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

[Officer of Engineers]

Good. Hope you think this next one qualifies as well

An overcomplicated and hard to achieve EMP equivelent. Next question.

[Albany Rifles]

Not at all. But there are commentators making these points. I wanted to avoid that and go to town on AR's loss of control explanation. It can explain the reason for both crashes without CT.

.

Neither of those aircraft, the Mi-17V5 of the IAF and the UH-60M of Taiwan, suffer from the issues of the OH-58A which I mentioned earlier. Both are proven airframes with literally hundreds of thousands of flight hours, if not millions, since their inception. Both air forces have a lot of experience with both aircraft. Could have been mechanical coupled with crew error.

[Double Edge]

Neither of those aircraft, the Mi-17V5 of the IAF and the UH-60M of Taiwan, suffer from the issues of the OH-58A which I mentioned earlier. Both are proven airframes with literally hundreds of thousands of flight hours, if not millions, since their inception. Both air forces have a lot of experience with both aircraft. Could have been mechanical coupled with crew error.

But both could experience loss of lift under certain conditions ?

Both of them entered into a danger zone because of the weather so they will call it pilot error.

I don't think mechanical because the maintenance would have been meticulous given the passengers. We've lost these earlier but not due to mechanical. Pilot error and weather. Sounds a lot like loss of lift.

There is another example to add here. The one that was lost in the Bin Laden raid.

[Double Edge]

An overcomplicated and hard to achieve EMP equivelent. Next question.

Begs the question would you try these hacks in a grey zone operation and risk alerting the other side to the vulnerability or save them for something more serious.

[Double Edge]

Wolfpacts are sucide pacts. There's a reason why we don't use them after WWII and even the Kreigsmarine were forced to abandon the tactic at the end of the War. Wolfpacts need co-ordination in order NOT to get into each other's way and that means radio chatter up the ying-yang. That radio chatter is a torpedo homing beacon. Without radio chatter, wolfpact subs were known to crash into each other trying to line up on target.

Good points. I forgot the complexity this would involve and suicide pacts is out of the question for grey zone.

Si pacem, para bellum. Our objective is not to deter them. Our objective is to let them know we will destroy them.

They can bellyache all they want but our lines in the sand have not been crossed. We've crossed theirs with impunity. The SCS is our waters, not theirs.

And the Indian Navy will say the same about the Indian Ocean. Today.

During the border tensions Chinese never acted belligerent or made any aggressive moves in the Indian Ocean because they knew we could handle them.

A naval officer i listened to said we will have that advantage for a decade more going by the rate India builds ships currently and the rate China builds ships.

Meaning the PLAN will be a match for the IN in a decade's time. I guess he means in terms of tonnage.

We have about 40 ships in various stages of construction right now. We have 140 and the idea is 200 by the end of the decade.

Makes the point India needs a third AC.

[Albany Rifles]

But both could experience loss of lift under certain conditions ?

Both of them entered into a danger zone because of the weather so they will call it pilot error.

I don't think mechanical because the maintenance would have been meticulous given the passengers. We've lost these earlier but not due to mechanical. Pilot error and weather. Sounds a lot like loss of lift.

There is another example to add here. The one that was lost in the Bin Laden raid.

1. Every aircraft can lose lift under certain conditions...that goes for both fixed and rotary.

2. I too expect the maintenance to be top rate...but where were they on the cycle of their phase maintenance...metal fatigue is often undetectable prior to failure except under X ray detection...and that is not not normal, every day maintenance even for VIP aircraft.

3. The specially modified UH-60 likely lost lift due to high heat and low humidity. Also due to the methods taken to provide stealthier characteristics added weight. Add a hover (which is not an easy task in goggles/blackout conditions) and I can see losing lift. What also could have happened was a tail rotor strike.

All that said it's likely no one would say NO to a senior leader because the weather was below flight minimums.

[Officer of Engineers]

Begs the question would you try these hacks in a grey zone operation and risk alerting the other side to the vulnerability or save them for something more serious.

War is a very bad time to find out your things don't work.

[Double Edge]

1. Every aircraft can lose lift under certain conditions...that goes for both fixed and rotary.

2. I too expect the maintenance to be top rate...but where were they on the cycle of their phase maintenance...metal fatigue is often undetectable prior to failure except under X ray detection...and that is not not normal, every day maintenance even for VIP aircraft.

3. The specially modified UH-60 likely lost lift due to high heat and low humidity. Also due to the methods taken to provide stealthier characteristics added weight. Add a hover (which is not an easy task in goggles/blackout conditions) and I can see losing lift. What also could have happened was a tail rotor strike.

All that said it's likely no one would say NO to a senior leader because the weather was below flight minimums.

1. Physics. What you said is 51/100. It's plausible and enough for me to get behind it. They must train to avoid these conditions but some times you cannot avoid them. It would be good if we could get a helicopter pilot to speak about this but i guess opsec would preclude it. This is another factor which will lead to obfuscating what really happened.

2. I recall something about it being version 5 so its not old. Latest from what i gather.

3. Hmm, fog means high humidity. Heat was not high in both Taiwan and India. Could you lose lift in those conditions too ? That is high humidity and medium to cool weather.

The bolded bit applies to the Indian CDS, the aircraft was seen to hover and then disappear in the fog. Next we heard it crashed. I heard some people saying tail rotor strike. But i surmise loss of lift precedes it. Then you get the tail rotor strike.

4. This point was brought up and commentators who personally knew the general remarked the Indian CDS was not one force his pilots to do anything against their better judgement. Also going to deliver a talk at a military training college isn't that urgent.

I imagine the pilots would be gung ho and this is the problem. They can't be trusted. It's up to the passenger to say no.

[Albany Rifles]

High humidity in hot weather also impacts lift. The colder and dryer the better for helicopters. But I always go by the saying that a helicopter is like a bumble bee, aerodynamically neither is capable to fly as designed.

All I know is there are a lot of folks smarter than me trying to figure things out.

And as for me...I always preferred to jump from a plane at 550 feet with a parachute than go place to place in a helicopter. I hate the damn things!

[Double Edge]

High humidity in hot weather also impacts lift. The colder and dryer the better for helicopters. But I always go by the saying that a helicopter is like a bumble bee, aerodynamically neither is capable to fly as designed.

Excellent, now i understand the heroic feats by our pilots in the mountains. Ladakh is a cold desert. Siachen isn't far away but has snow. I imagine its bone dry too.

Or why this Mi17 can handle Siberian blizzards. So you would think it could handle a gentle hop in fog over the hills ? Not so. This one time.

Taiwan at the beginning of the year had high humidity and cold. We had the humidity and not so cold.

All I know is there are a lot of folks smarter than me trying to figure things out.

I did manage to find a discussion with a safety aviation expert and he said rotor wash. So that means loss of control is the likely cause.

All I know is there are a lot of folks smarter than me trying to figure things out.

And as for me...I always preferred to jump from a plane at 550 feet with a parachute than go place to place in a helicopter. I hate the damn things!

My first ride was as an eleven year old over Manhattan. I was excited but when it took off i had this awful fright. It felt like some one yanked you off your feet. Looking out the window felt like falling down. Not as much fun as i thought it would be. Yeah i think i would need many hours in one to get accustomed.

Flying in a plane is soooo easy in comparison.

[Firestorm]

Not at all. But there are commentators making these points. I wanted to avoid that and go to town on AR's loss of control explanation. It can explain the reason for both crashes without CT.

Thing is unless you understand how these wake phenomena work there is no way for a layperson to comprehend one plane can capsize another following too soon in the former's wake as can a helicopter getting caught in its own wake and going down too.

Yes, this can happen with military grade equipment and experienced pilots.

You are referring to Vortex Ring State which may have been the reason for the Blackhawk crash during the OBL raid. It is a known phenomenon but is more common during hover or a steep descent with very low forward speed from what I've read. Pilots are trained to avoid and escape it. The OBL raid was obviously a high stress situation and both helicopters were hovering over the compound. Ideal conditions for this to occur.

I don't think this applies to CDS Rawat's crash. The Wellington helipad has a specific approach path which would have been well known to the pilots and prepared keeping such possibilities in mind. All evidence so far available in news reports suggests a CFIT crash in poor visibility. Here's what a retired IAF helicopter pilot (commanding officer of a helo sq.) and HAL test pilot had to say about the crash from his own analysis on another forum:

I have personally not landed at the WGC helipad. I asked a couple of my colleagues who used to fly Mi-8s and both said that the approach and landing is a not exactly easy. There is usually a sudden change of weather conditions at the Nilgiri mountains. The helicopter has to cross a couple of ridge lines, there is no clearly demarcated valley leading up to the WGC helipad. Also, the final approach path is curved with the WGC in a bowl-like depression. The approach and landing is visual. Tall trees surround at least one side of the helipad. The dimension of the helipad is very large and the entire length of the 1000 ft golf course is effectively available to the pilot to land the helicopter.

The pics of the crash site and name as reported is Kettary Tea Estate. This appears to be between 5200-5400 ft, which is about 300-500 ft below the Lower Coonoor ridge line, that is generally at 5700 ft elevation. The pics of the crash site appear to indicate the pilot may have perhaps, elected to attempt flying keeping ground in contact, and below the clouds flying up the narrow rivulet leading up to Lower Coonoor town.

Pics of the crash site and an eyewitness account appears to indicate the V5 hit a fairly large tree just at the lower perimeter of the tea estate.

These accounts appear to indicate Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) as the potential primary cause. Which means the V5 probably entered dense clouds and impacted the rising terrain. Of course, the IAF Court of Inquiry with all its resources at its disposal will determine the primary and other associated causes.

[Double Edge]

I don't think this applies to CDS Rawat's crash. The Wellington helipad has a specific approach path which would have been well known to the pilots and prepared keeping such possibilities in mind. All evidence so far available in news reports suggests a CFIT crash in poor visibility. Here's what a retired IAF helicopter pilot (commanding officer of a helo sq.) and HAL test pilot had to say about the crash from his own analysis on another forum:

I've seen comments on YT suggesting CFIT. But how is that possible with ground sensing radar and collision avoidance systems this Mi17 had ?

CFIT is more appropriate for civilian aircraft lacking those systems.

What happened here is an UNCONTROLLED flight into terrain. Isn't it ?

This is why i'm thinking loss of control is more likely.

VRS is one way to go down but there are others involving wake turbulence.

That would explain why it was flying low enough to be at eye level for a phone camera. In effect hovering. That should not be the case normally.

[Double Edge]

And this is the state of affairs with the Americans. India has yet to designate a cyber force command (!)

Unified cyber security task force by March: Source | TOI | Dec 21 2021

Currently, cyber threats are handled by the specialised Indian Computer Emergency Response Team or CERT-In, which operates under the Ministry of Electronics and IT. It is the nodal agency to deal with cyber security threats like hacking and phishing, and strengthens security-related defence of the Indian internet domain.

However, with the cyberattacks getting more sophisticated, the government has increasingly felt the need to have a specialised unified task force that acts on inputs not only from security and cyber forces from within the country, but also from inputs from ‘like-minded friendly countries’ from across the world.

Americans set up a cyber command force in 2010 and spent the next 6-7 years trying to staff it with 6k odd personnel.

So India is going to have at least a 5 yr lag time here.

The legal system in India does not help things. There is a whole lot of talent going to waste.

If anyone finds weaknesses in any civilian or govt system and reports them they will be formally charged with hacking into the system (!)

Who will come forward in that case

Anyway, this is in response to the cell network and power grid outage in Bombay that occurred Oct '20

[Double Edge]

Was China behind last October’s power outage in India? Here’s what we know | WAPO | Apr 29 2021

Interestingly, here is a WAPO report questioning whether China was behind that outage. She claims the evidence is thin and goes further to say China is equally vulnerable if not more to a counter attack. Hence the reason they do not conduct cyber ops on other countries (!)

All that means is this asymmetric attack was successful with no way of attributing the cause.

The PRC is vulnerable to space, cyber, psychological and electronic warfare operations, which constrains the PLA’s employment of these capabilities against a sophisticated adversary like the United States. It remains unclear whether the PLA has the ability to integrate effects from space, cyber, electronic warfare, and psychological operations, and integrate those operations with conventional operations, to achieve the joint effects its doctrinal writings aspire to.

The main foci of PLA developments in these information capabilities in the future are likely to be enhancing capabilities and the capability to integrate effects in joint operations, adjusting its capabilities and employment to account for its growing vulnerability in these domains, and its improving conventional capabilities.

She shares her testimony at a committee about cyber ops in Taiwan.

In other words we should view China's writings as aspirational rather than proof of capability. They're new to this cyber stuff too right

PLA information operations pose three key challenges for Taiwan and the United States.

1) When used for strategic deterrence, they create escalation risks.
2) Designing appropriate responses to these attacks is challenging because they occur below key conflict thresholds that the United States and Taiwan may be hesitant to cross.
3) When used for operational effects, these capabilities pose challenges for U.S.-Taiwan operations to defend Taiwanese territory and interests from PRC attacks.

To address these challenges, Congress should support crisis stability talks with the PRC and invest in open-source research of PLA plans and capabilities.

Grey zone means no risk of escalation which is the whole point of grey zone. Therefore cyber is an ideal domain to exploit. Disagree with her first point.

My research, which draws on influential documents written by Chinese military officers, indicates China could conduct “strategic” cyberattacks on another country’s critical infrastructure to coerce an adversary in a conflict. In the early 2000s, the PLA claimed these types of attacks could persuade an adversary not to push its claims any further, by paralyzing an adversary’s critical infrastructure and damaging its latent military power. These views endured into the 2010s and were reflected in influential publications like the 2013 “Science of Military Strategy.”

A cyberattack of this magnitude would probably require approval at the highest level of the PLA chain of command, the Central Military Commission. But Chinese leaders are less likely to approve such attacks today than in the past. Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that China itself would be vulnerable to cyberattacks targeting its critical infrastructure, which could lead to societal and economic chaos.

Around 2014, these concerns prompted changes to the PLA’s offensive cyberoperations, capabilities and organization. Self-restraint was part of the PLA’s solution to China’s computer-network vulnerability, calling for caution when conducting cyberattacks against countries that could retaliate in kind against China’s networks.

Some Chinese analysts now view cyberattacks on adversary critical infrastructure as unacceptable in peacetime. Officials might share that view. By endorsing the U.N. Group of Governmental Experts report in 2015, China tacitly approved of a norm against attacks on critical infrastructure contrary to international law. But U.S. officials and experts suggest Beijing has since walked back its approval.

Nonetheless, the PLA’s consolidation of cyberespionage and attack units into a new organization, the Strategic Support Force, has probably improved its ability to plan and coordinate targeted cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Unlike the United States, Russia, Israel and North Korea, China has yet to clearly demonstrate its ability to create physical or digital effects with cyberattacks, despite extensive cyberespionage efforts.

Might share that view ? How does she know. China saying they agree to international norms means squat

Unlike the United States, Russia, Israel and North Korea, China has yet to clearly demonstrate its ability to create physical or digital effects with cyberattacks, despite extensive cyberespionage efforts.

No evidence of Chinese prowess in cyber space to date. I guess we can all kick back and take a breather then. Their navy can't take Pearl Harbour too.

She makes the argument for a Chinese cyber attack on India

China’s increasing restraint on utilizing cyberattacks doesn’t mean that option was off the table, however. Chinese leaders might have hesitated to cyberattack in peacetime, but China and India were already in an armed conflict. Moreover, Chinese leaders might feel less restrained about using cyberattacks against India, compared to their main rival, the United States. Beijing might have judged India as incapable of attributing the attack to China — or lacking the capacity to retaliate in kind. And the Indian electricity grid might have appeared an attractive target for the PLA to demonstrate its cyberattack capabilities.

...and then walks it back

Chinese leaders had equally strong incentives not to attack India’s critical infrastructure. Preparations for sophisticated cyberattacks are expensive, time-consuming and fragile — a reason to use them sparingly. October 2020 was not a pivotal moment in the border conflict. And if Beijing caused the power outage and did not claim responsibility either privately or publicly, the attack might have gone unnoticed and failed to serve as a warning to India.

Heh, what ? time consuming, expensive and fragile. Kinda like China's show of force on the border eh. It was all that as well.

She then contradicts her earlier statement about cyber being escalatory by linking to a paper from Air university titled "Cyber Operations are imperfect tools for escalation".

Right ! which means cyber is good for grey zone.

The PLA might not yet have the testing capabilities they desire to anticipate and manage all of the second-order effects of a cyberattack on critical infrastructure that would reverberate beyond its original target. A cyberattack could have caused an international outcry and Indian retaliation if the Mumbai outage had deprived hospitals of power for longer than backup systems could sustain.

Kinda like how they failed to anticipate India's response at the border as well. Did not stop them initiating such action. And we know for a fact they had the green light from top leadership for that op else it would never have happened.

This next bit is priceless

Nevertheless, Chinese leaders’ incentives for restraint don’t rule out the possibility that a government-linked group or patriotic hackers might have disrupted the Mumbai electrical grid by accident or without official authorization. An attack could have slipped through despite the stricter oversight of PLA cyber operations since 2014, and non-PLA groups may be subject to different rules; at least one group linked to the Ministry of State Security reportedly still hacks for profit. And it’s also possible that China’s laws prohibiting individuals from hacking may not be enforced, especially when the target is a geopolitical rival.

She can't use the rogue PLA officer argument so let's go with the now age old tried and tested non state actor argument. Delink state from action.

By accident ? was 26/11 an accident too. lol. Because we heard all these non state actor arguments back then.

While it’s not clear exactly what happened in Mumbai on Oct. 13, the speculation that it was a Chinese cyberattack has nevertheless galvanized India’s military to better counter Chinese cyber threats in the future.

If it ain't clear then why are you giving the CCP a pass here Fiona !!!

This is precisely the kind of garbage the west was fed for decades until they had an OOPS moment !!

https://twitter.com/fiona_cunning

She's young. An Assistant professor in political science at UPenn. She knows about 'China, nukes, space, cyber, international security'. Wow!

Hmm.....

[Double Edge]

War is a very bad time to find out your things don't work.

it's possible to check if the exploits are still viable without alerting the other side. It's risky. A breach could be detected.

If viable then its known what can be done ie. disabling things without having to test them.


Thing is grey zone does not work unless the other side becomes aware.

To make them aware means losing hard won access. Use it means you lose it.

This is not like some missile test where you demonstrate capability and still retain the same ability to use it later.

If they use it then it implies they have many more to use. The other side has many vulnerabilities. That message could work.

A matter of time then.

There is an inherent conundrum here which would argue against the use of cyber for grey zone operations but my instincts tell me cyber is perfect for grey zone.