Ladakh Flash Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phead128

Major
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
I don't see why the border conflict with India must end in a timely fashion. I feel like the current Indian situation draws a lot in parallel to the Vietnam situation back in 1979.

Here is my reasoning.
1. After winning the Vietnam War, Vietnam became the prominent political and military figure in South East Asia, and they began to expand their influences (like invading Cambodia). Due to historical and geopolitical reasons, Vietnamese harbor deep mistrust to the Chinese, so they quickly became hostile towards the Chinese after the Vietnam war, even though China provided them with a lot of support. This is very much like India today. India wants to become a superpower, they have been actively engaging in border conflicts with all of their neighbors and they have a fixation on China.

The first main point is, much like Vietnam, India today has China as their top one adversary. Furthermore, both India and Vietnam had the aspiration to become the dominant political and military figure in their respective area, this is likely the key reason why they want to challenge and confront China.

2. Vietnam had the audacity to challenge China and the countries nearby because they believe they had Soviet support. Much like India currently, which believes the US and the West will back them up. Both countries believe that their key geopolitical standing grants them this vital importance at a global stage.

The second point is, India and Vietnam, both being weaker countries on all aspects compared to China, dare to seriously challenge China because they felt like they had the backing of a superpower.

3. Like India, Vietnam has had on-going border conflicts with China for many years, and skirmishes have been fought often. This is not only true on land, but also in the sea. China and Vietnam has fought 2 major conflicts in the Sough China sea in the past.

The third point is, Vietnam, very much like India, bet that China's main focus is on developing the economy, so they dare to challenge China on areas that are not of essential focus. Like in remote areas in the South China sea in the 70s and 80s, or borders in Yunnan. They believe little gains and accumulate over time, and as long as they keep the intensity low enough, China will not and can not respond in a serious manner.

How did China deal with Vietnam back in 1979? Well, a month long campaign was fought in 1979. When Vietnam was busy dealing with changing regimes in Cambodia, PLA attacked and obliterated the Vietnamese defense. Within 1 month, the PLA reached about 150km outside of Hanoi then retreated back to China; they devastated all industrial, agricultural, and economic facilities along the way. This is not the end, China then fought a decade long border war with Vietnam, lasting into the 90s. Soviet Union never helped Vietnam by fighting China, they only send supplies and arms to Vietnam. Without Soviet support, Vietnam finally signed peace deals with China and the fighting finally stopped.

Now why would they drag out this conflict for over 10 years? Because Yunnan province, which borders Vietnam, is not of vital economic concern, but Vietnam's Hanoi is close to this border. China can spent minimal effort fighting this war while developing its economy, while placing immense amount of pressure on Vietnam to build its military (Very much like what USSR did to China after Zhenbaodao incident). The end result is that China successfully became the manufacturing hub of the world, but Vietnam was only able to kick-start this process after the wars are finished, which was already too late. Those wars shaped the destiny of modern Vietnam. Today, Vietnam is still very poor, many farmers in Yunnan hire Vietnamese workers to do the harvesting, because no Chinese want to do so much manual labor with so little pay, but Vietnamese people would.

India today is at a very similar situation compared to Vietnam. Tibet is not a economic hub for China, fighting a war in the Himalayan will have even a lesser impact on Chinese economy compared to fighting on the borders of Yunnan. New Delhi is pretty close to the border as well, just like Hanoi, meaning that a long lasting conflict will be of vital concern for India. India's industrial capability is laughable, so a dragged out military conflict will mean that India will have to spend a significantly more amount of GDP buying necessary military equipment, thus straining its economy even more in addition to the pandemic. Finally, I seriously doubt the US will help out India during a war, the most the West will do is to sell expensive second hand military equipment to India when they can't build anything for themselves.

If PLA launches a major assault on Indian positions like 1962 before winter comes and immediately retreats, the front line Indian troops will be devastated, and India will be pressured to spend even more money and resources maintaining a significant military presence should the PLA try the same thing again. Then, the warmongering sentiment from the Indian public will most likely pressure the Modi government to counter attack, and since PLA basically get to control how the war can progress, PLA can just simply decide to keep this low intensity conflict going by never invading into India but keep fighting them in the Himalayan hills and never let them catch a break. If this can keep going for years, India will be bled dry, and if they are smart enough, will come back to the negotiation table to talk.

What do you guys think? (I seriously doubt dealing with India will require the PLA to compromise a significant number of its forces from Taiwan, because from what I've read, in 1979, the best equipped PLA troops were stationed in the North preventing a USSR assault and the 2nd tier units were the ones leading the attack into Vietnam.)

This is a very thought provoking analogy. The punitive retaliation aspect and stubborn nationalist response to clearly overwhelming military superiority has very good similarities between the two contexts.

One comment is that Vietnam ultimately demarcated the border with China after couple decades. This is because Vietnam does not have the luxury of treating China, a regional superpower, as a permanent enemy, given geographical proximity and burgeoning trade. Vietnam's authoritarian system is more able to suppress dissent of losing some territory to China during negotiations. Kashmir is more deeply woven into the national identity of both India and Pakistan since their inception as independent nation-states, which combined with the fervous fake-news generator of Indian media, I doubt a peaceful negotiated settlement can be achieved with India-China without solving the larger Kashmiri issue. In short, Indians may percieve any weak settlement with China to influence their own process between India-Pakistan over Kashmir, so border settlement is far more complicated than a 1-vs-1 like Vietnam-China border resolution. You can even argue that half the reason why India is so stubborn is to "put on a show" as a war message for Pakistan, with no Indian intention to fight China.

I also thought that your analogy between Vietnam and 1979 with India today is very thought provoking, esp. with Indian motivations with external 3rd parties (like Vietnam and USSR), and Indian stubborness and audacity, and Indian ambitions in the region.
 

discspinner

Junior Member
Registered Member
timesofindia article about indian army occupying heights:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I find it amusing the Indians are claiming to have dominated so called 'heights' even though Nathan Ruser's satellite findings show minimal if any incursion into China's LAC. Meanwhile, India is threatening forceful responses if China were to breach these positions. Of course China won't do so, since the LAC has not been violated. Looks to me like another attempt by the Indian army to sell a false victory to the Indian public.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
I stopped following the Twitter tags. It's all confusing." Chinese heights have been occupied" , "Chushul airstrip occupied" , "China dominates heights"....

It'd be in the interest of all if someone could offer a daily summary of the hard ground changes, troop casualties, posts erected and demolished and of course territory gained or ceded.

It'd be a great help.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Well PLAAF have conducted 5th gen (J-20) vs 4th gen (J-10C and J-16 specifically) mixed generation combat exercises, both to train J-20 pilots as well as train 4th gen fighter pilots against something that is similar to F-22 or F-35. The conclusion was that a force of 24 J-20 is enough to handle about 700 4th gen fighters. I believe this sort of result is also seen in F-22 vs F-15 exercises.

So once J-20s kick in the door there's not going to be much contest left in the sky, the 4th gen fighters behind them are mostly going to be bomb trucks.

One does wonder what a J-10C vs Mig-21 fight would look like. Maybe J-10C pilots need some training time against J-7.
Mirages for them ground strikes. Don't forget them French fighters.
The first Rafale squadron has been allocated to Ambala AFB, which is at a lower elevation and 420 kilometres from Pangong Tso

So this brings me to my main point. I understand that it is easy for members on SDF to develop tunnel vision in such echo chambers as SDF (not that there's anything wrong with that), but people are missing the big perspective. I'm getting the feeling that there is a undercurrent assumption among SDF members that the PLAAF and PLA would steamroll their Indian counterparts if the Ladakh standoff ever goes hot, but I have my doubts, which I will explain.

IAF's biggest and perhaps most prominent aerial assets in the region are the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and their new Phalcon AWACS purchase. We know that the Rafale and Su-30MKIs have been deployed to Ambala AFB and other FOBs near the Indo-Chinese border. We also know that the IAF now operates an unknown number of Storm Shadow ALCMs (with 500+ km range) as part of their Rafale package and that their Sukhois are integrated with the air-launched BrahMos (400 km range). The IAF essentially has the hardware to conduct deep strikes against both PLAAF bases and mainland cities/infrastructure while remaining relatively impervious to Chinese anti-air and anti-missile defenses. Sure, neither platform might stand a chance against the J-20, but neither would require much of a hop in order to release their standoff munitions.

The PLAAF, on the other hand, doesn't have anywhere near India's air-to-ground capabilities deployed near the Ladakh region. Their J-11s are not capable of A2G combat while their JH-7/H-6K have no air-to-air capability required to exploit their full payload potential. J-10Cs are not integrated with long-range ALCMs while the J-16s have barely begun deployment in the region. The J-20s - if used at all - will certainly not undertake air-to-surface missions against IAF airfields.

The PLAAF would be forced to be on constant alert for incoming IAF munitions & aircraft while dealing with unstoppable strikes by way of terrain-hugging cruise missiles from Rafales, leaving little to no available assets to conduct air support operations against IA ground forces.

Couple that with their Phalcon AWACs, S-400 missiles, and large contingency of legacy airframes like the Mirage and MiG-29s, and the PLAAF would be opening a can of worms if it attempts anything.
 

discspinner

Junior Member
Registered Member
So this brings me to my main point. I understand that it is easy for members on SDF to develop tunnel vision in such echo chambers as SDF (not that there's anything wrong with that), but people are missing the big perspective. I'm getting the feeling that there is a undercurrent assumption among SDF members that the PLAAF and PLA would steamroll their Indian counterparts if the Ladakh standoff ever goes hot, but I have my doubts, which I will explain.

IAF's biggest and perhaps most prominent aerial assets in the region are the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and their new Phalcon AWACS purchase. We know that the Rafale and Su-30MKIs have been deployed to Ambala AFB and other FOBs near the Indo-Chinese border. We also know that the IAF now operates an unknown number of Storm Shadow ALCMs (with 500+ km range) as part of their Rafale package and that their Sukhois are integrated with the air-launched BrahMos (400 km range). The IAF essentially has the hardware to conduct deep strikes against both PLAAF bases and mainland cities/infrastructure while remaining relatively impervious to Chinese anti-air and anti-missile defenses. Sure, neither platform might stand a chance against the J-20, but neither would require much of a hop in order to release their standoff munitions.

The PLAAF, on the other hand, doesn't have anywhere near India's air-to-ground capabilities deployed near the Ladakh region. Their J-11s are not capable of A2G combat while their JH-7/H-6K have no air-to-air capability required to exploit their full payload potential. J-10Cs are not integrated with long-range ALCMs while the J-16s have barely begun deployment in the region. The J-20s - if used at all - will certainly not undertake air-to-surface missions against IAF airfields.

The PLAAF would be forced to be on constant alert for incoming IAF munitions & aircraft while dealing with unstoppable strikes by way of terrain-hugging cruise missiles from Rafales, leaving little to no available assets to conduct air support operations against IA ground forces.

Couple that with their Phalcon AWACs, S-400 missiles, and large contingency of legacy airframes like the Mirage and MiG-29s, and the PLAAF would be opening a can of worms if it attempts anything.

Not sure if joking. Great stuff if that is the case!
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
So this brings me to my main point. I understand that it is easy for members on SDF to develop tunnel vision in such echo chambers as SDF (not that there's anything wrong with that), but people are missing the big perspective. I'm getting the feeling that there is a undercurrent assumption among SDF members that the PLAAF and PLA would steamroll their Indian counterparts if the Ladakh standoff ever goes hot, but I have my doubts, which I will explain.

IAF's biggest and perhaps most prominent aerial assets in the region are the Rafale, Su-30MKI, and their new Phalcon AWACS purchase. We know that the Rafale and Su-30MKIs have been deployed to Ambala AFB and other FOBs near the Indo-Chinese border. We also know that the IAF now operates an unknown number of Storm Shadow ALCMs (with 500+ km range) as part of their Rafale package and that their Sukhois are integrated with the air-launched BrahMos (400 km range). The IAF essentially has the hardware to conduct deep strikes against both PLAAF bases and mainland cities/infrastructure while remaining relatively impervious to Chinese anti-air and anti-missile defenses. Sure, neither platform might stand a chance against the J-20, but neither would require much of a hop in order to release their standoff munitions.

The PLAAF, on the other hand, doesn't have anywhere near India's air-to-ground capabilities deployed near the Ladakh region. Their J-11s are not capable of A2G combat while their JH-7/H-6K have no air-to-air capability required to exploit their full payload potential. J-10Cs are not integrated with long-range ALCMs while the J-16s have barely begun deployment in the region. The J-20s - if used at all - will certainly not undertake air-to-surface missions against IAF airfields.

The PLAAF would be forced to be on constant alert for incoming IAF munitions & aircraft while dealing with unstoppable strikes by way of terrain-hugging cruise missiles from Rafales, leaving little to no available assets to conduct air support operations against IA ground forces.

Couple that with their Phalcon AWACs, S-400 missiles, and large contingency of legacy airframes like the Mirage and MiG-29s, and the PLAAF would be opening a can of worms if it attempts anything.

What happened if PLA jammed GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and Indian GPS signals in Chinese terroritory? Where is India's S-400?
 

zbb

Junior Member
Registered Member
timesofindia article about indian army occupying heights:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I find it amusing the Indians are claiming to have dominated so called 'heights' even though Nathan Ruser's satellite findings show minimal if any incursion into China's LAC. Meanwhile, India is threatening forceful responses if China were to breach these positions. Of course China won't do so, since the LAC has not been violated. Looks to me like another attempt by the Indian army to sell a false victory to the Indian public.


Nathan Ruser's map showed positions around Black Top and Helmet Top on the south side of Pangong Tso while the article is talking about Finger 4 on the north side of Pangong Tso. The article's claim may still very well be false, but it's talking about a different area than Nathan Ruser's findings.
 

coolieno99

Junior Member
The first Rafale squadron has been allocated to Ambala AFB, which is at a lower elevation and 420 kilometres from Pangong Tso
That Ambala AFB is not far from the border. CJ-10 cruise missiles can be station deep inside Tibet since its range is 1500 km. 1st wave of CJ-10s should be armed with cluster bomblets, and its role is to release its bomblets along the length of the runway, and crater it. 2nd wave of CJ-10s should be armed with 1,000 lb warhead and aim for the shelters that harbor the Rafales. Russians had great success with using Kalibr cruise missiles during the Syrian Civil War. Their cruise missiles were launched from corvettes stationed in the Caspian Sea, then traveled 900 miles before finally striking their targets dead-on.
Since there are so few Rafales(36 total), PLA has the luxury of firing 2 or even 3 HQ-9 SAMs at it simultaneously. While the Rafale is busy trying to jam or evade the first HQ-9, the 2nd HQ-9 should get through unhindered.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top