China vs India War: Who Wins? (No Nukes)

[Serb]

Damn, I lost all the text I posted in my post above.

[Serb]

In short, between 1992 and 2004 India bought about 60 Russian jets of three types: Mig-29, Su-30MKI and Su-30K (I guess most of them were Migs). They also ugraded their existed Mig-21 (125 planes) and bought license for manufacture of 140 Su-30MKI in India.

China, on the other hand spent 13bln USD to purchase Russian arms (and 95% of China arms import comes from Russia) only within last five years. What they bought between 2001-2005 you can see on the picture above (see previous page) or you can download/open this Pentagon's "ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2006" (it's highly recommended to read it anyway) and open it on page 21)

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China%20Report%202006.pdf

Before 2001 China bought a license for manufacture of up to 200 Su-27SK and purchased 28 Su-27UB (UB stands for "training-fighting" aircraft, so I believe China had/has better oppurtunity to train their pilots for piloting of Su family jets).

[Sikander]

Thanks Serb and Drake for the extra info. I knew that India had a head start on the aircraft modernization process, but it looks like China is finally taking steps into the modern era as well. China's greater GNP and manufacturing base seems an advantage in a long war, but India does actually manufacture modern aircraft (under license) which might be a boon.

[Serb]

Sikander,

I think China, despite many others, has a very important advantage over India - it's their experience and capability in design/manufacture of their own modern fighters (equipped by Russian engines, of course), like the already mentioned J-10 (somebody previously posted its its picture already) and their new JF-17. Besides, you can always check the Pentagon's report for the amount of engines they've ordered for their home-made aircrafts). China already produces its modern jets, while India still testing/experimenting with their LCA design.
Currently the most modern planes in both airforces are versions of Russian Su-30 (and I seriously doubt, to be honest, I'll never believe in that, that their home-made designs will be superior to Russian designs of Su-30. Afterall both are export variants, but we are the side which created Su-30, none else has such experience, and if you like, such uderstanding of the concept. I seriously doubt anyone would sell the best variant of the basis model to anyone, while not having a better version for themselves. (Not to mention that we have a far, far superior designs than Su-30)).

So, China has Su-30MKK version of Su-30, while India has Su-30MKI.
Those abreviations, actually tells enough about the purpose of these versions: MKI in Russian stands for "Modernizirovanny Kommerchesky India" = "Upgraded Commercial India", while "MKK" stands for "Modermizirovanny Kommerchesky Kitai" = "Upgraded Commercial China".
Though, India was alwas more demanding in terms of avionics, so their version incorporates, iirc, avionics created by joint effort of Russia, France, Israel and India itself.

As for a long-term conflict between these two states, I would bet my money on China, no doubt. Simply because they have a larger population, greater economy/more money/greater industrial base to supply a much greater army than their foe. In terms of experience with large-scale, I mean large, an army and front-scale operations - both of the sides completely suck and their experience there equals to zero. But I think China has better morale of their troops. And they also have more or less (at least better than their supposed enemy) experience with mass production of modern jets (and perhaps other modern weaponry), since they produces Russian Su-27 under license, and has started (I think they did, but I'm not really sure)/ has very ambitious plans for mass production of their JF-17 (joint China and Pakistan effort), while so far everything what India ever put in mass production (and it was under license of course) was a Soviet Mig-21, which is well, let's be honest, became an obsolete a long time ago. Sure they've signed a contract for license manufacturing of Su-30MKI in India, but I have no idea how much they succeded there within the passed year+something (I think , success in such enterprise demands quite a time. Afterall it's absolutely new thing for them to produce, and it can't be done within months, it demands a solid base to begin a mass production). China has much more experience in production of Russian licensed jets, than India, for sure, since they've started to do so much earlier.

Overall, both sides are heavily dependent of RUSSIAN military technology. And the side who actually could do the most intervention in such unbelievable scenario as long-term non-nuclear war between China and India, won't be the Commonwealth as one here suggested, but surprise, surprise - the Russian Federation.


p.s. I'll tell you a big secret, as designers and manufacturers of that armaments we ahve a knowledge of how to painlessly, immmidiently and permanently disable any plane we ever sold to anyone (including the planes we sold to these two countries). So, basicly this scenario is just a BS.

edited: I used painfully instead of painlessly

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Democracy has been around for 2500 years. I would not make the mistake of thinking we have come to a final definition of the term. More importantly, I think it a mistake to mix the notion of liberal values and democracy, just as the mistake has been made of mixing state and nation. Both are terrible mistakes, and we see that mistake in aciton in Iraq- because people forgot what democracy IS, and thought that invariably elections lead to liberal values.

I like sticking to the original meaning of terms. I think if makes for clarity, dropping aside the layers of mea ing added to something by partisans of one side or another.

Terms change in meaning over time. They especially change in meaning when they pass from one language (Greek) to another (modern European languages). We moderns have been using the term "democracy" in its modern sense for at least 170 years. Its fine if you want to you use it as it was used in 5thc BCE Athens, but since youre writing in English, not Greek, and in the 21st century, you are using an "odd" definition, and risk being misunderstood. And I am quite sure the english language will continue to change in the future, but thats neither here nor there. As for the distinction between liberalism and democracy, that has been made by people who DO use the modern definition of democracy (again, by Fareed Zakaria)

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Serb
Sikander,

I think China, despite many others, has a very important advantage over India - it's their experience and capability in design/manufacture of their own modern fighters (equipped by Russian engines, of course), like the already mentioned J-10 (somebody previously posted its its picture already) and their new JF-17. Besides, you can always check the Pentagon's report for the amount of engines they've ordered for their home-made aircrafts). China already produces its modern jets, while India still testing/experimenting with their LCA design.
Currently the most modern planes in both airforces are versions of Russian Su-30 (and I seriously doubt, to be honest, I'll never believe in that, that their home-made designs will be superior to Russian designs of Su-30. Afterall both are export variants, but we are the side which created Su-30, none else has such experience, and if you like, such uderstanding of the concept. I seriously doubt anyone would sell the best variant of the basis model to anyone, while not having a better version for themselves. (Not to mention that we have a far, far superior designs than Su-30)).

So, China has Su-30MKK version of Su-30, while India has Su-30MKI.
Those abreviations, actually tells enough about the purpose of these versions: MKI in Russian stands for "Modernizirovanny Kommerchesky India" = "Upgraded Commercial India", while "MKK" stands for "Modermizirovanny Kommerchesky Kitai" = "Upgraded Commercial China".
Though, India was alwas more demanding in terms of avionics, so their version incorporates, iirc, avionics created by joint effort of Russia, France, Israel and India itself.

As for a long-term conflict between these two states, I would bet my money on China, no doubt. Simply because they have a larger population, greater economy/more money/greater industrial base to supply a much greater army than their foe. In terms of experience with large-scale, I mean large, an army and front-scale operations - both of the sides completely suck and their experience there equals to zero. But I think China has better morale of their troops. And they also have more or less (at least better than their supposed enemy) experience with mass production of modern jets (and perhaps other modern weaponry), since they produces Russian Su-27 under license, and has started (I think they did, but I'm not really sure)/ has very ambitious plans for mass production of their JF-17 (joint China and Pakistan effort), while so far everything what India ever put in mass production (and it was under license of course) was a Soviet Mig-21, which is well, let's be honest, became an obsolete a long time ago. Sure they've signed a contract for license manufacturing of Su-30MKI in India, but I have no idea how much they succeded there within the passed year+something (I think , success in such enterprise demands quite a time. Afterall it's absolutely new thing for them to produce, and it can't be done within months, it demands a solid base to begin a mass production). China has much more experience in production of Russian licensed jets, than India, for sure, since they've started to do so much earlier.

Overall, both sides are heavily dependent of RUSSIAN military technology. And the side who actually could do the most intervention in such unbelievable scenario as long-term non-nuclear war between China and India, won't be the Commonwealth as one here suggested, but surprise, surprise - the Russian Federation.


p.s. I'll tell you a big secret, as designers and manufacturers of that armaments we ahve a knowledge of how to painlessly, immmidiently and permanently disable any plane we ever sold to anyone (including the planes we sold to these two countries). So, basicly this scenario is just a BS.

edited: I used painfully insed of painlessly

All that Russian technology. Do you really think it is possible for both sides to lose?

[Serb]

Since your Great (no irony here) country has no army, you won't understand the basics of warfare, anyway, so I won't bother ot reply.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Terms change in meaning over time. They especially change in meaning when they pass from one language (Greek) to another (modern European languages). We moderns have been using the term "democracy" in its modern sense for at least 170 years.

How is that remotely true? Back in 1840 few if any thinkers were advocating complete suffrage anywhere. IN fact, I would say that modern liberal values were starting back then. To say the "modern meaning" you attach to the term today is 170 years old is wrong.

Its fine if you want to you use it as it was used in 5thc BCE Athens, but since youre writing in English, not Greek, and in the 21st century, you are using an "odd" definition, and risk being misunderstood. And I am quite sure the english language will continue to change in the future, but thats neither here nor there. As for the distinction between liberalism and democracy, that has been made by people who DO use the modern definition of democracy (again, by Fareed Zakaria)

Democracy means the rule of the people, IN english as in Greek. Look at a damned dictionary if you need the English definition.

The gay marriage debate shows the incongruity of the meanings you are trying to force into democracy, because the people can chose to deny equal rights to others, their choice being a democratic one. Is this action democratic because it is a mayority ruling? Or anti-democratic because it undermines equal rights and treatement for all?

But enough of moving form the OP now that it has moved back to the point.

[Drake Tungsten]

Though, India was alwas more demanding in terms of avionics, so their version incorporates, iirc, avionics created by joint effort of Russia, France, Israel and India itself.

Advantage, India.

[Kuciwalker]

Depends on how much the French were involved.

[Drake Tungsten]

True, true.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Serb
p.s. I'll tell you a big secret, as designers and manufacturers of that armaments we ahve a knowledge of how to painlessly, immmidiently and permanently disable any plane we ever sold to anyone

Hmmm... it would be very stupid of them to spend billions of dollars on technology which can be remotely disabled from Russia.

But it would hurt Russia's exports even more if something like that was found out. So I doubt you can do it (disable the planes remotely)

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Serb

p.s. I'll tell you a big secret, as designers and manufacturers of that armaments we ahve a knowledge of how to painlessly, immmidiently and permanently disable any plane we ever sold to anyone (including the planes we sold to these two countries). So, basicly this scenario is just a BS.

I thought all Russian export (monkey) weapons came pre-disabled from the factory.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Serb
p.s. I'll tell you a big secret, as designers and manufacturers of that armaments we ahve a knowledge of how to painlessly, immmidiently and permanently disable any plane we ever sold to anyone (including the planes we sold to these two countries). So, basicly this scenario is just a BS.

If that's such a big secret, then why are you telling this on a public forum, in front of a potential audience of one billion people (I bet not even China has censored this site yet)? Aren't you afraid the KGB is going to persecute you?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


"How is that remotely true? Back in 1840 few if any thinkers were advocating complete suffrage anywhere. IN fact, I would say that modern liberal values were starting back then. To say the "modern meaning" you attach to the term today is 170 years old is wrong. "


democracy in 1840 meant manhood suffrage. It was advocated by Chartists in the UK, by a wide range of radicals in France, and a smaller ranger in central europe. and, with the racial exception, it was in fact the law in most of the US (and abolitionists were already aiming at the racial exception).







"Democracy means the rule of the people, IN english as in Greek. Look at a damned dictionary if you need the English definition. "

Yup. Which begs the question of whats meant by "the people". Why is, say, 25% of the population of Athens a democracy, but 1% of the population of Athens an aristocracy? Aristotle came up with a RATIONALE for the distinction, and thus justified the Athenian use of the term. By 1840 that usage was obsolete - no one in 1840 would have considered a suffrage that was restricted to 25% or less of the adult male population democratic.



"The gay marriage debate shows the incongruity of the meanings you are trying to force into democracy, because the people can chose to deny equal rights to others, their choice being a democratic one. Is this action democratic because it is a mayority ruling? Or anti-democratic because it undermines equal rights and treatement for all? "

Democracy can be self contradictory - one can use ones EQUAL right to vote to deny others equality. So? The same contradicitons inhere in "liberalism" one can use ones freedom of speech and assembly, to deny others their liberal rights. The presence of contradictions in actual political life does not alter the fact that that is the way the language is actually used.



But enough of moving form the OP now that it has moved back to the point.