India Responds to China Navy

[prototype]

So this article reported a rumor that China has recently given green light to build two carriers, then it goes on listing what's already under construction in India: Two carriers, two classes of destroyers, three classes of frigates and four nuclear submarines, all are in 'advanced stages of construction' or in 'full swing', and for some reasons that defies the law of causation these build-ups are Indian response to Chinese carriers?

I mean, come on. There's nothing wrong with India building a strong navy. Why someone felt the need to justify that on some imaginary threat from PLAN is beyond me.

And what exactly does Indian navy have to do with 'unfettered access' to South China Sea or Western Pacific? Is the Indian Navy going to build a deep-sea port on some South China Sea reef that spends half of its time under water? And is the author suggesting Japan, which has by far the most powerful navy in Asia, need India to protect its waters?

a little correction my friend,they r not of 2 different classes but 3 stealth destroyers of same class,and 5 different stealth frigates of 2 class,this ships r not under construction but r actually undergoing trials

definitely their work commenced much before PLAN's aggressive buildup but each and every one of them is panned only keeping China in mind,and all the mentioned ships r just a fraction,if u look at the number of ships under construction and for which orders r placed,u will definitely get an idea India is not acquiring this fleet for pakistan,its PLAN's overwhelming build up which made up to go for this kind of fleet

Why should India want to have a base in South China or Western Pacific,our all energy routes r located in IOR where we r basically unchallenged

Any future conflict with China will be again Army-oriented; with Air forces and Navies very little role to play.

no actually not its Indian navy which is going to turn the table this time if a conflict occurred,like gubbi said earlier historically from the strait of Mallaca to Strait of Homruz it is the IN and USN which control this areas,and it is the place where China arteries r present,we have overwhelming presence in the entire IOR and definitely in a position to call the shots,only to protect the same they went for the string of pearls,China had still not accepted they r building some naval bases for future,if they r not,then its good,and if they r,and dream to take down IN with the arrogance of their newly achieved super power status,i can only say that they will b performing their biggest suicide attempt in history

 

[CardSharp]

I have read various neutral sources - and barring a certain Mr. Maxwell - all western sources universally pin the blame on China for invading India. 1962 was a good lesson for India. Unless Nadal had lost to Federer in the beginning, he wouldn't have been kicking his @ss nowadays.

Oh I spend quite a bit of time wondering the stacks of my university library and most of the books I glanced through on this subject seems to condemn Nehru's unilateral action and refusal to negotiate. They condemn as well India's media for pushing war fever (after success in annexing Goa) which forced Nehru's hand in matter.

Can you name some of your sources so I can look them up nexttime I have free time on campus?

 

[KingOfGods]

no actually not its Indian navy which is going to turn the table this time if a conflict occurred,like gubbi said earlier historically from the strait of Mallaca to Strait of Homruz it is the IN and USN which control this areas,and it is the place where China arteries r present,we have overwhelming presence in the entire IOR and definitely in a position to call the shots,only to protect the same they went for the string of pearls,China had still not accepted they r building some naval bases for future,if they r not,then its good,and if they r,and dream to take down IN with the arrogance of their newly achieved super power status,i can only say that they will b performing their biggest suicide attempt in history

You answered yourself. Chinese are no fool............They know they cannot dominate world's fifth largest navy in its Den!!!

 

[applesauce]

I have read various neutral sources - and barring a certain Mr. Maxwell - all western sources universally pin the blame on China for invading India. 1962 was a good lesson for India. Unless Nadal had lost to Federer in the beginning, he wouldn't have been kicking his @ss nowadays.

i can name a certain CIA document that disagrees with you, care to name these "western"sources you have?

 

[dingyibvs]

I have read various neutral sources - and barring a certain Mr. Maxwell - all western sources universally pin the blame on China for invading India. 1962 was a good lesson for India. Unless Nadal had lost to Federer in the beginning, he wouldn't have been kicking his @ss nowadays.

It was "out of the blue" only to Nehru and his loyal Indian followers. Everybody else knew what was coming.

The problem was really miscommunication. Nehru and Indians in general do not believe that Tibet is a part of China, and they think that Chinese people believe the same but maintain that it IS a part of China just to justify its occupation. It's kind of like how the world views China's claims in the South China Sea right now. Thus, he thought that Tibetan territory is negotiable("suuuuure, Tibet belongs to you. *wink wink*), and since India acquiesced to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, that they wouldn't mind sharing a piece of the pie.

That, however, is a fundamentally incorrect point of view, because the Chinese really, really DO believe that Tibet is a part of China. That is, what they're saying is not just lip service, but sincerely from the heart. Whether that belief is right or wrong is debatable, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that that's what they believe. Thus, when India began to encroaching into Tibet, it wasn't seen as a Germany and USSR dividing Poland, it was seen as an attenuated invasion.

With this misunderstanding between the two, it's easy to see why both sides thought they were betrayed. The Indians thought that by letting the Chinese occupy Tibet, they wouldn't mind giving a small strategic portion to India despite the necessary lip service. "How could they attack us for this little piece of land after we allowed them to invade the whole of Tibet!" The Chinese, on the other hand, believed that they were taking back territories which belonged to them in the first place and thought that the Indians concurred. "How could they encroach on our territory after agreeing that it's ours!"

It's easy to just blame the other side for the affair, but as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. This really demonstrates how the two governments, the two nations, and the two peoples need to improve communication and understanding of each other's core interests.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Hypocrite Dalai Lama? What is so hypocritical about him?

I think he was referring to the fact that the CIA supported Dalai in an armed insurrection against the PRC in 1959 and that probably doesn't fit the popular conception of the Dalai Lama.

 

[below_freezing]

Although I don't think that India and China going to fight a war. But as far as PLAAF (not PLAFF) is concerned, till now China never used it as effectively as other countries, like USA, UK, India, Israel or Pakistan, use their air forces. Chinese war doctrin is mainly dependent upon PLA. PLAAF and PLAN were used in defensive roles only in the past.

how effective did india use it? PLAAF fought the first jet to jet combat in the world and held its own against the USAF, i think that's pretty effective.

 

[siegecrossbow]

how effective did india use it? PLAAF fought the first jet to jet combat in the world and held its own against the USAF, i think that's pretty effective.

Also don't forget how China shot down the occasional F-4s and F-104s with J-6s when they occasionally wandered into Chinese air space.

Also keep in mind that air-to-air missiles were first used in a battle between the PLAAF and the Taiwanese Air Force. The Chinese air force has more to its credit than you think.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

how effective did india use it? PLAAF fought the first jet to jet combat in the world and held its own against the USAF, i think that's pretty effective.

For us Indians when we hear an effective airforce,We picture Israeli Airforce operation focus,with a common myth that 400 aircrafts were shotdown in dogfights

 

[shekhar]

You are a little sensitive,how can you say "China has stabbed us in the back out of the blue.", Nehru received 100000 slave owners in 1959, Nehru wanted to cut a meat of China when China was at her weakest point in 1962, China beated Nehru and turned back. This is only a tiny case
In 2010, China spent 78billion $ in army, 1.4% GDP, India spent 32billion $(1/2of China), 2.46% GDp(1300billion 1/4 of China),

please just dont say it for god sake
please provide neutral source for your claim if you want i can give you many neutral source claiming that your facts are not correct

 

[siegecrossbow]

For us Indians when we hear an effective airforce,We picture Israeli Airforce operation focus,with a common myth that 400 aircrafts were shotdown in dogfights

Wouldn't the U.S. Air Force be ineffective by this standard? It suffered a 1 to 1.1 exchange ratio with the vastly inferior Vietnamese Air Force (Surface to Air Missiles shot down a lot of planes, however) and lost about a thousand fighters and bombers in Korea.

 

[prototype]

Wouldn't the U.S. Air Force be ineffective by this standard? It suffered a 1 to 1.1 exchange ratio with the vastly inferior Vietnamese Air Force (Surface to Air Missiles shot down a lot of planes, however) and lost about a thousand fighters and bombers in Korea.

an if i put the casualities on the other side that will b more depressing

 

[Jackdaws]

Neutral Sources -

When I was in uni, I went through many newspaper articles on 1962 war in NY Times and Washington Post on Microfilm and Microfiche - I would check the online archives which would give me just the beginning of the article and then instead of paying for it, I would find it on Microfilm or Microfiche in the university archives.

I also recommend a paper from Harvard by Garver or Garwer which pins the blames on misconceptions of both sides.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Wouldn't the U.S. Air Force be ineffective by this standard? It suffered a 1 to 1.1 exchange ratio with the vastly inferior Vietnamese Air Force (Surface to Air Missiles shot down a lot of planes, however) and lost about a thousand fighters and bombers in Korea.

The word myth should give you the hint that when it comes to wars,we aren't that well informed about them.

Anyway,i think Chinese airforce is just as formidable as the Russian one with addition of J-XX.

 

[below_freezing]

an if i put the casualities on the other side that will b more depressing

do you know what the ratio 1:1.1 means?