And if Beijing does that and doesn't strike Guam and Japan, and thus shattering the lid on Pandora's Box with a fire axe, I'll be shocked....
ALERT The Winds of War Blow in Korea and The Far East
- Thread starter northern watch
- Start date
And if Beijing does that and doesn't strike Guam and Japan, and thus shattering the lid on Pandora's Box with a fire axe, I'll be shocked....
Huh. So Norinco updated the MW-1 (Mehrzweckwaffe 1, multipurpose weapon) / LAAAS (Low-Altitude Airfield Attack System) / JP233 system of the late 1970s by crossing it with a guided glider delivery system and lowered the RCS or for all practical purposes copied the US JSOW-B.....not that they'd ever be a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 2008....Note the Facebook post is from four years ago....
Quwa - NORINCO GB6 Stand-off Weapon (SOW) ---------------------------------------------- The GB6 is a precision-guided glide bomb capable of delivering sub-munitions warheads such as fuel-explosive warheads and anti-runway bombs. Offered for export
NORINCO GB6 Stand-off Weapon (SOW) ---------------------------------------------- The GB6 is a precision-guided glide bomb capable of delivering sub-munitions warheads such as fuel-explosive...
www.facebook.com
Quwa
January 4, 2016 ·
NORINCO GB6 Stand-off Weapon (SOW)
----------------------------------------------
The GB6 is a precision-guided glide bomb capable of delivering sub-munitions warheads such as fuel-explosive warheads and anti-runway bombs.
Offered for export by China’s NORINCO, the GB6 is guided via inertial navigation and satellite-aid (INS/GPS).
Similar in concept to the U.S AGM-154 Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW), the GB6 can be launched at ‘stand-off’ range, meaning it could be fired from a point with reduced or no risk of return fire.
----------------------------------------------
Quwa Notes & Analysis:
One of the main advantages of the GB6 SOW is its sub-munitions dispenser, which enables the user to target dispersed targets in key enemy areas, such as air defence sites and naval dockyards.
While the GB6 is not known for incorporating these additions, one could go further by using precision-guided bomblets. Through laser and/or infrared, these bomblets could hit tanks from above.
117117
5 Comments37 Shares
Naval and Defense News - Matrix Games Forums
www.matrixgames.com
Naval and Defense News - Matrix Games Forums
www.matrixgames.com
Last edited:
jward
passin' thru
Apex
@Apex_WW
KYODO: #Japan|ese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe checks in at Keio Univ. Hospital, aide says ”regular checkup”
@Apex_WW
KYODO: #Japan|ese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe checks in at Keio Univ. Hospital, aide says ”regular checkup”
AlfaMan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Let's just hope it's a regular checkup.
jward
passin' thru
The Cavell Group
@TCG_CrisisRisks
10m
South China Sea: Several USAF refuelling tankers over the Pacific towards the South China Sea where the US Navy are conducting exercises. No reports or sightings as yet on if and what they are dragging?
@TCG_CrisisRisks
10m
South China Sea: Several USAF refuelling tankers over the Pacific towards the South China Sea where the US Navy are conducting exercises. No reports or sightings as yet on if and what they are dragging?
AlfaMan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
P-8 Poseidon anti sub planes more than likely. We're keeping them there on station to keep the pressure up on China. Especially after the US secretary's visit to the ROC this week. China popped their ADIZ with Badgers at least once during the visit.
jward
passin' thru
Global: MilitaryInfo
@Global_Mil_Info
4h
According to Nikkei, the U.S. will talk with Asian allies about deploying midrange missiles now under development to counter the "immediate threat" of China's nuclear arsenal.
@Global_Mil_Info
4h
According to Nikkei, the U.S. will talk with Asian allies about deploying midrange missiles now under development to counter the "immediate threat" of China's nuclear arsenal.
jward
passin' thru
SV News
@SVNewsAlerts
13m
Absolutely massive protests have erupted across South Korea. Protestors are demanding a loosing of #COVID19 restrictions.
View: https://twitter.com/SVNewsAlerts/status/1295393601820790785?s=20
@SVNewsAlerts
13m
Absolutely massive protests have erupted across South Korea. Protestors are demanding a loosing of #COVID19 restrictions.
View: https://twitter.com/SVNewsAlerts/status/1295393601820790785?s=20
jward
passin' thru
..No, not the Onion..
EndGameWW3
@EndGameWW3
1h
Kim Jong-un orders North Koreans to hand over pet dogs — so they can be used as meat
View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1295411865787535360?s=20
EndGameWW3
@EndGameWW3
1h
Kim Jong-un orders North Koreans to hand over pet dogs — so they can be used as meat
View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1295411865787535360?s=20
Kim Jong-un, the little malignant, supperating, waste spewing, deformed dwarf of the Norks, needs to be fed to the hogs. Alive... At least he'll be their entertainment...
Bright Blessings,
OldArcher, Witch
jward
passin' thru
Apex
@Apex_WW
·
40m
#NorthKorea will convene a meeting to decide on an "issue of crucial significance" according to state media. (
@Global_Mil_Info
)
Tick, tick, tick....
I guess famine is knocking on the door again and the PRC isn't in any position to help, they've got their own problems....
jward
passin' thru
InsideNK
@inside_nk
US military report has claimed that North Korea has up to 60 nuclear bombs and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons.
Estimates for North Korean nuclear weapons range from 20-60 bombs, with the capability to produce 6 new devices each year, the report states, adding that other estimates suggest they could obtain up to 100 nuclear bombs by the end of 2020.
@inside_nk
US military report has claimed that North Korea has up to 60 nuclear bombs and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons.
Estimates for North Korean nuclear weapons range from 20-60 bombs, with the capability to produce 6 new devices each year, the report states, adding that other estimates suggest they could obtain up to 100 nuclear bombs by the end of 2020.
jward
passin' thru
Guess those recipes you shared earlier for Bosintang are tried and true ones for some locales. I don't guess there is anything inherently wrong with putting dog on the menu, but pets
... least they're going to restaurants. Perhaps ethnocentric o' me, but I can't see forcing me to betray a trust to an animal under my care as ending well for the ptb. -----------------
North Koreans are ordered to hand over 'decadent and bourgeois' pet dogs for 'restaurant meat' as the country is rocked by food shortages
- Dictator Kim Jong-un announced in July that owning a pet is now against the law
- Authorities are identifying homes with dogs in Pyongyang and rounding them up
- Some of the dogs are sent to state-run zoos or sold to dog meat restaurants
Published: 05:49 EDT, 17 August 2020 | Updated: 09:12 EDT, 17 August 2020
Kim Jong-un has declared that pet dogs are a symbol of capitalist 'decadence' and ordered that dogs in Pyongyang be rounded up - and owners are fearful that their beloved pets are being used to solve the nation's food shortages.
Dictator Kim announced in July that owning a pet is now against the law, denouncing having a dog at home as 'a tainted trend of bourgeois ideology'.
'Authorities have identified households with pet dogs and are forcing them to give them up or forcefully confiscating them and putting them down', a source told South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper.
+4
Kim Jong-un has declared that pet dogs are a symbol of capitalist 'decadence' and ordered that dogs in Pyongyang be rounded up
'Some of the dogs are sent to state-run zoos or sold to dog meat restaurants'.
A recent UN report stated that as many as 60 percent of North Korea's 25.5 million people are facing 'widespread food shortages' that have been worsened by international sanctions imposed on the regime for its nuclear missile programmes.
Dog meat has long been considered a delicacy on the Korean Peninsula, although the tradition of eating dogs is gradually fading out in South Korea.
Still, an estimated 1 million dogs are reared on farms to be consumed every year in the South.
Man's best friend is still a staple on the menu in the North, however, with a number of dedicated dog restaurants in Pyongyang.
Dog meat is most popular in the hot and humid summer months as it is believed to provide energy and stamina.
+4
Dog meat, pictured in South Korea, has long been considered a delicacy on the Korean Peninsula, although the tradition of eating dogs is gradually fading out in South Korea
+4
It has been reported that authorities are identifying houses with pet dogs and are forcing owners to give them up or are forcefully confiscating them. Pictured dogs locked in cages in South Korean meat farm
Often served in a spicy soup or stew with vegetables, it is also known for raising the body temperature in the cold winter months
The Chosun Ilbo reported that pet owners are 'cursing Kim Jong-un behind his back' - but there is little they can do as to refuse to comply with the authorities could be interpreted as an act of defiance of a leader who likes to be referred to as the Supreme Dignity.
The outlawing of pets will also have come as a surprise to many middle-class Pyongyang residents, who began to keep dogs after the regime attempted to spruce up its image in the run up to the 1989 World Festival of Youth and Students.
RELATED ARTICLES
-
Kim Jong-un said his bond with Donald Trump was like...
Kim Jong-un visits flood-hit North Korean village in a...
Embraced as a symbol of economic development and sophistication, wealthy families would be seen walking their pets, which even made appearances on state-run television soap operas.
As recently as October 2018, Kim himself presented a pair of 'pungsan' indigenous hunting dogs to Moon Jae-in, the South Korean president, as a symbol of the growing detente between the two nations.
The 'peace puppies' had a fortunate escape as their move to the South coincided with a demand that ordinary North Koreans pay a tax of dog fur, to be turned into coats, to mark the foundation of the Workers' Party.
+4
An estimated 1 million dogs are reared on farms to be consumed every year in the South. Pictured, a South Korean farmer eats dog meat during a counter-rally against animal rights activists against the meat trade
The country is facing widespread food shortages, aggravated by the decision to close the border with China due to coronavirus. Beijing is traditionally Pyongyang's main supporter and the source of much of the food required to feed Kim's people.
North Korea was also hit hard by a number of natural disasters last year, which impacted the harvest, while it has been badly affected by flooding again this month, with crops in the key agriculture regions wiped out.
Kim has nevertheless declared that he and his people will brave the situation, with the young leader telling a meeting of his politburo on Thursday that while the nation has suffered serious losses in the flooding, it should not accept any outside assistance because of the possibility of the coronavirus spreading.
Nearly 100,000 acres of arable land have been inundated, with nearly 17,000 homes and more than 600 public buildings destroyed.
With pork and beef an almost unheard-of luxury for most ordinary people, the culling of the dogs of Pyongyang may be designed to stave off hunger in the coming months.
This comes as severe flooding caused by monsoon rains have prompted the leader to feed victims with his own private grain reserves.
Nearly 1,500 acres of rice fields were flooded as well as 179 housing blocks and 730 single-story homes destroyed.
Kim's decision to used his reserves have gained attention from some diplomats, describing it as an 'SOS signal to China' for emergency aid.
posted for fair use
North Koreans ordered to hand over pet dogs to be used for meat
Kim Jong-un has ordered that dogs in Pyongyang be rounded up after announceing in July that owning a pet is now against the law. Some dogs are being sold to dog meat restaurants.
jward
passin' thru
Drake Long
@DRM_Long
Submarine spotted going into Yulin Naval Base’s bunker. Type 093? 110m length, 11m beam. Not sure what surface vessels are.
@CovertShores
@duandang
View: https://twitter.com/DRM_Long/status/1295863087887724544?s=20
jward
passin' thru
Indo-Pacific News
@IndoPac_Info
14m
Disruptive actions against #China coming “I’ve been told by Trump campaign officials and administration officials to expect an announcement of punitive action against China and #Chinese companies every three to four days between now and Election Day.”
View: https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status/1296115215814123522?s=20
@IndoPac_Info
14m
Disruptive actions against #China coming “I’ve been told by Trump campaign officials and administration officials to expect an announcement of punitive action against China and #Chinese companies every three to four days between now and Election Day.”
View: https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status/1296115215814123522?s=20
Huh. So Norinco updated the MW-1 (Mehrzweckwaffe 1, multipurpose weapon) / LAAAS (Low-Altitude Airfield Attack System) / JP233 system of the late 1970s by crossing it with a guided glider delivery system and lowered the RCS or for all practical purposes copied the US JSOW-B.....not that they'd ever be a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 2008....Note the Facebook post is from four years ago....
Quwa - NORINCO GB6 Stand-off Weapon (SOW) ---------------------------------------------- The GB6 is a precision-guided glide bomb capable of delivering sub-munitions warheads such as fuel-explosive warheads and anti-runway bombs. Offered for export
NORINCO GB6 Stand-off Weapon (SOW) ---------------------------------------------- The GB6 is a precision-guided glide bomb capable of delivering sub-munitions warheads such as fuel-explosive...
Quwa
January 4, 2016 ·
NORINCO GB6 Stand-off Weapon (SOW)
----------------------------------------------
The GB6 is a precision-guided glide bomb capable of delivering sub-munitions warheads such as fuel-explosive warheads and anti-runway bombs.
Offered for export by China’s NORINCO, the GB6 is guided via inertial navigation and satellite-aid (INS/GPS).
Similar in concept to the U.S AGM-154 Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW), the GB6 can be launched at ‘stand-off’ range, meaning it could be fired from a point with reduced or no risk of return fire.
----------------------------------------------
Quwa Notes & Analysis:
One of the main advantages of the GB6 SOW is its sub-munitions dispenser, which enables the user to target dispersed targets in key enemy areas, such as air defence sites and naval dockyards.
While the GB6 is not known for incorporating these additions, one could go further by using precision-guided bomblets. Through laser and/or infrared, these bomblets could hit tanks from above.
117117
5 Comments37 Shares
Naval and Defense News - Matrix Games Forums
Naval and Defense News - Matrix Games Forums
Posted for fair use.....
New Chinese Air-Launched Glide Weapon Designed To Be An Airfield Killer
This latest weapon closely resembles the American AGM-154 JSOW and its design is optimized for standoff attacks primarily against airfields.
www.thedrive.com
New Chinese Air-Launched Glide Weapon Designed To Be An Airfield Killer
This latest weapon closely resembles the American AGM-154 JSOW and its design is optimized for standoff attacks primarily against airfields.
BY JAMIE HUNTER
AUGUST 17, 2020
SHARE
China has unveiled a new “smart” glide dispenser weapon that closely resembles the Raytheon AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW). In a video posted by state-run China Central Television, or CCTV, this weekend, an orange-painted example of the weapon was shown, loaded on a trolley in what was reportedly a People’s Liberation Army Air Force storage facility.
A report on the Shanghai-based news website Eastday stated that CCTV’s National Defense Science and Industry program had disclosed details of the domestically-made 1,100lb (500kg)-class air-launched weapon for the first time. CCTV’s reporter provided a guided tour of the glide weapon, including manually extending and retracting its small wings. The weapon shares obvious common design features with the JSOW including an almost identical tail configuration with six small fins. The front end of the Chinese weapon appears less sophisticated in design than its U.S. counterpart, which also includes a sleeker nose profile that was designed for low-observability (stealth). You can read all about the JSOW in this past article of ours, as well as how it is gaining a powered cruise missile capability here.
CHINA DEPLOYED BOMBERS TO ONE OF ITS SOUTH CHINA SEA ISLANDS FOR THE FIRST TIME ACCORDING TO PHOTO
By Thomas Newdick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
CHINA'S ENHANCED J-20B STEALTH FIGHTER MAY ARRIVE SOON, HERE'S WHAT IT COULD INCLUDE
By Jamie Hunter
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
CHINESE Z-10A ATTACK HELICOPTER SHOWS OFF NEW MISSILE DURING LIVE-FIRE EXERCISE
By Thomas Newdick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
VIDEO OF CHINESE FIGHTERS OVER SOUTH CHINA SEA GIVES INSIGHT INTO LONG-RANGE MISSIONS
By Jamie Hunter
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
CHINESE FIGHTERS CROSS INTO TAIWAN’S SIDE OF THE STRAIT AS HIGH-LEVEL U.S. VISIT BEGINS
By Jamie Hunter and Tyler Rogoway
Posted in THE WAR ZONE
China’s Global Times added more detail, saying the weapon — for which a formal designation remains unknown — “can release hundreds of submunitions,” which it said “can effectively paralyze an airfield in one shot.” A senior engineer at the China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO), which is stated as the weapon’s manufacturer, is quoted as saying that each glide-bomb can carry 240 sub-munitions of six types. These likely include armor-penetrating submunitions and mines that can be dispersed across a large area, such as an airfield or a critical choke point.
“According to reports, this advanced aerial bomb has a range of more than 60 km [37 miles],” the report stated. “It not only has high strike accuracy, but can also be loaded with a variety of ammunition,” it added, describing a dispersal area for the sub-munitions as being “more than 6,000 square meters.” It also attributed the weapon with the ability to perform “high-altitude long-range launch, autonomous all-weather attacks, and high-precision hits.”
“A typical munitions dispenser like this can disable an airfield for an extended period with only one shot because the sheer number of sub-munitions means the whole runway will be destroyed, and it is also possible that some of the submunitions will be mines, which will make attempts to repair the runway very risky,” said the Global Times, quoting a “Chinese military expert.”
The body of the weapon includes a faceted configuration, presumably to reduce its radar signature, plus pop-out wings to increase its glide range. Like the U.S. JSOW, this should allow for a precision strike at long range, without the launch aircraft needing to enter into the heart of high-threat defense zones around a high-value target, such as an airfield.
Runway denial weapons using submunitions such as the Hunting JP233 that was carried by British Royal Air Force Tornados carried a mixture of cratering munitions and delayed fuse mines, the latter of which are designed to hamper repair efforts.
RAYTHEON
An F-16C releases an AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW).
The new Chinese weapon’s sub-munitions payload suggests it’s closer in concept to the now-retired AGM-154A variant of the JSOW of the 1990s era. This carried 145 small bomblets, however, it was removed from the inventory after President George W. Bush’s administration issued new guidelines on cluster munitions in 2008.
The AGM-154A-1, or JSOW-A, featured a BLU-111/B bomb inside and was optimized for use against troops, light vehicles, and surface-to-air missile sites out in the open. As well as these anti-airfield roles, the Chinese weapon could have similar functions as the American JSOW, which is heavily focused on the Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (DEAD) role, which would favor a similar large unitary warhead as an option in the sub-munition package.
The CCTV video includes a launch sequence of the new weapon. This involved an unidentified variant of the Shenyang J-8 Finback fighter jet. Later versions of this air superiority fighter, such as the J-8G, adopted a SEAD role, armed with YJ-91/Kh-31P anti-radar missiles. Notably, two test units fly late-model J-8s and it is possible that the video relates to one of these.
TWITTER SCREENCAP
A capture from the video which appears to show a J-8 Finback releasing the glide weapon.
The AGM-154C-1, meanwhile, is a bunker-buster which carries a specialized British Royal Augmentation Charge, or BROACH, warhead to defeat reinforced concrete and other hardened targets. The AGM-154C-1 also added an imaging infrared seeker for improved accuracy, allowing it to strike moving targets.
The AGM-154 is quoted as having a range in excess of 62 miles and the more recent version features a two-way Strike Common Weapon Datalink from Collins Aerospace, which enables retargeting of the weapon while in flight, the ability to strike moving targets, and abort modes. It isn’t clear what kind of guidance the new Chinese weapon features, but JSOW navigates via a GPS-inertial navigation system and also features a thermal imaging infrared seeker.
The stated range suggests the new Chinese weapon isn’t powered, as is the case with the new AGM-154 variant, the JSOW-ER. Even the non-powered version has a range of nearly twice that of this Chinese derivative.
U.S. NAVY
U.S. Navy ordnance personnel prepare live AGM-154s aboard an aircraft carrier.
The unveiling of this new glide munition follows a number of sightings of similar weapons in recent years. At the Zhuhai Airshow in 2012, NORINCO showed its TL500 cluster glide bomb, a stealthy weapon that was quoted as having a range of 80 miles and weighing in at 1,500 pounds with a payload of 1,100 pounds. This was again shown in 2014, but now with the designation TL500/GB6. Again, this is a submunition dispenser that has been sighted undergoing carriage trials aboard a Shenyang J-16 and exhibited alongside the JF-17 Thunder and the Xian H-6 bomber. The TL500/GB6 is not only larger than the new weapon, but it also features a different configuration, with a cruciform tail unit (four fins) compared to the new weapon’s six.
This new weapon provides more evidence of China’s technological advances, that in this case could be employed to disable airbases via standoff strikes in a region already overflowing with tension. While this initial report focuses on anti-airfield applications, it underlines that the weapon offers multiple payload options and that it is able to perform surgical strikes. It potentially adds a lethal new capability to the dramatically expanding arsenal for its strike fighter and missile-carrying bombers.
Contact the author: jamie@thedrive.com
- RELATED
China Deployed Bombers To One Of Its South China Sea Islands For The First Time According To Photo
The H-6J's visit to Woody Island would be yet more evidence of China’s expanding military activities in a disputed and strategically vital region.
READ NOW - RELATED
China's Enhanced J-20B Stealth Fighter May Arrive Soon, Here's What It Could Include
A new version of the Mighty Dragon might already be in production and it could feature new engines, thrust vectoring, and more. - RELATED
Chinese Z-10A Attack Helicopter Shows Off New Missile During Live-Fire Exercise
The latest footage suggests that the weapon could be integral to a hunter-killer attack helicopter team concept of operations. - RELATED
Video Of Chinese Fighters Over South China Sea Gives Insight Into Long-Range Missions
Su-30 Flanker crews make a 10-hour round trip training flight from the Chinese mainland to the Spratly Islands. - RELATED
Chinese Fighters Cross Into Taiwan’s Side Of The Strait As High-Level U.S. Visit Begins
The Chinese fighters emerged over the channel as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar was about to meet with Taiwan's president.
Last edited:
jward
passin' thru
..other recent reports tout her growing responsibilities :: shrug :: ..
InsideNK
@inside_nk
2m
Kim Yo Jong still missing from high-level meetings in North Korea
View: https://twitter.com/inside_nk/status/1296552984097300482?s=20
InsideNK
@inside_nk
2m
Kim Yo Jong still missing from high-level meetings in North Korea
View: https://twitter.com/inside_nk/status/1296552984097300482?s=20
jward
passin' thru
China Warns US Navy Sailing Near Taiwan is 'Extremely Dangerous'
By James Patterson
08/20/20 AT 4:35 AM
China has called Tuesday’s transit of the U.S. guided-missile destroyer USS Mustin through the Taiwan Strait an "extremely dangerous" move that goes against the interests of both countries.
The scenario has been played out several times in recent months. According to news reports, The USS Mustin, a part of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier strike group is the seventh American warship to sail through the passage this year, each time drawing an angry response from the Communist country.
The Eastern Theater Command of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) who was keeping a close watch on activities in the strait spoke to Reuters about the latest incident. "Any words or deeds that ... cause trouble in the Taiwan Strait [and] are not in line with the fundamental interests of China and the United States, harm the well-being of compatriots on both sides of the strait, pose real threats to peace and stability in the region, and are extremely dangerous", it said.
Taiwan's defense ministry called the southward transit through the strait an "ordinary mission" but Yen Chen-shen, an international relations professor at National Chengchi University in Taipei, called the move a clear signal to Beijing.
"The passage represents the United States' will to push through its freedom of navigation operations in international waters to counter the mainland’s military expansion in the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific region. By regularly sending warships to transit the Taiwan Strait, the US also wants to establish a new normal," told Reuters.
The American view of the passage was given in a statement by the Japan-based 7th Fleet of the U.S. Navy which The South China Morning Post reported Wednesday morning. The statement said, "The U.S. 7th Fleet conducts forward-deployed naval operations in support of U.S. national interests in the Indo-Pacific area of operations. As the U.S. Navy’s largest numbered fleet, the 7th Fleet interacts with 35 other maritime nations to build partnerships that foster maritime security, promote stability, and prevent conflict."
Tensions in the Taiwan Strait stem from Beijing’s insistence that the island is part of its sovereign territory and their apparent willingness to use force to achieve a reunification under Chinese Communist rule. The separation took place in 1949 after the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek's troops retreated to Taiwan and began to forge relations with the U.S. during the Korean War of the early 1950s.
In 1979, when relations between the U.S. and China were friendlier, Washington switched formal diplomatic recognition to Beijing but maintained ties with Taipei with the Taiwan Relations Act that provides a U.S. security guarantee for the island where Taiwan can look to the U.S. if threatened.
The USS Mustin was not alone as it traveled south in the strait and sailed close to mainland China’s east coast and the Taipei-governed Matsu Islands. The PLA and Taipei both sent warships to keep a watch on the American guided-missile destroyer.
After passing through the strait the USS Mustin rejoined the USS Ronald Reagan strike group near the Pratas Islands in the South China Sea.
Related Stories
China Warns US Against 'Playing With Fire' Over Taiwan Visit
Taiwan FM Says China Trying To Turn Island Into 'Next Hong Kong'
A photo released by the US Navy shows Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy vessels in the Gulf near the guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Hamilton and other US military ships Photo: Navy Office of Information / Handout
www.ibtimes.com
By James Patterson
08/20/20 AT 4:35 AM
China has called Tuesday’s transit of the U.S. guided-missile destroyer USS Mustin through the Taiwan Strait an "extremely dangerous" move that goes against the interests of both countries.
The scenario has been played out several times in recent months. According to news reports, The USS Mustin, a part of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier strike group is the seventh American warship to sail through the passage this year, each time drawing an angry response from the Communist country.
The Eastern Theater Command of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) who was keeping a close watch on activities in the strait spoke to Reuters about the latest incident. "Any words or deeds that ... cause trouble in the Taiwan Strait [and] are not in line with the fundamental interests of China and the United States, harm the well-being of compatriots on both sides of the strait, pose real threats to peace and stability in the region, and are extremely dangerous", it said.
Taiwan's defense ministry called the southward transit through the strait an "ordinary mission" but Yen Chen-shen, an international relations professor at National Chengchi University in Taipei, called the move a clear signal to Beijing.
"The passage represents the United States' will to push through its freedom of navigation operations in international waters to counter the mainland’s military expansion in the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific region. By regularly sending warships to transit the Taiwan Strait, the US also wants to establish a new normal," told Reuters.
The American view of the passage was given in a statement by the Japan-based 7th Fleet of the U.S. Navy which The South China Morning Post reported Wednesday morning. The statement said, "The U.S. 7th Fleet conducts forward-deployed naval operations in support of U.S. national interests in the Indo-Pacific area of operations. As the U.S. Navy’s largest numbered fleet, the 7th Fleet interacts with 35 other maritime nations to build partnerships that foster maritime security, promote stability, and prevent conflict."
Tensions in the Taiwan Strait stem from Beijing’s insistence that the island is part of its sovereign territory and their apparent willingness to use force to achieve a reunification under Chinese Communist rule. The separation took place in 1949 after the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek's troops retreated to Taiwan and began to forge relations with the U.S. during the Korean War of the early 1950s.
In 1979, when relations between the U.S. and China were friendlier, Washington switched formal diplomatic recognition to Beijing but maintained ties with Taipei with the Taiwan Relations Act that provides a U.S. security guarantee for the island where Taiwan can look to the U.S. if threatened.
The USS Mustin was not alone as it traveled south in the strait and sailed close to mainland China’s east coast and the Taipei-governed Matsu Islands. The PLA and Taipei both sent warships to keep a watch on the American guided-missile destroyer.
After passing through the strait the USS Mustin rejoined the USS Ronald Reagan strike group near the Pratas Islands in the South China Sea.
Related Stories
China Warns US Against 'Playing With Fire' Over Taiwan Visit
Taiwan FM Says China Trying To Turn Island Into 'Next Hong Kong'
China Warns US Navy Sailing Near Taiwan
Tension levels between China and the U.S. ratcheted up a notch when an American guided-missile destroyer entered the Taiwan Strait headed southward into the South China Sea, drawing the attention of China and Taipei.
www.ibtimes.com
..other recent reports tout her growing responsibilities :: shrug :: ..
InsideNK
@inside_nk
2m
Kim Yo Jong still missing from high-level meetings in North Korea
View: https://twitter.com/inside_nk/status/1296552984097300482?s=20
She'll never be missed, I'm sure...
Bright Blessings,
OldArcher, Witch
northern watch
TB Fanatic
Does the U.S. Need to Fear That China Might Invade Taiwan?
The grim calculus behind any American decision to defend a small, faraway democracy.
By Hal Brands Bloomberg
August 20, 2020, 9:00 AM EDT
No scenario worries American strategists like a possible war with China over Taiwan. Recent months have brought a stream of reports making two things uncomfortably clear: The danger of a Chinese assault on Taiwan is growing. And the U.S., which has an ambiguous security commitment to Taipei, might well lose if it joined such a war on Taiwan’s behalf.
Given this grim forecast, many Americans might fairly ask why the U.S. would even try to defend an island thousands of miles away — a country that wasn’t supposed to have survived this long in the first place. The answer is that the fate of Taiwan may determine the fate of the Western Pacific. But in addressing the possibility, Americans have to understand just how difficult and dangerous it could be to preserve a free Taiwan.
There’s no question that the Chinese military threat to Taiwan is greater than it’s been in decades. From probing Taiwanese air and naval defenses, to posturing forces that could be used in an invasion, to dropping the word “peaceful” from its calls for reunification, Xi Jinping’s government is advertising its determination to bring Taiwan back under its control — perhaps not today or tomorrow, but at some point in the coming years. And whereas China long had more ambition than capability, the military balance has now moved sharply in its favor.
According to press reports, Pentagon-sponsored war games consistently show that the U.S. military would struggle to act quickly and decisively enough to prevent the People’s Liberation Army from overrunning Taiwan. A former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Morell, and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, James Winnefeld, recently argued that a Chinese assault would present Washington with the agonizing choice of either intervening — and suffering catastrophic losses, possibly in a losing cause — or standing aside and seeing the island subdued.
This changing condition of forces, in turn, could also shift Beijing’s calculus. As a successful invasion, or the use of a “surrender or die” ultimatum, becomes more achievable, it will also become more attractive.
Why would any of this matter for America? After all, when Richard Nixon made his opening to China in the early 1970s, he expected a then-authoritarian Taiwan to one day fall back into the mainland’s grasp. More broadly, it might seem absurd that the U.S. would risk war with a nuclear power over an island on China’s doorstep. But there is a three-fold rationale for helping Taiwan defend itself.
First, Taiwan is key to the military balance in the entire Western Pacific. Taiwan anchors the first island chain, which runs from Japan down to the Philippines. In friendly hands, it constitutes a natural barrier to the projection of Chinese air and sea power into the open ocean. In Beijing’s hands, Taiwan would be a stepping stone to regional hegemony.
Control of Taiwan would allow Beijing to extend the reach of its anti-ship missiles, air defenses, fighter and bomber aircraft, and other weapons hundreds of additional miles from its shores. It would let Beijing menace Japan’s energy supplies, sea lines of communication, and even its control of the southern Ryukyu Islands. By complicating American operations in support of remaining regional allies — especially Japan and the Philippines — the loss of Taiwan might well make these countries wonder if opposing Chinese hegemony is even possible.
Second, the loss of Taiwan would shatter U.S. credibility. Credibility is a controversial concept, but America’s alliances in the Pacific rest on the belief that Washington is able and willing to protect them from harm. Once it is revealed that America cannot or will not defend Taiwan, it would be foolish for Tokyo, Manila or Seoul not to wonder whether alignment with the U.S. is still worth incurring China’s wrath. As Taiwan goes, so may go the region.
Finally, Taiwan is a small country with outsized ideological significance. The Chinese Communist Party has long argued that democracy and Chinese culture are incompatible. That’s nonsense, of course, as the mere existence of Taiwan demonstrates. In difficult circumstances, Taipei has done almost everything the world could have asked of it: It has built a strong market economy and made the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Taiwan is a living reminder that the Chinese regime has brought its citizens prosperity but not freedom.
The trouble is that the U.S. is only starting to realize how much it would actually take to deter China from attacking Taiwan, or defeat any assault. As former Pentagon officials have explained, a war in the Taiwan Strait would be a deadly race against the clock. In the opening days of a conflict, to prevent the PLA from getting a critical mass of troops ashore, U.S. and Taiwanese forces would have to sink hundreds of Chinese transports. Taiwan would need to be resilient enough to withstand subversion, bombardment and assault from air and sea; the U.S. might have to absorb heavy casualties among forces trying to fight their way into the theater. That task could be so daunting, a future president might simply decline to fight.
There is an alternative, but not an attractive one. Taiwan would need to invest drastically more in its own defense — probably twice the 2.3% of GDP it currently spends — and stud itself with mines, anti-ship missiles, mobile air defenses and other cheap but lethal capabilities. The Pentagon would have to procure vastly more long-range strike capabilities, as well as additional submarines, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles, and other assets that could be used to weaken an invasion force from the outset. Nor would there be any end in sight — Washington and Taipei would have to reconcile themselves to a long, dynamic competition with Beijing for military advantage, and to the high tensions and recurring crises that could mark the years to come. Recall that, in the first 15 years of the Cold War, there were multiple Berlin crises. The Taiwan Strait could be just as volatile.
We sometimes think of the U.S.-China competition as a fundamentally different kind of great-power contest, one whose outcome will be determined more by control of data than by control of strategic terrain. Yet it is also an old-fashioned military rivalry, with all the perils that entails. It would be catastrophic if the free world were to lose Taiwan. It might also be hard, costly and dangerous to keep it.
Hal Brands is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Most recently, he is the co-author of "The Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order."
To contact the author of this story:
Hal Brands at Hal.Brands@jhu.edu
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net
Does the U.S. Need to Fear That China Might Invade Taiwan?
The grim calculus behind any American decision to defend a small, faraway democracy.
By Hal Brands Bloomberg
August 20, 2020, 9:00 AM EDT
No scenario worries American strategists like a possible war with China over Taiwan. Recent months have brought a stream of reports making two things uncomfortably clear: The danger of a Chinese assault on Taiwan is growing. And the U.S., which has an ambiguous security commitment to Taipei, might well lose if it joined such a war on Taiwan’s behalf.
Given this grim forecast, many Americans might fairly ask why the U.S. would even try to defend an island thousands of miles away — a country that wasn’t supposed to have survived this long in the first place. The answer is that the fate of Taiwan may determine the fate of the Western Pacific. But in addressing the possibility, Americans have to understand just how difficult and dangerous it could be to preserve a free Taiwan.
There’s no question that the Chinese military threat to Taiwan is greater than it’s been in decades. From probing Taiwanese air and naval defenses, to posturing forces that could be used in an invasion, to dropping the word “peaceful” from its calls for reunification, Xi Jinping’s government is advertising its determination to bring Taiwan back under its control — perhaps not today or tomorrow, but at some point in the coming years. And whereas China long had more ambition than capability, the military balance has now moved sharply in its favor.
According to press reports, Pentagon-sponsored war games consistently show that the U.S. military would struggle to act quickly and decisively enough to prevent the People’s Liberation Army from overrunning Taiwan. A former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Morell, and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, James Winnefeld, recently argued that a Chinese assault would present Washington with the agonizing choice of either intervening — and suffering catastrophic losses, possibly in a losing cause — or standing aside and seeing the island subdued.
This changing condition of forces, in turn, could also shift Beijing’s calculus. As a successful invasion, or the use of a “surrender or die” ultimatum, becomes more achievable, it will also become more attractive.
Why would any of this matter for America? After all, when Richard Nixon made his opening to China in the early 1970s, he expected a then-authoritarian Taiwan to one day fall back into the mainland’s grasp. More broadly, it might seem absurd that the U.S. would risk war with a nuclear power over an island on China’s doorstep. But there is a three-fold rationale for helping Taiwan defend itself.
First, Taiwan is key to the military balance in the entire Western Pacific. Taiwan anchors the first island chain, which runs from Japan down to the Philippines. In friendly hands, it constitutes a natural barrier to the projection of Chinese air and sea power into the open ocean. In Beijing’s hands, Taiwan would be a stepping stone to regional hegemony.
Control of Taiwan would allow Beijing to extend the reach of its anti-ship missiles, air defenses, fighter and bomber aircraft, and other weapons hundreds of additional miles from its shores. It would let Beijing menace Japan’s energy supplies, sea lines of communication, and even its control of the southern Ryukyu Islands. By complicating American operations in support of remaining regional allies — especially Japan and the Philippines — the loss of Taiwan might well make these countries wonder if opposing Chinese hegemony is even possible.
Second, the loss of Taiwan would shatter U.S. credibility. Credibility is a controversial concept, but America’s alliances in the Pacific rest on the belief that Washington is able and willing to protect them from harm. Once it is revealed that America cannot or will not defend Taiwan, it would be foolish for Tokyo, Manila or Seoul not to wonder whether alignment with the U.S. is still worth incurring China’s wrath. As Taiwan goes, so may go the region.
Finally, Taiwan is a small country with outsized ideological significance. The Chinese Communist Party has long argued that democracy and Chinese culture are incompatible. That’s nonsense, of course, as the mere existence of Taiwan demonstrates. In difficult circumstances, Taipei has done almost everything the world could have asked of it: It has built a strong market economy and made the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Taiwan is a living reminder that the Chinese regime has brought its citizens prosperity but not freedom.
The trouble is that the U.S. is only starting to realize how much it would actually take to deter China from attacking Taiwan, or defeat any assault. As former Pentagon officials have explained, a war in the Taiwan Strait would be a deadly race against the clock. In the opening days of a conflict, to prevent the PLA from getting a critical mass of troops ashore, U.S. and Taiwanese forces would have to sink hundreds of Chinese transports. Taiwan would need to be resilient enough to withstand subversion, bombardment and assault from air and sea; the U.S. might have to absorb heavy casualties among forces trying to fight their way into the theater. That task could be so daunting, a future president might simply decline to fight.
There is an alternative, but not an attractive one. Taiwan would need to invest drastically more in its own defense — probably twice the 2.3% of GDP it currently spends — and stud itself with mines, anti-ship missiles, mobile air defenses and other cheap but lethal capabilities. The Pentagon would have to procure vastly more long-range strike capabilities, as well as additional submarines, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles, and other assets that could be used to weaken an invasion force from the outset. Nor would there be any end in sight — Washington and Taipei would have to reconcile themselves to a long, dynamic competition with Beijing for military advantage, and to the high tensions and recurring crises that could mark the years to come. Recall that, in the first 15 years of the Cold War, there were multiple Berlin crises. The Taiwan Strait could be just as volatile.
We sometimes think of the U.S.-China competition as a fundamentally different kind of great-power contest, one whose outcome will be determined more by control of data than by control of strategic terrain. Yet it is also an old-fashioned military rivalry, with all the perils that entails. It would be catastrophic if the free world were to lose Taiwan. It might also be hard, costly and dangerous to keep it.
Hal Brands is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Most recently, he is the co-author of "The Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order."
To contact the author of this story:
Hal Brands at Hal.Brands@jhu.edu
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net
Does the U.S. Need to Fear That China Might Invade Taiwan?
AlfaMan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
This report was pretty clearly written by a Chinese communist apologist. Bloomburg, of course.
northern watch
TB Fanatic
northern watch
TB Fanatic
Yes, Bloomberg is not a conservative news site, Bloomberg L.P. has remained a private company since its founding; the majority of which is owned by billionaire Michael Bloomberg who is a Democrat.
northern watch
TB Fanatic
Visualizing The Military Imbalance In The Taiwan Strait
by Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
Tuesday, 08/18/2020 - 01:00
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar visited Taiwan for high level meetings last week in a move that angered Beijing. As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, Azar's unprecedented trip prompted China to send J-10 and J-11 fighter jets into the Taiwan Strait where they briefly crossed the sensitive median line which unofficially separates airspace between the mainland and the island.
China considers Taiwan a rogue province and maintains that reunification is inevitable, reserving its right to use all necessary measures, including military force.
In recent years, political and military tensions between Beijing and Washington have escalated amid the Trump administration's ongoing trade war with China as well as its decision to supply Taipei with advanced variants of the F-16 fighter jet, along with other items of modern military hardware. China's controversial territorial claims in the South China Sea have also contributed to growing feelings of unease across the region and prompted Japan to cast aside its postwar pacifism.
Even though the possibility of China taking Taiwan by force is low, the military balance in the Taiwan Strait is firmly in China's favor. The infographic provides an overview of that imbalance and is based on an annual U.S. government report.
China has never ruled out the possibility of invading Taiwan and it has continued acquiring the military capability to do so. In recent years, it has modernized its military, introducing the J-20, an indigenous 5th generation stealth fighter. It has also commissioned two aircraft carriers (although one is used for training and omitted from the infographic above) along with several modern amphibious transport dock/landing vessels.
www.zerohedge.com
by Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
Tuesday, 08/18/2020 - 01:00
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar visited Taiwan for high level meetings last week in a move that angered Beijing. As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, Azar's unprecedented trip prompted China to send J-10 and J-11 fighter jets into the Taiwan Strait where they briefly crossed the sensitive median line which unofficially separates airspace between the mainland and the island.
China considers Taiwan a rogue province and maintains that reunification is inevitable, reserving its right to use all necessary measures, including military force.
In recent years, political and military tensions between Beijing and Washington have escalated amid the Trump administration's ongoing trade war with China as well as its decision to supply Taipei with advanced variants of the F-16 fighter jet, along with other items of modern military hardware. China's controversial territorial claims in the South China Sea have also contributed to growing feelings of unease across the region and prompted Japan to cast aside its postwar pacifism.
Even though the possibility of China taking Taiwan by force is low, the military balance in the Taiwan Strait is firmly in China's favor. The infographic provides an overview of that imbalance and is based on an annual U.S. government report.
China has never ruled out the possibility of invading Taiwan and it has continued acquiring the military capability to do so. In recent years, it has modernized its military, introducing the J-20, an indigenous 5th generation stealth fighter. It has also commissioned two aircraft carriers (although one is used for training and omitted from the infographic above) along with several modern amphibious transport dock/landing vessels.
Zerohedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
Visualizing The Military Imbalance In The Taiwan Strait
by Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
Tuesday, 08/18/2020 - 01:00
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar visited Taiwan for high level meetings last week in a move that angered Beijing. As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, Azar's unprecedented trip prompted China to send J-10 and J-11 fighter jets into the Taiwan Strait where they briefly crossed the sensitive median line which unofficially separates airspace between the mainland and the island.
China considers Taiwan a rogue province and maintains that reunification is inevitable, reserving its right to use all necessary measures, including military force.
In recent years, political and military tensions between Beijing and Washington have escalated amid the Trump administration's ongoing trade war with China as well as its decision to supply Taipei with advanced variants of the F-16 fighter jet, along with other items of modern military hardware. China's controversial territorial claims in the South China Sea have also contributed to growing feelings of unease across the region and prompted Japan to cast aside its postwar pacifism.
Even though the possibility of China taking Taiwan by force is low, the military balance in the Taiwan Strait is firmly in China's favor. The infographic provides an overview of that imbalance and is based on an annual U.S. government report.
China has never ruled out the possibility of invading Taiwan and it has continued acquiring the military capability to do so. In recent years, it has modernized its military, introducing the J-20, an indigenous 5th generation stealth fighter. It has also commissioned two aircraft carriers (although one is used for training and omitted from the infographic above) along with several modern amphibious transport dock/landing vessels.
Zerohedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
As I've said time and again, there's a reason why the W76-2s were deployed on the Trident II's .......
northern watch
TB Fanatic
northern watch
TB Fanatic
northern watch
TB Fanatic
And we already know everyone else has been thinking about this for a long time.....recall "SCUD in a bucket"?.....
Posted for fair use.....
www.sandboxx.us
‘Missile barges’ could be America’s secret weapon in the Pacific
Alex Hollings | August 18, 2020
In recent years, the United States has begun to shift its military focus away from counter-terror operations and back toward the possibility of a large-scale conflict with near-peer opponents like China. Unfortunately, nearly two straight decades of the Global War on Terror has left the American defense apparatus on the wrong footing for such a war. In some important respects, America now finds itself playing catch up; working to close capability gaps that have presented themselves in Europe and the Pacific.
While America retains the largest military on the planet, it also has further reaching obligations than any other force on the planet as well. In every corner of the globe, America’s military serves in a variety of capacities, from providing a stabilizing presence, to training foreign militaries to defend themselves, to enforcing international norms on the high seas. As we’ve discussed in some depth before, America’s Navy may be huge for this era of relative global stability, but it would find itself significantly outnumbered in a Sino-American war in the Pacific. That issue becomes even more clear when you consider that the U.S. Navy couldn’t deploy the entirety of its fleet to any one waterway without leaving a number of other important interests un-guarded.
When you combine China’s rapidly growing Navy with its well-armed Coast Guard and its maritime militia, you get a positively massive 770-ship Chinese presence in the Pacific. For context, the massive U.S. Navy currently boasts only around 293 ships–and while President Trump has pushed for growth to reach a 355-ship Navy, no real plans to get there have yet to materialize. That means the U.S. Navy would be left to face China’s massive sea fairing presence while outnumbered at least two to one.
When the most powerful military in the world isn’t enough
(U.S. Navy)
Having a massive fleet alone isn’t enough to win a 21st century conflict on the high seas–It’s equally important that you have the right kinds of ships to leverage for specific roles.
Over the years, advancing technology has enabled the United States to move away from the massive fleets of ships and aircraft it maintained during the Second World War, and toward a lower number of assets that are capable of filling multiple roles. Ships like the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, just like multi-role aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, are properly outfitted to serve in a number of capacities. This mindset has allowed the United States to expand its capabilities while reducing its personnel requirements and the overhead costs of maintaining far more assets with far more specialized roles.
But there are downsides to America’s love affair with “multi-role” platforms: They dramatically increase the cost of research and acquisition, and that increased cost forces purchases in fewer numbers. It also forces military assets into positions that don’t fully leverage their broad capabilities.
Three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, the USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Lassen (DDG 82) and USS Shoup (DDG 86) steam in formation during a photo exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer’s Mate Todd P. Cichonowicz)
For some useful context into how more advanced technology has enabled the U.S. to increase capability while decreasing volume, consider that America’s military apparatus wielded a whopping 6,768 ships and an astonishing 300,000 combat airplanes at its peak during World War II. As America poured money into better military technology throughout the Cold War, it transitioned to an era of valuing technology and capability over volume, and today the U.S. Navy boasts just 293 ships, and America maintains a comparatively paltry 13,000 military aircraft.
With so many fewer platforms to utilize, these multi-role ships and airplanes are left doing a wide variety of work that has to be prioritized. Despite being capable of filling multiple roles, these platforms can often only fill one role at a time — making them more effective for strategic posturing, but less effective in a combat situation. Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers are incredibly powerful ships, equipped with a variety of guns, missiles, and torpedoes, but are often relegated to simplistic missile defense operations because of their role within the Aegis missile defense apparatus. These destroyers serve as a shining example of how a ship with a number of uses may get stuck in a single defensive role during large scale conflict.
As former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson put it, BMD (ballistic missile defense) ships are restricted to very confined operating areas that he refers to as “little boxes.”
A cargo ship packed with missiles? Really?
If the United States were to find itself on a collision course with China, one of the nation’s first priorities would be finding ways to rapidly expand both America’s military presence and strategic capabilities in the Pacific. China owns a positively massive ballistic missile stockpile (including hypersonic anti-ship missiles), which would mean missile defense would be considered a significant priority for America’s Aegis destroyers. Unfortunately, that would limit the ability for America’s destroyers to operate in a more offensive capacity, as they steamed in circles around their area of responsibility, waiting to intercept any missiles lobbed their way.
Left to right, the guided missile cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG 69), and the guided missile destroyers USS Roosevelt (DDG 80), USS Carney (DDG 64) and USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) launch a coordinated volley of missiles during a Vandel Exercise (VANDALEX). (US Navy photo)
This would be a significant waste of destroyers, which would in turn limit the capability of other battle groups that couldn’t rely on the offensive power of these warships. In a real way, America would simply need more vertical launch missile tubes (commonly referred to as VLS cells, or Vertical Launch System cells) in the Pacific to bolster both offensive and defensive operations — and it would be essential to get them as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
That’s where the idea for missile barges, or missile ships, comes into play. In a 2019 article in the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings, five experts, including a retired Navy captain and a retired Marine Corps colonel, offered their suggestion for rapidly procuring and equipping commercial cargo ships for combat operations.
(Pixnio)
The premise behind missile barges has been around for some time; after all, at its most simplistic levels, this idea boils down to “just stick a bunch of missiles on a ship you have laying around,” but what differentiates this modern missile barge concept from past iterations is the technology of our day. America has long possessed “containerized” missile platforms that would sit comfortably on the deck of large cargo ships. Further, with data-fusing supercomputers like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, America has also already demonstrated the capability of engaging targets with surface-based weapons via targeting data relayed by nearby aircraft.
Put simply, we already have modular weapon systems that would work when operated off the decks of cargo ships, and we’ve already proven that weapons of that sort can be leveraged to engage targets identified by aircraft… That means this concept would require very little in the way of infrastructure building or development–which equates to both cost and time savings.
How would missile barges work?
(PXHere)
Procuring the hulls
The first step to building a fleet of missile barges would be procuring the hulls of commercial cargo ships, which would likely be a fairly easy endeavor if a war in the Pacific were to occur. It’s estimated that as much as 1/3 of all global commerce sails across the South China Sea on an annual basis, and a conflict between the United States and China would curtail a majority of these trips–due to both the drop in trade between these two economic power houses and the perceived danger of sending commercial ships through what would effectively be the site of the greatest naval conflict in all of recorded history. As a result, purchasing these vessels would likely come at a significantly reduced cost.
Purchasing a new commercial double hulled cargo ship would normally run the United States between $25 and $50 million dollars, but cargo ships that are already in use can be procured on websites like NautiSNP for pennies on the dollar, with some vessels currently on the market for just over $1 million.
Again, a significant drop in trade through the Pacific would likely result in even greater cost savings as firms liquidate their assets in the region to recoup some of their losses.
Modifying commercial ships into missile barges
Once the U.S. Navy had procured the ships themselves, it could begin the relatively significant task of refitting them for service as missile barges. This can be accomplished in one of two ways.
The Navy could utilize containerized missile and drone assets stacked on the ship, which would make it more difficult to discern from traditional cargo vessels while dramatically reducing the actual work required to convert each ship. While the vessels would have to be marked as U.S. Navy ships and flagged as such, the similar profile to commercial ships would force the Chinese Navy to positively identify each vessel before engaging, as many weapons systems rely on inverse synthetic-aperture radar that assesses targets through little more than low-resolution profiling.
That front-end investment could be further curbed by relying on external assets like nearby Aegis destroyers for command and control, relying on the warship’s radar, targeting, and command apparatus for what is effectively little more than an arsenal ship or “floating magazine.” In this regard, missile barges would effectively serve as a supplement to a destroyer’s existing weapons loadout.
Conversely, these vessels could be modified to carry traditional VLS tubes just like those employed by America’s guided missile destroyers today. A container ship could be modified to carry a slew of vertical launch tubes carrying Tomahawk missiles in as little as three to six months. The costs would be higher, but the trade off benefit would be utilizing the same basic systems found on other Navy ships, reducing the required training and logistical concerns associated with standing up a different weapon system.
Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Charles Coleman inspects missile cell hatches on one of two Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) aboard the guided missile cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66). The VLS is capable of launching numerous missiles including the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile and SM-2 Standard Missile. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Charles E. Hill)
As the proposal in Proceedings suggests, it would be important for the Navy to carefully consider how many missile barges they intended to build, and how many missiles they intend to keep on each.
While it’s possible to place more than a hundred VLS tubes and associated missiles on one of these vessels, that would represent both a massive expense and a massive target for the Chinese military. Instead, the proposal suggests converting 10 to 15 cargo ships into missile barges, each carrying between 30 and 50 Tomahawk missiles. That would limit the potential losses if such a vessel were lost, while giving it enough firepower to benefit the Navy’s overarching strategy.
The hybrid-crew model
(U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Jimmy C. Pan)
Of course, another shortfall we have yet to discuss in a Pacific conflict could very well be trained Sailors. As the U.S. Navy rapidly procured and modified ships into missile barges, it would also have to rapidly staff these vessels — which likely wouldn’t be feasible leveraging a traditional Navy recruiting pipeline. Instead, the hybrid crew model proposed by Navy Captain Chris Rawley seems most logical.
Each missile barge would have a crew comprised of both U.S. Navy officers and civilian sailors that have experience operating these commercial vessels. By recruiting from the private sector, the U.S. Navy could rapidly field these ships with crews that are already trained and proficient at the tasks they’d be assigned, while placing Naval officers in command of the vessel and in other essential combat roles.
By using a military command element, operating missile barges in war with a crew made up in part of civilians would still be legal under international law. Indeed, this model is already in use aboard some specific Naval vessels, like the recently decommissioned USS Ponce amphibious transport dock.
These missile barges could be crewed with as few as 30 people, split between U.S. Navy and civilian personnel. Because the missile payloads would not come close to these ship’s total capacity, they could also utilize buoyant cargo sealed in the hull to help make these ships more survivable in the event of an attack.
It’s possible that these ships could be crewed by even fewer people in the near future, as the Navy has already earmarked $400 million in the 2020 budget for the development of two large unmanned surface ships. The Navy’s Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel dubbed “Sea Hunter” has already successfully traversed the open ocean between San Diego and Hawaii all on its own, demonstrating the capability for unmanned Navy ships to come.
Are missile barges actually realistic?
Although the U.S. Navy is in the early stages of what may come to be a transformative era, it seems unlikely that the United States would shift away from its current love affair with high-cost, multi-role platforms any time soon. The new USS Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers serve as a good example of how the U.S. military prefers new, shiny, and expensive hardware over old, rusty, and more cost efficient options. While some within the Defense Department are questioning the future of America’s supercarriers, the alternative posited is usually something akin to smaller, but still rather large and expensive Lightning Carriers built for short-take off, vertical landing F-35Bs.
However, it’s important to note that the Navy of today is a product of the past fifty years of foreign policy posturing, but that may not be the right Navy to see us through a return to large scale conflict. Today, war with China remains a distant threat, but as that threat looms closer, we may see a transition in the Navy’s mindset similar to that of the Air Force’s recent push for “attritable” aircraft to bolster our small volume of high-capability assets.
Attritable, a word seemingly designed to give copy editors stress wrinkles, is the term used by the U.S. Air Force to describe platforms that are cheap enough to be used aggressively, with some degree of losses considered acceptable. This has led the Air Force to investing in drones like the Kratos Valkyrie, which is a low-observable drone capable of carrying two small-diameter bombs for ground strikes while costing only a few million dollars a piece.
Kratos Valkyrie (Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joshua Hoskins)
While it would cost more than a few million dollars to field each missile barge, the price may still be discounted enough to be considered attritable when compared to $13 billion behemoths like the Ford. As unmanned ships become more common, and as a result, more affordable, it may become even more cost effective to leverage existing commercial hulls as a means of offsetting China’s huge numbers advantage in the Pacific.
Does it seem likely that the U.S. Navy would start strapping missiles to old container ships any time soon? The answer is a resounding no, but if America and China continue on this collision course, America’s defense apparatus may find itself being forced to make some hard decisions about just how much capability it can squeeze out of America’s already massive defense budget. If that day comes, missile barges may represent one of the most cost effective force multipliers America could leverage.
Feature image screen captured from included YouTube video
Posted for fair use.....
'Missile barges' could be US secret weapon in the Pacific
The U.S. Navy is seriously outnumbered in the Pacific, but a proposal to convert cargo ships into missile barges could turn the tide.
www.sandboxx.us
‘Missile barges’ could be America’s secret weapon in the Pacific
Alex Hollings | August 18, 2020
In recent years, the United States has begun to shift its military focus away from counter-terror operations and back toward the possibility of a large-scale conflict with near-peer opponents like China. Unfortunately, nearly two straight decades of the Global War on Terror has left the American defense apparatus on the wrong footing for such a war. In some important respects, America now finds itself playing catch up; working to close capability gaps that have presented themselves in Europe and the Pacific.
While America retains the largest military on the planet, it also has further reaching obligations than any other force on the planet as well. In every corner of the globe, America’s military serves in a variety of capacities, from providing a stabilizing presence, to training foreign militaries to defend themselves, to enforcing international norms on the high seas. As we’ve discussed in some depth before, America’s Navy may be huge for this era of relative global stability, but it would find itself significantly outnumbered in a Sino-American war in the Pacific. That issue becomes even more clear when you consider that the U.S. Navy couldn’t deploy the entirety of its fleet to any one waterway without leaving a number of other important interests un-guarded.
When you combine China’s rapidly growing Navy with its well-armed Coast Guard and its maritime militia, you get a positively massive 770-ship Chinese presence in the Pacific. For context, the massive U.S. Navy currently boasts only around 293 ships–and while President Trump has pushed for growth to reach a 355-ship Navy, no real plans to get there have yet to materialize. That means the U.S. Navy would be left to face China’s massive sea fairing presence while outnumbered at least two to one.
When the most powerful military in the world isn’t enough
Having a massive fleet alone isn’t enough to win a 21st century conflict on the high seas–It’s equally important that you have the right kinds of ships to leverage for specific roles.
Over the years, advancing technology has enabled the United States to move away from the massive fleets of ships and aircraft it maintained during the Second World War, and toward a lower number of assets that are capable of filling multiple roles. Ships like the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, just like multi-role aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, are properly outfitted to serve in a number of capacities. This mindset has allowed the United States to expand its capabilities while reducing its personnel requirements and the overhead costs of maintaining far more assets with far more specialized roles.
But there are downsides to America’s love affair with “multi-role” platforms: They dramatically increase the cost of research and acquisition, and that increased cost forces purchases in fewer numbers. It also forces military assets into positions that don’t fully leverage their broad capabilities.
For some useful context into how more advanced technology has enabled the U.S. to increase capability while decreasing volume, consider that America’s military apparatus wielded a whopping 6,768 ships and an astonishing 300,000 combat airplanes at its peak during World War II. As America poured money into better military technology throughout the Cold War, it transitioned to an era of valuing technology and capability over volume, and today the U.S. Navy boasts just 293 ships, and America maintains a comparatively paltry 13,000 military aircraft.
With so many fewer platforms to utilize, these multi-role ships and airplanes are left doing a wide variety of work that has to be prioritized. Despite being capable of filling multiple roles, these platforms can often only fill one role at a time — making them more effective for strategic posturing, but less effective in a combat situation. Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers are incredibly powerful ships, equipped with a variety of guns, missiles, and torpedoes, but are often relegated to simplistic missile defense operations because of their role within the Aegis missile defense apparatus. These destroyers serve as a shining example of how a ship with a number of uses may get stuck in a single defensive role during large scale conflict.
As former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson put it, BMD (ballistic missile defense) ships are restricted to very confined operating areas that he refers to as “little boxes.”
A cargo ship packed with missiles? Really?
If the United States were to find itself on a collision course with China, one of the nation’s first priorities would be finding ways to rapidly expand both America’s military presence and strategic capabilities in the Pacific. China owns a positively massive ballistic missile stockpile (including hypersonic anti-ship missiles), which would mean missile defense would be considered a significant priority for America’s Aegis destroyers. Unfortunately, that would limit the ability for America’s destroyers to operate in a more offensive capacity, as they steamed in circles around their area of responsibility, waiting to intercept any missiles lobbed their way.
This would be a significant waste of destroyers, which would in turn limit the capability of other battle groups that couldn’t rely on the offensive power of these warships. In a real way, America would simply need more vertical launch missile tubes (commonly referred to as VLS cells, or Vertical Launch System cells) in the Pacific to bolster both offensive and defensive operations — and it would be essential to get them as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
That’s where the idea for missile barges, or missile ships, comes into play. In a 2019 article in the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings, five experts, including a retired Navy captain and a retired Marine Corps colonel, offered their suggestion for rapidly procuring and equipping commercial cargo ships for combat operations.
The premise behind missile barges has been around for some time; after all, at its most simplistic levels, this idea boils down to “just stick a bunch of missiles on a ship you have laying around,” but what differentiates this modern missile barge concept from past iterations is the technology of our day. America has long possessed “containerized” missile platforms that would sit comfortably on the deck of large cargo ships. Further, with data-fusing supercomputers like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, America has also already demonstrated the capability of engaging targets with surface-based weapons via targeting data relayed by nearby aircraft.
Put simply, we already have modular weapon systems that would work when operated off the decks of cargo ships, and we’ve already proven that weapons of that sort can be leveraged to engage targets identified by aircraft… That means this concept would require very little in the way of infrastructure building or development–which equates to both cost and time savings.
How would missile barges work?
Procuring the hulls
The first step to building a fleet of missile barges would be procuring the hulls of commercial cargo ships, which would likely be a fairly easy endeavor if a war in the Pacific were to occur. It’s estimated that as much as 1/3 of all global commerce sails across the South China Sea on an annual basis, and a conflict between the United States and China would curtail a majority of these trips–due to both the drop in trade between these two economic power houses and the perceived danger of sending commercial ships through what would effectively be the site of the greatest naval conflict in all of recorded history. As a result, purchasing these vessels would likely come at a significantly reduced cost.
Purchasing a new commercial double hulled cargo ship would normally run the United States between $25 and $50 million dollars, but cargo ships that are already in use can be procured on websites like NautiSNP for pennies on the dollar, with some vessels currently on the market for just over $1 million.
Again, a significant drop in trade through the Pacific would likely result in even greater cost savings as firms liquidate their assets in the region to recoup some of their losses.
Modifying commercial ships into missile barges
Once the U.S. Navy had procured the ships themselves, it could begin the relatively significant task of refitting them for service as missile barges. This can be accomplished in one of two ways.
The Navy could utilize containerized missile and drone assets stacked on the ship, which would make it more difficult to discern from traditional cargo vessels while dramatically reducing the actual work required to convert each ship. While the vessels would have to be marked as U.S. Navy ships and flagged as such, the similar profile to commercial ships would force the Chinese Navy to positively identify each vessel before engaging, as many weapons systems rely on inverse synthetic-aperture radar that assesses targets through little more than low-resolution profiling.
That front-end investment could be further curbed by relying on external assets like nearby Aegis destroyers for command and control, relying on the warship’s radar, targeting, and command apparatus for what is effectively little more than an arsenal ship or “floating magazine.” In this regard, missile barges would effectively serve as a supplement to a destroyer’s existing weapons loadout.
Conversely, these vessels could be modified to carry traditional VLS tubes just like those employed by America’s guided missile destroyers today. A container ship could be modified to carry a slew of vertical launch tubes carrying Tomahawk missiles in as little as three to six months. The costs would be higher, but the trade off benefit would be utilizing the same basic systems found on other Navy ships, reducing the required training and logistical concerns associated with standing up a different weapon system.
As the proposal in Proceedings suggests, it would be important for the Navy to carefully consider how many missile barges they intended to build, and how many missiles they intend to keep on each.
While it’s possible to place more than a hundred VLS tubes and associated missiles on one of these vessels, that would represent both a massive expense and a massive target for the Chinese military. Instead, the proposal suggests converting 10 to 15 cargo ships into missile barges, each carrying between 30 and 50 Tomahawk missiles. That would limit the potential losses if such a vessel were lost, while giving it enough firepower to benefit the Navy’s overarching strategy.
The hybrid-crew model
Of course, another shortfall we have yet to discuss in a Pacific conflict could very well be trained Sailors. As the U.S. Navy rapidly procured and modified ships into missile barges, it would also have to rapidly staff these vessels — which likely wouldn’t be feasible leveraging a traditional Navy recruiting pipeline. Instead, the hybrid crew model proposed by Navy Captain Chris Rawley seems most logical.
Each missile barge would have a crew comprised of both U.S. Navy officers and civilian sailors that have experience operating these commercial vessels. By recruiting from the private sector, the U.S. Navy could rapidly field these ships with crews that are already trained and proficient at the tasks they’d be assigned, while placing Naval officers in command of the vessel and in other essential combat roles.
By using a military command element, operating missile barges in war with a crew made up in part of civilians would still be legal under international law. Indeed, this model is already in use aboard some specific Naval vessels, like the recently decommissioned USS Ponce amphibious transport dock.
These missile barges could be crewed with as few as 30 people, split between U.S. Navy and civilian personnel. Because the missile payloads would not come close to these ship’s total capacity, they could also utilize buoyant cargo sealed in the hull to help make these ships more survivable in the event of an attack.
It’s possible that these ships could be crewed by even fewer people in the near future, as the Navy has already earmarked $400 million in the 2020 budget for the development of two large unmanned surface ships. The Navy’s Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel dubbed “Sea Hunter” has already successfully traversed the open ocean between San Diego and Hawaii all on its own, demonstrating the capability for unmanned Navy ships to come.
Are missile barges actually realistic?
Although the U.S. Navy is in the early stages of what may come to be a transformative era, it seems unlikely that the United States would shift away from its current love affair with high-cost, multi-role platforms any time soon. The new USS Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers serve as a good example of how the U.S. military prefers new, shiny, and expensive hardware over old, rusty, and more cost efficient options. While some within the Defense Department are questioning the future of America’s supercarriers, the alternative posited is usually something akin to smaller, but still rather large and expensive Lightning Carriers built for short-take off, vertical landing F-35Bs.
However, it’s important to note that the Navy of today is a product of the past fifty years of foreign policy posturing, but that may not be the right Navy to see us through a return to large scale conflict. Today, war with China remains a distant threat, but as that threat looms closer, we may see a transition in the Navy’s mindset similar to that of the Air Force’s recent push for “attritable” aircraft to bolster our small volume of high-capability assets.
Attritable, a word seemingly designed to give copy editors stress wrinkles, is the term used by the U.S. Air Force to describe platforms that are cheap enough to be used aggressively, with some degree of losses considered acceptable. This has led the Air Force to investing in drones like the Kratos Valkyrie, which is a low-observable drone capable of carrying two small-diameter bombs for ground strikes while costing only a few million dollars a piece.
While it would cost more than a few million dollars to field each missile barge, the price may still be discounted enough to be considered attritable when compared to $13 billion behemoths like the Ford. As unmanned ships become more common, and as a result, more affordable, it may become even more cost effective to leverage existing commercial hulls as a means of offsetting China’s huge numbers advantage in the Pacific.
Does it seem likely that the U.S. Navy would start strapping missiles to old container ships any time soon? The answer is a resounding no, but if America and China continue on this collision course, America’s defense apparatus may find itself being forced to make some hard decisions about just how much capability it can squeeze out of America’s already massive defense budget. If that day comes, missile barges may represent one of the most cost effective force multipliers America could leverage.
Feature image screen captured from included YouTube video
northern watch
TB Fanatic
northern watch
TB Fanatic
northern watch
TB Fanatic
Also posted in this week's WoW thread....HC
Posted for fair use.....
www.express.co.uk
South China Sea: Beijing's 'nuclear weapons plot' in contested region revealed
SOUTH CHINA SEA tensions have resulted in the threat of Chinese nuclear weapons, an expert warned as Beijing pursues supremacy in the region.
By Charlie Bradley
PUBLISHED: 15:16, Fri, Aug 21, 2020 | UPDATED: 15:17, Fri, Aug 21, 2020
Several countries claim territorial rights in the South China Sea, which has become one of the most hostile regions on the planet. China and the US have increased their military presence in the region in recent years, but one expert warned of the threat of Chinese nuclear submarines. In 2014, China deployed the Jin-class ballistic missile submarine for the first time, each armed with 12 JL-2 nuclear missiles. Operating from a state-of-the-art base near Sanya, on Hainan island's southernmost tip, Jin class submarines started patrolling the depths of the South China Sea.
Trending
But in order to be within range of the US, they had to be able to break out into the Pacific Ocean.
Roughly contiguous to China's "nine-dash line" territorial claim in the South China Sea, the continental shelf drops to a deep basin of around 4,000m, offering better cover for submarines.
That is why some experts believe the deeper waters of the South China Sea, and China's enhanced anti-submarine efforts there, may offer a bastion for Chinese submarines in the future.
Analyst Alexander Neill warned in 2016 that nuclear submarines are central to China's plans in the region.
South China Sea: Chinese submarine (Image: getty)
South China Sea: Submarines are armed with nuclear weapons (Image: getty)
He said in his BBC article: "Mounting concern within the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) over the vulnerability of its land-based nuclear deterrent and the ability to deliver a retaliatory second strike has prompted China to place some of its nuclear warheads on board submarines."
A similar warning was made in a report by US group Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, studying China's island bases in the South China Sea.
The group says that some buildings "host what are most likely anti-aircraft guns", which have visible gun barrels in satellite images, while others are probably what it terms close-in weapons systems.
READ MORE: South China Sea: Pictures prove 'Beijing is serious' about weapons
Related articles
South China Sea mapped (Image: getty)
AMTI said: "These gun and probable close-in weapons systems emplacements show that Beijing is serious about defence of its artificial islands in case of an armed contingency in the South China Sea.
"Among other things, they would be the last line of defence against cruise missiles launched by the United States or others against these soon-to-be-operational air bases."
China's Defence Ministry said its deployment of military equipment was "legitimate and lawful" despite having agreed not to militarise the South China Sea.
The Spratly islands form the epicentre of the complex disputes, as China occupies seven features, and has heavily militarised its portion of the archipelago.
DON'T MISS
World War 3: China's secret underwater base causing 'direct threat' [INSIGHT]
South China Sea: China activated 'ship killer' missiles [ANALYSIS]
World War 3: China 'ready' for conflict with US over Taiwan row [INSIGHT]
South China Sea: A base in Spratly Islands (Image: getty)
South China Sea bases mapped (Image: getty)
Related articles
Described by many as "island fortresses", China has engulfed the South China Sea with man made island bases, and has been accused of forming them specifically for military purposes.
The moving of its aircraft carriers, airstrips and weapons into the region has earned the cluster of bases the nickname: "The Great Wall of Sand."
Some photographs showed cargo ships and supply vessels, which the newspaper said appeared to be delivering construction materials to the China-controlled islands.
Others show runways, hangars, control towers, helipads and radomes as well as a series of multistorey buildings that China has built on reefs.
While China continues its relentless surge for military dominance, the US has regularly aggravated China by sending warships and aircraft carriers through waters Beijing deems to be its own.
Related articles
Posted for fair use.....
South China Sea: Beijing's 'nuclear weapons plot' in contested region
SOUTH CHINA SEA tensions have resulted in the threat of Chinese nuclear weapons, an expert warned as Beijing pursues supremacy in the region.
www.express.co.uk
South China Sea: Beijing's 'nuclear weapons plot' in contested region revealed
SOUTH CHINA SEA tensions have resulted in the threat of Chinese nuclear weapons, an expert warned as Beijing pursues supremacy in the region.
By Charlie Bradley
PUBLISHED: 15:16, Fri, Aug 21, 2020 | UPDATED: 15:17, Fri, Aug 21, 2020
Several countries claim territorial rights in the South China Sea, which has become one of the most hostile regions on the planet. China and the US have increased their military presence in the region in recent years, but one expert warned of the threat of Chinese nuclear submarines. In 2014, China deployed the Jin-class ballistic missile submarine for the first time, each armed with 12 JL-2 nuclear missiles. Operating from a state-of-the-art base near Sanya, on Hainan island's southernmost tip, Jin class submarines started patrolling the depths of the South China Sea.
Trending
-
Brink of WW3: North Korea and China CLASH in deadly sea battle - Kim covers up chaos -
Russia poisoning: Putin rival rushed to hospital after drinking 'poisoned tea' -
'Depart immediately!' Beijing issues warning to US in South China Sea as tensions explode
But in order to be within range of the US, they had to be able to break out into the Pacific Ocean.
Roughly contiguous to China's "nine-dash line" territorial claim in the South China Sea, the continental shelf drops to a deep basin of around 4,000m, offering better cover for submarines.
That is why some experts believe the deeper waters of the South China Sea, and China's enhanced anti-submarine efforts there, may offer a bastion for Chinese submarines in the future.
Analyst Alexander Neill warned in 2016 that nuclear submarines are central to China's plans in the region.
South China Sea: Chinese submarine (Image: getty)
South China Sea: Submarines are armed with nuclear weapons (Image: getty)
He said in his BBC article: "Mounting concern within the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) over the vulnerability of its land-based nuclear deterrent and the ability to deliver a retaliatory second strike has prompted China to place some of its nuclear warheads on board submarines."
A similar warning was made in a report by US group Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, studying China's island bases in the South China Sea.
The group says that some buildings "host what are most likely anti-aircraft guns", which have visible gun barrels in satellite images, while others are probably what it terms close-in weapons systems.
READ MORE: South China Sea: Pictures prove 'Beijing is serious' about weapons
Related articles
-
How coronavirus could see China lose grip on South China Sea -
South China Sea: China's chilling missile tests amid Philippines row
South China Sea mapped (Image: getty)
AMTI said: "These gun and probable close-in weapons systems emplacements show that Beijing is serious about defence of its artificial islands in case of an armed contingency in the South China Sea.
"Among other things, they would be the last line of defence against cruise missiles launched by the United States or others against these soon-to-be-operational air bases."
China's Defence Ministry said its deployment of military equipment was "legitimate and lawful" despite having agreed not to militarise the South China Sea.
The Spratly islands form the epicentre of the complex disputes, as China occupies seven features, and has heavily militarised its portion of the archipelago.
DON'T MISS
World War 3: China's secret underwater base causing 'direct threat' [INSIGHT]
South China Sea: China activated 'ship killer' missiles [ANALYSIS]
World War 3: China 'ready' for conflict with US over Taiwan row [INSIGHT]
South China Sea: A base in Spratly Islands (Image: getty)
South China Sea bases mapped (Image: getty)
Related articles
-
China issues stark warning over US destroyer in South China Sea -
South China Sea tensions on the brink: Vietnam lashes out at state
Described by many as "island fortresses", China has engulfed the South China Sea with man made island bases, and has been accused of forming them specifically for military purposes.
The moving of its aircraft carriers, airstrips and weapons into the region has earned the cluster of bases the nickname: "The Great Wall of Sand."
Some photographs showed cargo ships and supply vessels, which the newspaper said appeared to be delivering construction materials to the China-controlled islands.
Others show runways, hangars, control towers, helipads and radomes as well as a series of multistorey buildings that China has built on reefs.
While China continues its relentless surge for military dominance, the US has regularly aggravated China by sending warships and aircraft carriers through waters Beijing deems to be its own.
Related articles
jward
passin' thru
CNN Philippines
@cnnphilippines
BREAKING: China urges the Philippines to 'immediately stop illegal provocations,' following a diplomatic protest filed by Manila on Chinese Coast Guard's confiscation of Filipino fishermen's devices and issuance of radio challenges at aircraft patrolling the West PH Sea.
@cnnphilippines
BREAKING: China urges the Philippines to 'immediately stop illegal provocations,' following a diplomatic protest filed by Manila on Chinese Coast Guard's confiscation of Filipino fishermen's devices and issuance of radio challenges at aircraft patrolling the West PH Sea.
Google says that there are 87,000 dams in Communist China... Imagine how pissed off the Undines are at such corruption and mismanagement, defiling Gaia's waters, let alone Her land?
China WILL pay, and the floods, and the loss of it's dams will be but the beginning...
Bright Blessings
OldArcher, Witch
China WILL pay, and the floods, and the loss of it's dams will be but the beginning...
Bright Blessings
OldArcher, Witch
jward
passin' thru
Duan Dang
@duandang
1h
Guangdong Maritime Safety Administration announces another naval exercise near Taiwan Strait and Pratas Islands from August 24-29.
View: https://twitter.com/duandang/status/1297450904489099266?s=20
@duandang
1h
Guangdong Maritime Safety Administration announces another naval exercise near Taiwan Strait and Pratas Islands from August 24-29.
View: https://twitter.com/duandang/status/1297450904489099266?s=20