Chinese PLAAF News

[guangdongt]

Nobody covets Xijang.

India recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet in 1959, so all the huffing and puffing on Internet is worth nothing. There is no dream of conquest, my post only pointed out that China was far away from its ethnic centre.

In typical Chinese fashion, you have converted that denial of legitimacy into a rival claim for domination, and that reminder of your origins into an aggressive stand. The world is used to these infantile postures and gestures.

You contradict yourself, explain why the Kingdom of Sikkim was incorporated into India, because Sikkim is in the center of your nation. It's too fake, I can't stand hypocrisy

To be frank, I don't like you to speak up and represent the world. The world is big, and no country can represent it

 

[Joe Shearer]

You contradict yourself, explain why the Kingdom of Sikkim was incorporated into India, because Sikkim is in the center of your nation. It's too fake, I can't stand hypocrisy

What has Sikkim got to do with your being in Tibet?

Sikkim was a protectorate, under a chieftain - a Chogyal - whose American-born wife actively canvassed for American intervention in the territory. This was laughed off, and led to the downfall of the couple. The traditional power structure in Sikkim was divided between the Chogyal and the Kazi, and the Kazi always tried to calm down his over-ambitious colleague.

Before being overcome by the hypocrisy of others, do a little light homework.

 

[guangdongt]

What has Sikkim got to do with your being in Tibet?

Sikkim was a protectorate, under a chieftain - a Chogyal - whose American-born wife actively canvassed for American intervention in the territory. This was laughed off, and led to the downfall of the couple. The traditional power structure in Sikkim was divided between the Chogyal and the Kazi, and the Kazi always tried to calm down his over-ambitious colleague.

Before being overcome by the hypocrisy of others, do a little light homework.

This does not help explain the reality of India's annexation of Sikkim, nor does it prove that Sikkim is at the center of India. What else do you want to emphasize? A Sikkim kingdom cannot satisfy your India. Your true desire to control Xizang can satisfy your central argument, right? It's too false

 

[Joe Shearer]

This does not help explain the reality of India's annexation of Sikkim, nor does it prove that Sikkim is at the center of India. What else do you want to emphasize? A Sikkim kingdom cannot satisfy your India. Your true desire to control Xizang can satisfy your central argument, right? It's too false

What is the centre of India? Indian culture and ethnicity ran well into the same mountain ranges and valleys. You seem to be completely unaware of Indian history. Do a little reading first, and do yourself a favour.

Your aggressive incursion into Xijang in the late 18th century cannot be wished away by pointing to a normalisation that happened to every other of 561 Indian princely states between 1947 and 1950. Sikkim was one that was left alone, as long as it was a peaceable state with no ambitions to be on the Washington social circuit. Without Hope Cooke, there might have been no annexation.

Again, a little reading will help you. I grew up in those regions, and have been to the homes of some of those named, so your effrontery in picking up something that some bot has put out on the Internet for mass consumption is amusing.

 

[guangdongt]

I'm tired of this argument. You like to covet Xizang so much. Go, we are here. Go when you start a war against us. Like your annexation of Sikkim, first become a protectorate, and finally become a part of India, no longer responding to this ridiculous greed mentality.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm tired of this argument. You like to covet Xizang so much. Go, we are here. Go when you start a war against us. Like your annexation of Sikkim, first become a protectorate, and finally become a part of India, no longer responding to this ridiculous greed mentality.

You started it, so whether or not you are tired of it is something you have to deal with yourself.

Again, you keep fighting these fake Internet wars, when you have been reminded about India's formal recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, that has never been rescinded.

Sikkim never first became a protectorate. It was created from the fragments of territory on the periphery of Nepal, and never existed in any historical sense until the Chogyal and the Kazi were given positions of authority.

You have done nothing but repeated yourself again and again and again, and matched your ignorance of the culture, history and narrative of these little valleys and hamlets with your ignorance of the past of your Xijang, that remains Tibet to the rest of the world.

 

[Pingle]

What a joke that India concerned of China not sustaining 24x7 CAP over Tibet.

As if that will matter.
When India within 10 minutes of outright war with China that India not have any airbases or runways to fly their fighters off from

To refresh your memory
==================================================

Where will be the bases American planes be taking off from with all those ordnance?


More likely than not, the air and naval bases on Japan and Okinanwa and Guam will all be taken out in 10 minutes .
AND CRUISE MISSILES BE SEND EVERY HOUR TO TAKE OUT ASSETS NOT TAKEN OUT IN FIRST STRIKE AND TO PREVENT REPAIRS

First Strike: China's Missile Threat to U.S. Bases in Asia​

China 'has prepared for pre-emptive strike against US military bases'​

An investigation of satellite imagery compares China’s missile testing grounds and US military bases show a pattern - all of the missile tests have been aimed at destroying US carriers in East Asia.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In addition to Sun Tze Art of War, Chinese got another book to guide them by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems

Chapter 4: Mixed Warfare Stratagems (混戰計, Hùnzhàn jì)​

Remove the firewood from under the pot (釜底抽薪, Fǔ dǐ chōu xīn)​

Take out the leading argument or asset of someone; "steal someone's thunder". This is the essence of the indirect approach: instead of attacking enemy's fighting forces, direct attacks against their ability to wage war. Literally, take the fuel out of the fire.
AND WHY ALL BASES America CAN USE AND NEED TO USE WILL BE TOTALLY DESTROYED FIRST

And American carriers within the 2nd island chain be hit by multiple AShCMs and from DFs

==================================================​

Just like the air & naval bases in Japan Okinawa Guam Diego Garcia, air bases in India will be fragments of memories within 10 minutes of outright war with CHina.

Most of them can be taken out by simple Chinese Firedragons .

India need not worry or be concerned China unable to sustain 24x7 cap over Tibet.

AND NEITHER CAN INDIA BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN 24X7 CAP OVER ALL OF INDIA AS WELL

Instead of worrying over things out of control of India, India should do more worthwhile pursuits such as giving herself the ability to manufacture assault rifles and howitzers and simple bullets.
None of those nonsence game changer gimmicks India so fond of.

China will destroy all air and naval bases in Japan, Okinawa, Guam and Diego Garcia in 10 minutes???

Hmm.... My advice is take few days leave and do some meditation.... you seriously need it......

 

[HAIDER]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

24/7 CAP is not possible. Reanalyze the scenario.

 

[gambit]

Exactly if we learn anything from the Ukro-Russo war air supremacy is a myth. Both sides can't maintain air supremacy because of the effectiveness of IAD. Surface-to-air missiles are so potent these days that they use the attack plane as a platform to launch cruise missiles or glide bombs. The border between India and Tibet is also heavily guarded by Chinese radar that can see further since they are on the high ground. Building an air base close to the border is a dumb idea because they were first hit by the artillery rocket and surface-to-surface missile when the s** hit the fan. China's main air base is way set back in Xinjiang (Hotan and Golmud) and Sichuan

This is, to put it politely but bluntly, a bumdass argument.

Russia failed to gain air supremacy over Ukraine was because of incompetency. Ukraine failed to challenge Russia because of small numbers. Neither failure was because of air defense.

Air DEFENSE is reactive or -- defense. Airpower is force projection or offensive or literally taking the fight to the enemy. No air defense has ever prevented an air force. One way or another, a determined air force will prevail. The USAF Wild Weasel was and still is an example that most countries cannot emulate, and they cannot because they do not have the numbers to spare a dedicated mission like attacking air defense.

Think about it...

Air defense is about defending something. Before the Weasels, going after air defense have always been an afterthought, meaning, you go after the air defense only after you had losses enough to deter you. But with the Weasels, now you will be able to be proactive if intel and projection (guesses) indicates that you will take losses. The Weasels will at least weaken, if not eliminate, local air defense so that you can attack that 'something'. Most air forces cannot afford the Weasels.

I hope the PLAAF is filled with shortsighted people like you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is, to put it politely but bluntly, a bumdass argument.

Russia failed to gain air supremacy over Ukraine was because of incompetency. Ukraine failed to challenge Russia because of small numbers. Neither failure was because of air defense.

Air DEFENSE is reactive or -- defense. Airpower is force projection or offensive or literally taking the fight to the enemy. No air defense has ever prevented an air force. One way or another, a determined air force will prevail. The USAF Wild Weasel was and still is an example that most countries cannot emulate, and they cannot because they do not have the numbers to spare a dedicated mission like attacking air defense.

Think about it...

Air defense is about defending something. Before the Weasels, going after air defense have always been an afterthought, meaning, you go after the air defense only after you had losses enough to deter you. But with the Weasels, now you will be able to be proactive if intel and projection (guesses) indicates that you will take losses. The Weasels will at least weaken, if not eliminate, local air defense so that you can attack that 'something'. Most air forces cannot afford the Weasels.

I hope the PLAAF is filled with shortsighted people like you.

It's so good to see you back, although a little less caring of fools than ever.
Salut, chief.

 

[gambit]

Russia has numerical superiority over Ukraine in terms of airpower. Overwhelmingly enough to render Ukrainian air defense impotent. But Russia failed. Every time you launch a missile, you lost a weapon without the guarantee of doing the same to the other guy. But every time you launch an airplane, you still have good odds of retrieving that weapon to reuse it again and again. That is why the missile will never replace the airplane.

Yes, modern day air defense is deadly enough that fighting against them is just as good as fighting against another airplane. But it is still a defensive method. Relying on air defense is like France relying on the Maginot forts. Air defense cannot move as fast as an air force. If you have ten places to defend, you need 10 air defense units, whereas, a single squadron of airplanes can reassign themselves to attack each of the ten places as needed. This is called flexibility and something that air defense, as a whole, can never have. Against US, no air defense can survive for long because can we deploy numerical superiority against air defense as well as against the target that the air defense was tasked to protect.

 

[Hendarto]

This is, to put it politely but bluntly, a bumdass argument.

Russia failed to gain air supremacy over Ukraine was because of incompetency. Ukraine failed to challenge Russia because of small numbers. Neither failure was because of air defense.

Air DEFENSE is reactive or -- defense. Airpower is force projection or offensive or literally taking the fight to the enemy. No air defense has ever prevented an air force. One way or another, a determined air force will prevail. The USAF Wild Weasel was and still is an example that most countries cannot emulate, and they cannot because they do not have the numbers to spare a dedicated mission like attacking air defense.

Think about it...

Air defense is about defending something. Before the Weasels, going after air defense have always been an afterthought, meaning, you go after the air defense only after you had losses enough to deter you. But with the Weasels, now you will be able to be proactive if intel and projection (guesses) indicates that you will take losses. The Weasels will at least weaken, if not eliminate, local air defense so that you can attack that 'something'. Most air forces cannot afford the Weasels.

I hope the PLAAF is filled with shortsighted people like you.

No, It is not because Russian Air Force is incompetent that is just hubris. The nature of airwar has changed considerably and IAD proves to be a potent adversary of any air force. They denied free movement of the Air Force forcing them to use it as a standoff weapon. You're just behind the curve my friend!

Tell you theory that to the US airforce that is right now rethinking the concept of air supremacy acknowledging that they cannot maintain full air supremacy in the future war

Air Force Must Rethink How to Achieve Air Superiority, Chief Says

The Air Force must to rethink how it views the concept of air superiority in the future, Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said Feb. 28.

www.airandspaceforces.com

The conflict in Ukraine, with a mutually denied air environment due to extensive air defenses, has led to limited fixed-wing aircraft operations. The Ukrainian Air Force has been stymied by advanced Russian air defenses, often inside the Russian Federation, which Ukraine has been prohibited from hitting with Western weapons. The war in Ukraine has also seen the proliferation of small drones and electronic warfare. That has led to much debate about the future of airpower.
But Allvin’s takeaways on air superiority are not just informed by the conflict in Ukraine. He said he is also considering the Air Force’s concepts for operating in the Pacific in the future, in which it will have to function in a dispersed way, at least on the ground.

“If we’re going to operate in that contested environment, we need to be able to move in a theater to be able to disaggregate for survival but aggregate for the greatest combat effect,” Allvin said. “That’s a different way of war fight.”

In the past, the U.S. military has operated with air superiority as a given. Military campaigns such as Operation Desert Storm were predicated on eliminating enemy air defenses before troops got into combat. In the counterinsurgency fights in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force operated in the skies uncontested.

 

[Hendarto]

Nobody covets Xijang.

India recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet in 1959, so all the huffing and puffing on Internet is worth nothing. There is no dream of conquest, my post only pointed out that China was far away from its ethnic centre.

In typical Chinese fashion, you have converted that denial of legitimacy into a rival claim for domination, and that reminder of your origins into an aggressive stand. The world is used to these infantile postures and gestures.

What when is a nation defined by ethnicity? Even using your prism Chinese and Tibetan share the same ancestry If you look in the Tibetan DNA it is very close to Chinese The language belongs to the same group of languages. Historically, culturally Tibet is very close to Chinese civilization. I fact they are only separated about 2500 years BC. New archeological research proves that they come from Qiang which share the same DNA as the Chinese and their origin homeland is the Yellow river

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2212006119

Sino-Tibetan is the second largest language family in the world, spoken by more than 1.3 billion people, predominately in China. It originated in the Yellow River region around 8,000 y ago and expanded to the Tibetan Plateau by 6,000–5,000 y ago during the Neolithic Yangshao culture. This study presents the archaeological investigation into the lifeways of Proto Sino-Tibetan speakers, who migrated from the Yellow River to the NW Sichuan highlands. They may have integrated with indigenous hunter-gatherers and adopted broad-spectrum subsistence strategies, consisting of millet farming and local wild resource foraging. They retained important ritual traditions, particularly the alcoholic fermentation method and communal ritual drinking associated with dancing performances, which likely helped maintain their cultural identity and social value


Tibetan people are an East Asian ethnic group native to Tibet. Their current population is estimated to be around 6.7 million. While the majority live in the Tibet Autonomous Region of China, significant numbers of Tibetans also reside in the Chinese provinces of Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan, as well as in India, Nepal, and Bhutan1. Let’s explore their relationship:

1. Language and Origins:
   • The Tibetic languages spoken by Tibetans belong to the Tibeto-Burman language group. Interestingly, this language group also includes Chinese.
   • Scholars believe that Tibetans are descendants of the ancient Qiang people, who are also ancestors of many southwestern Chinese ethnic groups.
   • Around five to six thousand years ago, Tibetans diverged from the Qiang and migrated south to the Himalayas2.
2. Shared Origin:
   • Mandarin, Cantonese, Tibetan, and about 400 other languages all belong to a group called Sino-Tibetan languages due to their shared origin3.
   • The Sino-Tibetan language family includes early literary languages such as Chinese and Tibetan, as well as more than 400 modern languages spoken in China, India, Burma, and Nepal4.
3. Culture and Religion:
   • Most Tibetans practice Tibetan Buddhism, although a significant minority observe the indigenous Bon religion.
   • Tibetan Buddhism has influenced Tibetan art, drama, and architecture, while the challenging geography of Tibet has shaped an adaptive culture of Tibetan medicine and cuisine1.

In summary, while Tibetans and Chinese share linguistic and cultural connections, they also maintain distinct identities shaped by their unique histories and geographical contexts.

 

[gambit]

No, It is not because Russian Air Force is incompetent that is just hubris. The nature of airwar has changed considerably and IAD proves to be a potent adversary of any air force. They denied free movement of the Air Force forcing them to use it as a standoff weapon. You're just behind the curve my friend!

More bumbdass arguments. This is, in journalist language, is a 'filler' statement: The nature of airwar has changed considerably and IAD proves to be a potent adversary of any air force.

What kind of warfare has remained static, hmmm? I can say the same thing about the parachute because now we can save the pilot instead of losing him. That changed the nature of air warfare considerably. I can say the same thing about the torpedo because it changed the nature of sea warfare considerably. I can say the same thing about the grenade because it changed the nature of ground combat considerably.

In journalism, a 'filler' statement is one that the writer revealed nothing about the topic at hand but felt the need to say something.

How many air forces have the equivalent of the USAF Wild Weasels who specifically go after air defense? That is a serious question.

 

[Hendarto]

More bumbdass arguments. This is, in journalist language, is a 'filler' statement: The nature of airwar has changed considerably and IAD proves to be a potent adversary of any air force.

What kind of warfare has remained static, hmmm? I can say the same thing about the parachute because now we can save the pilot instead of losing him. That changed the nature of air warfare considerably. I can say the same thing about the torpedo because it changed the nature of sea warfare considerably. I can say the same thing about the grenade because it changed the nature of ground combat considerably.

In journalism, a 'filler' statement is one that the writer revealed nothing about the topic at hand but felt the need to say something.

How many air forces have the equivalent of the USAF Wild Weasels who specifically go after air defense? That is a serious question.

Now your airforce commander concedes that in the future they cannot maintain air superiority and you nobody tries to dispute that by name-calling since you cannot argue intelligently Yes You are fake you don't know anything about air war strategy Try to counter my argument other than name calling and mouthing hubris! The war in Ukraine proves once and for all that question the concept of air superiority I guess You need to wake up from your delirium of air supremacy!

You still live in the Iraq war Yes in those wars US air force maintained air superiority because Iraq's air force is negligible and outdated as well as poorly trained and equipped But against peer foes like Russia or China the air superiority comes to naught!

The conflict in Ukraine, with a mutually denied air environment due to extensive air defenses, has led to limited fixed-wing aircraft operations. The Ukrainian Air Force has been stymied by advanced Russian air defenses, often inside the Russian Federation, which Ukraine has been prohibited from hitting with Western weapons. The war in Ukraine has also seen the proliferation of small drones and electronic warfare. That has led to much debate about the future of airpower.