CHAOS with finger on the TRIGGER

[Tommy T.]

An update to the Chaos topic:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/royal-navy-in-the-pacific-an-ally-against-china-where-we-need-it/ar-BB1eptZb?li=BBnb7Kz

Because of its renewed emphasis on allies, the Biden administration should be grateful for the United Kingdom's plan to deploy a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) to the Indo-Pacific later this year. Sending a British carrier group to Asia demonstrates London's understanding of Chinese President Xi Jinping's global challenge to democracies. Building on such cooperation is a major administration policy objective. The UK's carrier presence will be complemented by submarine and surface ship deployments from France and Germany respectively.

© Getty Images Royal Navy in the Pacific: An ally against China, where we need it

The Royal Navy CSG operated during the U.S.-U.K. "Joint Warrior" exercise in October. This planned deployment indicates that the U.K.'s CSG has reached its "Initial Operating Capability" phase; in plain English, each of the carrier group's escorts can conduct their required missions. While lacking the punch of a large-deck aircraft carrier, the Royal Navy now has far more combat power than it possessed since it operated two Audacious-class fleet carriers in the 1960s.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the CSG's capital ship, displaces 65,000 tons, comparable to the Russian Admiral Kuznetzov and Chinese Liaoning and Shandong. It will be the first carrier group to deploy the F-35; the U.S. Marine Corps has experimented with deploying F-35Bs on its America-class big-deck amphibious ships as makeshift carriers, but the U.S. Navy has yet to deploy F-35Cs on its supercarriers.

Despite appearances, the U.K. group will have a modest impact on the Indo-Pacific balance. The Queen Elizabeth-class lacks a catapult mechanism, instead using a "ski jump" to launch its F-35Bs. This decreases the air wing's range by limiting the payload an aircraft can carry. Because the F-35B has the shortest range of any F-35 variant, investment in range extension would be useful. But unlike the U.S. Navy, which is acquiring the MQ-25 Stingray as a carrier-based tanker, the Royal Navy has no such refueling platform.

Moreover, the HMS Queen Elizabeth fields a limited air wing. The CSG's Carrier Air Wing (CVW), its primary offensive tool, is limited to 24 to 35 F-35Bs, along with 14 helicopters tasked with Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) and Airborne Early Warning (AEW). By comparison, even the understrength short-range air wings deployed aboard U.S. carriers include three to five squadrons (36 to 60 airframes) of F/A-18 multirole fighters, a fixed-wing electronic warfare squadron, and a fixed-wing AEW squadron, along with an ASW-focused helicopter squadron. The F-35B is a fifth-generation stealth fighter that provides the U.K. with sophisticated capabilities, but its range limitations and limited numbers decrease its combat efficacy.

Still, the U.K.'s deployment is an important diplomatic-political signal.

First, it demonstrates the potential for European engagement in the Indo-Pacific. Like its Soviet predecessor, China poses a direct threat to the Western order and must be countered accordingly - but the U.S. is not powerful enough to do so without allies. Moreover, China has increased in stature partly because of its ability to prevent allied cooperation by increasing its area-denial ability at sea. It also has targeted specific European countries, hoping to preclude anti-China policy by promising major infrastructure investments and by using its huge consumer market to attract European companies. Europe has become more skeptical of Chinese "friendship" - but, absent U.S.-guaranteed freedom of navigation and lacking the military capabilities to enforce it themselves, Europe will be at China's mercy. Thus, the U.K. deployment is the first evidence of a major European power willing to defend its Asian interests.

The Biden administration has indicated that alliance-building and multilateralism will define its foreign policy. Considering the threat China poses, international coordination must go beyond environmental cooperation, diplomatic niceties at major summits or even substantive economic measures.

The U.S. must contain Chinese expansion, giving Europe a predominately economic role but leveraging Europe's limited yet sophisticated military capabilities. The U.K. deployment should be a springboard for this strategy.

Second, the U.K. deployment indicates that Britain, despite domestic turmoil, remains a critical ally. During the 1950s, the Royal Navy deployed carriers to the Mediterranean; the British Army and Royal Air Force maintained a significant presence in the Near East, and the Royal Navy maintained bases in Asia. But by the late-1960s, with its confidence shattered after the Suez crisis and its currency devalued, the U.K. progressively withdrew all but token forces from its bases east of the Suez Canal. And, by 1982, British forces were hollowed out - with its Falklands War victory that year largely attributed to luck and U.S. intelligence on Argentina's Exocet missiles.

A resurgence did occur during the latter half of Prime Minister Thatcher's second term, but the British military was largely constructed to fill capability gaps in U.S. forces, rather than deploy independently. The only robust post-1982 British military deployment was its 2000 intervention in Sierra Leone, which stressed British capabilities. Force hollowness increased throughout the 2000s, even as the British forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.K. carrier group deployment, therefore, constitutes a clear policy shift. If Britain has the spine to build a fleet large enough to sustain regular deployments, it can become a pillar of democratic defense architecture in the Near East and Asia, second only to certain regional allies.

The U.S. Navy is attaching a guided missile destroyer, The Sullivans, to the U.K. group, and U.S. pilots will comprise between a third and a half of the Brits' strike-capable air wing. Why add the U.S. ship instead of another British vessel? Because doing so will relieve some pressure on the British fleet, which operates one-third the number of the surface combatants it had during the Falklands War - just 19 ships, including 13 Type 23s that are nearing the end of their service lives. If the U.K. seeks to become a relevant player in the Indo-Pacific balance, then it must remedy this clear force hollowness.

Closer relations with allies and multilateralism are not ends in themselves but, rather, means to greater security and to achieve shared diplomatic, technological and financial goals. The planned cooperation between the U.S. and Royal navies in the Western Pacific is necessary and instructive for the future of all states in the shadow of an increasingly militant China.

Seth Cropsey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington and director of Hudson's Center for American Seapower. He served as a U.S. naval officer and as deputy Undersecretary of the Navy.

[Jake]

7 hours ago, Tommy T. said:

An update to the Chaos topic:

 

HMS Queen Elizabeth is a fine looking warship as well as her escorts.  The French and German navy are in the hot zone too.  And Google the Philippine navy.  They're buying/building fast frigates and corvettes in response to China's latest declaration to use deadly force if necessary....to shoot Filipino fishing vessels in "their' waters.  

Eventually, rules of engagement becomes the fog of war, later blaming who shot first.  I'm really impress with the modern military of Singapore and other Asian military desperately trying to protect their sovereignty.  In particular, the good people of Taiwan are living in desperate fear of attack, just from 100 miles away.  I believe Taiwan will be the most aggressive to shoot first.  And there goes the neighborhood.  

Thanks for sharing Tommy.  

[graham59]

My dearly departed dad (30 years in the Royal Navy), would be saddened to witness the present state of our fleet...along with the state of the country he risked his life helping to defend. .   

[Tommy T.]

And today there is an add-on to Jake's topic:

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines yesterday demanded that China withdraw its maritime militia vessels from Julian Felipe (Whitsun) Reef, saying their continued presence and activities in the area “blatantly infringe upon Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction.”

“The Philippines demands that China promptly withdraw its fishing vessels and maritime assets in the vicinity and adjacent waters of relevant features in the Kalayaan Group of Islands in the West Philippine Sea, and to direct its fishing vessels to desist from environmentally destructive activities,” the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said in a statement.

The DFA issued the statement two days after it filed a diplomatic protest against Beijing over the Julian Felipe Reef incursion.

“China’s continuing infringements and tolerance thereof, notwithstanding the persistent and resolute protests of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, are contrary to China’s commitments under international law and the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” it added.

“Julian Felipe Reef in the Kalayaan Island Group lies in the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone. We reiterate that the continued deployment, lingering presence and activities of Chinese vessels in Philippine maritime zones blatantly infringe upon Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction,” the DFA added.

This developed as the United States embassy said it stands with the Philippines in opposing the presence of some 200 Chinese maritime militia vessels in the reef.

“We stand with the Philippines, our oldest treaty ally in Asia,” the US embassy said in a statement.

“We share the concerns of our Philippine allies,” the US embassy added, noting Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana’s call for Beijing to recall the boats as well as DFA Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr.’s filing of a diplomatic protest.

It said Chinese presence in the reef was meant to “intimidate, provoke and threaten” other countries in the region.

“Chinese boats have been mooring in this area for many months in ever increasing numbers, regardless of the weather,” the embassy pointed out.

It was the Philippine Coast Guard which reported the swarming of the foreign vessels in the reef, which is well within the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Earlier reports said the Chinese vessels numbered 220.

China denied on Monday the report on the presence of its vessels in the area, calling it “speculation” that causes “unnecessary irritation.”

As of yesterday, there were 183 Chinese maritime militia boats in the vicinity of Julian Felipe Reef based on latest surveillance, according to Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief Lt. Gen. Cirilito Sobejana. The reef is located 175 nautical miles west of Bataraza, Palawan.

He told reporters yesterday the situation would be jointly assessed by the military and the National Task Force on the West Philippine Sea.

“Understandably, our mandate is to secure our territory so we really oppose any act of incursion in our territorial waters, including our exclusive economic zone,” Sobejana said.

“But on the other hand, the NTF-WPS takes into consideration other means so jointly we will assess and we will decide what is the best course of action that we can do in the area,” he added.

For now, Sobejana said the AFP would continue its maritime patrols.

Asked what the military would do if the Chinese vessels remain in the area or if more of them arrive, he said the joint assessment to be conducted “will dictate our subsequent course of action.”

Duterte’s Panatag crisis

An expert in maritime affairs said Julian Felipe Reef could become President Duterte’s Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal if China refuses to pull out its vessels and even enforces restrictions on Filipino fishermen.

Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute of Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, was referring to the standoff between the Philippine Navy and China’s maritime surveillance ships in Panatag Shoal that eventually ended with the Chinese seizing control of the shoal in 2012 during the second Aquino administration.

The standoff was triggered by the Chinese pressuring Philippine Navy personnel into releasing Chinese poachers and their illegal catch. The Chinese have since maintained a menacing presence in the shoal.

The standoff prompted Manila’s filing of a case with the International Arbitral Court contesting China’s massive claim in the South China Sea. The court decided three years later in favor of the Philippines.

Batongbacal said letting the Chinese keep their overwhelming presence in Julian Felipe Reef this time would be another serious blow to the Philippines’ shaky jurisdiction over the West Philippine Sea.

“If China does not draw down the Peoples’ Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM) presence and then enforces its exclusionary measures against Filipino fishermen who have been using Union Banks as a fishing ground for decades, Whitsun Reef will become President Duterte’s Scarborough Shoal,” Batongbacal said.

“Unlike the experience of his predecessor, who lost control over Scarborough Shoal after a prolonged standoff, Duterte’s loss of control will be attributed to his overly accommodating and prone posturing over the West Philippine Sea since 2016,” he added.

He pointed out that President Duterte himself stated last year that China was in “possession” of the South China Sea and that it was futile to act against it.

“This is all the signal China needs to confirm his real lack of resolve. Nearly five years of downplaying Chinese moves and kowtowing to Chinese positions in the contested maritime region have enabled Beijing to create a fait accompli such as turning Whitsun Reef into an anchorage,” Batongbacal said.

To address this potential crisis, he said the Duterte administration should drop its over-accommodation of China in the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, a militant fisherfolk group said it expects the country’s defense sector to at least enforce the basic rules of engagement through a peaceful confrontation to drive away the Chinese vessels out of Philippine waters.

The Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas (Pamalakaya) said it is demanding the AFP and the Department of National Defense (DND) “act decisively and accordingly” on China’s “blatant display of force” in Philippine waters.

The group expressed disappointment at government’s “snail-paced line of attack” even after confirming China’s latest encroachment.

“Why is the government’s response to this obviously foreign invasion of our territory so slow? It’s been more than two weeks since the Chinese vessels were spotted in our waters and yet the armed and defense forces seem to be stuck on a passive monitoring stage,” Pamalakaya national chairman Fernando Hicap said in a statement.

“Their tedious actions contradict the word defense itself, they only act as spectators,” he added.

The group earlier said the diplomatic protest filed by the DFA was “weak and insufficient” as it was not accompanied by a “determined assertion.” –  Michael Punongbayan, Rhodina Villanueva

[Tommy T.]

Honestly... I really believe there will be a shooting war soon between the USA and some other countries... None of us wants this, but this seems to be the direction where we are headed... I sincerely hope my prediction and thoughts are very wrong...

[Snowy79]

I doubt very much if any country has the political will to do anything to China, they have been lining the pockets of foreign politicians for so long and no doubt have all the evidence sitting nicely on a hard drive somewhere ready to be released and bring down people if they get too much pressure. 

[Jake]

33 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

And today there is an add-on to Jake's topic:

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines yesterday demanded that China withdraw its maritime militia vessels from Julian Felipe (Whitsun) Reef, saying their continued presence and activities in the area “blatantly infringe upon Philippine sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction.”

Wow, saber rattling using a dull bolo knife?  In spite of their limited resources, the Filipino trigger finger may not be as disciplined following rules of engagement, if any.  

[Old55]

The United States is not going to war with China. Our present federal government too preoccupied destroying America from within. 

[Tommy T.]

1 hour ago, Snowy79 said:

I doubt very much if any country has the political will to do anything to China, they have been lining the pockets of foreign politicians for so long and no doubt have all the evidence sitting nicely on a hard drive somewhere ready to be released and bring down people if they get too much pressure. 

I seriously hope you are right, Snowy...

[Tommy T.]

56 minutes ago, Old55 said:

The United States is not going to war with China. Our present federal government too preoccupied destroying America from within. 

I hope, seriously too, that you are very right, Old...!