Total Pageviews

Monday, April 29, 2013

China-India Relations: Military Diplomacy Aspects & CBMs Agreed Upon Between 1988 And Thus Far

A positive trend in relations between China and India was facilitated after the then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China in December 1988, during which it was decided to set up a Joint Working Group (JWG) for finding ways of resolving the boundary issue. Between December 1988 and June 1993, progress was made in reducing tensions on the border via Confidence-Building Measures (CBM), including mutually agreed-upon force-level reductions at Sumdorong Chu in Arunachal Pradesh, regular meetings of GOC-in-Cs of theatre commands of both sides that are responsible for all sections of the disputed boundary, and advance notifications of military exercises being held by these theatre commands. Seven rounds of JWG talks were held during this period. During Sharad Pawar’s visit to Beijing in July 1992, the first ever by an Indian Defence Minister, it was agreed to develop academic, military, scientific and technological exchanges. A senior-level tri-services delegation of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) made a six-day goodwill visit to India in December 1993, aimed at fostering CBMs between the armed forces of the two countries.  The visit was reciprocated by the Indian Army’s Chief of the Army Staff (VOAS) Gen B C Joshi’s visit to China in July 1994. This was followed by the visit to China by the then Defence Minister, George Fernandes, in April 2003. This was followed by a return visit by the then Minister for National Defence (MND), Gen Cao Gangchuan, in March 2004.  The Chief of Air Staff (CAS) of the IAF, ACM A Y Tipnis, visited China in May 2001 and this was reciprocated by the PLAAF’s Commander, Gen Qiao Qingchen, who visited India in October 2006.  In December 2004, Gen N C Vij, the then COAS, visited China, the first by an Indian Army COAS in a decade, and both countries agreed to deepen defence cooperation.  In May 26, 2005, the PLA Army’s Chief of the General Staff (CGS), Gen Liang Guanglie, visited India on a six-day tour. His predecessor, Gen Fu Quanyu, had earlier visited India in May 1998. The then Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited India in May 2006 and signed the first ever MoU on Defence Exchanges between the Armed Forces of China and India. In May 2007 Gen Joginder Jaswant Singh, Chairman COSC and COAS visited China. This was the first time that the Indian armed forces’ Chairman COSC visited had China and he was hosted by the then CGS of the PLA, Gen Liang Guanglie. From November 4 to 7, 2008, the then Chief of Air Staff of the IAF, ACM Fali Homi Major, paid an official visit to China, while the Commander of the PLA Navy was also on a visit to India at roughly the same time. Chairman COSC and the Indian Navy’s Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), Admiral Sureesh Mehta, visited China and participated in the International Fleet Review to mark the 60th Anniversary Celebrations of the PLA Navy between April 19 and 25, 2009. Earlier, the IN’s then CNS had visited China in March 1996, while the PLAN’s Commander, Admiral Wu Shengli, visited India in November 2008. 
While Indian Defence Ministers have visited China thrice—in July 1992, April 2003 and May 2006, China’s Ministers of National Defence have visited India thrice--in September 1994, March 2004 and September 2012. Gen Liang Guanglie, the present-day Defence Minister and Vice-Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission (CMC), visited India from September 2 to 6, 2012. Accompanying him were 20 PLA Army officers hailing from the Chengdu and Lanzhou Military Regions (MR), PLAN (from its South Sea Fleet) and PLAAF senior officers, and the 2nd Artillery Corps.
The first Annual Defence Dialogue (ADD) between China and India was held in Beijing in November 2007.  The Indian side was led by Bimal Julka, JS (G/Air), MoD, while the Chinese side was led by Maj Gen Qian Li Hua, Chief of FAO, MND. The second ADD was held in Delhi on December 15, 2008 between the PLA’s then Deputy Chief of General Staff, Lt Gen Ma Xiaotian, and India’s then Defence Secretary Vijay Singh. The third ADD was held in in Beijing on January 6, 2010 between the PLA’s then Deputy Chief of General Staff Lt Gen Ma Xiaotian and India’s then Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar. The fourth ADD was conducted in Delhi on December 9, 2011 between the PLA’s then Deputy Chief of General Staff Lt Gen Ma Xiaotian and India’s Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma. The fifth ADD was held in Beijing on January 14, 2013 between the PLA’s Deputy Chief of General Staff Lt Gen Qi Jianghuo and India’s Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma.
Since 2002, China and India have also held six rounds of counter-terrorism dialogues. The first-ever dialogue on counter-terrorism was held on April 23, 2002 between India’s joint secretary (East Asia) in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and China’s Director-General of the Asian Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. India’s then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh had formalised the dialogue during his meeting with his Chinese counterpart Tang Jiaxuan on March 30, 2002. The 5th round of counter-terrorism dialogues was held in March 2012, with Ashoke Mukherjee, Additional Secretary in MEA, leading the Indian side. The 6th round was held on April 11 and 12, 2013 in Beijing, with the MEA’s Additional Secretary, Navtej Sarna, leading the Indian side.
India and China held their first-ever dialogue on Afghanistan on April 18, 2013 in Beijing The meeting took place in the backdrop of talks between the National Security Advisers of India, China and Russia, which were held in Moscow recently to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. China also held a trilateral meeting with Russia and Pakistan later. From the Indian side the talks on Afghanistan were led by Y K Sinha, Additional Secretary, Pakistan Afghanistan Iran, (PAI) of India’s MEA. India’s National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon is expected to visit Beijing in the coming weeks to establish contacts with his new counterpart for Special Representatives talks on the boundary dispute. Former Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has been appointed as State Councillor succeeding Dai Bingguo, but he was yet to be officially designated as China's Special Representative for boundary negotiations with India.
In addition to all the above, there have been several reciprocal visits by senior-level military officials, as well as joint military exercises. On November 14, 2003, the IN and PLAN conducted a joint search-and-rescue exercise off the coast of Shanghai in the East China Sea, a first for both countries. On November 18, 2003 an Indian delegation headed by Lt Gen Mohinder Singh, GOC 4 Corps, visited PLA bases and academic institutions in Beijing, and also visited Lhasa, capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), and Chengdu, capital of Sichuan Province. At the invitation of Lt Gen Puri, Chief of India’s HQ Integrated Defence Staff, a PLA delegation headed by Gen Wu Quanxu, Deputy CGS of the PLA Army, visited India from December 10 to 15, 2003. On August 28, 2004 PLA and IA troops held a joint mountaineering training programme in the border area of TAR, the first of its kind between the two armed forces. Between August 18 and 25, 2005 Indian observers were invited to witness ‘Peace Mission-2005’, a one week-long joint anti-terrorism military exercise that involved 10,000 troops from China and Russia and which had started in Vladivostok in Russia’s Far East and later had moved to eastern China’s Shandong Peninsula. In return, PLA observers were invited during the Indian Army’s ‘Exercise Desert Strike’ in the western sector in 2005. Between December 21 and 27, 2007, 100 personnel each from the PLA Army and IA conducted the first-ever joint anti-terrorism military training exercise—code-named ‘Hand-in-Hand’—in Kunming. Maj Gen Xiong Zuoming led the PLA Army contingent. Wu Xiaoyi, Deputy Director of the Asian Affairs Bureau under the Foreign Affairs Office of China’s MND and Lt Gen Ma Xiaotian, Deputy CGS of the PLA were the senior-most observers from the Chinese side, while Lt Gen Susheel Gupta, Deputy COAS of the IA, was the senior-most Indian observer. Between December 6 and 12, 2008 a 147-member PLA Army team from the 1st Company of Infantry Battalion of Chengdu MR, and IA troops from 8 Maratha Light Infantry Battalion underwent joint tactical manoeuvres and drills; inter-operability training; and joint command post procedures, finally culminating in a joint counter-terrorist operational exercise with a simulated enemy at Belgaum, Karnataka).  Lt Gen Ma Xiaotian and Lt Gen Nobel Thamburaj, the then GOC-in-C Southern Command, were the senior-most observers. In August 2009, Lt-Gen V K Singh, then the IA’s GOC-in-C Eastern Command, paid a week-long visit to TAR. He was accompanied by the then GOC IV Corps (based in Tezpur, Assam). Maj Gen Gurmeet Singh of the IA’s HQ Northern Command in June 2011 visited Beijing, Shanghai and Urumqi. Lt Gen Lang Youliang from the Tibet Military District of the Chengdu MR led an eight-member PLA delegation to India between November 3 and 9, 2011 and visited various IA establishments in New Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai, while a multi-command IA delegation headed by a Maj-Gen made a daylong visit to Lhasa on July 11, 2012.
India and China on March 1, 2012 decided to set up a maritime dialogue between the IN and PLAN. The decision came at the end of a meeting between the then visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and his Indian counterpart S M Krishna.

Both countries held the second round of strategic economic talks in New Delhi on November 26, 2012. Zhang Ping, Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, and Indian Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, co-chaired the dialogue. The two sides exchanged views to seek broader economic cooperation and promote coordination on macro-economic policy. They also resolved to strengthen cooperation in areas such as investment, infrastructure, high-technology, energy-saving and energy resources. The first meeting of the China-India Strategic Economic Dialogue was held in Beijing on September 26, 2011 and co-chaired by Zhang and Ahluwalia.

On August 26, 2012 Chinese Commerce Minister Chen Deming arrived in New Delhi on a two-day visit to hold the 9th round of talks with his Indian counterpart Anand Sharma under the framework of Joint Economic Group (JEG).
CBMs Inked Thus Far

Maintenance of Peace along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China Border on September 7, 1993.


In the first place, the Agreement affirmed the view that the China-India boundary question shall be resolved through peaceful and friendly consultations and that neither side shall use or threaten to use force against the other by any means. Yet another important highlight was that it stipulated that “pending an ultimate solution of the boundary question between the two countries, the two sides shall strictly observe the LAC between the two sides and that no activities of either side shall overstep the line of actual control. In case of personnel of one side crossing the LAC, upon being confirmed by the other side, they shall immediately pull back to their own side of the LAC. It further provided that whenever necessary, the two sides shall jointly check and determine the segments of the LAC when they have different views as to its alignment.
Secondly, the agreement stipulated that each side will keep its military forces in the area along the LAC to a minimum level compatible with friendly and good neighbourly relations between the two countries. It further reiterated that the two sides had agreed to reduce their military forces along the LAC in conformity with the requirement of the principle of mutual and equal security, with force-level ceilings to be mutually agreed, and that the reduction of military forces shall be carried out in stages in mutually agreed geographical locations sector-wise within the areas along the LAC.
Thirdly, as regards military exercises, the Agreement mentioned that each side shall give the other prior notification of the military exercises of specified levels near the LAC permitted under the Agreement.
Fourthly, in case of contingency or other problems arising in the areas of LAC, the two sides shall deal with them through meetings and friendly consultations between border personnel of the two countries.
Fifthly, the two sides also agreed to take adequate measures to ensure that air intrusions across the LAC do not take place and that the two sides shall undertake mutual consultations in case such intrusions occur.

Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas on November 29, 1996


This Agreement was inked on November 29, 1996 during the visit of the then Chinese President Jiang Zemin to India. This Agreement while reiterating and reaffirming the intent and spirit of the 1993, state agreement, inter-alias, as CBMs, envisaged the following:
1) The major categories of armament to be reduced or limited include battle tanks, infantry combat vehicles, guns (including howitzers) with 75mm or bigger calibre, mortars with 120mm or bigger calibre, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles and any other weapon system.
2) The two sides shall exchange data on the military forces and armaments to be reduced or limited and decide on ceilings on military forces and armaments to be kept by each side within agreed geographic zones along the LAC.

3) In order to maintain peace and tranquillity along the LAC and to prevent any tension in the border areas due to misreading by either side of the other side’s intentions, Article IV of the Agreement provides the following:

1. Both sides shall avoid holding large-scale military exercises involving more than one Division (approximately 15,000 troops) in close proximity of the LAC. However, if such exercises are to be conducted, the strategic direction of the main force involved shall not be towards the other side.

2. If either side conducts a major military exercise involving more than one Brigade Group (approximately 5,000 troops) in close proximity of the LAC, it shall give the other side prior notification with regard to type, level, planned duration and area of exercise as well as the number and type of units or formations participating in the exercise.

3. The date of completion of the exercise and de-induction of troops from the area of exercise shall be intimated to the other side within five days of completion or de -induction.

4. Each side shall be entitled to obtain timely clarification from the side undertaking the exercise in respect of date specified in Paragraph 2 of the present Article.

With a view to preventing air intrusions across the LAC and facilitating overflights and landings by military aircraft, Article V provides that:

(1) Both sides shall take adequate measures to ensure that air intrusions across the LAC do not take place. However, if an intrusion does take place, it should cease as soon as it has been detected and the incident shall be promptly investigated by the side operating the aircraft. The results of the investigation shall be immediately communicated, through diplomatic channels or at border personnel meetings, to the other side.

(2) Subject to paragraphs 3 and 5 of this Article, combat aircraft (to include fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, military trainer, armed helicopter and other armed aircraft) shall not fly within 10km of the LAC.

(3) If either side is required to undertake flights of combat aircraft within 10km from the LAC, it shall give the following information in advance to the other side, through diplomatic channels:

a) Type and number of combat aircraft;

b) Height of the proposed flight (in metres);

c) Proposed duration of flights (normally not to exceed ten days);

d) Proposed timing of flights; and

e) Area of operations, defined in latitude and longitude.

 (4) Unarmed transport aircraft, survey aircraft and helicopters shall be permitted to fly up to the LAC.

(5) No military aircraft of either side shall fly across the LAC, except by prior permission. Military aircraft of either side may fly across the LAC or overfly the other side’s airspace or land on the other side only after obtaining the latter’s prior permission after providing the latter with detailed information on the flight in accordance with the international practices in this regard. Notwithstanding the above stipulation, each side has the sovereign right to specify additional conditions, including at short notice, for flights or landings of military aircraft of the other side on its side of the LAC or through its airspace.

(6) In order to ensure flight safety in emergency situations, the authorities designated by the two sides may contact each other by the quickest means of communications available.

Similarly, with a view to preventing dangerous military activities along the LAC, Article VI stipulates that:

(1) Neither side shall open fire, cause bio-degradation, use hazardous chemicals, conduct blast operations or hunt with guns or explosive within 2km from the LAC. This prohibition shall not apply to routine firing activities in small arms firing ranges.

(2) If there is a need to conduct blast operations within 2km of the LAC as part of developmental activities, the other side shall be informed through diplomatic channels or by convening a border personnel meeting, preferably five days in advance.

(3) While conducting exercises with live ammunition in areas close to the LAC, precaution shall be taken to ensure that a bullet or a missile does not accidentally fall on the other side across the LAC line and cause harm to the personnel or property of the other side.

(4) If the border personnel of the two sides come in a face-to-face situation due to differences on the alignment of the LAC of for any other reason, they shall exercise self-restraint and take all necessary steps to avoid an escalation of the situation. Both sides shall also enter into immediate consultations through diplomatic and/or other available channels to review the situation and prevent any escalation of tension.

Article VII of the Agreement envisages the following:

a. To maintain and expand the regime of scheduled and flag meetings between their border representatives at designated places along the LAC;

b. To maintain and expand telecommunications links between the border meeting points at designated places along the LAC; and

c. To establish step-by-step medium and high-level contacts between the border authorities of the two sides.

Article VIII of the Agreement provides the following guidelines:

1. Should the personnel of one side cross the LAC and enter the other side because of unavoidable circumstances like natural disasters, the other side shall extend all possible assistance to them and inform their side, as soon as possible regarding the forced or inadvertent entry across the LAC. The modalities of return of the concerned personnel to their own side shall be settled through mutual consultations.

2. The two sides shall provide each other, at the earliest possible, with information pertaining to natural disasters and epidemic diseases in contiguous border areas which might affect the other side. The exchange of information shall take place either through diplomatic channels or at border personnel meetings.

Article X mentions following provisions:

1. Recognising that the full implementation of some of the provisions of the present Agreement will depend on the two sides arriving at a common understanding of the alignment of the LAC in the China-India border areas, the two sides agree to speed up the process clarification and confirmation of the LAC. As an initial step in this process, they are clarifying the alignment of the LAC in those segments where they have different perceptions. They also agree to exchange maps indicating their respective perceptions of the entire alignment of the LAC as soon as possible.

2. Pending the completion of the process of clarification and confirmation of the LAC, the two sides shall work out modalities for implementing CBMs envisaged under his Agreement on an interim basis, without prejudice to their respective positions on the alignment of the LAC as well as on the boundary question.

Thus, it can be seen from various provisions of different agreements and accords signed between China and India that every conceivable aspect of military contingency has been thoughtfully anticipated and ways and means to deftly handle them without precipitating the matter have been envisaged.
Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question on June 23, 2003

16 rounds of talks have been conducted thus far between the political representatives of both countries.

China and India agreed to establish a strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity, according to a joint statement signed by visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in New Delhi Monday on April 11, 2005. During the Chinese Premier’s April 8 to 12 visit the two sides agreed that China-India relations have now acquired a ‘global and strategic character’.

Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question on April 11, 2005

Article III of this Protocol envisages the following provisions:

a. In the event of an alleged air intrusion of its controlled airspace by the military aircraft of the other side, either side may seek a Flag Meeting within 48 hours of the alleged air intrusion in order to seek a clarification. The investigation shall be completed by the other side and its results communicated through a Flag Meeting within a period of four weeks.

b. If a military aircraft of either side is required to fly across the LAC or to overfly the airspace of the other side, prior permission shall be sought from the other side according to procedures and formats to be mutually agreed upon.

c. If a military or civilian aircraft of either side is required to fly across the LAC or to land on the other side of the LAC in an emergency situation, the two sides will ensure flight safety in such a situation by adhering to procedures to be mutually agreed upon.

Article V provides the following:

a. Both sides shall hold two additional border meetings each year at Spanggur Gap in the Western Sector, Nathu La Pass in the Sikkim Sector and Bum La in the Eastern Sector, respectively, in celebration of the National Day or Army Day of either side. Specific arrangements shall be decided through consultation between the border forces of the two sides.

b. Both sides are in principle to expand the mechanism of border meeting points to include Kibithu-Damai in the Eastern Sector and Lipulekh Pass/Qiang La in the Middle Sector. The precise locations of these border meetings points will be decided through mutual consultations.

c. Both sides shall conduct exchanges between the relevant Military Regions of China and Army Commands of India. Specific arrangements shall be decided upon through mutual consultations between the relevant agencies under the Ministries of Defence of the two sides.

d. Both sides shall strengthen exchanges between institutions of training of the two armed forces, and conduct exchanges between institutions of sports and culture of the two armed forces. Specific arrangements shall be decided upon through mutual consultations between the relevant agencies under the Ministries of Defence of the two sides.

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Exchanges and Cooperation in the Field of Defence

Signed on May 29, 2006 in Beijing by China’s then Minister for National Defence Gen Cao Gangchuan and India’s Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee, this MoU envisages the establishment of a mechanism to ensure frequent and regular exchanges between leaders and officials of the Defence Ministries and the armed forces of the two countries, in addition to developing an annual calendar for holding regular joint military exercises and training programmes (conducted by India’s National Defence College and China’s National Defence University under an exchange programme). In the past few years, the two countries had conducted joint naval manoeuvres, but the interaction between the ground forces had been limited to border meetings and mountaineering expeditions, and there had been no interaction between the air forces of the countries prior to this. The MoU signed between the two countries, thus, aimed at addressing these imperatives. Pranab Mukherjee also visited the Lanzhou MR, which controls the largest physical area of China’s seven military regions. Mukherjee’s visit to the headquarters of the Lanzhou MR was a significant step in the process of building bilateral trust and confidence on the part of China. These gains were further consolidated during the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to India in November 2006. In the Joint Declaration signed between the two countries on November 21, it was mentioned that ‘the exchange of visits in the field of defence has resulted in the building of mutual trust and enhancement of mutual understanding between the defence establishments of the two countries. Both sides shall fully implement the provisions of the MoU for exchanges and cooperation in the field of defence signed on May 29, 2006, which provides a sound foundation and institutional framework for further development of defence cooperation. Certain concrete steps were taken as a follow-up of the CBMs. For example, India’s armed forces and the PLA held a warm meeting at a new border point—Kibithu in the Anjwa district of Arunachal Pradesh—on November 18, 2006 on the eve of President Hu Jintao’s visit to India. The two sides discussed modalities for the conduct of troops along the LAC. Border meetings between personnel of the armed forces of the two countries have traditionally been held at Chushul in Ladakh, Nathu La in Sikkim, and Bum La in the Kamang district of Arunachal Pradesh.

Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India on June 25, 2006

During Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s visit to China from January 13 to 15 2008, the two sides, for the first time, formulated their own drafts on a possible framework agreement involving territorial concessions as a way towards eventual resolution of the boundary dispute. While this may be interpreted as a forward movement, the positions themselves appear to indicate little change. Delhi insisted that the final settlement of the boundary issue could not involve transfer of settled populations, while Beijing proposed the division of populated areas into larger and smaller segments based on population size and then considering some displacement.

Working Mechanism on Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs on January 18, 2012

A brainchild of the then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, its first meeting was held in Beijing on March 5 and 6, 2012. The Indian delegation was led by Shri Gautam Bambawale, Joint Secretary (East Asia), MEA, while the Chinese delegation was led by Deng Zhonghua, Director General, Department of Boundary and Oceanic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Second meeting was held at New Delhi on November 29 and 30, 2012. The Indian delegation was led by Gautam Bambawale, Joint Secretary (East Asia) MEA and the Chinese delegation was led by Ms Wang Xiaodu, Special Representative, Department of Boundary and Oceanic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On March 22, 2013 China had proposed a border defence cooperation agreement to avoid any misunderstanding or flare-up along the LAC, but India is not rushing into it as she wants to study the proposal thoroughly. At the meeting, the visiting PLA Army delegation led by its Deputy CGS Lt Gen Qi Jianguo had proposed an agreement under which troops of the two countries will not tail each other if noticed during patrolling along the LAC. The proposal also has a clause which suggests that troops of either side will not fire at each other under any condition. However, the Indian side said that India wants to study the proposal thoroughly and do due diligence before taking any decision. This was the second meeting between Lt Gen Qi, who is in-charge for Foreign Cooperation and Intelligence in the PLA Army, and India Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma in the last three months after they met at the ADD in January 2013. The Chinese side had discussed these proposals informally during the ADD also, but India had then asked it to submit these points in a formal manner at a later stage.


DAshu said...

I wanted to see a full fledged war between India and China and Pakistan .That is two front war for India . It seems it's not going to happen soon .
Am sad .

rad said...

HI Prasun
Fantastic analysis of the india china detente and the ground reality, This would be an eye opener for jingoists and pacifists as well.
Coming to the crashes of the copied version of the su-27 i found that there were no mention of crashes in the internet pertaining to the crashes you mentioned though i am happy at that statistics .MY question is will they allow such a large no of crashes to take place before they ground the project.What was the main area of difficulty to reverse engineer? the engine , FBW system or some thing else?.

Anurag said...

Dear Prasun Da,a great thread again,keep up the good work and wish you a long and healthy life so that you can continue your noble work and as you are the only one left who still use his common sence and no nonsence and knows his stuffs very well.
By the way,I have got a few questions to ask:
According to many 'experts',im times of hostility,PLA may employ its airborne troops in the shiliguri corridor and cut off the North Easter states from rest of India-but don't you think that while employing them the transporters will become easy pray for India SAMs and IAF combat aircrafts??

2.Suppose some of them are able to go past the air defences and fighters and reach their area of operation-how long do you think these airborne troopers will be able to sustain themselves and how effective they might be in hampering IA operations??

3.In which ways do you think PLA may try to resupply them and how can we counter them??

4.Another thing we tend to forget is the civilians:don't you think the PLA airborne troops will not only face IA but also hostile civis as we know the Bengalis have serious reputation for violance and guerrila warfare.Heck,we didn't even spared the mighty British.The most violent form of freedom movement occured in Bengal while rest of India was more or less peacefull.They were forced to shift their capital to Delhi.Don't you think the same could happen with the Chinese too??

5.I have seen in many parts of India (especially in Northern states),we Bengalies are considered a cowardice race-how do you think this mentality was established when it was in Bengal where the most violent form of freedom movement against Britishers were organised??Heck,the 1857 Sipahi mutiny was initiated by the Bengali troopers and the most respected freedom fighter of India was also a Bengali??

6.I think even the Army also thinks this way as there is no Bengal regiment-why do you think may be the reason??Are we thought to be cowards or too violent to control??

7.Is there any effort to further reduce the diameter of the MMW seeker for Helina ATGM??

8.What might be the approximate latteral acceleration of Akash MkI ESHORAD system??Will there be any improvement in MkII??

9.Has the series production of extended range Pinaka rockets been started yet??Or by when we expect them to enter production and operational deployment??

10.How many Pinaka regiments in total are planned to enter service in the IA Artillery corps??

11.Has the work on upgraded 300mm MBRL started??Or by when we may expect the development to start??

12.Will Astra MkII be comparable to AIM 120 C7 in terms of maximum target engagement envelop of the onboard seeker,ECCM and maximum lateral accelaration??By the way,what is the maximum g loading of Astra MkI??

13.Sir,I was wondering that can't you write a letter to MoD to adopt the Astra MkI as a QRSAM system as a defence against sea skimming sub snic cruise missiles??

14.Has the IA approved aquisition of PRAHAR NLOS-BSMs yet??

15.The reported CEP of Shaurya was said to be between 20-30 meter with RLG-INS-do you think this can be reduced to <10 meter if they are additionally fitted with GPS and SAR seekers??And do you you think IA and IAF may deploy conventionally armed Shauryas in large nos (upwars 500) if the CEP could be reduced??The Shaurya can be used as a great terror weapon don't you think??

16.Sir,about the crashes of the PLAAF,may I ask you for some refferences if you don't mind-I need to post them in cerrtain military forum.


Anurag said...

17.Sir,as you have regularly visited AP,may I ask you about the state of Indian Army defences in there??I mean are there enough troop level and concrete fortifications built in AP??

18.Do you seriously believe PLAGF might amass upto 500000 soldiers in LAC within a notice of a mere week??!!If that is the case in real,how can then our soldiers beat back such a humongous force level??Don't you think then that instead of putting the proposed mountain strike corps on hold,MoD should approve atleast 2 such formations??

19.Sir,when is the update on Project Sanjay coming from you??Eagerly waiting for that man!!

20.And lastly,what is the news wrt the Takshak Heavy thermal torpedo??And what about the Varunastra heavy torpedo??Has it enterd service yet or stiil need some more improvements??

Hope to see your reply.

THANX in advance...............................

Appu said...

Sir, Some Queries Please Answer
1. I read that the AMCA project grounded. Is it true or Not?

2. When will the Second nuclear Sub is going to Launch?

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

If we were to take ALL these so called Agreements and CBMs seriously then there would be NO NEED for the HEAVY presence of IA and the planned
Capacity and Capability ACCRETIONS of IA and IAF would be irrelevant

We can never ever trust the Chinese

For example we DO HAVE AN International border with Pakistan from Akhnoor to Kutch

But we dont trust them

Similarly even if we throw out the tibetan govt and parliament the CHINESE WILL NOT GIVE up their Claim on Tawang and Arunachal Pradesh

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

The Chinese DEEPLY REGRET that they did not continue with their OCCUPATION of Arunachal Pradesh

This was stated on A TV debate
by a Military analyst MAJOR GENERAL
[RETD] Ashok Mehta who was a part of an Indian delegation recently

So the QUESTION is what are they doing in LADAKH

Similarly YESTERDAY in Another TV Debate MAJOR GENERAL [ RETD ] Sheru Thapliyal said that India is STILL
Holding 1500 SQ KM in Aksai Chin

And that we need this land for mounting offensive operations into Aksai Chin and we are NOT giving it up

Anonymous said...


What will be the impact of 3D printing on military aviation? GE is already planning to make jet engine parts with this technology. Even the chinese are incorporating it into their aviation manufacturing.

Bhaswar said...

To anon @2.35 pm

With regard to holding territory in Askai Chin- which channel, which show, link?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@2.35PM: Read this:

Mr. Ra 13 said...

"Yet another important highlight was that it stipulated that “pending an ultimate solution of the boundary question between the two countries, the two sides shall strictly observe the LAC between the two sides and that no activities of either side shall overstep the line of actual control. In case of personnel of one side crossing the LAC, upon being confirmed by the other side, they shall immediately pull back to their own side of the LAC. It further provided that whenever necessary, the two sides shall jointly check and determine the segments of the LAC when they have different views as to its alignment."

"(4) If the border personnel of the two sides come in a face-to-face situation due to differences on the alignment of the LAC of for any other reason, they shall exercise self-restraint and take all necessary steps to avoid an escalation of the situation. Both sides shall also enter into immediate consultations through diplomatic and/or other available channels to review the situation and prevent any escalation of tension."

My question is that which of the conditions as stipulated above have been violated either by India or by China.

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

The CBMs being all well and good. They haven't adhered to it very what good is it? Surely their helicopters intruding into our airspace, and the reports point out that these intrusions occurred well beyond what they perceive to be the LAC, render these agreements useless?

If they will have their men and helicopters cross even their perception of the LAC then what's the point. That's exactly what our agreements forbid. Sure we don't want war..but their soldiers aren't just camped within Indian territory..they are camped within Indian territory having transgressed even their version of the LAC. Had they been within their own claim lines at least..that one could still swallow.

Please amplify on the above.

Anonymous said...

They say Chinese are building roads and railway lines into Indian territory?

Anonymous said...

@Anurag- I want to express some views w.r.t ur points no.4&5. Regarding bengali's that u have indicated is not that same like during independence era. In todays world u will find just a mere handful of bengali's with true patroitism. Even nowadays its very difficult to find bengali's joining in defence forces. The situation is like this due to misguiding social & political mechanism working in West Bengal. Bengali youths have become lazy & have no initiative to take up some hard work. They r happy to work as mere political party workers or security guards or land & property brokers or in syndicate of building materials business. And those who r really hardworking have left the state long ago or surely migrate to other place in future. The intellectuals have amalgamated themselves with political parties for personal gains. Today average bengali don't have courage to take up beneficial independent decisions. Bengali's always find some issue to politicise environment no matter how much degrading it might be. As I have already said that average bengali is happy with their bank interest money without some work, due to this ponzi schemes r rampant in bengal & driving them to suicide. In north Bengal the situation is worse. Few bengali's who were living in the hills have already left giving full domination to the GJM or GNLF. Its difficult to understand in future Indo-china war what will be the intention of the gurkhas as entire north east including north bengal was left undeveloped. Even in city bengalis r leaving their ancestral property to non bengalis. Nowadays bengalis r only good for streetfights or trade-unionism but regarding freedom movement its difficult to say whether we will get another Netaji,Kshudiram,Surya sen or Benoy-Badal-Dinesh.

sudip said...

Anonymous ...

the points u have highlighted is true.
Chit funds here in north bengal are regarded as banks. agents are praised in locality as if bank officers.u say against theirr schemes u are regarded as Fuck knowledge guys,post offices are empty, near 0 nsc r issued , banks are full of rose valley cheques ,even educated govt job holders falll prey , i know an instance A chit fund colleccted 13-14 corores showing amere poultry business no more than 2-3 lacs and fled. Business men invest money in chit funds as lottery like ...... business suffer ..... its a hell in north bengal , virtually no governance .......

Anonymous said...

@Anon 9:01
do you have any proof such as visuals or certified docs confirming the same.

Dear Prasun sir, Can such claims be verified using google maps?
I asked bcoz I have been tracking some old complete roads on chinese side of LAC(as per indian maps) and in the process could view some well laid infrstructure and roads which do not exist or reflect as per google maps. Where as the situation is inversely proportional on indian side - Roads reflecting as they are there but if you zoom on to them they seem like dirt tracks made by cattles or locals living in those areas.

One more thing I learnt or understood after going thru your work on this blog It's not our politicians who run this country it's the bureaucracy that runs it with or without them. And the way we r today is bcoz of this fact. If we want things to change then our leaders(politicians) should become leaders instead of being followers of this high and mighty clan of bureaucrats. Am I right? Looking forward to your reply

thanks & regards.
SS Singh

Jai said...

1. Why chinese map shows j&k as seperate country while showing g&b as part of pakistan, why such generosity. 2. Why china beliefs entire South china sea as their blue water territory,why doesn't the policy of give and take applies here ? 3. Which among these two pose a bigger threat to india tibetens residing in india numbering approx 1.5 lakh or the the deadly weapon systems delievered to pakistan by it's commie ummah china ? 4.Goa,hyderabad,tawang and so one...if morals are to be taken as main basis hardly any state would have ever existed in human history ? 5. By setting up tents 20 km inside no man's zone didn't china broke it's own post 1962 war declaration,how is this friendly ?

Anonymous said...

To: Mr Anurag - Sir I do not concur with your comments in pt. no. 5. I do not know what made you to come to such conclusions but I have really never come across a single person in my life who thinks in that manner about bengalis. I belong to desert state and believe me when I say that the bengalis represent the indian air force in my home town, which used to be a major airforce base in south western air command few years back and no other region can match their numbers if you consider the enlisted staff of airforce at this particular base even today.

Thanks & Regards
SS Singh

Mr. Ra 13 said...

When any state starts getting consistently the government,s of local or smaller parties, then it has to go through so many compromises and acrobatics that the people there almost lose their initiatives and are unable to live without socialism or subsidies. Now without their wings if they are offered to sour high in the sky, then they fall down like dead logs. Imagine that 45 years ago I have seen the educated Bengali friends propagating and explaining against the ills of the chit funds and now their next generation have enmasse turned to be the fodders of the cannons of these chit funds.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ANURAG: VMT. 1) Staging vertical envelopment operations is no longer possible due to the in-depth IAF defensive counter-air capabilities out of air bases in Assam & West Bengal. Similarly, large-scale deployment of manportable radars like Aslesha & Bharani by IA & IAF along the valleys in Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh & Nagaland along with IGLA-S MANPADS is effectively closing the air corridors available for heliborne SOF insertions. Significantly, I have till to date not come across a single photo which shows the PLA Army’s Mi-17V-5s or Mi-171Es being equipped with countermeasures dispensers. Only the Z-10 & Z-19 sport such dispensers.
2) Undertaking heliborne SOF insertion operations throughout the North East will become an impossibility by 2015, when all sanctioned Aslesha & Bharani radars are delivered to IA & IAF.
6) The IA does have the Bengal Sappers, employed for combat engineering & demining purposes.
7) That is an on-going effort.
8) About 20 G. Same for Akash Mk2 as well, since such SAMs are not used against highly manoeuvrable targets. The prime objective of such SAMs is to force the target to either abort its sortie or descend to very low levels where it will become any easy prey to salvoes of MANPADS.
9) Series-Production of Pinaka-2 won’t start for another 3 years, due to on-going product improvement processes now underway.
10) Only six so far.
11) It is still in the prototype development stage.
12) Too early to say anything about Astra Mk2. Astra Mk1 will have same G-loading as R-77 BVRAAM.
13) Why write a letter when the MoD can already access this blog?
14) Not yet. Until a product’s R & D cycle is completed, no firm orders are placed.
15. Single-digit CEP is possible with GPS updates. SAR seeker is reqd only when pinpoint accuracy is reqd. The IA & IAF have not yet decided to order Prithvi-3 & Shaurya in large numbers unless & until the road transportation infrastructure & underground weapons storage silos are in place in J & K and Sikkim.
16. Both AIN & DEFENSE NEWS published such info quite some time back, quoting Japanese military officials.
17. There are no concrete fortifications there, only ones made of wood & tin-roofs along the mountain slopes & ridge-lines, & therefore they have to be repeatedly re-built due to inclement weather conditions prevailing along the border areas. Over there there’s rainfall for eight continuous months every year.
18. Those who make such outrageous claims have never visited the LAC to appreciate the surrounding terrain. Even if such troops can be amassed within TAR, deploying them en mass along the LAC is impossible due to very few roads leading up to the LAC from TAR. Battlefield logistics through such roads will be a nightmare.
20. Varunastra torpedo has failed to achieve its desired operating depth, & has speed deficiencies. Its induction has therefore been ruled out for the Project 15A DDGs.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To DASHU: And were you willing to bankroll this venture? So what happened? Couldn’t post the collateral? (LoLz!!!)

To RAD: VMT. By far the most accurate information pertaining to PLA activities comes out from Japan, followed by the US. The J-11A crashes won’t terminate the project, rather the PLAAF has adopted a restrictive flying regime so that the J-11s are maintained in safe flying regimes, meaning this will restrict their ability to engage in close combat manoeuvres. The principal problem appears to be the FBW flight-control laws, followed by metallurgical deficiencies connected with the WS-10B’s TTSL.

To APPU: 1) Only the ‘phoren trips’ component of this project has been temporarily suspended. 2) S-3 will take 30% less time to be built compared to what it took for the S-2 (11 years).

To Anon@2.26PM: That’s right. That’s why there are only about five PLA Border Defence Regiments deployed throughout the LAC, compared to the heavy Indian Army presence in Sikkim, AP & now Uttarakhand. If you can trust the Chinese to deliver the Indian tricolour for schoolchildren every year before January 26 & August 15, & if you can trust the Chinese to deliver the different coloured ‘Gulaals’ for Holi, then why can’t the Chinese be trusted to keep their word on other matters? India-Pak international boundary is from Kutch to Punjab. From there to Akhnoor is the WB, while the LoC is from Jammu till NJ9872. There has never been any flare-up since 1971 along the IB & WB.

To Anon@2.35PM: I’m sure India too now regrets not having captured Muzzafarabad in 1948-1949. Big deal!

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13. Both parties have in one way or another violated such stipulations. It is a tit-for-tat approach that has always been played out. The problem is that the ‘desi’ press never bothers to give both sides of the story, even after they’re spoon-fed. For instance, between June 17 & 22, 2012, four Indian journalists from English-language & Hindi-language defence publications were invited on behalf of the All China Journalists’ Association (ACJA) to visit Beijing & Shanghai. These journalists were briefed at the Ministry of National Defence (MND) in Beijing by Maj Gen (Ms) Yao Yunzhu, Director of the Centre of China-America Defence Relations, PLA Academy of Military Sciences, Senior Colonel Guo Hongtao, staff officer of the Asian affairs bureau, Foreign Affairs Office, MND, & Deputy Director General, Information Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ma Jisheng. At the briefing, Maj Gen (Ms) Yao stated that “Indian security forces have made more intrusions in 2011 into Chinese territories (disputed border) than we Chinese have made into India”. Now, have you ever come across any press-report about such briefings in any of the Indian TV channels or newspapers?
Fact of the matter is that this latest incident is not the most serious one. Byfar the most serious one was
sometime in early September 2010, when PLA soldiers brought a bulldozer into a disputed area in the Ladakh region to construct a road. Even after the Indian side objected to it and asked the Chinese to take it back, the PLA unduly delayed the withdrawal of the machine and took it away only about four days later. The delay of the Chinese was unusual. The 2010 summer recorded an almost 100% increase in the number of standoffs between the patrols of the two sides. These standoffs were reported from Depsang, Demchok and Pangong Tso areas of Ladakh region. In Jult 2012 at Fukche, another deep incursion happened, some 240km from Leh. PLA troops suddenly appeared from behind the mountains and threatened Indians working on an irrigation canal. Work on the 3km-long canal had started in 2005, but could not be completed because of Chinese protests. According to the MoD, in the last three years, there have been over 600 transgressions by the PLA along the LAC. Every month, the ITBP (F) reports around a dozen unannounced PLA patrols in the disputed border areas, and this number have not decreased over the last decade. Most of these incidents are unoffensive. Often the PLA personnel do not even make direct contacts, but leave behind subtle traces of their presence, like piles of stones, cigarette packets, or cans. From time to time, PLA officials reportedly enter the Indian side of LAC in civilian clothes and vehicles. Almost on a weekly basis, small Chinese boats tour around Lake Panggong Tso in Ladakh.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To BHASWAR: It is a two-way street. Such transgressions are undertaken by both sides, rest assured. There are no holy cows in this business. The present PLA encampment is within the permissible 20km limit that’s allowed by both sides as a margin of error regarding the LAC’s perceived alignment. That’s why I had uploaded all the relevant clauses of various CBMs so that people can come to discerning conclusions. Another point to note is that unlike other countries, India does not construct border-markers bang on ground zero, but has made them 10km inside its perception of the LAC—something that is perplexing. Had such markers been 10km ahead, then the PLA transgressions would not have been 19km, but only 9km.

To Anon@9.01PM: That ’desi’ arsehole of a news-reporter from ToI is referring to NH-219 that was built between 1951 & 1956! This very same arsehole was the one who had claimed in early 2011 that non-signature of agreements like CISMOA would make the IAF C-130J-30s ‘obsolete’. The only way to make such creatures see the light of day is to adhere to my prescription: they ought to be compulsorily arse-fucked daily with maximum prejudice till they mend their ways!!!

To Anon@9.12PM: I agree with you on almost all counts, but I beg to differ with you about Surya Sen’s methods. Raiding the Chittagong Armoury was hardly an act of gallantry. Bravado perhaps. I say this because such thoughtless acts only led to greater persecution by the then colonial masters against an entire community of the area where this incident took place. Involving the masses in such acts without thinking through the probable end-states always leads to unmitigated disasters. And those who eulogise such thoughtless & tragic incidents are the very ones who have served to increase the toxic levels of WB’s present-day student communities to dangerous levels.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To SUDIP: This incident took place because of the Court orders from Assam & Jharkand that suspended the operations of such ponzy schemes. Had the court orders not come, things would have continued as usual. What WB’s folks don’t realise is that such schemes are the only routes available for any govt that’s in power in WB to raise capital for electoral purposes, since there are no big industrial players in WB anymore. And what the Centre has done now is to get the CBI involved to trace the money-trial leading to both the Left Front & TMC. This is the centre’s way of getting back at a recalcitrant coalition-member of the UPA that dares to even question the foreign policy-making powers of the PMO.

To S S SINGH: You’re spot on regarding the state of road infrastructure on either side of the LAC. I have several such photos that I will upload later. Just a glimpse of the roads within Uttarakhand & of those after immediately crossing over the LAC on the way to Kailash Mansoravar shows one the stark contrasts. Even along NH-1 (Srinagar-Leh) one does not even see water drainage systems alongside the highway, whereas on the Chinese side it is mandatory to have such drainage networks so that road durability under all weather conditions is sustained. Consequently, what one can conclude is that on the Indian side the priority is to save costs in the short-term & incur heavy maintenance costs in the long-term, while for China it is the exact opposite.

BY the way, do watch this:

It says exactly what I had said last week about the natural resources available throughout Ladakh.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Mr.RA 13: Two years ago, when the Indian PM in televised interview given to national newspaper editors stated that the “compulsions of coalition dharma” had prevented him from being decisive & taking disciplinary action against a UPA coalition partner involved in the 2-G scam, it seemed to me that he was openly admitted his complicity in a crime & that it was an open-and-shut case. Despite all the subsequent ‘tamasha’ it turns out that I have been right all along: the PM has been only an administrator with a mandate to implement those governance-related decisions that have been undertaken by an extra-constitutional body like the National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by the UPA’s Chairperson. What this translates into is that all confidential files pertaining to every top-level decision-making process is ‘shared’ between the NAC and the Govt of India in such a way that there’s no paper-trail. When there’s no paper-trail, there’s no evidence & where there’s no evidence, there’s no case to prosecute. This is what is now coming out as a result of the recent revelations of Addl Solicitor General Harin Rawal who has accused the Law Minister of tampering with the CBI investigation into the coalgate scam. What this all means is that all organs of the Govt of India are now complicit in trying to protect not the PMO’s reputation, but that of the Chairperson of NAC who was complicit in allowing criminal negligence to take place in the interests of ‘coalition dharma’. In reality, the NREGA, Right to Education & Right to Food regulations have just served to further inflate the already bloated central bureaucracy & increase expenditure slippages (domestic money laundering). And far from empowering Indian citizens, India is still terribly unemployed, mal-nourished, ill-informewd & uneducated. Govt expenditure must graduate from being consumption-oriented to being investment-oriented.

mayank raj said...

greetings prasun da.,
1. Tejas mk 1 and 2 have no close combat weapon or any such thing will it go into a dogfight...?
2. What's happening on lch and lca front no news from any one...? What the fate of lca and lch acc to u..?
Sir ... I would humbly request u to please upload a complete thread on lca, lch and dhruv...?

Thankyou in advance...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To MAYANK RAJ: 1) Who ever told you that? There's an internal GSh-23 cannon, plus R-73E/Dash Mk5 HMDS combination.
2) Had already uploaded in 2011 & 2012 dedicated standalone threads on Tejas Mk1, Tejas Mk2, LCA (Navy) project & as well as enhancements reqd for Tejas Mk2.

It's still premature to create a dedicated thread on LCH.

AK said...

Hi Prasun, Some time back IAF has floated a tender for delivery of more than 100 advanced targeting pods. Selection of L1 will follow later this year. Do you have aany news regarding this ? Is Litening G4 a contender ?

Are there any plans of block upgradation of IAF's existing Liening-23 inventory to g4 standards ?

PLA intends to resort to massive fire assaults using various heavy calibre MBRL, tactical ballistic missiles , NLOS-BSM , cruise missiles. The targets of the above mentioned weapons systems will be IAF airbases in the North and NE,ALG , supply deots, C3 facilities. What is IAF's plan of action to effectively neutralise these threats ? Presently we dont possess such interceptors. For effective neutralisation of massed fire assaults , MR-SAM,LR-SAM Stunner same needs to be fielded in sufficient nos. Does IAF envisage deploying barak-8 squadron in each of NE fighter bases - Chabua,Dibrugarh,hasimara.. transport bases ?
LM Pac-3 can also be fielded in quantities to neutralsie such a threat but it will surely piss the Ruskies.

Will AD-1,2 be as acapable as Pac-3 , GEM ? How many AD-1,2 missiles can be packed per TEL ? Has IAF HQ expressed its firm decision to procure and deploy these missiles along with PDV in adequate nos OR will it also end up like BMD phase-1 a tech demonstartor ?

Until Barak-8 emerges, attains FOC , BMD Phase 2 matures anti missile systems like S-400,S-300PM-3 with 5V55 missiles can be procured in good nos to destroy NLOS-BSM,TBM,LACM,ALCM.

Another way to mitigate this threat is to target TELs of these weapons complexes but for that you would need standoff PGM with loitering capabilties like IAI Delliah. Is IAF interested in delliah ?

joydeep ghosh said...

@Prasun da

first thing

In the last thread you had said some sort of agreement will be reached with 48 hrs regarding this Chini incursion, that has not happened on top of it they have set up another tent. shouldnt their supply lines be cut off.

Just heard Fin Min cleared setting up of National Command Post to manage strategic assets, is that in some way related to ELF/VLF facility being setup in TN

You also said previously that 1st version of Prahaar was converted to AAD and single stage solid fueled 600 km range Prithvi 3 (if really) was converted to PAD

But now you say IA will order Prithvi 3 & Shaurya in large numbers once roads, silos are built. If i know Prithvi 3 is a
ship launched 350 km range missile.

I also feel that Shaurya will be dispensed in favor of 1000 km Nirbhay or atleat its non nuclear
700 km range version (as you say).


Joydeep Ghosh

Anonymous said...

The latest chinese incursion is done in a very calculated & precise way with a clear motive. Now regarding timing & factors responsible for it a few points need to be summed up. We have to see what are the incidents that have happened in last 1 or 2 years in this part of the world.
1. The self immolation bids by tibetan monks has made the chinese red faced & has made the serious discomfort for the chinese govt. both inside & outside their country. For this reason some hardliners has been made the authority in Tibet. These hardliners thinks that tibetan unrest is linked with India. So a call to 'teach India a lesson' has been made for quite some time.
2. For the first time Indian govt. has paid tribute to 1962 war victims after 50 years. The older generation present in china is confused with this kind of 'occasion' terming this as a method to promote anti-China feelings among indian young generation.
3. In a short span of time Indian defence have shown few features which have caught eyes to all global powers. This includes agni v, nuclear sub, rafale, mountain strike cops,etc. Coincidentally all these have happened at the same time giving indications of 'war preparations'. Now any global strategist surely knows that these are atleast not to counter Pakistan. Most of these decisions though r far from getting mature but surely these have gave chinese sleepless nights.
4. India is now totally in a mess. PM has rightly said that everyone is laughing at us. corruption,scam,rapes,unemployment,inflation,statehood demand,maoist issue,etc has made matter worse for govt. govt. & opposition is up in arms. Even unity is at stake. Now people have no faith in either govt. or judiciary. So its ideal situation to needle India without much resistance.
5. Most importantly the foreign relation of India is also in mess. India's relation with its neighbouring countries like nepal,sri lanka, maldives is detoriating, also relations with britain,france,norway,italy is also at stake. Even south block or north block can't claim that they have blessings of either US or Russia in tough time.
6. In recent CPC meeting during guard change in china, stress was given in resolving territorial disputes mainly south china sea. Unofficially decision has been taken to settle all disputes in quick & decisive way without any compromise. At the same time LAC was also given preference.
7. Regarding senkaku island dispute with japan, the chinese strategists were blamed for their 'inaction'. The chinese media blamed their govt. for taking late decision where only military action remained the only option left to 'take back'. So it forced the chinese to draw first blood in future disputes.
8. The US-north korea standoff shown that by showing audacity, countries like north korea can even tame US, which was not the case of iraq,libya or afghanistan. The lesson was to infuse fear amongst the enemy.
9. For several years the chinese were practising demo 'incursions' by coming inside LAC & returning back after short period. This made indian believe as a 'used to' incident due to LAC misconception. But actually it was done to caught Indians unaware.
10. With US leaving Afghanistan, both Pak-China r afraid of any 'intervention' of India in it. So a clear message has to be send that India should at first guard its own border rather than going for afghanistan.
11. The 'no-first use' policy of India has prompted China to take some misadventure as nukes will not come in this 'localized' incidents.
12. Lastly, recent LOC issue where pakistani soldiers came inside heavily guarded LOC & beheaded jawans just showed India's inability and encouraged the chinese military to join the party.

So it can be seen that this was just waiting to happen anytime soon as a perfect cocktail was already prepared.

rad said...

HI Prasun
Comming to the FBW control laws,I thought it would be easy for the chinese as they have it proven on the J-10 lavi fighter which israel gave to to them on a plate.
Is it that for a different type of ac different laws have to written?.

VJ said...


Does the density of air intake flow matter when the intakes are designed in box shape rather than in oval (like what is present in LCA)?

Anonymous said...

Sir,Pls pls ans.This is the nly blogspot & you the only person from whereI am able to get the ans.

1.Akash mk1 cannot intercept any type of cruise missiles. Which interceptor has IAF planned for in CMD program ?

2.IAI claims that Barak-8 will be superior to PAC-3 , GEM missiles. Itmeans it will be able to defeat TBM,NLOS-BSM,cruise missiles.What is the total order for these missiles ?

3.In one of your earlier threads , Russian Indian military cooperation to widen in scope and size, you said about SLEP of three P15 DDG and 10 Tarantul class corvettes. What is their status ? Is the SLEP complete ?

4.Does Sea-Dragon suite of Tu-142 have AESA radar ? Have the whole Tu-142 fleet upgraded with Sea Dragon suite?

5.When will 11 BRD start upgrading MiG-29? What is the annual envisioned rate ?

6.What PGMs are being bought as part of Mirage 2000 UPG deal ? Desi media reported the purchase of 490 MICA missiles. How could it be that no air to ground ordance is aprt of the deal ?

7.Can KT03UE jammer jam modern IR homing missiles - Mistral ?

8.Are Damocles LDP, PAJ-FA jammer, ASTAC ,AREOS recce pod part of this deal ?

9.You once reported that there is a shortage of defensive RF jammer pods with IAF. There is only 1/3rd of the required no of pods. Were more pods ordered to fill this gap ?

10.Why does such a large AF like ours possess only 12 EL/M-2060P recce pods in our inventory ?

11.Does MoD have firm plans of deploying BMD shield around NCR and in Mumbai ?

Iceman said...

1.regarding the Indian army VSHORAD tender MBDA Mistral and SAAB Rbs-70NG are considered as the front runners, is there any chance that the Indian army will opt for IGLA-S missile due to its cheaper price tag and already it is in the inventory of the Indian Army?
2.does the SPYDER missile has been inducted into IAF?
3.Is there any chance that India will go for SU-34 jammer variant?
4.What about the status of Akash MK2?
5.Is it true that Beretta ARX-160 assault rifle is the favourite contender in the IA assault rifle competition?
6.Does the follow on arihant class SSBN will have a displacement of more than 10000 tonne?
7.what about the status of anti tank missile deal? is it cancelled or Indian army going for Javelin missile?

Anonymous said...

To Bhaswar

The TV debate was shown on DD NEWS Channel on SUNDAY 10 :30 PM ie 28 April

The programme's name itself is DEFENCE WATCH

The entire show was about Chinese Intrusions

It was hosted by MAJOR GEN[ RETD ]
Ashok Mehta and MAJOR GEN [ RETD]
Sheru Thapliyal and Air Commodore [RETD ] Jasjit Singh and One SINOLOGIST ie An expert on China
Mr Jacob were part of the discussion

There these TWO revelations were made that I have written about
ie one by Ashok Mehta regarding
CHINESE Deep REGRETS about withdrawing from Arunachal AND
the other by Major General Thapliyal regarding India holding on to 1500 sq km of Aksai Chin

I dont know whether DD news has links for its programmes

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

Can you please share the URL link of your company's website .

Anonymous said...

Hi Prasun,

If indeed there are alien ships on moon the why are so many ameature space observers not able to spot the same. Since if they would have spotted this then they would have gone public with these details.

Does India have any ASAT missile development going on

Arup said...

Sir, I have asked you many a times previously about the aperture areas of E-CAPTOR and RBE-2 . You answered that both have mor or less have same aperture areas and their scale models were displayed at Aero india 2011. GSQR for Typhoon was that it must have a 75 cm dia radar, 50 sqm wing area. Now how can RBE2AA have the same dimesions as E-CAPTOR ?

Is it possible to tweak radar performance and power output according to the customer's requirements ?

Rafale has fixed air intakes. How is it able to retain its full agility at high altitudes ?

To cope up with order backlogs and for implementing new projects like Barak-2b will BDL set up more production facilities ?

You said that Akash mk1 forces the attacking ac to abort the mission or resort to low level flight where they are vulnerable to MANPADS. But with today's AGM with long standoff ranges isnt it posiible to bypass Akash's engagment envelope ? Then the whole concept fails and there is no meaning in deploying Akash in such cases ?

Are all Mi-17v1 and 17v5 fitted with DARE developed MSWS ?

What defensive ew suite does AN-32RE has besides chaff and flare dispensers as standard fit ?

why wasnt there any media coverage about sea trials of INS Kolkata ?

Will the Chinese ever leave ? two weeks has already passed .

What is the BVR armament of Tejas ? Will it be possible to increase its AoA?

KSingh said...


Are you still confident the MMRCA deal will be signed in the enxt few months? I am starting to lose my unwavering confident front on this deal. More and more issues are being publisicsed and nothing seems to be moving foreward.

Bhaswar said...

Prasun Sir,

We have an article quoting various analysts stating that China will not pull back, Even Alka Achaya seems to be begrudgingly admitting that this is heading towards an impasse. I guess we're going to capitulate, all the things we know seem to point towards that. So much for being a rising power.

Secondly, was there anything technically wrong with the Bhim self propelled howitzer? As in anything beyond the fact that there were issues with Denel regarding corruption and what not. SInce we have DRDO and Kalyani Group both now providing indigenous guns, with the 52 cal one from DRDO due in a year or two- we already have the Bhim chassis minus the turret itself- shouldn't we be able to develop a tracked self propelled howitzer in 7-8 years?

If the TATA product for the wheeled howitzer is rejected due to foreign components shouldn't the same apply for the other bids like the Caesar one?

Ni8 Dweller said...

Prasun Da,
Shyam Saran, convener of the National Security Advisory Board has come out and said 'India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but if it is attacked with such weapons, it would engage in nuclear retaliation which will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage on its adversary. The label on a nuclear weapon used for attacking India, strategic or tactical, is irrelevant from the Indian perspective'

Such bravado comes usually from politicians not from our bureaucracy. So What is he referring to here? If Mumbai style attack occurs again post 2014 and it leads to a conventional reply from India(?) then Pakistan can't pre-empt India with a nuclear blackmail?

Would post-2014 be a post-1989 world where battle hardened non-state actors would come to play a greater role than they been so for in the past decade or so? As of now the west been a magnet or so attracting all the attention, else it would be pretty localised(targeting the other side of border) wouldn't it be?

Did we seriously miss a trick by not strengthening our hold in the valley when it was quiet by going the Chinese way in Tibet(Economic Development & populating the place with mainland people)?

Unknown said...


Why is it you rarely see high-level elected officals visiting members of India's armed forces? This is the norm in many Western nations yet I am at a loss to remember the last time an Indian PM visited an Indian military base or unit and it didn't involve a new military induction or the like. I can understand the PM being busy but it seems the President of India, being the commander and cheif of the Indian miltiary in name anyway, should be doing such things weekly as they have little other work to do.

Is it a cultural thing where the politicans and military are kept as far apart as possible?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To AK: The evaluation process for LDPs is still on & the main contenders are Litening G4 & Damocles. Existing Litening-2 LDPs can be upgraded to G4 standard. Neutralisation of threats from NLOS-BSMs & cruise missiles & long-range MBRLs can be done in 3 ways: firstly, acquire enough deterrent capabilities like the 700km-range Nirbhay conventional ALCM & NLOS-BSMs loike the Prithvi-3 & Prahaar; & secondly, acquire multi-role MR-SAMs like Barak-8 that will be effective against both combat aircraft & NLOS-BSMs, plus E-SHORADS to counter cruise missiles. Thirdly, the space-based Missile Warning System comprising four earl;y-warning satellites needs to be deployed ASAP. The AD-1/AD-2 will form a a 2nd-tier air-defence system against hostile NLOS-BSMs. Both DELILAH & HAROP have strict limitations when operating over high-altitude terrain like the Tibetan Plateau.

To JOYDEEP GHOSH: Read this:
Such deep transgressions do take some tim,e to be sorted out & they will, since the PLA has not yet brought along any heavy equipment like it did in 2010 when a bulldozer was brought in. In any case, the ‘desi’ mass-media has already changed gear & has focused their attention elsewhere, like one of them once again resurrecting the debate opver F-35 JSF versus Rafale (LoLLZZZ!). The ELF facility in TN state will be a part of the command-and-control network that’s required for India’s strategic weapons, & this latest (third) NCP is just another component of this network. Two NCPs already exist. Ship-launched 350km-range Dhanush is liquid-fuelled, while Prithvi-3 is 600km-range solid-fuelled. Shaurya is not a NLOS-BSM, but a ballistic missile capable of flying along a depressed cruise trajectory in certain phases of its flight regime. Technical documentation for 700km-range version of Nirbhay ALCM has already been released by ADE & CEMILAC to interested local industrial vendors & the documents are available at ADE’s & CEMILAC’s restricted-access websites.

To RAD: Any FBW flight-control logic is unique to each aircraft-type, since there’s no one universal flight-control logic.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To VJ: Yes, it does very much matter, especially when the aircraft is reqd to cruise at high speeds at higher altitudes. Oval-shaped air-intajes are optimum for up to medium altitudes only (up to 35,000 feet ASL). Beyond that, rectangular-shaped ones like those on the F-15, MiG-29 & Su-27/30, MiG-31 & F/A-18E/F will rule the skies.

To Anon@3.09PM: You should have asked these questions a week earlier, since I was attending the annual IAF Golf Tournament in Delhi last week. In any case, all those questions were answered several times in various previous threads.

To ICEMAN: 1) The Mistral from MBDA seems to be the current favourite & since its helicopter-launched version has already been chosen for Rudra & LCH, chances of the Mistral emerging as L-1 are indeed very high. 2) SpyDer-SR has been inducted. 3) No way. 4) Still under development. 5) Not at all. 6) Not 10,000 tonnes, but 24,000 tonnes. 7) It was never cancelled. Competitive bidding is still underway.

To Anon@11.17PM: Why should one require evidence about all this from amateur space observers when NASA itself has released all the photos containing all the evidence thus far? There’s no sanctioned R & D project for developing ASAT weapons. However, the PDV is quite capable of being used as an ASAT weapon as well.

To ARUP: Exact dimension-related specs are available for only the existing ECR-90 MMR on the EF-2000 Typhoon. Those pf the Captor-E have not yet been released. Multi-PRF power outputs can always be tweaked to the customer’s reqmts. What is your definition of high-altitude? Almost all dogfights take place a medium altitudes. There are several types of deployment modes that enable the Akash Mk1’s air-defence footprint to be increased. Therefore, trying to come up with an engagement envelope by relying solely on lateral range of the missile will be foolhardy. DARE’s MSWS is still under development. AN-32Res only have RWRs + countermeasures dispensers as of now. To date in India, no one from the country’s press corps has ever accorded any publicity to sea-trials or field-trials of any weapon system. Of course the PLA encampment will have to leave before the onset of winter this September. After all, Beijing is only asking for two observation posts to be dismantled & these posts are not bunkers, but temporary structures made of wood & tin. Tejas Mk1 will have Derby BVRAAMs. AoA for which part of the flight envelope?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To KSINGH: This is what was said about the contract two days ago: Standing Committee on Defence has also come down heavily on the government for allocating only Rs.2,000 crore to the IAF for new modernisation schemes whereas Rs.15,000 crore is required only for the Rafale combat jet deal.

To BHASWAR: Read this:
Question of capitulation therefore does not even arise. The BHIM tracked SPH was a perfect solution & if ordered by 1999, would have had tremendous downstream benefits for even the Arjun MBT programme. The Bhim was ready for service-induction by 1998 itself, since its user-trials were completed by late 1997. Instead of investing money on this programme, the stupid NDA govt at that time instead chose to waste money on procuring T-90S medium battle tanks. DRDO’s proposed 52-cal/155mm towed howitzer is still another eight years away. Even its detailed design has yet to emerge. The TATA/DENEL 155mm/52-cal motorised howitzer is still an unproven product, is not in production & hasn’t been ordered by anyone else. The Caesar on the other hand is combat-proven in Afghanistan & has already been ordered by France, Saudi Arabia & Thailand.

To Ni8 DWELLER: What Shyam Saran is saying refers to usage of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, not about asymmetric warfare involving usage of tactical nuclear weapons against a strictly conventional attack by India. Pakistan has never been able to engage successfully in nuclear blackmail against anyone. Had nuclear blackmail worked, then by now Pakistan’s armed forces would have forsaken the cost-prohibitive importation of conventional weapons. Instead, today Pakistan finds itself in an embarrassing situation in which its nuclear weapons capabilities have been totally ineffective when it comes to deterring the CIA-led UCAV attacks on its soil.
Yes, India on Ladakh indeed failed to emulate what the Chinese have been doing in Tibet since the late 1980s. Furthermore, the greatest blunder has been to deploy the ITBP(F) along the LAC. Being just a cease-fire line, the LAC ought to have been manned by the Indian Army & that section of the LAC bordering Ladakh ought to have been manned exclusively by the Ladakh Scouts, who know the local terrain only too well & can also communicate with the local Ladakhi residents of these areas. Had this been done, then timely & actionable intelligence inputs would have been received by HQ Northern Command. Instead, what is now prevailing there is the deployment of ITBP(F) personnel from all corners of India who cannot even communicate properly with the local Ladakhis & who are not at all familiar with the terrain of operations. Therefore, what’s happening now was waiting to happen for more than 15 years. The only way to prevent such incidents in future is to replace the existing ITBP(F) battalions deployed along the LAC in J & K with Ladakh Scouts battalions & raise the number of such battalions that already exist.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@10.44AM: Alright, let’s examine your points one at a time. 1) Self-immolations have been going on since 2008. Have they in any way hurt China’s tourism industry in TAR or Sichuan province? No. Has any country moved any resolution in the UNSC or EU Parliament seeking any form of financial or economic sanctions against Beijing? No. 2) Had you been familiar with the kind of restrictions inside China on what’s permissible or not as far as knowing what’s happening around the world, you would have realised that all such information is beyond the reach of almost all Chinese citizens & therefore they couldn’t even be bothered about what’s happening inside India at any given time. All the anti-India feelings by younger-generation Chinese that you come across in various internet chat-forums are in fact just trolls by Chinese based in Australia, Canada & Hongkong SAR. Young Indian generation still remains ill-informed & uneducated about the events from 1950 till 1962. 3) This is right: the Chinese are totally shocked & spoofed by India’s ambitious force modernisation plans—I say plans because the required ground infrastructure will be available only by 2022 at best. I will dwell more on this issue at length in a new thread within this week itself. 4) Was India ever any better after August 15, 1947? Indians know that India works best during a crisis & India continues to survive & progress DESPITE the existence of the Govt of India. This is something both China & Pakistan have consistently failed to grasp. 5) India’s relations with Nepal haven’t deteriorated, instead China has overtaken India when it comes to meeting the financial reqmts of Nepal’s totally corrupt political class. Today, the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu is the biggest & most influential of all other embassies located there. In India too, the Chinese Embassy is the busiest today & at any given time a high-level Chinese official delegation is always camping in Delhi. Sri Lanka’s relations with India have never been better & have only grown ever since India & Sri Lanka inked a free-trade agreement. Consequently, today Sri Lanka’s economy has become an extension of India’s & there’s no way any other country can match India’s clout. Similarly, the same’s the case with Maldives. No other country can come to Maldives’ assistance in extremely short notice in the event of any kind of humanitarian disaster, except India. Similarly, for advanced medical treatment the Maldivians always flock to India & will never even bother to go to either Karachi or Shanghai. Maldives knows all this too well & that’s why its Defence Minister came calling to India last month.

cont'd below...

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

The UK, France & Italy are today looking up to India as a buyer’s paradise, as are the US & Russia. Furthermore, the Eurasian Trade & Customs Union is eagerly courting India. 6) That’s precisely the reason why Xi Jinping wants the Special Representatives of China & India to quickly come up with firm doables so that the LAC issue becomes history. Dispute resolution has always worked through compromises, never by absolute force. 7) That is an over-simplification of the issue, for when dealing with Japan, one also has to deal with the US, since the US & Japan have a bilateral defence treaty in place. 8) The whole world till today is waiting for firm evidence on DPRK’s last nuclear explosion. As I had stated earlier, this was just a publicity gimmick on Pyongyang’s part. 9) Not ‘demo’ incursions, but real-life & deliberate transgressions. Idia has been caught unawares because of the mis-match of command-and-control capabilities of the IA & ITBP(F). Have already explained above why such screw-ups have repeatedly taken place. 10) Physically, either India nor China is in no position to intervene in any decisive manner inside Afghanistan. Two years ago when Kabul wanted an Indian military presence post-2014, it was India that firmly ruled out this option & even the Taliban acknowledged this. 11) By no means is this a mis-adventure, rest assured, but a well-calculated move that was preceded by warnings for the past two years. 12) After that incident, it was China that reprimanded Pakistan & warned Pakistan against engaging in similar misadventures in future. Only after this did Islamabad tone down its anti-India rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Sir, I am anon at 3:09 pm. Pls ans pts 2 to 6. I was very preoccupied with WBJEE the previos week. nxt time pls give give a heads up before attending such meets and conferences.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To UNKNOWN: A most interesting observation indeed. Xi Jinping, after becoming President & concurrently Chairman of the Central Military Commission (which effectively made him the PLA’s C-in-C, just like India’s President is the C-in-C of India’s armed forces), immediately embarked on a tour of various PLA Navy establishments & in all such televised visits (shown in all CCTV channels), one could see him freely mixing with young commissioned & non-commissioned officers, chatting with them while having lunch together, even standing in a line & awaiting his own turn to receive his food at the canteens. At no stage was he shown being accorded VVIP treatment, or being surrounded by gun-totting bodyguards. Now, contrast that with what’s the norm within India. Can you ever expect any Indian PM or President or a Defence Minister to interact with young non-commissioned officers or other ranks (like privates, seamen, Sargeants, Corporals, etc), leave alone dine with them on the same table & eat the same food? It is a rotten, feudalistic & hierarchy-driven mindset that presently prevails within India’s political class. In the West, an analysis or critique drafted by a private regarding a certain issue will be given serious thought & remedial action will be initiated, but in India the exact will hold true: the private will be severely reprimanded or even punished fopr committing such ‘sins’, since such ‘privileges’ are the prerogatives of only the commissioned officers. And have you also seen the pathetic telecasts showing the PM of India being surrounded by FN-2000-totting SPG bodyguards whenever he attends the Independence Day or Republic Day celebrations? What does this tell? That the PM of India is afraid of his own citizens? If that’s the case, how can his govt then ensure the inviolability of India’s frontiers? Contrast that with what I saw back in 1990 at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK, where the then British PM, the late lady Margaret Thatcher, was seen visiting the exhibitors with only four accompanying personal bodyguards whose personal sidearms were clearly hidden from public view. And mind you, this was at a time when the IRA peace accords were nowhere in sight. To expect similar practices in India is an assured impossibility, rest assured.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Here's an excellent documentary on how China has secured its land borders with Nepal & at what cost & what border domination/management means to China:

Anonymous said...

Prasun sir, Will you kindly provide the link of all the evidences provided by NASA so far concerning alien spacecrafts on the moon . Could the retrieval of essential components of such alien spacecrafts be the main agenda of the Apollo moon landings ? Could it have helped in any way to master electro-gravitic propulsion technologies ? Russians were also competing with US during Cold War in almost every aspects and fiels. Didnt they ever know that Americans, Skunk works,DARPA have been busy reverse-engineering and mastering such technologies ? Has USSR , Russia able to come up with any such similar technologies and spaceplanes like SPACE VENTURE ?

Bhaswar said...


With all due respect, all they are saying is that we'll pull back a few meters..maybe 10-100...that's hardly anything when you've camped yourself 19 Kms past westward of our claim lines. Have we ever done that, would they be diplomatically solving the issue if the situation was reversed?

They refuse to even define their claim lines and and are now claiming that they are in Chinese territory. Which means that their claim lines extend 19Kms into what we claim as our territory at the moment- since it is still not defined from their side- tomorrow they could claim that DBO falls in their territory too.

The whole point of these CBMs and agreements was that sure- you can patrol up to your respective claim lines and as you stated that a 20Km zone was setup for that purpose but I also believe that no one was supposed to setup camp. They are violating that very agreement, or would you say that they are not in breach of said agreement?

Lets admit it, we have not done what was necessary. We have not built the infrastructure required nor taken the required steps to equip our forces with what they need along the LOC. So we are dealing from a position of weakness, it is us who are feeling pressured not them.

At the rate at which we are progressing how can anyone state that the infrastructure we need shall be in place by 2022-25?

Sure the LAC is disputed but that doesn't mean that you do not project your perception of the LAC by all means possible to be the legitimate one. What would they have done, that's the question one has to ask again and again, they would have kicked us out and laughed. Its all rather disheartening.

Bhaswar said...

"According to ITBP sources, the border structures China wants India to pull down are not even permanent posts but only metal sheet shelters set up for troops who conduct frequent patrols in the desolate region prone to icy winds. Seeking their removal is a broad hint that India roll back its increased patrolling and presence in the area.

"Dismantling of these structures is ruled out without any clear commitment from the Chinese indicating the time of retreat of its troops from Raki Nala. There has to be complete restoration of pre-April 15 position," an ITBP official said.

Indian officials were told by Chinese commanders that they would have to wait for orders from Beijing. This seems to fly in the face of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assessment that the incident was "localized" and that the government had a plan to resolve it.

It seems clear now that rather than local adventurism, a well-thought out Chinese strategy is at work that caught India off guard at a time when the government is grappling with domestic political turmoil and on the eve of a visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.

The impasse is pushing India to take more muscular steps which would invite retaliation, a situation India is keen to avoid. But this is looking increasingly likely, sources said.

Incidentally, Indian local military and ITBP commanders will be crossing over from the Indian border post at Chushul to the adjoining Spanggur post in China to participate in the ceremonial function on Wednesday to mark May Day, providing an opportunity for discussions.

"Informal deliberations are expected there as well, though it is now clear that this border row may not be resolved at the local commanders level," said a senior official of the security establishment.

Will Khurshid still travel to Beijing on May 9? "Yes," he said, ruling out a cancellation at this stage. However, with India unable and unwilling to physically remove the Chinese tents, officials said a diplomatic approach was inevitable -- which means that both the Khurshid visit and the Chinese premier's visit to India on May 20 could be in danger."

Bhaswar said...


The above is an excerpt from the article today in TOI.

What are we to make of this? They are pissing on us and not even calling it rain.

They demand that we dismantle our structures and THEN THEY WILL DELIBERATE OVER THEIR NEXT STEP! THEY ARE REFUSING TO EVEN COMMIT TO WITHDRAWING EVEN IF THEIR DEMANDS ARE MET! AND WE ARE SHIVERING AROUND LIKE WE ALWAYS DO! The last bit of the above excerpt so succinctly states our position- "Will Khurshid still travel to Beijing on May 9? "Yes," he said, ruling out a cancellation at this stage. However, with India unable and unwilling to physically remove the Chinese tents, officials said a diplomatic approach was inevitable -- which means that both the Khurshid visit and the Chinese premier's visit to India on May 20 could be in danger."

Let us drop all pretenses, we are pathetically weak. No self respecting nation, disputed territory and border or no disputed territory and border,would ever sit so meekly as another country shows its TEMERITY BY DICTATING TERMS TO IT AT GUNPOINT!

rad said...

HI Prasun
You mentioned above that the PDV can be made into a ASAT weapon, the PDV has approx 350 km range as a ballistic missile , and i guess it could go to about 100km altitude only, satellites are at approx 400km orbit , so can it reach them ?. Dont you think the agni missiles are a better option?. How will they manourve in space , thrusters?. What could be the homing section IR or radar.
Why is India being apologetic when it Comes to ASAT?. The chinese know nothing but force and capabilities so why not make them. Political amnesia?

Vivek said...

Prasun da,
Have read your reasoning as to why neither India nor China would want a war and also why a repeat of 62 would be very difficult (if not impossible) for China, I agree with both these and also am happy to note the CBMs mentioned in this thread.
But, I dont agree that India also violates the LAC the way Chinese do and that there are no holy cows here, patrolling is separate but camping or bringing bulldozer is separate, when was the last time India took a bulldozer into territory claimed by China or set up a camp there and didn't leave for years ........lets accept the fact that China has been taking away our land constantly since 1980s and India has done nothing to stop it, leave alone grabbing Chinese land the way they grab ours.
I m sure China doesn't want a war with us but one can only hope that ur assessment of China is correct and that they sincerely want good relations with us, hopefully they will match words with actions and stop having a bad eye on our land.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

It feels like Chou En Lie visiting India again to meet Nehrujee and distant echos of Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai reverberating in the air.

Anonymous said...

Sir, How many SPYDER regiments and squadrons are currently operational with IA and AF ? According to you it is 4 regiments if i am not mistaken. But wikipedia gives the no as 18 batteries,108 launchers,750 Python-5 ,750 Derby. They have got this figure from SIPRI . Which is correct ?
In which cases Derby missile is used and in what scenarios pythn is used ?

Anonymous said...


An excellent articule by the german news paper:

Pintu said...

Prasun sir, Will you kindly provide the link of all the evidences provided by NASA so far concerning alien spacecrafts on the moon .-----

Anonymous@7:40 AM


counterclaims calling the William Rutledge's claim as 'Hoax'

Pintu said...


Reported Russian Anti gravity UFO project or is it a kind of intel gathering balloon ? Don't know ? Prasun Da can you please shed some light ?

Thanks in advance.

AK said...

Hi Prasun, Between Litening G4 and damocles , which is IAF's preferred choice ? Litening G4 employs many new sensors like a laser imaging sensors for more accurate target id which is not yet found in Damocles.

Barak-2 will also be able to intercept all types of cruise missiles,TBM. All IAF bases in NE can be subjected to such massed fire assaults. To protect these bases heavy deployments of Barak-2 batteries are needed. Till date, only 1500 barak-8 have been ordered. is IAF going to order more of these in successive tranches ?

Is IAF interested in Stunner ? What is the planned induction date of Maitri SR-SAM ?

Will AD-1 be comparable to PAC-3 in dimensions,performance ,seeker performance ? Do you have any data regarding specs of AD-1,2 How many do you think will be produced ?

Besides hostile acs is Akash mk1 capable of intercepting terrain follwing subsonic LACM and ALCM ?

As AKash mk2 is taking some time to develope do you think it will incorporate many improvements over Akash mk1 besides a longer range ?

Is IA interested in ground launchedvconventional warhead equipped Nirbhay ? Can Prahaar have sensor fuzed munition and cluster warhead ?

Why does most IAF bases lack HAS ?Is IAF beefing up infrastructure of its bases in NE like constructing modern HAS, aircraft shelters ?

A RFP was also released for light standoff PGM. Do you its status ?

Why doesnt ADA develope rectangular block air intakes for Teajs mk2 instead of the present circular ones ? Many low observable features can also be incorporated inTejas mk2. The trailing edges of the wings can be serrated to reduce RCS.

Does IAF has plans of integrating or aquiring a sizable no of ALCM like Storm Shadow, Taurus or even Kh-59ME for its Su-30 fleet ?

KSingh said...

So Prasun, that's it then? It's curtains for the Rafale deal?

Should I break out the Kleenex now and start crying myself to sleep?

Arup said...

Sir , Although the exact dimensions of E-CAPTOR has not been disclosed how are you able to say that both have exact same aperture areas. WFoR repositioner doesnt occupy much volume .

Can the no of hardpoints and weapons carraige be tweaked according to customer's requirements. For example, the centreline hardpoint of Rafale can carry a single Mica. But actually provision was made for carraige of two MICA. Can this provision be reactivated ?

The spherical DDM-NG MAWS doesnt provide full hemispherical coverage. Why didnt dassault install another Maws aperture in the front ? Thales could have come up with a F-35 DAS system for Rafale.

Rafale's fixed air intakes will create airflow problems above 50000 ft AGL. Or is it a diveterless air intake ?

IAF is facing a real shortage of acs which is going to be more acute in the coming days. Why isnt IAF and CNC wrapping up negotiations quickly ?

Those AN-32E that are serving in the frontlines are they hardwired for acceoting MAWS,DIRCM ? If AN-32RE dont have maws but have only CMDS, how will the aircrew get to know that an IR missile is incoming and from which angle it is incoming ? They need to be fitted with MAWS.

Does these AN-32RE have chin mounted FLIR or other similar systems for navigation during low visibilty conditions ?

Once DARE completes developement and flight testing of MSWS will the frontline AN-32,Mi-17V1 ,Mi-17V5 get them ?

Is the Akash system subjected to block improvements ?

While going through Su-30MKI upgarde thread of your blog I learnt that aas part of these upgrades new uprated engines with greater intake area will be installed. But new AL-31FP have already started arriving from Russia for fitment into Su-30 after completion of their 2000 flying hours. Are these the uprated turbofans you spoke about and having 6000 hr TTSL ?

The DAS onboard T-50 , will it be as capable as Northrup Grumman one ? Will it able to detect ballistic missile launches in a similar fashion like DAS ?

If Su-30 indeed gets a rear facing IRST , then it will be possible to launch off-boresight IR WVR AAM like R-73 towards a target approaching straight from the rear hemisphere without even having to turn backwards. This in turn will ensure that Sukhoi stays out of range of the oppnents WVRAAM.

Soltam Atmos is a combat proven system. With slight weight reduction measures it will be C-130 transportable. It offers a distinct advantage over Caesar . It has a charge and ammunition loading system like TATA/DENEL howitzer. This results in a faster firing rate and fewer personel required to man the gun. Atmos is definitely better.

Lastly , I am very grateful to you for your well written and lucid replies.

Anonymous said...

Plz throw some light on following issues.
1. On one hand we blame govt. inaction for not developing infrastructure(roads,communications) near border(mainly china), but at the same time whenever we try to even build some temporary structures our work gets stopped by the chinese army. So will it be ever possible to build infrastructure there in future considering we get a responsible govt.
2. Due to such geographical features its impossible to erect fence in the entire LAC. Also we don't hear any peak numbers in LAC like that of LOC which somehow gives a image of border. So can we assume that boundary dispute will remain a permanent thorn for India, as it has been understood that joint patrolling,maps or other CBM's have no value.
3. I remember that gen. Vikram singh said few days after coming to army top post that '62 will not be repeated. Yes situation is not that of '62 but this time also it can be assumed that 20 km of territory got lost. So does army has also started giving false promises like election candidates. If army remains stick to its position in case of siachen then why different approach for ladakh as in both cases borders r not marked.

Ni8 Dweller said...

Thanks for the wonderful insight and the video on China's handiwork in Nepal is inquisitive. No wonder commentators on China keeps saying China spends more on Internal security than for the outside threads. Looks like they're in for a long haul.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

Under the circumstances, if India really has to retaliate against China, then what can be the first best action, so that 62 is not really repeated. Or is that our media should keep silence about cutting the Chinese supply lines from behind.

Mr. Ra 13 said...

So this was the end of Sarabjeet Singh. Now he is a history. RIP.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.40AM:



To BHASWAR: Check out the latest thread for further explanations.

To RAD: PDV is designed to go up to an altitude of 200km. India is not being apologetic, but coy about releasing data on a capability that is still under R & D.

To VIVEK: Check out the latest thread for further explanations.

Anon@6.30PM: SIPRI data is a totally wrong estimate. My figures are on the basis of contracts inked so far, & not on speculation.

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To Anon@7.34PM: Even the Saudis, who are the custodians of the two holiest shrines of the Muslim ummah—Mecca & Medina—don’t call their country Islamic of Muslim. Instead, the simple term “KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA” is used. Problem with Pakistan’s self-styled custodians is that that believe that both Pakistan & Islam were born on the same date, i.e. August 14, 1947.



To AK: Damocles will come with Rafale. For the rest of the IAF’s combat aircraft, Litening G4 will likely be acquired. Follow-on tranches of Barak-2 will be ordered, just as has been the case with Akash Mk1. No interest in Stunner thus far. Maitri SR-SAM will start arriving by 2018. R & D on AD-1/AD-2 is still continuing & will be completed by 2018. There are no plans for developing ground-launched conventional Nirbhay. Prahaar will have SFM payloads. Standoff tactical PGM’s selection was been postponed. Taurus KEPD-350 will probably be acquired for Rafale & Jaguar DARIN-3, while Su-30MKI will have BrahMos-1 & Nirbhay ALCMs.

To KSINGH: Who said so? Why? Why the hurry to jump to such erroneous conclusions?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

To ARUP: Pylons today come with various types of hardpoints, like dual- & triple-ejector racks. DDM-NG can always be supplemented by pylon-mounted MILDS-F. Rafale was never designed to cruise at 50,000 AGL during combat missions. An-32REs will never be threatened by IR-guided missiles as they will never fly on the frontline. They’re used for rear-area aerial logistics & therefore they require only RWR & CMDS. MSWS is for high-value platforms like AEW & CS & SIGINT/ELINT aircraft, plus those helicopters flying CSAR missions & attack helicopter missions. No rear-firing WVRAAM is possible since the HMDS won’t be able to look backwards. The ATMOS version that is C-130 transportable has only 39-cal/155mm barrel.

To Anon@1.01AM: Question of losing any more land in Ladakh does not arise since no one is asking for them. Read the latest thread on what exactly the Chinese demands are.


To Mr.RA 13: 1962 will never be repeated again, that’s for sure & both parties know about it. The latest thread throws more light on what the Chinese demands really are.

Anonymous said...

Will the 24,000 ton follow on Arihant submarines use the same reator as its predecessor? or will it use a more powerful reactor?

Prasun K. Sengupta said...

Obviously a more powerful PWR, about 200mW, will be reqd.

Pintu said...

Very Many Thanks Prasun Da, Your blog is really informative and worth as Encyclopedia, regarding the clips , it seems there's lot and seemingly infinite events, which are still unexplained.