The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
A friend sent me this link. You may find it interesting. Whether or not that wish list will be viewed favorably by the next administration, and the one after that, and the one after that, is anyone's guess.
Then again, the Biden administration could very well say the current state of the navy is sufficient.
But, since there can be no appropriation for more than two years (see the Constitution), someone embarking on a 15 - 20 year ship building program is going to have to battle year after year to keep that program alive. The House of Representatives holds the purse strings on defense appropriations.
For a simlar historical reference, the 600-ship-Navy and the resignation of SecNav James Webb, mid-to-late 80's.
Then again, the Biden administration could very well say the current state of the navy is sufficient.
As a Naval officer (retired) and sometimes strategic thinker, I am frequently baffled by the raw BS that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force comes up with to claim that the USAF can do what the Navy does. (See that idiot McPeak and "virtual presence" in the mid 90's). I am sure the USAF will come up with more of the same this time around. The "US is a maritime nation" is 100% true. What isn't true is that this guarantees the USN first dip into the budget cup. (My further comments on the abortion that was the Defense Reorg of 1947 will not be regurgitated here).
@etudiant: I note that the author of that piece has been inside the belly of the beast on ship acquisition. (Everett Pyatt is a former assistant secretary of U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and logistics.)
Getting ship cost under control is a major task for the next administration. That must begin with this project if there is to be any hope of achieving the 355-ship Navy defined by law, and preliminary to any expansion above the current 355-ship law and dream.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...lies-3vm3mldp2
Chinese military expansion into Pacific ‘poses greatest threat to America and allies’
China represents the most “comprehensive, long-term” threat to America and its allies of any world power, the US military has claimed.
The warning comes amid fears about the true purpose of a £112 million fishing complex Beijing is building close to Australia’s waters.....
Among looming concerns is a deal between China and Papua New Guinea (PNG) to build a fisheries complex in the Torres Strait, 40 miles from Australia’s northern islands. The proposal has provoked fears that the plant will become a de facto naval base for Beijing.
The Fujian Zhonghong Fishery Company has signed a deal backed by the Chinese government to build the A$200 million (£112 million) complex on the impoverished Daru island. Jeffrey Wall, a former adviser to PNG’s foreign ministry, suggested that Beijing would use the deal as a pretext to build a wharf capable of mooring Chinese navy ships 124 miles from mainland Australia.
In an article for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra think tank close to defence leaders, Mr Wall wrote that the seas around Daru were not known to have commercial fishing resources. But he pointed out that they were “strategically as close to Australia as you can get”.
“In my view, what they are going to do, first of all, is build a very large wharf,” he said. “When you build a very large wharf, what do you build? Somewhere where naval vessels can land.”.....
Chinese military expansion into Pacific ‘poses greatest threat to America and allies’
China represents the most “comprehensive, long-term” threat to America and its allies of any world power, the US military has claimed.
The warning comes amid fears about the true purpose of a £112 million fishing complex Beijing is building close to Australia’s waters.....
Among looming concerns is a deal between China and Papua New Guinea (PNG) to build a fisheries complex in the Torres Strait, 40 miles from Australia’s northern islands. The proposal has provoked fears that the plant will become a de facto naval base for Beijing.
The Fujian Zhonghong Fishery Company has signed a deal backed by the Chinese government to build the A$200 million (£112 million) complex on the impoverished Daru island. Jeffrey Wall, a former adviser to PNG’s foreign ministry, suggested that Beijing would use the deal as a pretext to build a wharf capable of mooring Chinese navy ships 124 miles from mainland Australia.
In an article for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra think tank close to defence leaders, Mr Wall wrote that the seas around Daru were not known to have commercial fishing resources. But he pointed out that they were “strategically as close to Australia as you can get”.
“In my view, what they are going to do, first of all, is build a very large wharf,” he said. “When you build a very large wharf, what do you build? Somewhere where naval vessels can land.”.....
The Times article quoted by Orac (above) also contained contrasting numbers on fleet size. Likely to be reasonably correct or aimed at justifying more money for the US Navy?
Chinese military expansion into Pacific ‘poses greatest threat to America and allies’
Chinese military expansion into Pacific ‘poses greatest threat to America and allies’
The report underlined the challenge in the Indo-Pacific, saying that China was developing “the world’s largest missile force, with nuclear capabilities, which is designed to strike US and allied forces in Guam and the Far East with everything from ballistic missiles to manoeuvrable cruise and hypersonic missiles”.
The report said that China’s naval battle force had tripled in size in two decades. It was now larger than the American warship strength, with 350 ships and submarines as against the US Navy’s 293. In August China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy demonstrated for the first time an ability to hit a moving vessel with a long-range anti-ship ballistic missile.
The report said that China’s naval battle force had tripled in size in two decades. It was now larger than the American warship strength, with 350 ships and submarines as against the US Navy’s 293. In August China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy demonstrated for the first time an ability to hit a moving vessel with a long-range anti-ship ballistic missile.
In The Guardian today:-
Indonesian fisher finds drone submarine on possible covert mission
Click the link for photos and remainder of the article.
Indonesian fisher finds drone submarine on possible covert mission
An Indonesian fisher has found what experts say is likely to be a Chinese submarine drone in waters on a strategic maritime route from the South China Sea to Australia.
According to Indonesian media the unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) was found on 20 December near Selayar Island in South Sulawesi. Six days later it was handed to police and then transferred to the Indonesian military.
Military observers have said the drone appears to be a Chinese Sea Wing (or Haiyi) UUV. The underwater glider was developed by the Shenyang institute of automation at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and is publicly described as collecting data including seawater temperature, salinity, turbidity and oxygen levels. Information on currents and movement direction are transmitted in real time.
The Chinese central government has not commented.
According to Indonesian media the unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) was found on 20 December near Selayar Island in South Sulawesi. Six days later it was handed to police and then transferred to the Indonesian military.
Military observers have said the drone appears to be a Chinese Sea Wing (or Haiyi) UUV. The underwater glider was developed by the Shenyang institute of automation at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and is publicly described as collecting data including seawater temperature, salinity, turbidity and oxygen levels. Information on currents and movement direction are transmitted in real time.
The Chinese central government has not commented.
"The Times article quoted by Orac (above) also contained contrasting numbers on fleet size. Likely to be reasonably correct or aimed at justifying more money for the US Navy?2
A detailed analysis I read about about 3 years ago noted the rapid expansion of the Chinese Fleet - it noted this also involved a non- monetary cost - quite a few different types and even within types the equipment fit varies a lot. Some of the older ships (that is older in a Chinese PLA (N) sense not a Western Navy) front line ships are equipped with versions of relatively low capability Western commercial systems (secondary radars for example) as well
The writer noted that this sort of variation brings negative effects in W fleets and could see no reason why it wouldn't also affect the Chinese
A detailed analysis I read about about 3 years ago noted the rapid expansion of the Chinese Fleet - it noted this also involved a non- monetary cost - quite a few different types and even within types the equipment fit varies a lot. Some of the older ships (that is older in a Chinese PLA (N) sense not a Western Navy) front line ships are equipped with versions of relatively low capability Western commercial systems (secondary radars for example) as well
The writer noted that this sort of variation brings negative effects in W fleets and could see no reason why it wouldn't also affect the Chinese
"The Times article quoted by Orac (above) also contained contrasting numbers on fleet size. Likely to be reasonably correct or aimed at justifying more money for the US Navy?2
A detailed analysis I read about about 3 years ago noted the rapid expansion of the Chinese Fleet - it noted this also involved a non- monetary cost - quite a few different types and even within types the equipment fit varies a lot. Some of the older ships (that is older in a Chinese PLA (N) sense not a Western Navy) front line ships are equipped with versions of relatively low capability Western commercial systems (secondary radars for example) as well
The writer noted that this sort of variation brings negative effects in W fleets and could see no reason why it wouldn't also affect the Chinese
A detailed analysis I read about about 3 years ago noted the rapid expansion of the Chinese Fleet - it noted this also involved a non- monetary cost - quite a few different types and even within types the equipment fit varies a lot. Some of the older ships (that is older in a Chinese PLA (N) sense not a Western Navy) front line ships are equipped with versions of relatively low capability Western commercial systems (secondary radars for example) as well
The writer noted that this sort of variation brings negative effects in W fleets and could see no reason why it wouldn't also affect the Chinese
Quantity has a quality all of its own!
Agreed - when you see people spout on about sending the RN east again to "threaten" the Chinese.................... they must be in stitches in Beijing
I'd classify 200% duties (on Australian wines iirc) as a vigorous 'political' response.
China is on its way to recovering its role as the producer of 40% of global GNP, after an almost 200 year hiatus.
They may have a slogan about political power growing out of the barrel of a gun, but they are quite aware that economic power is as potent, but more easily wielded and more flexible. They are using it effectively against the western 'coalition', as shown by the just negotiated EEC/China trade and investment agreement, which puts all the real issues off to further discussions, while giving China continued free rein, all because Germany is terrified that its auto industry, which is super dependent on the Chinese market, would face a calamity if China closed its borders.
China is on its way to recovering its role as the producer of 40% of global GNP, after an almost 200 year hiatus.
They may have a slogan about political power growing out of the barrel of a gun, but they are quite aware that economic power is as potent, but more easily wielded and more flexible. They are using it effectively against the western 'coalition', as shown by the just negotiated EEC/China trade and investment agreement, which puts all the real issues off to further discussions, while giving China continued free rein, all because Germany is terrified that its auto industry, which is super dependent on the Chinese market, would face a calamity if China closed its borders.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/j...ours-d5c3h6ds8
Japan builds new long-range missile to defend itself from neighbours
Japan is to build new long-range cruise missiles to defend itself against attack from China, the latest development in the east Asian arms race and a further erosion of the country’s pacifist constitutional position.
The ministry of defence will request ¥33.5 billion (£240 million) to upgrade an existing ground-to-sea missile into a weapon capable of travelling 300km (186 miles), according to Japanese media. It is also developing a high-speed gliding missile that could fly up to 1,000km, putting both China and North Korea in range.
The conservative ruling Liberal Democratic Party said over the summer that the country should prepare itself to launch pre-emptive strikes on foreign missile bases, a move that will alarm Japan’s neighbours and provoke anxiety among defenders of the postwar “peace constitution”.
The party’s defence committee gave its authority to a growing consensus in government that Japan needed to acquire the ability to destroy North Korean missiles on the ground before they are launched, rather than relying on missile defence systems to take them out in the air.
The immediate priority, however, is to defend Japan’s remote southwestern islands against Chinese attack. Chinese coast guard vessels and patrol planes have been increasingly active around the uninhabited Senkaku Islands, administered by Japan, but claimed by Beijing under the name of the Diaoyus.
Earlier this year, Japan’s Self-Defence Forces deployed Type 12 missiles, which have a range of 100km, to Miyako island, part of the Nansei chain between the big island of Kyushu and Taiwan. This is the weapon that is to be upgraded to a 300km range, and adapted so that it can be fired from ships and planes, to deter and repel naval attack on the Senkakus, 200km away.....
Japan builds new long-range missile to defend itself from neighbours
Japan is to build new long-range cruise missiles to defend itself against attack from China, the latest development in the east Asian arms race and a further erosion of the country’s pacifist constitutional position.
The ministry of defence will request ¥33.5 billion (£240 million) to upgrade an existing ground-to-sea missile into a weapon capable of travelling 300km (186 miles), according to Japanese media. It is also developing a high-speed gliding missile that could fly up to 1,000km, putting both China and North Korea in range.
The conservative ruling Liberal Democratic Party said over the summer that the country should prepare itself to launch pre-emptive strikes on foreign missile bases, a move that will alarm Japan’s neighbours and provoke anxiety among defenders of the postwar “peace constitution”.
The party’s defence committee gave its authority to a growing consensus in government that Japan needed to acquire the ability to destroy North Korean missiles on the ground before they are launched, rather than relying on missile defence systems to take them out in the air.
The immediate priority, however, is to defend Japan’s remote southwestern islands against Chinese attack. Chinese coast guard vessels and patrol planes have been increasingly active around the uninhabited Senkaku Islands, administered by Japan, but claimed by Beijing under the name of the Diaoyus.
Earlier this year, Japan’s Self-Defence Forces deployed Type 12 missiles, which have a range of 100km, to Miyako island, part of the Nansei chain between the big island of Kyushu and Taiwan. This is the weapon that is to be upgraded to a 300km range, and adapted so that it can be fired from ships and planes, to deter and repel naval attack on the Senkakus, 200km away.....
Apart from the unnecessary and frankly unpleasant mention of the 731 experiments you have a good point.
Should the Japanese decide to "break-out" from their pacifist history there is no doubt that within 5 years they could have most of the capabilities of some of the bigger players - an atomic bomb, long range rockets (but not maybe integrated in that time frame etc etc . Aircraft are a weakness as although they've expended zillions over the years they've never really manage d a decent aircraft programme. But if they turn their attention to electronic and cyber warfare they'd probably be leaders in less than 5 years.
But there'd have to be a complete U-turn in public opinion. I know very few Japanese who see anything good in militarism and the military
Should the Japanese decide to "break-out" from their pacifist history there is no doubt that within 5 years they could have most of the capabilities of some of the bigger players - an atomic bomb, long range rockets (but not maybe integrated in that time frame etc etc . Aircraft are a weakness as although they've expended zillions over the years they've never really manage d a decent aircraft programme. But if they turn their attention to electronic and cyber warfare they'd probably be leaders in less than 5 years.
But there'd have to be a complete U-turn in public opinion. I know very few Japanese who see anything good in militarism and the military
I'd classify 200% duties (on Australian wines iirc) as a vigorous 'political' response.
China is on its way to recovering its role as the producer of 40% of global GNP, after an almost 200 year hiatus.
They may have a slogan about political power growing out of the barrel of a gun, but they are quite aware that economic power is as potent, but more easily wielded and more flexible. They are using it effectively against the western 'coalition', as shown by the just negotiated EEC/China trade and investment agreement, which puts all the real issues off to further discussions, while giving China continued free rein, all because Germany is terrified that its auto industry, which is super dependent on the Chinese market, would face a calamity if China closed its borders.
China is on its way to recovering its role as the producer of 40% of global GNP, after an almost 200 year hiatus.
They may have a slogan about political power growing out of the barrel of a gun, but they are quite aware that economic power is as potent, but more easily wielded and more flexible. They are using it effectively against the western 'coalition', as shown by the just negotiated EEC/China trade and investment agreement, which puts all the real issues off to further discussions, while giving China continued free rein, all because Germany is terrified that its auto industry, which is super dependent on the Chinese market, would face a calamity if China closed its borders.
China decided that Australia is quite free to abuse it.
However as Austalia has a AUS$70 billion trade surplus with China then perhaps abusing the country which is the lynchpin of your economy has its consequences. US has a AUS$19 billion trade surplus with Australia.
Australians will need to get used to the idea that political pronouncements have an economic impact.
The "we have a big aircraft carrier" has zero impact when people you are challenging make you aware that in the event of any conflict it will be "we had a big aircraft carrier",
The Prince of Wales and The Repulse on 7th of December 1941 supposedly were a big show of RN power in Asia, couple of days later both were on the bottom of the sea.
I believe duties on wines and targeting of Australian exports of natural resources, come down to China getting tired of Australia mouthing off while claiming China is an important trading partner.
China decided that Australia is quite free to abuse it.
However as Austalia has a AUS$70 billion trade surplus with China then perhaps abusing the country which is the lynchpin of your economy has its consequences. US has a AUS$19 billion trade surplus with Australia.
Australians will need to get used to the idea that political pronouncements have an economic impact.
China decided that Australia is quite free to abuse it.
However as Austalia has a AUS$70 billion trade surplus with China then perhaps abusing the country which is the lynchpin of your economy has its consequences. US has a AUS$19 billion trade surplus with Australia.
Australians will need to get used to the idea that political pronouncements have an economic impact.
China does seem to be becoming a lot more touchy about foreign opinions voiced elsewhere, but not very receptive to allowing similar sentiments to be articulated to their own people.
That will be a problem, getting every tweet cleared with Beijing.
Of course, having decided that 'hate speech' can be censored, can any government object to censoring anti Chinese news and comments if it becomes economically damaging??
I love your optimism, in reality they can just ignore, unless RN is part of a USN deployment then it really has zero impact.
The "we have a big aircraft carrier" has zero impact when people you are challenging make you aware that in the event of any conflict it will be "we had a big aircraft carrier",
The Prince of Wales and The Repulse on 7th of December 1941 supposedly were a big show of RN power in Asia, couple of days later both were on the bottom of the sea.
The "we have a big aircraft carrier" has zero impact when people you are challenging make you aware that in the event of any conflict it will be "we had a big aircraft carrier",
The Prince of Wales and The Repulse on 7th of December 1941 supposedly were a big show of RN power in Asia, couple of days later both were on the bottom of the sea.
Last edited by West Coast; 3rd Jan 2021 at 05:35.
If nations won’t stand up to China, things will get much worse. And the people who defend the CCP, (usually for no other reason that they hate America) can go screw themselves.
"USN sends a lone destroyer near one of “their islands” and the Chinese military along with their diplomatic corps go ape ****. U.K. sends a carrier battle group and the Chinese don’t even take notice, nah, don’t buy it."
that's because the "lone destroyer" is backed by the whole might of the USN and USA. A British CBG is much smaller that a US one, will have a dozen or so strike aircraft and represents about 50% of the whole UK navy.
Racedo is right here - it's politicians willy-waving and it would have the same outcome as 1941
that's because the "lone destroyer" is backed by the whole might of the USN and USA. A British CBG is much smaller that a US one, will have a dozen or so strike aircraft and represents about 50% of the whole UK navy.
Racedo is right here - it's politicians willy-waving and it would have the same outcome as 1941
China does seem to be becoming a lot more touchy about foreign opinions voiced elsewhere, but not very receptive to allowing similar sentiments to be articulated to their own people. That will be a problem, getting every tweet cleared with Beijing.
Of course, having decided that 'hate speech' can be censored, can any government object to censoring anti Chinese news and comments if it becomes economically damaging??
Of course, having decided that 'hate speech' can be censored, can any government object to censoring anti Chinese news and comments if it becomes economically damaging??
USN sends a lone destroyer near one of “their islands” and the Chinese military along with their diplomatic corps go ape ****. U.K. sends a carrier battle group and the Chinese don’t even take notice, nah, don’t buy it.. Any one in the leadership in the Chinese military who didn’t take the threat of a CBG sailing nearby should be relieved of their authority.
