Countering Chinese might - Indian way

[MULUBJA]

China with their hyper nationalism adopted the way of beg, borrow and steal strategy to rise in the field of science and technology. They were very successful also but their success did not go well with international community as whole world see china as imperial power and an unwanted rise of a nation not god for world order and peace. There are two major emerging powers in the world today. India and china. China with their dictatorial regime collected huge amount of fund and they thought that they can not only surpass india but US also by spending heavily in strategic areas and soon world shall start recognizing them as the competitor of US and subsequently the sole super power of the world. However, Democratic india has her own way to take on china.

Now tomorrow Vijay bhatkar gave a lecture in which he once again mentioned of this 138+ exaflpo super super computer of India. One Indian guy explained how it was made possible by designing different architect of flexible buses rather than fixed buses. This is the frugal India way of innovation. Many things appear to be impossible may be made possible with innovation. India is exactly doing this. When I read this,, many such frugal innovations struck my mind which I want to discuss here in brief.


When whole world was contemplating mars mission just not for exploring Mars but also to project their power, ability and excellence in space science and technology. Many nations tried and got mixed result of success and failure.. They used costly heavy rockets. China used Russian rocket to their mars mission and failed. India too tried but India had a modest rocket of just 1.5 ton capacity. India conceived a unique frugal mission to mars using gravity of earth and reached Mars in its first attempt. Mission which a planned life of 6 months is now been extended for indefinite period.

China started building heavy rockets to establish their superiority in space. India worked on minimizing the launch cost and currently it is just half of any other agency worldwide. As china worked on increased capacity of vehicles, India focused on reusability of their space vehicle. India is working on one stage vehicle for launch and scramjet technology so that cost of launching may be bought down to just 10% of current cost. India also carried multiple orbit launch in one mission and 20 satellites launch in one mission. Now they target 83 satellites launch in one mission. India is working on reusable space shuttle to minimize the cost. ISRO with its tiny budget compared to Chinese space agency or NASA is placed in a very respectable position now. It is because of frugal engineering and innovations of Indians. India beat china with Innovation.

In the area of defense, while china was focusing on the increasing the range of her missiles, India focused on low weight and accuracy. The focus of India was such that they should be able to target enemy positions with conventional warheads. This requires a phenomenal accuracy. Today Indian long range missiles are such accurate that they can be used to target enemy position with single digit accuracy. Indian K4 missile is said to have almost zero error. When china’s SLBM JL2 is said to have 7700 KM range with 700 KG pay load, India’s K4 deliver 2 tons at 4000 KM with almost Zero error. This gave India a power to demolish enemy infrastructure with conventional warhead without using a nuclear bomb. This is a big strategic advantage.

Similarly, India worked on Brhmos missile to make them highly accurate and made them to dive steeply on the target. This made them deadliest of missile which can identify and target enemy position in hidden area behind mountains. This is an Indian innovation which made it possible to use the missile in non-traditional areas where the missiles cannot be use. This also made it deadliest of anti-ship missile virtually impossible to intercept with any present missile defense system existing in the world. When India declared that they will position this on India china border in Arunachala Pradesh, China rightly got annoyed and said that it is more than the security needs of India.

To protect the ships, India took same approach. India with Israel made MR SAM missile. This missile protect indian ships from Hundred KM to half of a KM. China on its Type 52D uses multi layer defense system of long range, medium range missiles but still they are unable to offer the protection which MRSAM provides. All Chinese systems put to gather are not as effective against sea skimming missile as single MRSAM. This is the power of Indian innovation and frugal engineering. .

In nuclear energy when whole world was focusing on making high speed centrifuge to purify uranium to weapon grade or reactor grade, India focused on research of game changing fast breeder technology where the high purity of fuel is not required. You can use relatively less pure fuel and still can achieve a very high burn ratio. The beauty of this technology is that it may generate more fuel than it consume. . Today india can transform her huge thorium reserve into fuel with this technology. India also designed a highly safe passive safety system for her nuclear power plant which will work automatically in the condition of accident to curtail damage. India made maintenance of Rajasthan atomic power station with same frugal engineering by making bamboo semi-automatic robots and made the plant operational once again at a fraction of cost (Less than 5%) which Canada had offered to do maintenance. Today that plant is generating electricity at a cost less than a rupee per unit.

China not only has her hegemonic design in strategic area but also social and political area. India and only india is capable of countering china all these areas. I will discuss about countering china in other areas on some other day.

 

[MULUBJA]

One more such example is Indian LCH. India could keep weight very low. It has a more powerful engine than double weight chinese chopper Z 10. This gives india a great flexibility to operate the chopper at a great height in Himalayas. Chinese chopper can not be used at that height.

 

[AlyxMS]

India did have some great achievements but this article contains metric tonnes of bullshit.

Yinghuo-1 vs MOM and
"India conceived a unique frugal mission to mars using gravity of earth"
China's space exploration has long been focused on the moon with the Chang'e series probes/lander/rover.
The failed "Yinghuo-1" is merely a 100+kg satellite that rode on the Russian "Fobos-Grunt" probe. And the Russian probe failed, taking "Yinghuo-1" with it. The Chinese probe and the Russian rocket didn't fail.
Also, all Earth-Mars transfer uses the gravity of earth. Unless MOM had a orbit profile that escapes Earth and passes it at a second time for a gravity assist(Which it didn't), there's no reason to say "using gravity of earth.

JL-2 vs K4
These two SLBMs aren't even at the same class.
The article itself even acknowledged the massive difference in range, what's the point of comparing?
Also, K4 is still in development, and JL-2 was in development back in 1990s. Once again, what's the point of comparing. Also, what exactly is "near zero"?

052D's missile defence vs MRSAM
Comparing multiple systems from a destroyer with one single missile system, is this a joke?
Also, not a single piece of evidence was offered.
There wasn't even an argument, all it said was "the Chinese system is not as good as ours because I said it isn't. So we win."

Keep doing what you are doing, brag about it if you want. But putting out crappy articles like this is just a waste of everybody's time.

I feel like the writer doesn't even know anything about military, he/she just read about some new equipment in the news, compiled and rephrased them, put the word "frugal" everywhere and here it goes.

 

[MULUBJA]

India did have some great achievements but this article contains metric tonnes of bullshit.

Yinghuo-1 vs MOM and
"India conceived a unique frugal mission to mars using gravity of earth"
China's space exploration has long been focused on the moon with the Chang'e series probes/lander/rover.
The failed "Yinghuo-1" is merely a 100+kg satellite that rode on the Russian "Fobos-Grunt" probe. And the Russian probe failed, taking "Yinghuo-1" with it. The Chinese probe and the Russian rocket didn't fail.
Also, all Earth-Mars transfer uses the gravity of earth. Unless MOM had a orbit profile that escapes Earth and passes it at a second time for a gravity assist(Which it didn't), there's no reason to say "using gravity of earth.

No what article claims is 100% truth. You failed on your mission. It was not russin rocket. your satellite fell down after 2 days of launch. and whether your satellite was of 100 kg or 1000 kg do not metter. No body attempt any mission to fail.

JL-2 vs K4
These two SLBMs aren't even at the same class.
The article itself even acknowledged the massive difference in range, what's the point of comparing?
Also, K4 is still in development, and JL-2 was in development back in 1990s. Once again, what's the point of comparing. Also, what exactly is "near zero"?

.

Yes there is a difference in range but with what pay load? K 4 carries 2 ton and JL 2 range is with 700 KG. Now if you check the payload vs range graph, you will get an idea of how range increases with reduction in pay load and vis a versa.
However, this is not a main point in the argument. The main point in the argument is that India focused on accuracy and today Indian missile are so accurate that they can use them in conventional role at a long range. Article never tried to compare the range. It only said that India focused with different criterion in mind and achieve that.

052D's missile defence vs MRSAM
Comparing multiple systems from a destroyer with one single missile system, is this a joke?
Also, not a single piece of evidence was offered.
There wasn't even an argument, all it said was "the Chinese system is not as good as ours because I said it isn't. So we win."

.

Isn't china use 2 version of HQ series for air defense (Mainly against aircraft) ? and possible one short range missile defense system along with rapid fire gun?

The crux of article is same. It argues that MRSAM is such a potent missile that it gives an allround protection ranging from aircraft to sea skiming missile from 100 KM to 0.5 KM. Hq series can not do that and that is why it requires multi layer protection and still not effective against sea skiming missile. isn't it true? Counter the argument in article with fact if any you have.

Keep doing what you are doing, brag about it if you want. But putting out crappy articles like this is just a waste of everybody's time.

I feel like the writer doesn't even know anything about military, he/she just read about some new equipment in the news, compiled and rephrased them, put the word "frugal" everywhere and here it goes.

And what is this nonsense. If any article is posted here stating anything good about India offends you guys. This is a nice artcle. I have posted that here for discussion. since it praises India for some smart engineering, you immediately gets offended. After all why are we here? to discuss various topics whether content may be of our like or dislike. You are proving that you are unfit for any discussion here

 

[AlyxMS]

Oh, the mighty OP have deemed me "unfit for any discussion here". Alright, but I would still like a chance to offer counter arguements.

"You failed on your mission. It was not russin rocket. your satellite fell down after 2 days of launch"
I never denied the failure of the mission. And I said the Russian rocket did not fail. But the Russian probe did. The Chinese probe was attached on the Russian probe, it failed and took the Chinese probe with it, is it clear now?
I was pointing out "Chinese used russian rocket and failed" was misleading because you were arguing heavy rocket is not the way to go. But with such a light probe of 100kg, the issue unrelated to the rocket. Also I was trying to explain the "using earth's gravity" part was nothing "frugal".

"you will get an idea of how range increases with reduction in pay load"
Which is irrelevant when the two missiles aren't even at the same class. JL-2 weights 42 tonnes and K4 weights 17. It's like comparing B747 with A320.
If all you wanted to say is K4 is very accurate, why bring JL-2 up? Just because they are both SLBMs? Even DF-21 is closer to K4 than JL-2.

"Counter the argument in article with fact if any you have."
Which is something I'm not going to do when the article have offered none.
All it did is claim one single missile is more effect against sea skimming missile than all of 052D's systems while offering no source, evidence, or argument.
What makes it more effective.
How is 052D not effective.

"If any article is posted here stating anything good about India offends you guys"
"You immediately get offended"
Elaborate on that please.
I don't even know I am offended, thank you for feeling offended for me.
I am merely here to point out how misleading and pointless this article is.

 

[MULUBJA]

Oh, the mighty OP have deemed me "unfit for any discussion here". Alright, but I would still like a chance to offer counter arguements.

"You failed on your mission. It was not russin rocket. your satellite fell down after 2 days of launch"
I never denied the failure of the mission. And I said the Russian rocket did not fail. But the Russian probe did. The Chinese probe was attached on the Russian probe, it failed and took the Chinese probe with it, is it clear now?
I was pointing out "Chinese used russian rocket and failed" was misleading because you were arguing heavy rocket is not the way to go. But with such a light probe of 100kg, the issue unrelated to the rocket. Also I was trying to explain the "using earth's gravity" part was nothing "frugal".

"you will get an idea of how range increases with reduction in pay load"
Which is irrelevant when the two missiles aren't even at the same class. JL-2 weights 42 tonnes and K4 weights 17. It's like comparing B747 with A320.
If all you wanted to say is K4 is very accurate, why bring JL-2 up? Just because they are both SLBMs? Even DF-21 is closer to K4 than JL-2.

"Counter the argument in article with fact if any you have."
Which is something I'm not going to do when the article have offered none.
All it did is claim one single missile is more effect against sea skimming missile than all of 052D's systems while offering no source, evidence, or argument.
What makes it more effective.
How is 052D not effective.

"If any article is posted here stating anything good about India offends you guys"
"You immediately get offended"
Elaborate on that please.
I don't even know I am offended, thank you for feeling offended for me.
I am merely here to point out how misleading and pointless this article is.

When spececraft fell down why are you blaming others.?

See this is an article and not argument. You can not claim that no reference is provided. I told you that type 52 d uses multilayer airdefense system and I chellenge you to counter what I have said . What is written in article is fully true. Now if you do not agree, counter that with facts. Airdefense system of type 52 d is not effective against the sea skimming missiles. This is a known fact. While LRSAM/BARAk 8 is without doubt the most potent airdefense system and single system provides full cover against all sort of threats at all ranges.

So whatever article have written is fully correct. Just do not oppose just because it praises india.

 

[IblinI]

Your so called article is truly a master piece.

 

[MULUBJA]

Your so called article is truly a master piece.

Counter it with facts. Why are you trolling here. Article has systematically argued and proved each and every point.

 

[IblinI]

Airdefense system of type 52 d is not effective against the sea skimming missiles.

Hello,there is a video link upstairs, stop dreaming,and obviously your title is wrong,it shouldn't be "counter China" but "defeat China".

 

[MULUBJA]

Hello,there is a video link upstairs, stop dreaming,and obviously your title is wrong,it shouldn't be "counter China" but "defeat China".

I am uanble to see video. Is the video tailor made to counter this article? What nonsense is this. If you have anything to argue than argue or quite. Do not troll here. Where did i or article talked of defeating china?

 

[IblinI]

 

[AlyxMS]

So whatever article have written is fully correct. Just do not oppose just because it praises india.

If I oppose it because it praises india I wouldn't waste this much time and effort to write these replies. Something like "LOLZ Indian Media ROFL" would be more like it.

"When spececraft fell down why are you blaming others.?"

I can't believe you still have no idea of what I was talking about.
Let me put it this way.
You asked your friend to drive you to the store.
Your friend hits a wall and wrecks his car, injuring both of you.
Should you blame yourself for being injured?

"See this is an article and not argument."
Article or argument, both are fundamentally just words, why shoud I blindly believe it just because it's an article?

"You can not claim that no reference is provided."
When in fact no reference is provided.

"I told you that type 52 d uses multilayer airdefense system and I chellenge you to counter what I have said."
I can tell you north korea beats USA. And you shouldn't need to counter me because I have not provided any arguments or sources.

"What is written in article is fully true."
I don't believe anything with blind faith.

"Now if you do not agree, counter that with facts."
The fact that all Aegis destroyers are using multi-layer air defense instead of a single weapon.
The fact that India is not planning on installing Barak 8 and nothing else for air defense on their ships.
The fact that Barak 8 had no special features that doesn't exist on other missiles to make it more effective against sea skimming missiles than anything else.
Scenario: a ship is being targeted by a YJ-12.
If the ship had Barak 8, it can fire a salvo of 8 and pray the range and speed is ideal and the interception is successful.
If the ship is an Aegis destroyer, medium range missile can be launched to attempt to intercept. If it fails, short range missiles can be launched. If the missile is still a threat, CIWS would try to shoot it down. If all else fails, chaff dispensers might set the missile off course. And remember, medium ranged missiles are designed to intercept at medium range, short range missiles are designed to intercept at short range... The missile is always in a ideal range for the defense system to intercept.
If all you had is Barak 8, when the missiles haven't reached it's ideal range or when it has passed it. Your chances of success would be lower.

"Airdefense system of type 52 d is not effective against the sea skimming missiles."
It is designed for various kinds of threat including sea skimming missiles, tell me why it is not effective.

"This is a known fact."
Any one can claim anything as a known fact.
That does not make it a fact.

"While LRSAM/BARAk 8 is without doubt the most potent airdefense system and single system provides full cover against all sort of threats at all ranges."
I don't know where did you get your confidence to say "without doubt the most potent" while having nothing to back it up.
All weapons have an ideal range.
And it's effectiveness reduces as the difference between the ideal range and actual range increases.

 

[MULUBJA]

Why are yu posting videos which I can not see. post whatever you wnat so that i can read and reply.

 

[beijingwalker]

A country with GDP only a fraction of China's claiming defeating China, can anything be more hilarious than that? You are just not in the same league.

Military buildup is all about Money. China's economy will be on par with US in a decade and military might will naturally come with it.

 

[MULUBJA]

If I oppose it because it praises india I wouldn't waste this much time and effort to write these replies. Something like "LOLZ Indian Media ROFL" would be more like it.

"When spececraft fell down why are you blaming others.?"

I can't believe you still have no idea of what I was talking about.
Let me put it this way.
You asked your friend to drive you to the store.
Your friend hits a wall and wrecks his car, injuring both of you.
Should you blame yourself for being injured?

"See this is an article and not argument."
Article or argument, both are fundamentally just words, why shoud I blindly believe it just because it's an article?

"You can not claim that no reference is provided."
When in fact no reference is provided.

"I told you that type 52 d uses multilayer airdefense system and I chellenge you to counter what I have said."
I can tell you north korea beats USA. And you shouldn't need to counter me because I have not provided any arguments or sources.

"What is written in article is fully true."
I don't believe anything with blind faith.

"Now if you do not agree, counter that with facts."
The fact that all Aegis destroyers are using multi-layer air defense instead of a single weapon.
The fact that India is not planning on installing Barak 8 and nothing else for air defense on their ships.
The fact that Barak 8 had no special features that doesn't exist on other missiles to make it more effective against sea skimming missiles than anything else.
Scenario: a ship is being targeted by a YJ-12.
If the ship had Barak 8, it can fire a salvo of 8 and pray the range and speed is ideal and the interception is successful.
If the ship is an Aegis destroyer, medium range missile can be launched to attempt to intercept. If it fails, short range missiles can be launched. If the missile is still a threat, CIWS would try to shoot it down. If all else fails, chaff dispensers might set the missile off course. And remember, medium ranged missiles are designed to intercept at medium range, short range missiles are designed to intercept at short range... The missile is always in a ideal range for the defense system to intercept.
If all you had is Barak 8, when the missiles haven't reached it's ideal range or when it has passed it. Your chances of success would be lower.

"Airdefense system of type 52 d is not effective against the sea skimming missiles."
It is designed for various kinds of threat including sea skimming missiles, tell me why it is not effective.

"This is a known fact."
Any one can claim anything as a known fact.
That does not make it a fact.

"While LRSAM/BARAk 8 is without doubt the most potent airdefense system and single system provides full cover against all sort of threats at all ranges."
I don't know where did you get your confidence to say "without doubt the most potent" while having nothing to back it up.
All weapons have an ideal range.
And it's effectiveness reduces as the difference between the ideal range and actual range increases.

Taht is fine now. Since you said that MRSAM/Barak 8 has no special feature and india is not planning Barak 8 on her ships.

Let me tell you that all our ships are equiped with barak 8 and what is barak 8 and its capability? Read it here.

read it here.

https://defence.pk/threads/how-to-defend-brahmos-american-analysis.354356/

You are talking of intercepting missile with multilayer air defense but your HQ are only good ahgainst areial target like plane and can not intercept sea skimming missile amn intercepting anything like Brahmos is totally out of question. Type 52 radars are not like Kolkatta class which can track anything and guide missile on target. HQ can not lock on target like MRSAM and destroy it. HQ series only has modest capability against planes and not good enough for sea skimming missiles.

A country with GDP only a fraction of China's claiming defeating China, can anything be more hilarious than that? You are just not in the same league.

Military buildup is all about Money. China's economy will be on par with US in a decade and military might will naturally come with it.

Who is talking of defeating china? where in article is it clamed that India will defeat china. However, with 1/3 rd of defense budget and a very tiny space budget, we have scorred on you in many areas be it defense or space or nuclear energy as stated in article.