What's new

Ex IAF Chief says skirmishes in Ladakh, not ruled out

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
18,063
Reaction score
12
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Noting that the probability of a conflict between India and China can never be ruled out, former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal (ACM) B.S. Dhanoa Friday said that while on paper the Chinese Air Force has huge capability, a lot of natural and logistics factors are flying against it.

Chairing a session of the Military Literature Festival, which is being held online this year due to the Covid pandemic, he argued the Indian Air Force can actually provide a credible punitive action in the Himalayas as against the People’s Liberation Army’s Air Force (PLAAF).

Speaking about the ongoing stand-off in Ladakh, Dhanoa said, “Probability of India-China skirmish can never be ruled out.”

He added that the Chinese believe in the old Soviet era doctrine of their main offensive being missile and rocket-based.

Dhanoa further said that today’s China is not the same China that fought in Korea. “Taking large casualties is something that a developed China with one-child policy cannot take,” he explained.

About the PLAAF, the former IAF chief said, “On paper, the PLAAF has a huge capability and is supported by a much larger economy funding a defence budget, which is almost three times ours. This is a public defence budget in which a lot many things are hidden.”

He noted that the PLAAF has 1,500 fighters, of which 800 are fourth generation.

Dhanoa further said China has also deployed a limited number of fifth generation fighters — J-20 and J-31 — and has also completed the induction of 24 Su-35 that it procured from Russia and the S-400 air defence system.

‘Effect of terrain has to be taken into consideration’
Talking about the PLAAF strength, Dhanoa said China has strategic bombers and has also deployed advanced AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System), besides having a large fleet of UAVs, including stealth UAV.

He added that the Chinese have rocket forces deployed, which have the ability to target all military installations opposite them and also in the hinterland.

“It has developed Electronic Warfare to counter the US. So it has more than a match for our technology. But the bottom line is how credible are these technologies when we look beyond the Himalayas into Tibet,” Dhanoa said.

He questioned how much of this force can be brought against India given the state of infrastructure in Tibet and Xinjiang.

“Effect of terrain has to be taken into consideration. It has an impact on aircraft operations due to altitude and extreme cold. It has an effect on targeting and weapons ballistic, specially because their adversary, which is us, is likely to be dispersed. It has got serious issues on radar’s line of sight resulting in very poor trans-frontier visibility,” Dhanoa added.

He said all of these result in very low reaction time and by the time the IAF fighters cross the Himalayas, the Chinese will have less time to react.

 
. “Taking large casualties is something that a developed China with one-child policy cannot take,”
Gold mine for any budding psychologists out there.

Firstly, PROJECTION of India's own fears of high casualties. It's actually India that can't tolerate the sight of Indian casualties.

Secondly, DELUSION that China somehow will sustain higher casualties than India in any warfare modality, missiles, jets or otherwise.

Thirdly, DISINFORMATION that China still has a "one-child policy". They haven't had one since 2016. But hey, why should facts get in the way of B.S. Dhanoa's little B.S. segment? It makes great whatsapp forwarding material.
 
Very straightforward assessment & very much in line with other countries about China's capabilities.

China has always been a high casualty warfare doctrine i.e., throwing bodies at it, as they did in Vietnam, the Korean war, hell- like they did in the north with India. Threw 150 armed soldiers versus 20 unarmed ones ( and still got 60 of themselves killed). And they are very much stuck in a soviet-style warfare mindset.

Chinese military recruitment is suffering from the after-effects of their one-child policy, even if they recently got rid of it. The pool of new recruits they can pick from is not coming from those born post-2016.
 
Last edited:
Gold mine for any budding psychologists out there.

Firstly, PROJECTION of India's own fears of high casualties. It's actually India that can't tolerate the sight of Indian casualties.

Secondly, DELUSION that China somehow will sustain higher casualties than India in any warfare modality, missiles, jets or otherwise.

Thirdly, DISINFORMATION that China still has a "one-child policy". They haven't had one since 2016. But hey, why should facts get in the way of B.S. Dhanoa's little B.S. segment? It makes great whatsapp forwarding material.

Huh, what? China's one-child policy ending in 2016 will help with the recruitment problem they are having now? Yup, I suppose they have a bigger pool now, i.e., kids aged 4 to recruit from_ born post-2016. :sarcastic: You're welcome!
 
Last edited:
The PLA 2nd Artillery Corp ie Rocket force can obliterate every Indian military installation along the border.

The first salvo will be the last with them.
 
Huh, what? China's one-child policy ending in 2016 is going to help with the recruitment problem they are having now? Yup, I suppose they have a bigger pool now i.e. kids aged 4 to recruit from that were born post-2016. :sarcastic: Your welcome!
Your wording takes into account this lag time. However I critiqued Dhanoa's original statement:

. “Taking large casualties is something that a developed China with one-child policy cannot take,”

Dhanoa did not use any variant of a past tense to qualify his statement.

For example, he could have said "...China that until recently had..." or "...China that is still catching up to the after effects of its recent one-child policy...".

As a speaker of standard English, when someone says: "Subject x with object y" in a clause, it is implicit that this is a present state that is being described.

I can only interpret what is in front of me. I can't read Dhanoa's mind if he meant something different to what he said. Hence he should take care when making statements. Maybe he should hire you since you're available.

*You're* welcome.
 
He added that the Chinese believe in the old Soviet era doctrine of their main offensive being missile and rocket-based.

Just goes to show how stupid this BS guy really is. Is it really Soviet doctrine to shower your enemy with massive air/artillery/missile strikes prior to an offensive? Every single major offensive in the past 100 years has followed this doctrine of degrading enemy defenses before attacking. The PLA used this strategy in 1962 against the Indians and it worked like a charm ... why would it not work again in the future, especially considering the weapon disparity between the two has grown in magnitudes? It sounds to me like the Indians are insecure they have extremely inadequate artillery and missiles ... makes sense.
 
all indians say same thing government to road sweeper !!

China one child policy lol
I'm beginning to think that, this(breeding) being the national pass time of Indians is also a sort of a defense mechanism. A weapon of war, in fact... Nixon was perplexed on Indian capacity to spawn babies with "unattractive" mates, well if intent is defeating your foes by out-producing them, then you have an answer.
 
Your wording takes into account this lag time. However I critiqued Dhanoa's original statement:

. “Taking large casualties is something that a developed China with one-child policy cannot take,”

Dhanoa did not use any variant of a past tense to qualify his statement.

For example, he could have said "...China that until recently had..." or "...China that is still catching up to the after effects of its recent one-child policy...".

As a speaker of standard English, when someone says: "Subject x with object y" in a clause, it is implicit that this is a present state that is being described.

I can only interpret what is in front of me. I can't read Dhanoa's mind if he meant something different to what he said. Hence he should take care when making statements. Maybe he should hire you since you're available.

*You're* welcome.

You have shown to have a knee-jerk reaction in several posts now. To spew whatever comes to mind first and an astounding lack of comprehension. Honestly, it does not take a 5th grade level of comprehension to understand that the air chief is talking about warfare, military tactics, and all things about it in all his comments.

I have ignored indulging you for months, while you often write comments at me. My bad, I broke my rule.

One more thing as you judge on sentence structure, grammar, and typos-
Dhanoa did not use any variant of a the past tense to qualify his statement
As a speaker of standard English As a standard English speaker
if he meant something different to from what he said
 
Last edited:
You have shown to have a knee-jerk reaction in several posts now. To spew whatever comes to mind first and an astounding lack of comprehension. Honestly, it does not take a 5th grade level of comprehension to understand that the air chief is talking about warfare, military tactics, and all things about it in all his comments.

I have ignored indulging you for months, while you often write comments at me. My bad, I broke my rule.

One more thing as you judge on sentence structure, grammar, and typos-
Dhanoa did not use any variant of a the past tense to qualify his statement
As a speaker of standard English As a standard English speaker
if he meant something different to from what he said
Oh, this should be fun.

1. https://www.ef.co.uk/english-resources/english-grammar/past/

There are FOUR past tenses in English, hence usage of the indefinite article as opposed to the definite article is entirely appropriate.

2. There is nothing incorrect about expanding a possessive/genitive statement form into "y of x" as an alternative to "x's y".

3. "Different to" is equally acceptable as "different from". I can't compensate for variations between American English and British English.


You may wish to upgrade your version of Grammarly.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom