South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)


Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
Big f-ing deal. What do these people think they could do with their silly boat regatta? Impress the Eskimos? Are the boat rides eroding China's efforts to continue tightening its grip in the SCS? Not only no, but hell no. Japan? Australia?? Canada??? Don't make me laugh! It's all sail and no ballast.
You are really weird.
In the same page, you went from one end to the other end ,180 degree about face, on the same subject; naval operations of various countries in SCS.
I think too much free time and an idle baby boomer don't make anybody any good.
Bless your heart LoL.
 

t2contra

Major
You are really weird.
In the same page, you went from one end to the other end ,180 degree about face, on the same subject; naval operations of various countries in SCS.
I think too much free time and an idle baby boomer don't make anybody any good.
Bless your heart LoL.
I like his nutty sense of humor. He hit ludicrous mode.
 

Jura

General
according to NavyTimes
US policy on South China Sea to remain 'consistent,' commander says
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A U.S. naval commander does not expect policy on the South China Sea to change drastically despite statements from the Trump administration that seem to imply otherwise, according to a June 15
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
story.

“The policy is consistent between the two administrations,” Adm. Scott Swift, commander of the Pacific Fleet, told the L.A. Times. “I don’t think anybody is expecting this huge reversal.”

Currently, China claims the majority of the South China Sea, and has been creating artificial islands out of underwater reefs and small archipelagos, turning them into military bases. The Philippines, Vietnam and several other nations in Southeast Asia contest China's self-proclaimed dominion of the sea, according to a report by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The creation of these islands has drawn harsh criticism from many of President Trump's top officials.

On June 2, Defense Secretary James Mattis said that the U.S. cannot accept any nations "militarizing artificial islands," according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. This type of hard-line rhetoric began even before Trump's inauguration — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on January 12 that the U.S. would send China a "clear signal" if it continued to build these islands.

Last month, a U.S. warship sailed within 12 miles of a man-made island to test how China would respond, according to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman accused the U.S. Navy of trespassing, but took no further actions. This is the only time a U.S. vessel has sailed near the Chinese islands during the Trump presidency.

Swift, however, told the L.A. Times that he expects actions like that to be an anomaly, not the norm.

“The amount of [freedom of navigation operations] we do is infinitesimal compared to our everyday exchanges,” he said. “I don’t see how those operations in the South China Sea should be viewed from a Navy perspective as any more consequential than anywhere else.”
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Chances are very good China will dominate the South China Sea in the next five to ten years, and make it a de facto Chinese lake. That's from a Pentagon statement I read recently. So, if we take it at face value, and assume US will not fight China over sovereignty of SCS islands, rocks, and features, then we have to ask under what circumstance US will fight? I believe it's Freedom of Navigation for all ships, civilian and military. So, FONOPs are part of US core interests and US will pursue it with great vigor.
The CSBA report on "Maritime Competition in a Mature Precision-Strike Regime" by Krepinevich is where China dominating the SCS comes from.

It outlines the SCS as a future Chinese bastion.

Plus I don't see the US fighting just for "freedom of navigation". It's just not worth it, for the US or China to actually go to war over.
 
Last edited:

Jura

General
now I read
China to compile historical data about South China Sea Xinhua| 2017-06-21 23:13:36
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A project was launched Wednesday in China that will see researchers compile historical data obtained during expeditions to the South China Sea since the late 1950s.

Researchers will collect and compile valuable data and materials obtained during China's major ocean expeditions to the South China Sea and its affiliated islands and reefs, said Long Lijuan, deputy head of the South China Sea Institute of Oceanology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The project is one of the 14 resource investigation programs approved by the Ministry of Science and Technology this year.

A comparative analysis and research into the data will provide insight into the resources, environment and changes related to the South China Sea and its affiliated islands and reefs.

The project has the participation of 193 scholars from 10 domestic research institutions and universities, who specialize in fields such as marine life, ecology, fishery and geology.

Retired expedition members have been invited to assist the program to ensure the reliability and precision of the data.
EDIT oops I obviously should've posted this in
China's SCS Strategy Thread
 
Last edited:

Jura

General
OK I know the Caroline Islands aren't in the SCS but post here anyway
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Palau is indispensable to our national security and funding the compact is key to our strategic presence in the region.” That’s what the Defense Department’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says — but the House Armed Services Committee disagrees, defunding a $123.9 million payment that gains us access to the islands.

Why is Palau indispensable? Look at the map. That will help. It commands approaches to the Philippines and to Indonesia, as well as Papua New Guinea. And, of course, they flank the Marshall Islands, as well as a wide range of Pacific islands flanking our ally Australia. Also, one source notes that the importance of Palau airfields have taken on “increased importance for PACOM/PACAF given Duterte and his rhetoric in the Philippines.” It provides “a more guaranteed form of access to airfields in the second island chain,” this source says.

And you can read what the head of Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 27:

I strongly urge Congress to pass legislation to approve and implement the 2010 Palau Compact Review Agreement at the earliest opportunity. The passage of this legislation will have a significant impact on our defense relationship with Palau, and will provide a measurable advantage in our strategic posture in the Western Pacific.
The problem is that the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
doesn’t seem to think Palau is important enough to warrant taking money from the Defense Department budget and sending it to the Interior Department, which is what the budget request would do. So, they’ve peeled the money out of their version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, according to two sources familiar with the issue.

The US is responsible for the defense of the Pacific islands. We were granted access to the island chain for 50 years under a Compact of Free Association. As part of that agreement, we owe Palau $123.9 million over the next seven years ($17.7 million a year). In return for that, we get exclusive access to the islands.

If the US were to fail to pay for the compact,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
would make a nice offer. And, if the Chinese were smart, they would run a nice story in Global Times or Xhinhua about the US abandoning one of the tiny island states of the Pacific, which they already assiduously court. All you have to do is look at what has happened in Fiji over the last few years.

In its legislative proposal justifying the request to Congress, the Trump administration says: “This agreement gives the U.S. military critical access and influence in an increasingly contested region where China has constructed artificial islands, installations, and structures and militarized the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.”

We don’t know a great deal about what the US does in Palau. “In fact, for us it’s a necessity because it assures access to Palau, which is prime geography to operate from. Can’t say more here, but you get the point,” one source tells us.

If much of what the US does in Palau is so sensitive that it’s classified that, in itself, would seem to argue strongly that a relative pittance of $123.9 million over seven years might supersede the technical concern of the HASC about transferring money from the DoD budget to another department.

My bet is that the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, led by one Sen. John McCain, will make a very persuasive argument in the NDAA conference that Palau receive the money America committed to pay it, period.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Jura

General
this thread abandoned? anyway, I now read
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
surprise attack tomorrow could annihilate US forces and bases in Japan, two Navy officers found. But deploying more missile defenses
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— would protect most targets north of Okinawa, Commanders Thomas Shugart and Javier Gonzalez found in simulations. Such a stronger defense, in turn, would reduce the temptation for Beijing to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

This scenario isn’t implausible. Chinese history and doctrine since 1949 show
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Korea in 1950, India in 1962, Vietnam in 1974 and ’79. The Chinese usually justify their attacks as a defensive response to actions that threaten their sovereignty or vital interests. But those vital interests are defined very broadly — e.g. Beijing’s claim to the entire South China Sea — and armed force is seen as a legitimate response to purely political, non-violent provocations.

China’s estimated 1,200 short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) can hit Okinawa, the largest single cluster of US bases, which is also the closest to China. China’s 200 to 300 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) can reach all of Japan. These missiles could hit their targets within about 15 minutes of launch. Then a second, slower wave of bombers and ground-launched cruise missiles would hit whatever the first wave missed. Special penetrating warheads would crack hardened bunkers, while “cratering” submunitions would rip up runways to trap aircraft on the ground.

There are some
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Japan today, primarily aimed at a potential North Korean strike, but Shugart and Gonzalez say they’d be overwhelmed by a Chinese assault. Even if the defenses work perfectly, they will run out of interceptors. There’s promising research on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that can keep firing much longer — as long as the power holds out, for lasers — but these aren’t deployable today. So Shugart and Gonzalez looked at missile defense systems available today.

What would it take to stop an all-out Chinese salvo? Two more Patriot batteries, two more Aegis ships, and — most crucial — five
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The Amy’s Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense system can shoot down targets that fly too high for Patriot to touch, and it also has longer range.

Even if the US deploys these additional defenses, Okinawa is still in trouble. It’s too close to China and in range of too many kinds of missiles. “We still found that the Okinawa defenses would still be overwhelmed… but at least damage was mitigated,” Gonzalez said. On the other hand, “the ballistic missiles heading to…the mainland of Japan were mostly intercepted.”

The problem with this plan is it requires five THAAD batteries, when the Army only has
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and one of which is committed to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. (Just one more THAAD battery is being built under current contracts). Unless the US is willing to strip missile defenses from other regions of the world to protect Japan — and both Russia and Iran have invested heavily in long-range missiles — we’d need to buy more THAAD.

That’s a worthwhile investment, Shugart argued. Admittedly, we’re shooting down relatively cheap offensive missiles with relatively expensive interceptors. It’s easier to hit an airfield than a missile moving hundreds of miles an hour, so it takes a $3 million Patriot to shoot down a $1 million Scud. (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
could help with this problem too. The laser weapon itself is expensive, but the cost per shot is pennies). But you have to count the cost of what the incoming missiles would destroy, as well. “A few billion dollars” of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Shugart said, could save “tens of billions of dollars of ships, aircraft, facilities, (and) lives.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
this thread abandoned? anyway, I now read
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Needless knee jerking if you ask me.
If PRC fires their ballistic missiles the US will have to respond by shooting their own ICBMs towards China resulting to MAD.
I really do not think PRC is willing to call that bluff.
Even if US does not the seat at UNSC will not save PRC from a world wide embargo stopping all economic trades dead in their tracks.
Basically it's not worth it.
 

Jura

General
now noticed UPDATED: USS Stethem Conducts Freedom of Navigation Operation Past Triton Island in South China Sea
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This post has been updated with a statement from U.S. Pacific Fleet.

A U.S. destroyer came within 12 nautical miles of a Chinese holding in the South China Sea, a U.S. defense official told USNI News on Sunday morning.

USS Stethem (DDG-63) passed by Triton Island in the Paracel Island chain on Sunday to test claims by not only Bejing but also Vietnam and Taiwan, the official confirmed to USNI News.

Since the Trump administration has begun testing excessive maritime claims in the South China Sea, Pentagon officials have repeatedly said they would not confirm reports of freedom of navigation operations outside of the yearly report that outlines the operations.

“U.S. forces operate in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region on a daily basis, including in the South China Sea. All operations are conducted in accordance with international law and demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows. That is true in the South China Sea as in other places around the globe,” U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Matt Knight said in a statement to USNI News on Sunday.
“We conduct routine and regular FONOPs, as we have done in the past and will continue to do in the future. Summaries of these operations are released publicly in the annual DoD Freedom of Navigation Report, and not sooner.”

The passage was first reported Sunday morning by Fox News. Fox reported a Chinese warship
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

While Pentagon officials are reticent to confirm details, it is likely Stethem conducted an innocent passage past Triton and tested Chinese requirement for prior notification before entering territorial waters and Beijing’s expansive claims around the Paracel Island chain.

“China claims illegal straight baselines that encircle the entire island group,” James Kraska, a professor of international law, oceans law and policy at the U.S. Naval War College’s Stockton Center for the Study of International Law told USNI News last year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, USS Decatur (DDG-73) conducted a freedom of navigation operation that tested just the baseline. Vietnam and Taiwan also have claims to the territory which China has occupied since the 1970s.

In early 2016, USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) came within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the Paracels — without prior notification.

“This operation challenged attempts by the three claimants, China, Taiwan and Vietnam, to restrict navigation rights and freedoms around the features they claim by policies that require prior permission or notification of transit within territorial seas. The excessive claims regarding Triton Island are inconsistent with international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Stethem’s transit follows a May operation in which USS Dewey (DDG-105) passed within six nautical miles of the Chinese installation on Mischief Reef in the boldest statement the U.S. has made to date in challenging China’s claims to its artificial islands.

Without prior notification, Dewey came withinsix nautical miles of Mischief Reef and conducted a man-overboard drill as part of the test of Chinese claims.

While China’s militarization of its chain of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands chain closer to the Philippines have drawn the most international concern, Beijing has also been installing military equipment in its Paracel Island chain closer to Vietnam.

USNI News understands in May the Office of the Secretary of Defense presented the National Security Council a schedule for future regional FON ops to create a menu of options for the NSC to choose from when U.S. assets are in the region.

The following is the July 2, 2017 complete statement from U.S. Pacific Fleet to USNI News.

U.S. forces operate in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region on a daily basis, including in the South China Sea. All operations are conducted in accordance with international law and demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows. That is true in the South China Sea as in other places around the globe.

We have a comprehensive Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOP) program under which U.S. Forces challenge excessive maritime claims across the globe to demonstrate our commitment to uphold the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations under international law.

FONOPs are not about any one country, nor are they about making political statements. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, we conducted FONOPs challenging excessive maritime claims of 22 different coastal States, including claims of allies and partners.

We conduct routine and regular FONOPs, as we have done in the past and will continue to do in the future. Summaries of these operations are released publicly in the annual DoD Freedom of Navigation Report, and not sooner.
 

Top