Tango01 | 13 Jan 2017 4:28 p.m. PST |
"The U.S. Secretary of State nominee has provoked fury with his hawkish remarks on the South China Sea China's state media has responded forcefully to suggestions by U.S. Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson that China should be barred from the artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea, warning that any such attempt would force a "devastating confrontation" and both sides should "prepare for a military clash." On Wednesday, Tillerson told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Beijing's ongoing island-building strategy in the busy waterway — through which $5 USD trillion of trade passes annually — was illegal and "akin to Russia's taking of Crimea."…" Main page link This is what got the Chinese all upset …. "Tillerson says China should be barred from South China Sea islands" link Bad winds blow….. Amicalement Armand |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Jan 2017 5:41 p.m. PST |
If you sow the wind, you'd better be prepared to reap the whirlwind. |
Mako11 | 13 Jan 2017 6:47 p.m. PST |
We're ready. Is China? That cyberattack with every PC and portable phone in China getting endless loops of undeletable Tianenmen Square footage broadcast 24/7/365 should be EPIC! I suspect there won't be much left for the US military to do, once their own people get done dealing with the Chinese leadership. The democratic revolution there may be coming sooner than they think. |
Rod I Robertson | 14 Jan 2017 12:44 a.m. PST |
Mako 11 wrote: We're ready. No, you're not. China will not go one-on-one with you. It will tighten its hold on its own people. It will encourage a global insurrection against the US-led world order. It will undermine your economy and your politics and it will wait to strike back until US forces are entangled and over-committed by too many wars on too many fronts. That is the Chinese way. It may take decades but they will win. Cheers? Rod Robertson. |
Bangorstu | 14 Jan 2017 2:51 a.m. PST |
But in the emantime they need a navy and control of the South China Sea. That kind of war is playing to the strengths of the US Navy and that's the kind of one they'll fight. Plus, as Mako says, we'll find out who is best at Cyber warfare… I'll be glad to wath that one from this side of the planet TBO. When it comes to sponsoring insurrections, giving the Uighurs and Tibetans some toys couldn't hurt any… though I wouldn't give too much sophisticated kit to the Uighurs. |
Mako11 | 14 Jan 2017 4:22 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the belly laugh, Rod. Much appreciated! We haven't led in quite some time, since "leading from behind" is really following. |
Badgers | 14 Jan 2017 4:48 a.m. PST |
I don't doubt the capabilities of the USN and especially its sailors, but if the Chinese are making these kind of noises, I'd be asking, what do they know that we don't? This isn't the China of the 60's. |
Noble713 | 14 Jan 2017 7:53 a.m. PST |
We're ready. Who is this "we"? It sure as Hell isn't PACOM. It isn't Marine Aviation, with 30% availability for F-18s and CH-53s ( link ). But in the emantime they need a navy and control of the South China Sea.That kind of war is playing to the strengths of the US Navy and that's the kind of one they'll fight. Depends on how China tries to fight. Yeah, doing things the IJN way, with a big task force of surface ships looking for a decisive battle is doomed to failure against the USN. But if they heavily leverage their island airbases and mainland-based assets, they will significantly reduce the risk from our nuclear attack submarines (by far the greatest threat to their navy). It makes the fight mostly Chinese aircraft + SSMs + air defenses vs US surface ships + cruise missiles. The USAF will be hard-pressed to contribute due to the range involved. The SCS is 2x the unrefueled combat radius of an F-22, which means tanker support is mandatory. At least one tanker track will need to be somewhere southwest of Taiwan. Who will provide the CAP to protect those tankers in such an exposed position? If you suggest F-15s/F-22s…then you are wasting fuel just refueling your own escorts, and won't be able to support sizable or numerous strike packages. If you suggest Navy F/A-18s, then some carrier will have to loiter in the AO, making it easier to track and engage with other assets (such as DF-21s). And it also pulls fast jets away from protecting the carrier, or conducting strikes against the SCS bases. And there is a decent chance that J-20s will be able to fire long-range missiles at the tankers and/or AWACS before the CAP can respond. So no effective tanker support = USN has to fight by itself. And the strike radius of F/A-18s + ordnance is less than the strike radius of Chinese SSMs, or Chinese strike aircraft (JH-7A) + anti-ship missiles. Anything other than a preemptive first strike by the US will end up very messy for both sides IMO. |
Legion 4 | 14 Jan 2017 9:57 a.m. PST |
The probability for a shoot'n war between the US and PRC is very remote, IMO. And if I had to put a bet on it. Neither are really ready to take on such a massive conflict and possible waste of blood and treasure. Of course the Chinese make up @ 20% of the planets population. Verses the US's 5-6 % ? They can take the losses if need be. Regardless of what the possible new Sec State has to say. However, IMO, we'd be very wise to keep an eye on China and maintain open discussions between each other, etc.. The other thing to consider is all the economical entanglements between the US & PRC … No one really wants to cut into profits, etc. As I'm sure the New possible Sec State knows that … He's a business man not a lawyer or professional politician … |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Jan 2017 1:59 p.m. PST |
We're ready. Who is this "we"? It sure as Hell isn't PACOM.
SUBPAC is. Hell, just turning DEVRON 5 (the 3 Seawolf-class boats) loose in the SCS will be entertaining, for values of "entertaining" that include "utter annihilation of anything floating and flying the PRC flag." Then we get into the boats based in Pearl Harbor, and the two SSGNs forward-deployed to Guam… (Plus a third SSGN forward-deployed to Diego Garcia) |
Legion 4 | 14 Jan 2017 3:53 p.m. PST |
|
AGamer | 14 Jan 2017 5:32 p.m. PST |
Why even move attack boats to the SCS? Station them West of the Malacca Strait and 80+% of China's oil imports never get to the SCS and you don't have to worry about dodging ASW frigates and aircraft. |
Rod I Robertson | 14 Jan 2017 6:44 p.m. PST |
Fredjg: Is the US willing to go to war with any nation willing to ship oil to China. What about the vaunted freedom of navigation principles which the US is supposedly defending in the SCS dispute? A little hypocritical, no? How would the US control shipments of oil/gas on non-Chinese-flagged ships loaded with oil/gas bound for North Korea or north eastern Russia? How would you stop Russian or Iranian (and Iraqi?) oil and gas from being piped into China? Russia would grow rich on such trade as would many of the 'Stans' and Iran. Meanwhile the Saudis and Gulf States would face depressed demand for their oil/gas and would probably work to prevent or undermine such an embargo. An enriched Iran might buy lots of up scale missiles, aircraft and air defence infrastructure from both China and Russia with which to make trouble for the USN in and around the Persian Gulf. Russia might be able to force Europe to oppose such action by threatening to shut off gas and oil exports to Europe. Would Europe be willing to pay such a price to defend US naval dominance in the Pacific? In the short term your strategy might have some effect, but in the medium and long term it would galvanise a Eurasian cooperation which could be far more detrimental to US interests than China's ascendency in the SCS. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
AGamer | 14 Jan 2017 7:43 p.m. PST |
Rod- My posting was in response to a previous post of moving US Pacific Fleet assets into the SCS. So, your response is – somewhat excessive. Under the previous postings, the war scenario was already unpacked. Bangorstu was watching from the other side of the planet before being dawghoused, in Albany. A minor bit of reality. If the US – under the above scenario – announced a quarantine of the Malacca Strait, no insurance company in the world is covering those shipments – the flow would stop, based on economics. Oil producers don't always own the ships and neutrals avoid war zones or they aren't neutral. If you notice, I used a figure of over 80% of oil imports. The balance of oil imports is indeed the pipelines you mention. However, active military operations would burn through oil reserves well above any additional oil those pipelines could carry. Long stretches of isolated pipes subject to all sorts of industrial type actions – and during a crisis, where the world is looking at the US and China facing off on CNN nightly, those pipelines would become strategic targets. Regarding oil prices, if the US and China are already past posturing, oil has already sky rocketed. Close the straits of Hormuz? Double edged sword – Iran and Iraq, outside of pipeline transfers, need those straits open, or the oil sits in the Persian Gulf…. Tough to forecast……Thoughts? Russia? Depends on the timeframe. If the scenario shows Russia's economy still being hamstrung by sanctions, you could see a quid pro quo arrangement. Sanctions = No Gas, No sanctions = plentiful gas. Russia and China may be playing nicely right now, but the same "We own the SCS" could become we own Siberia. There are more Chinese in the Southern portion of Siberia than there are Russians in Siberia. As far as Russian tankers through the Malacca Strait, I am not aware that they have any facilities on the Pacific Cost, to handle tankers. Am under the impression they pipeline. North Korea – interesting, from what I've read no one knows how much oil they import, although it is speculated that it is mostly/all coming from China. My strategy is based on casual conversations with family that went from boomer drivers to Virginia class drivers. They seem to like lots of room, chokepoints, lots of CZs and nobody dropping sonar buoys on them at inappropriate times. Seems reasonable. Fred |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Jan 2017 11:27 p.m. PST |
@Fred: There will probably be a couple boats hunting in the SCS, just to interdict anything flying a PRC flag there. I'm sure there would be a veritable wolfpack outside the Straits of Malacca, too. The point is to utterly shut down ALL Chinese-flagged shipping. So there will be some boats (OK, probably only one) in the Sea of Japan to keep the Norks honest, some boats in the East China Sea, more in the SCS, and more in the Indian Ocean. Maybe 20 boats all told, not counting DEVRON 5 and the SSGNs. I figure DEVRON and the SSGNs will be doing special ops shenanigans. Lots of Submarine Combat Patrol pins getting awarded in the first couple months. |
piper909 | 15 Jan 2017 4:10 p.m. PST |
The British were extremely worried about the safety of their naval armada in the Falklands war from enemy air attacks, and that was in 1982, against a second-rate power. What is the danger today from a power like China? We might just find out what would happen when a conventional fleet of warships meets a cloud of anti-ship missiles launched form land or air (far away). How many hits would it take from how many missiles to disable a modern Navy ship? How long could or would a risk-averse American military/public sustain a major land-sea-air conflict across the Pacific that didn't involve any vital US strategic interests (but did involve China's)? This is very dangerous sabre-rattling from all concerned. My concern is that the US seems bent on imposing its dominance over the globe, ignoring the desires or interests or fears of other nations -- and wherever a potential "rival" is seen, the US military-industrial complex and the "Deep State" shadow powers use this as an excuse to stoke manipulate the public, shape policy in ways that do not answer to citizen oversight, and shift spending to military and security interests at the cost of other needs. I fear if the US seeks global hegemony, we are in for failure and bankruptcy and possible collapse of democracy. |
Lion in the Stars | 15 Jan 2017 4:42 p.m. PST |
That's why I'm assuming that the initial strikes against China would be SSM and airbases. A single SSGN can pack 154 Tomahawks. As far as the air-launched swarms of anti-ship missiles go, well, the Aegis system was designed to deal with Soviet-sized attacks, the kind with multiple bomber regiments. And the USN basically has two types of surface combatants anymore: Carriers and Aegis ships. |
piper909 | 15 Jan 2017 4:57 p.m. PST |
I would not like to see the fallout from a unilateral US attack on China -- a sneak attack, presumably? -- over some flyspeck islands thousands of miles away. The message this sends to the rest of the world is not, I think, the one we should choose to send, and is more likely to provoke rage and distrust rather than respect or obedience. |
Mako11 | 16 Jan 2017 6:28 a.m. PST |
"My concern is that the US seems bent on imposing its dominance over the globe, ignoring the desires or interests or fears of other nations…". Yea, we're the ones building bases illegally, on formerly pristine reefs in the SCS, to control $5 USD TRILLION in sea trade through the region, that ships through there annually. ROFLMAO……….. Sadly, our carriers no longer have those very nice, long-legged Tomcats to keep enemy aircraft from getting close to our fleets, like they did back in the good old days. |
Legion 4 | 16 Jan 2017 8:22 a.m. PST |
As a sidebar. Just saw this report on CNN … China is the USA's #1 trading partner. Germany #3 … All of which makes sense. But … Who is #2 ? Japan ? The EU ? |
Steve Wilcox | 16 Jan 2017 10:09 a.m. PST |
*sniff* Is someone forgetting their northern neighbour? :( Canada should be pretty high on the list: link |
Wolfhag | 16 Jan 2017 12:58 p.m. PST |
My cousin works for Electric Boat building subs. He indicated the EB is on a hiring spree. 2014: The U.S. Navy awards Electric Boat a $17.6 USD billion contract for the construction of 10 additional Virginia-class submarines (sub hunters, not nukes), the largest contract ever given by the Navy. Known as Block IV, this contract enables Electric Boat and its industry teammate, Newport News Shipbuilding, to proceed with the construction of two ships per year over a five-year period. Someone is getting prepared for something. Wolfhag |
Lion in the Stars | 16 Jan 2017 1:00 p.m. PST |
@Steve: Sorry, most Americans (that blather on the "National" news) aren't aware that there is anything between roughly the Hudson River and the Coast Range. Nevermind the fact that about 90% of the US's land area is between those two points. |
ochoin | 16 Jan 2017 2:20 p.m. PST |
Rather than CNN, you should go look for hard evidence: US Trading partners: link |
Legion 4 | 16 Jan 2017 4:10 p.m. PST |
The individual who stated that works for the US gov't, IIRC … Thought he should know … If I looked up everything that I heard on CNN or FOX. I'd never have time to respond to all the "smarmy" posts from all the smart guys here … at least smarter than me … *sniff* Is someone forgetting their northern neighbour? :( Canada should be pretty high on the list: Sorry Steve, I do know that there was a lot of trade between the dystopian USA and the kindly Great White North. But after hearing so much rhetoric from some Canadians here. I thought that Canada had finally cut all ties with it's Draconian neighbor South of it's open border … |
Lion in the Stars | 16 Jan 2017 9:35 p.m. PST |
@Wolfhag: They're getting ready for a mass retirement of 688-class subs. And a little bit of hiring for the Ohio Replacement boomers, too. But mostly they're building Virginia-class subs at or just behind replacement rate for 688s. We really need to increase production on the Virginias to 3-4 per year to actually increase the fleet size. |
McKinstry | 17 Jan 2017 11:35 a.m. PST |
Electric Boat is hiring up to build the Columbia class SSBN's while maintaining a build rate of two Virginia SSN's per year (one at EB, one in Norfolk). The original plan was to cut back from two Virginia Block IV's per year to one once the Columbia was laid down but that has been changed to an effort to keep a two SSN pace. Under no circumstances will the US up the construction of subs, not enough slips, skilled personnel, subcontractor capacity and more than anything, money. Even the most optimistic of the 350 ship proponents is not suggesting more subs. No sane human thinks a US-China all out shooting war is rational for either party. Faced with an existential threat to their very existence, a losing Chinese leadership would seriously consider going nuclear and even absent that, both economies would collapse as the interdependence is absolute at this point. |
Legion 4 | 17 Jan 2017 4:05 p.m. PST |
No sane human thinks a US-China all out shooting war is rational for either party. Agreed … There is no profit in it … for anyone. |
Lion in the Stars | 17 Jan 2017 5:07 p.m. PST |
Electric Boat is hiring up to build the Columbia class SSBN's while maintaining a build rate of two Virginia SSN's per year (one at EB, one in Norfolk). The original plan was to cut back from two Virginia Block IV's per year to one once the Columbia was laid down but that has been changed to an effort to keep a two SSN pace. Because we're retiring between 2 and 4 Los Angeles-class submarines a year. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 17 Jan 2017 7:37 p.m. PST |
This is just bluster. In his confirmation hearing Tillerson suggested that military action may be taken to eject the chinese from their illegal man-made islands, so China's expected to say something "tough" in reciprocation. Don't read too much into it. Besides, Tillerson might not be confirmed due to his ties to Russia (Putin awarded him the medal of friendship) and desire to lift sanctions so that the company he left can strike lucrative oil deals with Moscow. |
Twoball Cane | 17 Jan 2017 8:41 p.m. PST |
China uses diesel submarines tech from 1918. We use silent nuclear hunter killers. The Chinese navy has one aircraft carrier. Which spent its original life as a cruise ship for tourists. It's a piece of junk. We have I recall 19. They have a decent surface coast guard. But they are no match to the us navy. They simply do not have the naval tech to be anything more than a regional bully to their neighbors. Don't forget the Chinese navy is not battle tested. The us navy has been fighting near constant actions for decades with combat veteran / experienced pilots, crew, tech, systems.
I can't think of a naval engagement china has fought with anyone in 150 years. They know this. |