Border face-off: China and India each deploy 3,000 troops

[Officer of Engineers]

The age old joke. NASA was having problems with pens in space. The lack of gravity was not condusive to ink flow. NASA spent $millions in coming up with pens that would work in space. The Russians, facing the same probllems, used pencils.

The Indian methods are proven and they work. Full stop.

[Double Edge]

It is intriguing though. Could drugs offer a shortcut.

I've never heard of performance enhancing drugs on our side. Whether that is completely true i cannot say. Nobody is talking about it.

There are pills people take if they feel ill due to altitude sickness. That is as far as it goes. That isn't boosting, its recovering.

We've got better at spotting illness early and taking immediate steps to avoid complications. Emergency evac ready in case of contingencies. All planned for. Altitude trouble symptoms are well known and understood by now.

Over thirty years of mountain warfare experience has taught us you cannot airdrop people from sea level onto the heights, have them pop some pills and be battle ready.

It takes time to acclimate. We've not found any shortcuts so far.

[Officer of Engineers]

Indian soldiers facing the same problem went another way. They trained for the cold.

A case of too much money spending on a solution looking for a problem.

[Double Edge]

Monkey-brain study with link to China's military roils top European university | Reuters | Nov 19 2021

A Chinese professor at the University of Copenhagen conducted genetic research with the Chinese military without disclosing the connection, the university told Reuters, in the latest example of how China's pursuit of military-civilian technology is tapping into Western academia in the strategically sensitive area of biotechnology.

Great, the only part that concerns me is the bolded bit..

The professor, Guojie Zhang, is also employed by Shenzhen-based genomics giant BGI Group, which funds dozens of researchers at the university and has its European headquarters on the university's campus.

Zhang and a student he was supervising worked with a People's Liberation Army (PLA) laboratory on research exposing monkeys to extreme altitude to study their brains and develop new drugs to prevent brain damage – a priority the PLA has identified for Chinese troops operating on high plateau borders.

The Chinese Academy of Science, where Zhang also has a genetics lab, said of the study at the time that brain damage and death caused by high altitude on the Tibetan plateau had severely hindered "national defence construction."



Zhang and the head of the PLA laboratory for high-altitude research, Major General Yuqi Gao, designed the study, which also lists BGI founders Wang Jian and Yang Huanming as co-authors. BGI's other joint research with Gao has involved soldiers in Tibet and Xinjiang, Reuters reported in January read more .

That report was cited by two U.S. senators who called in September for BGI to be sanctioned by the United States as a military-linked company. Gao's research has directly improved the ability of China's rapid-advance plateau troops to carry out training and combat missions, according to the Chinese military's official news service.

China's Academy of Military Medical Sciences launched a four-year plan in 2012 for troops to acclimatise and adapt to the low-oxygen Tibetan plateau. That plan said BGI was working with Gao's lab to test soldiers arriving in Tibet and identify genes linked to altitude sickness, which does not affect Tibetans. It said preventing altitude sickness helped to "manage border areas where ethnic minorities gather," and had far-reaching economic and political significance.

BGI told Reuters the research with the military university aimed to understand the health risk for all people travelling to and working at high altitude.

"The project using BGI's technology studied the changes of the pathophysiology and genomics of the human body at very high altitudes," a BGI spokesman said. "In China, many military institutions ... carry out both civilian and military research," he added.

Gao wrote in 2018 that high altitude disease "is the main reason for reduced combat effectiveness and health damage of soldiers at high altitudes and influences the results of war on the highland plateau," and noted that drugs could be used in an emergency for the rapid deployment of soldiers.

China's military has recently increased live fire drills in Tibet after border clashes with India.

[Double Edge]

Authoritative discussion on S400 with General Shankar

Best argument (among a host of others) i've heard to date as to why CAATSA should not be applied to India is we ordered the S400 before CAATSA was even enacted

S400 order was placed in 2016. CAATSA was enacted in 2017

Therefore US would be applying this rule retro actively

Bottom line is India at a disadvantage to China isn't in US interests to begin with.


Sanctions or not we're going ahead for the reasons the General stated and he calls S400 a game changer.

It's radars go as far as 600 kms and engage is up to 400 kms so we'll have dominance over the Paks. Any plane takes off from there we'll know ahead of time given how long & narrow that country is.

We're at par with China and their S400 in the Himalayas. Now the Chinese will have to redeploy additional batteries from their eastern seaboard to gain further advantage.

Another with Amb. PS Raghavan & Jeff Smith.

Note the initials PS as there is another former ambassador with the same surname Raghavan but with initials TCA. Both comment on similar topics.

[Albany Rifles]

I would be completely stunned if we had not established in the Pacific something comparable to the North Atlantic SOSUS set up to cover any and all exists from Chinese ports. This is old tech which I would bet has been upgraded, or outright replaced, to do the same mission. Same for any boats coming out Vladivostok.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

[Officer of Engineers]

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments

There's your BIAS right there. Glorifying the enemy to beg for money. No one I know calls the YUAN a good sub. It's a noisy KILO. BTW, there is NOTHING MAGICAL about AIP. All AIP is that the sub stores compressed oxygen to stay underwater longer and to recharge their batteries using compressed O2. Once that O2 is gone, it becomes another diesel sub that has to resurface to recharge their batteries and have no way to make new compressed O2.

Good God, we're expected to punch through much quieter and more numerous Soviet subs for WWIII. Does anyone thinks that China is a challenge compare to the USSR.

The solution is so simple that even a bellycrawler like me can tell it to the Boat People. Have the US subs tail the Chinese subs from port outwards and follow them. Use the surface warfare group to launch attacks against the Mainland. A destroyer can launch cruise missles as well as a SSGN can. Force on weak. Not Force on strong.

Sometimes, these budget guys get too fancy for their own good.

[Officer of Engineers]

Dahm acknowledges US has the edge under the sea.

What about above ? this is the part i don't know how to figure with Chinese and their information superiority vs. American maneuver

If their method is cheaper it means more redundancy and resilience to attack.

Those islands according to Dahm work like radio relays. Not quite what we expect when the media goes on about them being militarised. I think he's right on their purpose.

A Type 55 Destroyer has more weapons than any of those islands. They aren't going to be attacking much, they will need to be defended by PLAN.

Dahm makes out that the Chinese don't think having less firepower in this instance is a problem.

Which means have to figure out why

It could be the purpose of those islands is just for grey zone but people seem to be putting in an awful lot of effort to show they're viable even in a conflict.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot. All this talk about information superiority. A whole bunch of new speak to explain the reccee battle - Find the enemy. Blind the enemy. Kill the enemy. That's your information superiority right there in plain terms. Find the enemy. Blind the enemy. It doesn't have to get anymore complicated than that. All this talk about hacking and viruses are just methods to blind the enemy but you still have to find the enemy first. Guess what? We don't have to find the enemy. They're sitting on nice pretty islands that don't move which makes blinding them a whole lot easier.

And this still comes back to the US owning the whole shabang. Dahm is still a fucking idiot. No way in hell could the China Navy even approach the USN in owing the waters. The Pacific Ocean and especially the SCS are American Lakes, not Chinese waters. It has been that way since WWII and no new comer China could even currently hope to claim to own the room.

[Double Edge]

The subs you're referring to are the conventional diesel ones which are noisy. They've got some AIP's too which are quieter.

US submarines are better than China's 'by far,' but in a war that may not matter | Business Insider | Sept 12 2018

China has also built 17 Yuan-class diesel-electric, air-independent-powered attack subs over the past two decades, a total expected to rise to 20 by 2020, according to the Pentagon.

"The Yuan AIP submarine is very good," said Bryan Clark, a former US Navy submarine officer and strategist.

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Assessments

"For the duration of a deployment that it might normally take, which is two or three weeks, where it can stay on its AIP plant and never have to come up and snorkel, they're very good," Clark added. "That's a big concern, I think, for US and Japanese policymakers."

Yuan-class boats can threaten surface forces with both torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

For US anti-submarine-warfare practitioners in the western Pacific, Clark said, "it's the Yuan they generally point to as being their target of concern, because it does offer this ability to attack US ships and [is] hard to track and there may be few opportunities to engage it."

There are windows of opportunity

Despite concerns China's current diesel-electric subs inspire, they have liabilities.

As quiet as they are, they are still not as quiet as a US nuclear-powered submarine operating in its quietest mode. They don't have the same endurance as US subs and need to surface periodically. China's sub crews also lack the depth of experience of their American counterparts.

"Chinese submarines are not ... as good as the US submarines, by far," Clark said.

China's subs have made excursions into the Indian Ocean and done anti-piracy operations in waters off East Africa, but they mostly operate around the first island chain, which refers to major islands west of the East Asian mainland and encompasses the East and South China Seas.

Chinese subs also venture into the Philippine Sea, where they could strike at US ships, Clark said.

Much of the first island chain is within range of Chinese land-based planes and missiles, which are linchpins in Beijing's anti-access/area denial strategy. It's in that area where the US and its partners could see their advantages thwarted.

"Now the Chinese have the advantage of numbers, because they have a large number of submarines that can operate, and they've only got a small area in which they need to conduct operations," Clark said.

China could "flood the zone" with subs good enough to "maybe overwhelm US and Japanese [anti-submarine warfare] capabilities."

The anti-submarine-warfare capabilities of the US and its partners may also be constrained.

US subs would likely be tasked with a range of missions, like land attacks or surveillance, rather than focusing on attacking Chinese subs, leaving much of the submarine-hunting to surface and air forces - exposing them to Chinese planes and missiles.

"The stuff we use for ASW is the stuff that's most vulnerable to the Chinese anti-access approach, and you're doing it close proximity to China, so you could get stuck and not be able to engage their submarines before they get out," Clark said.

Numbers and location also give China a potential edge in a "gray-zone" conflict, or a confrontation that stops short of open combat, for which US Navy leadership has said the service needs to prepare.

There's those magic words. Grey Zone

China's subs present "a challenge [US officials] see as, 'What if we get into one of these gray-zone confrontations with China, and China decides to start sortieing their submarines through the first island chain and get them out to open ocean a little bit so they're harder to contain,'" Clark said.

"If we're in a gray-zone situation, we can't just shoot them, and we don't necessarily have the capacity to track all of them, so now you've got these unlocated Yuans roaming around the Philippine Sea, then you may end up with a situation where if you decide to try to escalate, you've got worry about these Yuans and their ability to launch cruise missiles at your ships," Clark added.

"As the home team, essentially, China's got the ability to control the tempo and the intensity," he said.

The US and its partners have already encountered such tactics.

Beijing often deploys its coast guard to enforce its expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea (which an international court has rejected) and has built artificial islands containing military outposts to bolster its position.

When those coast guard ships encounter US Navy ships, China points to the US as the aggressor.

In the waters off the Chinese coast and around those man-made islands, "they do a lot of that because they're on their home turf and protected by their land-based missiles and sensors," Clark said. "Because of that, they can sort of ramp [the intensity] up and ramp it down ... as they desire."

The circumstances of a potential conflict may give Chinese subs an edge, but it won't change their technical capability, the shortcomings of which may be revealed in a protracted fight.

"Can the Chinese submarines - like the Yuans that have limited time on their AIP plants - can they do something before they start to run out of propellant, oxygen, and start having to snorkel?" Clark said.

"So there's a little bit of a time dimension to it," he added. "If the US and Japan can wait out the Chinese, then their Yuans have to start snorkeling or pulling into port ... that might make them more vulnerable."

and there you have it.

They're going to pull the same crap in the sea as they do in the mountains with us and in the air with Taiwan.

We know those islands help with grey zone.

[Double Edge]

Dahm is a fucking idiot. The US owns the room, not China. The US owned it since WWII after they chased the Japanese all the way back from Pearl. What's more, the US owned all the entrances in and out of all Asian harbours since the Cold War. How do you think the Americans were able to collect every Chinese accoustic signature since 1949?

Has China been able to collect a single American submarine accoustic signature? I extremely doubt it given how freaking noisy their subs are. We can hear them 10s of miles away and that gives us an edge to avoid them.

Dahm acknowledges US has the edge under the sea.

What about above ? this is the part i don't know how to figure with Chinese and their information superiority vs. American maneuver

If their method is cheaper it means more redundancy and resilience to attack.

Those islands according to Dahm work like radio relays. Not quite what we expect when the media goes on about them being militarised. I think he's right on their purpose.

A Type 55 Destroyer has more weapons than any of those islands. They aren't going to be attacking much, they will need to be defended by PLAN.

Dahm makes out that the Chinese don't think having less firepower in this instance is a problem.

Which means have to figure out why

It could be the purpose of those islands is just for grey zone but people seem to be putting in an awful lot of effort to show they're viable even in a conflict.

[Albany Rifles]

Dahm is a fucking idiot. The US owns the room, not China. The US owned it since WWII after they chased the Japanese all the way back from Pearl. What's more, the US owned all the entrances in and out of all Asian harbours since the Cold War. How do you think the Americans were able to collect every Chinese accoustic signature since 1949?

Has China been able to collect a single American submarine accoustic signature? I extremely doubt it given how freaking noisy their subs are. We can hear them 10s of miles away and that gives us an edge to avoid them.

And did the same with Soviet submarines. In fact I recall we notified them of one of their subs was in trouble due to the signature our subs heard. I think I read/saw about it in Submarines: Sharks of Steel

[Officer of Engineers]

Dahm begins his piece like this

Dahm is a fucking idiot. The US owns the room, not China. The US owned it since WWII after they chased the Japanese all the way back from Pearl. What's more, the US owned all the entrances in and out of all Asian harbours since the Cold War. How do you think the Americans were able to collect every Chinese accoustic signature since 1949?

Has China been able to collect a single American submarine accoustic signature? I extremely doubt it given how freaking noisy their subs are. We can hear them 10s of miles away and that gives us an edge to avoid them.

[Double Edge]

Mike PIlsbury thinks the US is doing nothing about China.

Do the alliances count for anything ? Trump's tariffs are still in place.

Biden has not reversed anything here. The complaint is Biden has not added to them. So far anyway.

His basis is China bills that have not gone anywhere in govt.

China Task force report lists 400 recommendations. Members made bills out of those recommendation. Nothing has passed. There aren't enough sponsors.

Just 30% of Americans consider China an adversary. The rest aren't on board.

Only a Pearl Harbour like event or sinking a carrier will do it and the Chinese are too smart to initiate direct conflict

American Congress is not excited about the China threat. They will make the right noises but are unwilling to pass any legislation.

Pelosi tells the Dems not to join the Task force.


I would say this is because Biden is about to meet with XJP this week.

This dialog is going to take months and if it delivers something well and good. If not then the Dems will join the china Task force and put the squeeze on.

It is too early into this administration to say they are doing nothing.

[Double Edge]

Information superiority is cheap. Manuever war is expensive. Battle management even more expensive.

Americans do what they have the resources for. Chinese are looking for the best bang for the buck.

Dahm begins his piece like this

Imagine entering a dark room. You can neither see nor hear, but your adversary can see and hear everything. Your opponent lives in the room and knows its every contour. For you, there are only a few ways in … or out. You may believe that you have the edge in technology and training. Allies and partners offer their support. But in the confines of the room, you cannot determine where to point your weapons and you are unable to communicate with your friends. In the dark, your foe watches and waits, preparing to pick off your team one-by-one from unexpected directions. If you reveal your position, or call for help, those in the shadows will hear.

This is the nightmare that U.S. military planners face in the South China Sea.

I'm thinking of the USS Connecticut that hit something recently. They had to operate silently and chances are you make a mistake and bump into something.

If you cannot communicate as well or less than them you are vulnerable eventually. If you realise this then their deterrence works.

It's defensive. The Americans are on the offense here. They can project power. All the Chinese can do is enforce a no go zone and hope it works.

Chinese got to study American tactics. We've not seen this information superiority at play yet. Untested. Sounds plausible up to a point.

It's deterrence theory. They want to deter you from enforcing the region because they can't actually stop you from enforcing the region. Remember, deterrence is not warfighting. Never mind deterrence is failing big time as the USN is laughing their asses off for this budget boost.

It has to be credible to work. I don't think its tenable. It's good for harassing fishermen, mining hydrocarbons in disputed territory and grabbing other people's territory.

It's an illusion.

[Double Edge]

I think i understand much better now why the Indian govt has been keeping a close eye on foreign funding to NGO's since 2015. The spin at the time was India is clamping down on civil society.

What India was doing was clamping down on the freedom of foreign entities to interfere in Indian affairs. India does not have foreign interference legislation like the Aussies do. And any attempts to create one is going to lead to the usual protests. A fight GOI is not interested in getting into. Preferring to address the issue obliquely.

Australia can get away with foreign interference legislation on the grounds of national security but if India does it we get slammed for being a fascist state.

That's just how it works

Also we face a broader spectrum problem. Anyone can send money to MP's and hold up key legislation. There are more actors involved as well.

CCP, Jihadis and certain western entities.

FCRA: Govt restricts funding by 10 foreign agencies to Indian NGOs | HT | Sept 16 2021