The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
The Japanese tried to use Rabaul and Truk as bases too....but we see how that worked out for them in the pre-Nuke world.
The problem with island bases is they cannot maneuver and can be isolated and by passed.
You reckon the Chinese Navy can hide their surface vessels?
Between the US Submarine force and the USAF B-2 bomber force....an island might be hard to keep in operation to sustain offensive operations.
Unless and until the Chinese can achieve Air and Sea Supremacy over Allied forces....they are on the losing end of the equation.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/pu...s-us-responses
The problem with island bases is they cannot maneuver and can be isolated and by passed.
You reckon the Chinese Navy can hide their surface vessels?
Between the US Submarine force and the USAF B-2 bomber force....an island might be hard to keep in operation to sustain offensive operations.
Unless and until the Chinese can achieve Air and Sea Supremacy over Allied forces....they are on the losing end of the equation.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/pu...s-us-responses
The Japanese tried to use Rabaul and Truk as bases too....but we see how that worked out for them in the pre-Nuke world.
The problem with island bases is they cannot maneuver and can be isolated and by passed.
You reckon the Chinese Navy can hide their surface vessels?
Between the US Submarine force and the USAF B-2 bomber force....an island might be hard to keep in operation to sustain offensive operations.
Unless and until the Chinese can achieve Air and Sea Supremacy over Allied forces....they are on the losing end of the equation.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/pu...s-us-responses
The problem with island bases is they cannot maneuver and can be isolated and by passed.
You reckon the Chinese Navy can hide their surface vessels?
Between the US Submarine force and the USAF B-2 bomber force....an island might be hard to keep in operation to sustain offensive operations.
Unless and until the Chinese can achieve Air and Sea Supremacy over Allied forces....they are on the losing end of the equation.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/pu...s-us-responses
In WW2, the US had real production capability, able to expand the force even though the average aircraft life was only months.
Now there are 20 B-2s and no more coming, so it is all in the shop window, no inventory to back it up.
It is not obvious who would be on the losing side here.
"The problem with island bases is they cannot maneuver and can be isolated and by passed."
the advantage is of course they are hard to sink...................... one bomb/missile/torpedo/mine and you can lose 10% of your total carrier capability
the advantage is of course they are hard to sink...................... one bomb/missile/torpedo/mine and you can lose 10% of your total carrier capability
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll let you into a secret - they're actually moored ON THE BOTTOM........... but don't tell the USN....... 
At school in the 50s and 60s we devoured War Picture Library comics, and read literature on the horrors of Nazi concentration camps and Japanese POW camps. In China and Korea they still actively teach such things to their children, using live b&w contemporary film for example, so it is very much alive in their minds.
No, such things should never be forgotten, and even better perhaps, should never be repeated by anyone.
In Japan, though, people look forwards rather than backwards. Has it been the socialist influence in the teaching profession? Perhaps it would be unbearable to stare at the past. There are indeed older people like Abe back in 2013 who like to point out how the Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were not conducted by Japanese people, and therefore not under Japanese law. That much is true. Young people on the other hand mostly do not have a clue about what went on. Therein lies a danger.
The last 70 years have thankfully been largely peaceful, although Japan faces countless intrusions from Russian bombers in the north (much like the UK and north Europe), daily testing by Chinese fighters and 'coastguard' and fishery ships to the south, and from the west those North Korean threats to turn Tokyo into a sea of fire. Japan has not generally risen to such repeated baiting, (to the fury of some) but manfully maintained some kind of neutrality and cool head.
This whole area is full of danger, though. Where are the statesmen who can see the bigger picture? Perhaps it is time for a Pan-Pacific economic zone.
Here there is none of the peace that is enjoyed on the ground and taken for granted by all in Europe.
No, such things should never be forgotten, and even better perhaps, should never be repeated by anyone.
In Japan, though, people look forwards rather than backwards. Has it been the socialist influence in the teaching profession? Perhaps it would be unbearable to stare at the past. There are indeed older people like Abe back in 2013 who like to point out how the Tokyo War Crimes tribunals were not conducted by Japanese people, and therefore not under Japanese law. That much is true. Young people on the other hand mostly do not have a clue about what went on. Therein lies a danger.
The last 70 years have thankfully been largely peaceful, although Japan faces countless intrusions from Russian bombers in the north (much like the UK and north Europe), daily testing by Chinese fighters and 'coastguard' and fishery ships to the south, and from the west those North Korean threats to turn Tokyo into a sea of fire. Japan has not generally risen to such repeated baiting, (to the fury of some) but manfully maintained some kind of neutrality and cool head.
This whole area is full of danger, though. Where are the statesmen who can see the bigger picture? Perhaps it is time for a Pan-Pacific economic zone.
Here there is none of the peace that is enjoyed on the ground and taken for granted by all in Europe.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole area is like Europe pre ww2. Unsettled tiffs. A major power rising up demanding its share ..
Alliances that will cause problems rather than solutions..
best we start making more carriers there will be a market for them
Alliances that will cause problems rather than solutions..
best we start making more carriers there will be a market for them
sorry SARF - the UK can't afford them - in fact I don't think anyone in Europe can afford them
And just look at the lead times - it take years to design and build one even if money is no object - better go buy an SSN from the French.............
And just look at the lead times - it take years to design and build one even if money is no object - better go buy an SSN from the French.............
A country with deep felt grievances about how they were treated by world powers, an authoritarian leader who rounds up undesirables and puts them in concentration camps, a country well into a huge military expansion and investment program, an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy; combined with an isolationist America and a divided and fractious Europe.
Seems to me we have seen this movie before........
Seems to me we have seen this movie before........
Yet if the US Government gets involved somewhere Europe and so many other folks get their panties in a wad.
It is a lose-lose situation for the Americans to do anything.
Sad thing...only the Chinese and Russians have the throw weight to play a role other than the United States.
Our decades of multiple wars combined with the Obama years budget cuts for Defense caused by sequestration leaves our military short on on war making kit and people.
It is a lose-lose situation for the Americans to do anything.
Sad thing...only the Chinese and Russians have the throw weight to play a role other than the United States.
Our decades of multiple wars combined with the Obama years budget cuts for Defense caused by sequestration leaves our military short on on war making kit and people.
Well Obama was around when both the Kennedy & the Enterprise were ordered -
From a European point of view we don't see much difference on military matters between Presidents TBH ('cept Carter) - they all seem to spend money like water, although on different things, they all seem to love fighting foreign wars many od which they'd have been better staying out of.
And yes the Europeans are a disgrace leaning on the USA for everything
V Interesting article in the Economist this weekend in their annual what-if edition about what would happen if President Trump pulled the US out of NATO in 2020....... not pretty
From a European point of view we don't see much difference on military matters between Presidents TBH ('cept Carter) - they all seem to spend money like water, although on different things, they all seem to love fighting foreign wars many od which they'd have been better staying out of.
And yes the Europeans are a disgrace leaning on the USA for everything
V Interesting article in the Economist this weekend in their annual what-if edition about what would happen if President Trump pulled the US out of NATO in 2020....... not pretty
You overlook the primary role that Congress plays when it comes to the Federal Budget....the President only gets too spend the money Congress appropriates.
The Congress declares War....not the President.
Congress has created the War Powers act that allows for a more flexible authority for the President when it comes to use of military force.
I cited Obama....as a reference to the time period the Sequestration Act took place....and of course his inability to convince Congress to perform its primary task of crafting an Annual Budget for the Federal Government.
Congress is also very happy to continue deficit spending and thereby creating a tremendous Federal Debt that shall one day become. a very real and disastrous problem.
The Congress declares War....not the President.
Congress has created the War Powers act that allows for a more flexible authority for the President when it comes to use of military force.
I cited Obama....as a reference to the time period the Sequestration Act took place....and of course his inability to convince Congress to perform its primary task of crafting an Annual Budget for the Federal Government.
Congress is also very happy to continue deficit spending and thereby creating a tremendous Federal Debt that shall one day become. a very real and disastrous problem.
From a European point of view we don't see much difference on military matters between Presidents
Foolish to speak to the beliefs and opinions of hundreds of millions as a singular position.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bizarre, are you aware that the UK has carriers. (Well one with one in build)? Buying enough fast jets may be more of an issue. And what the heck is it that makes you think the french are better at building SSNs the the Uk?
Peter
I'm well aware that the UK has (or will have 2 carriers)- but they were planned and ordered 15-+years ago. I don't think that they will ever build another - in fact there is a substantial body of UK military opinion that thinks the two new ones are an expensive mistake and an expensive distraction (please don't start that argument on this thread tho - there's a whole 277 page thread for that).
Only the USA is totally committed to building carriers going forward - the Chinese are (slowly) building proof of concept vessels but are decades away from a carrier fleet. The Russians have given up, the French carrier will be in service for a long time but no plans to add to the number AFAIK and most other nations eg Japan) seem to be happy with ships that can operate helicopters and maybe a handful of VTOL aircraft.
In my view the S China Sea is not a great place for carriers - it's surrounded by land and you can build airfields faster and cheaper than you can build a carrier. If we're talking the Indian Ocean or the Pacific its possible to argue that carriers have real value
I'm well aware that the UK has (or will have 2 carriers)- but they were planned and ordered 15-+years ago. I don't think that they will ever build another - in fact there is a substantial body of UK military opinion that thinks the two new ones are an expensive mistake and an expensive distraction (please don't start that argument on this thread tho - there's a whole 277 page thread for that).
Only the USA is totally committed to building carriers going forward - the Chinese are (slowly) building proof of concept vessels but are decades away from a carrier fleet. The Russians have given up, the French carrier will be in service for a long time but no plans to add to the number AFAIK and most other nations eg Japan) seem to be happy with ships that can operate helicopters and maybe a handful of VTOL aircraft.
In my view the S China Sea is not a great place for carriers - it's surrounded by land and you can build airfields faster and cheaper than you can build a carrier. If we're talking the Indian Ocean or the Pacific its possible to argue that carriers have real value
"And what the heck is it that makes you think the french are better at building SSNs the the Uk?"
I don't think they are - informed opinion seems to think the UK produces some of the best SSN's around
My point is that the UK has never tried to sell any that I'm aware of whereas the French seem happy to sell them to Brasil (and probably anyone else who has the cash). The Russians also sell SSN's for cash.
So if you want a submarine force relatively quickly head for Paris or Moscow with a large case full of $$$$$$
I don't think they are - informed opinion seems to think the UK produces some of the best SSN's around
My point is that the UK has never tried to sell any that I'm aware of whereas the French seem happy to sell them to Brasil (and probably anyone else who has the cash). The Russians also sell SSN's for cash.
So if you want a submarine force relatively quickly head for Paris or Moscow with a large case full of $$$$$$