

On One Hand EAM Mr Jaishankar says that We dont need any alliance


And the Defence minister says there us every possibility of a Two Front War

So are we going to fight this Two Front War ALL ALONE
Click to expand...

You are of the belief that we can't fight a two front war, which is why you are clamouring for an alliance.
 
randomradio said:
It will also help the IN in their turf war witht he IAF over land operated fighter jets. "Hey, when our carriers are down, we can participate on land as well, so let's get us a decent fleet mix so we can help".



If we are dealing with China alone, shouldn't we be able to bring in far more troops, especially the ones connected to the SCs?

The 14th seems to have been reorganised and moved to protect Himachal. There's 6th already in UK. Then there's 4th, 22nd and 54th to back them up. One can assume the punching power of the SCs with respect to Pakistan will be gone in case of a war with China.
Click to expand...

The 3 Strike Corps
1 Corps, 2 Corps and 21 Corps
have been created and Equipped to take the war Inside Pakistan

All their exercises are for this purpose and Aim

We cannot relocate them.to Fight China
 
randomradio said:
You are of the belief that we can't fight a two front war, which is why you are clamouring for an alliance.
Click to expand...

Exactly that is why we are Waiting for the Chinese to Move Back rather than Evicting them

If the Chinese were to turn around and say to the 14 Corps Commander --- Lt GEN Harinder Singh ,
in the NEXT Meeting " That we are NOT going back "
What is our Plan B going to be

Escalation with China means a Two Front war which needs an alliance with USA
 
Rather than WASTING MONEY on these Emergency procurements , Just Give TWO Airbases To USA

And then See XI Jinping become XIII Jinping Overnight. :ROFLMAO:
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Exactly that is why we are Waiting for the Chinese to Move Back rather than Evicting them

If the Chinese were to turn around and say to the 14 Corps Commander --- Lt GEN Harinder Singh ,
in the NEXT Meeting " That we are NOT going back "
What is our Plan B going to be
Click to expand...

We will attack them on our own. There is no need for the US to step in.

Escalation with China means a Two Front war which needs an alliance with USA
Click to expand...

Not at all. We are ready to fight both Pakistan and China.

I told ya, it's you who believes we can't fight a two front war. Not at all true.

Even with in adequate fighter jets and support craft, we can still fight China and Pakistan. And we are much better off on the ground compared to the air force.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Yashpatel604 and STEPHEN COHEN
randomradio said:
We will attack them on our own. There is no need for the US to step in.



Not at all. We are ready to fight both Pakistan and China.

I told ya, it's you who believes we can't fight a two front war. Not at all true.

Even with in adequate fighter jets and support craft, we can still fight China and Pakistan. And we are much better off on the ground compared to the air force.
Click to expand...

Are we Waiting for a " Shubh Muhurat "
ie AUSPICIOUS DAY ( for those who dont know Hindi )
 
randomradio said:
Are you suggesting we do a knee-jerk attack on the Chinese?
Click to expand...

No knee jerk reaction

We need maximum Preparation

That is why we are NOW seeing 100 emergency procurement Contracts

But we do need a plan B

Or are we waiting for Winter

When they will be forced to withdraw

What happens if they start a conflict just Before Winter

A short sharp skirmish , to gain some territory and declare Victory before US can intervene

That is why I prefer an alliance with US
And A First Strike by us
 
Jaymax said:
Entering an alliance with the US is a losing proposition in the long run.

eg. We would have been nudged into sending troops in Afghanistan.
Buying oil from Iran would be even more troublesome.
Dont get me started on the S400.
Rafales over US jets

We are best keeping a transactional relationship with the US.
Click to expand...

most importantly it would have angered chinese paymasters of liberals.
 
Falcon said:
Mr Ravi Rikhiye is someone I have an immense respect for. One voice which was never really heard. He used to run his updates on Orbat.com but had dropped off about the time Mr Trump came to power.

We had moved certain Command reserves from Valley proper into the area about 5 - 6 years back as the situation improved. What Rohit is calling as 'swing troops', they exist.

Without going into specific orbats, we have adequate forces to hold the PLA in a defensive posture. In case we do need to launch an offensive into PRC itself, the ball game is quite different. Assuming a collusive threat wherein PA will be coopted to apply pressure along our western front in case of a two front war (which I think is unlikely as US will not allow that kind of situation to build up for India without massively intervening in the form of material & limited military support (in terms of sanction and enforcement of blockades) and not limited to intelligence sharing exclusively, our priority will be to subdue Pakistan and then deal with PRC.

The only lacuna, and a glaring one at that right now, is the tardy defence production and acquisition. This is the result of MoD, MoF and DPSUs working in cahoots to become beneficiaries of fast track purchases. Something we have discussed earlier too.

No clue. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Analysis of India's Ability to Fight a 2-Front War 2018 Robot Check

From 2018 & costs a bomb too. As per PKS, PLA seems to have followed whatever Ravi Rikhiye predicted in this book as far as their ingress goes to a T.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hellfire
randomradio said:
All the IAF Mig-29s have been upgraded to UPG status already. The new upgrade won't see much downtime, and it hasn't started either.

The IN should be there to gain experience, flying CAP alongside the Chinese jets that are doing CAP on their side.
Click to expand...
All IN Mig-29Ks have Buddy refueling capability which IAF Mig-29s do not have. The IN Mig-29Ks will act as force multipliers as some of them might even be kept ready for tanker role which will reduce the burden on our refuellers. And they can refuel nearly every aircraft of IAF equipped with a inflight refueling probe. with four D/Ts and full internal fuel, they can transfer nearly four tons of fuel. Which means each Mig-29K can top up two Tejas.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Ironhide, Aurora and 4 others
STEPHEN COHEN said:
No knee jerk reaction

We need maximum Preparation

That is why we are NOW seeing 100 emergency procurement Contracts

But we do need a plan B

Or are we waiting for Winter

When they will be forced to withdraw

What happens if they start a conflict just Before Winter

A short sharp skirmish , to gain some territory and declare Victory before US can intervene

That is why I prefer an alliance with US
And A First Strike by us
Click to expand...

Diplomacy is taking its course. And we are taking that time to equip and modernise.

An alliance with the US does nothing that you think it will do. The US won't intervene no matter what we do with China, neither diplomatically nor militarily. If you are thinking we will ally with them and then they will send their troops to die for us, then you're dreaming. An alliance with US is for countries that are too weak to protect themselves and are willing to give up their sovereignty in exchange for security. It's just a modern form of colonisation. They will only send troops to protect "their" territory. The only time the US will send troops is when their own existence is under threat, like the case with the alliance against the Soviet Union.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironhide
vstol Jockey said:
All IN Mig-29Ks have Buddy refueling capability which IAF Mig-29s do not have. The IN Mig-29Ks will act as force multipliers as some of them might even be kept ready for tanker role which will reduce the burden on our refuellers. And they can refuel nearly every aircraft of IAF equipped with a inflight refueling probe. with four D/Ts and full internal fuel, they can transfer nearly four tons of fuel. Which means each Mig-29K can top up two Tejas.
Click to expand...

The IAF also have MKIs for that purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom