Who does this insult more, the Chinese, the American military, or any thinking person reading it?
As China's first aircraft carrier takes to the open seas today for its inaugural sea trials, the U.S. government directed a pointed question at the Chinese military: Why would you need a warship like that?This is not helpful.
"We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment," U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters today. "We have had concerns for some time and we've been quite open with them with regard to the lack of transparency from China regarding its power projection and its lack of access and denial of capabilities."
The PRC is a sovereign nation with legitimate maritime security requirements that are easily understood by anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of where maritime strategy and commerce come together.
The fact that the DOS would ask this in public does too things; it insults the Chinese through its patronizing tone and it makes our nation look like it is led by arrogant imperialists at best, simpletons at worst.
STRATCOM fail.
If I were the Chinese I would respond thusly;
"Here are our plans for our follow-on carrier development. Also, the Chinese people would like to know what plans the United States government has to bring its credit rating to back AAA. Our people worry about their investments. Until the Americans do that and assure worries in the investments by the Chinese people in the sovereign debt of the American government, we do not see the reason for their continued spending on such an unnecessarily large and offensively-minded military.As a final note - I find all the wide-eyed panting over the Chinese carrier immature and silly.
We have had concerns about the American ability to service their debt for some time and we've been quite open with them with regard to the lack of transparency from the Americans regarding their capabilities to ensure their own economic stability."
It is a limited carrier with a limited airwing. The French CVN Charles de Gualle is a much more capable platform and we have seen what it can do off Libya. Nice, but no biggie.
I am more interested in how we would kill the Chinese carrier if we ever needed to. That is no problem at all.
As a matter of fact - in the case of general war, I would give the job to the Japanese. Their SS could take care of that quite well and no one would know whose submarine took it out until the conflict was over. I've tangled with the Japanese submarine community in RIMPAC. They would do just fine with the mission. Just fine.
Anyway, it would be fun to watch the US 1120s whine that they didn't get the mission.
If you want to nibble your nails over the Chinese, then nibble over the multi-axis "Porcupine Strategy" they have for the Taiwan Strait that wants to make the prospect so painful to contemplate that we simply won't go there. They don't need a carrier for that. SS, Houbei Class, ASCM, ASBM, H-6M and other land based long range strike aircraft; that is what you should focus on; that is the challenge. Simple, but in numbers and worth a sober ponder.
Against our carriers coming across the Pacific, they only need to get lucky once; we have to get lucky every time.
Like Lucius says;
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
46 comments:
Carrier strike force is still a song of the future for the PLAN. I'd say about 2040s. But idiots in State Dept. are simply freaking out because in their mind a carrier is something that can drive up California coast and bombard Hollywierd (1941, the movie anyone?)
<span><span>I have lowered State Departments intelligence rating from AA to A+. Future prognosis isn't positive. </span>
Also, I wonder how to say "Kiss my arse" in Chinese. </span>
Those State Dept weasels have in one fell swoop made us look like a bunch of whiney, complaining weaklings...of course everything the Obama administration's been doing since day one has been working to that effect, so why I am outraged? ...sigh..
Sal, why would you offer up such a sweet target to the Japanese? 1120s drive around WESTPAC dodging fishing nets and banca boats providing I&W all day long, and when a chance comes to blow something up real big, you want to let the Japanese do it? We do not begrudge you guys popping pirates in the head or the occasional harpoon shot, why no love for us?
I see PRC Naval Aviation being as effective as Soviet Naval Aviation was. It is the EX-VARYAG, correct? Soviets did not get very far. Agree we have other concerns with their growing capabilities and plans.
If I was the PRC, I would not be as nice as your proposed response. Two words, second one "you." Another great moment in State Department history.
Obama administration: "Hey China, what the hell do you need a Navy for? After all, we're getting ready to $hit can our own! I mean, what does an aircraft carrier do, anyway?"
Ignorance that I would expect to come from a Clinton.
State has never been more than a C at best.
American State Department: We suck at dealing with anyone, even Americans because we are nothing more than a shitload od political toadies and lawyers.
God damnit, maybe i can vote John Boltan as president for 2012.
I have no problem with the chinese having nukes or carriers or anything else. It WE who have the problem. Pray for peace, prepare for war. We must prepare for a war with China. Not wish for one but be so strong that the idea of fighting for us is considered insane.
Personaly i'd love to see the PLAN with more carriers. Of course i'd love to see the PLAN help the US and others patrol the seas and do well..........the stuff we do all the time.
Someone told me the other day. The PLA pretty much Told the Party they werent going to be used to put down demonstrations anymore so the party and its boys had to make basicly a police for this. So it gives me hope the PLA may be a positive in china over all.
BUT ALLWAYS prepare for war.
What Obama and his ilk think is that by weakening the US they can make it so we no longer go to war.
How many lives could have been saved if the world had stood up to hitler when chamberlain tried to give away the world.
Those why cry Peace over everything else have killed more people than any army.
Good point! We should get our house in order and get out of the Debt to the chinee before we attempt to lecture them... we have our own ship of fools....
OMG i just read the comments on the abc site.......of course its abc.
Goodbye 5IQ points i'll never get back.
Virgil, at the Babancourt already? ;)
I hate our State Department. They are a bunch of morons.
As for the Chicom carrier, you don't need much of a Navy and only basic carrier capability to project influence over the Spratly Islands.....after<span><span> the U.S. gets into so much runious debt that it has to park its whole fleet... looks like a sound strategy so far for the Chicoms...</span></span>
Said it before and I'll say it again. Our foreign policy team has an understanding of international relations that one would expect to find at a student union protest, not in the halls of power. Buffoons. Arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant idealogues who haven't a clue about what the real world is and how it works.
Maybe if we need a national defense, Obama can send out a twitter and we can have a "flashmob" all trained and equipped for war....
Look, a Navy Cross for one of today's plebes who goes subs, in about 14 or 15 years - when he or she sinks it.
GRANDPA!
Willfully destroying somebody's nice ship, and possibly hurting people in the process, has no place in a Global Force for Good!
The days of actually building a Navy to win battles is OVER. I saw it on the recruiting commercial.
Humanitarian rations for everyone!
Nah. They are all angling for post-Government jobs as lobbysts for foreign countries.
Time to disestablish the Department of State. Make the Foreign Service part of the Department of the Navy.
And this is Outstandingly Stupid. Like it or not, China is a trade power. Trade powers have always wanted to protect the sea lanes. This is one area where we need to engage - point out to the Chinese that they need to work <span>with</span> the United States, not against us. The USA has an interest in peace in East Asia...and is a disintrested friend to all in the region.
<span>Yawn. Forget about the ship going to sea. It will take a generation of Chinese naval aviators to learn how to effectively FIGHT an airwing from a ship at sea. They should sell vultures row tickets to the highest bidders. The cyclic flight ops and Case III learning curves will be fun to watch.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>What about learning how to replenish a carrier at sea? That might take some time. Years I suspect. Do they even have the ships to do it? Sell some tickets to watch that learning experience. Priceless.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>Any wager on their initial mishap rates??? Triple digits?</span>
<span> </span>
<span>They have a new bauble. BFD.</span>
The thing that gets me is so many acting shocked that China has a carrier. It has to be one of the worse kept secrets of all time
Until a year or two ago, China was acting shocked when asked if China would have a carrier. Not than anyone believed them.
Whats up the other sleeve?
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
BSGrad and URR-
Mr. Pritchett pointed out htis article on Varyag.. http://the-diplomat.com/2011/08/13/decoding-china%E2%80%99s-aircraft-carrier/
<block>This is a ship with training wheels for a navy that has never operated a carrier before.
I do agree that it's going to take some time for China to catch up, but right now they have our money and they have an industrial base.
Facebook or Zynga will not serve us well dring the next war, and neither will the LCS.
We need many more shipyards, competent ship designers and many thousands of yardbirds.</block>
One thing about pendulums, they tend to swing back. Of course this one will swing back with us with 20 SSN's and 6 birdfarms, not to mention 20 useless LCS's, a baker's dozen F35's, and about 90 very high time F18's, and no ability to tank more than 800 miles from land...and a shortage of torpedoes.
But 1 out of 10 of the women in reserved for female SSN command slots is about the right odds, historically, to generate at least one ace boat skipper, and a Navy Cross is a Navy Cross. With no tender to put at Saipan or ChiChi Jima, it will be a long transit back to Pearl. But odds are one of the straight A ME or EE NROTC Midshipwomen with a Daddy with gold dolphins and 3 or 4 stripes on his bury me in dress blues in the back of the closet and orders to the Nuke pipeline will have the right stuff.
How many boats we lose from the other end of the spectrum's performance, I won't even speculate. Funny thing is, before that first war patrol, there is no way to tell. There will be surprises.
The guys? The same. Or different. Anybody who says he knows how this is going to turn out, doesn't.
"And the gods of the copybook headings say: 'stick to the devil you know'".
Or don't. The ball is still going round. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
A pendulum does tend to swing back. Unless the forces acting in one direction preclude the balance necessary for return to equilibrium.
The Royal Navy will likely never again be what it had been for centuries. We are pulling onto the same one-way road.
Hard to believe that at the end of WWII, as Midway and FDR were in commission and on thier way West when the war ended, between the CVBs, CVs, CVLs, and CVEs we have gone from over 150 carriers to less than 10.
I'd say the worst case scenario is 300 ship PLAN vis a vis 55 LCS USN by 2042... or maybe earlier depending on circumstances. Chinese tend to not hurry. OTOH, when recession hits both US and EU, even Chinese "wonder economy" will grind to halt as it is export driven. Anyway there is a reason to keep USN in numbers, and with tech edge. Time for new ASCM to replace Harpoons, at the very least. Keep Virginias replacing LA's, churn out Burke's and for god's sake, get a decent frigate instead of LCS.
Were I Chinese not Aussie my response would be more like 'Are you fucking serious?'
Actually that's still my response
Anyway, we might consider that PLAN might just need carrier force for pretty much same reason US maintains much of its carrier force - to keep oil flowing from the gulf... considering India astride the route and multiple chokepoints to cross, this is at least reasonable thing to do.
Shouldn't that be HEATHAN Chinee?
A LOT of liberals in that group. A colonel I hang out with at work and we have coffee/water cooler/bitch sessions told me a story about a retired ranger that managed to get into that foreign service bunch from State over in Afghanistan. He received an evaluation telling him that he needed to get out of there as his actions were not good for his career. What was he doing? Going out in the field, building projects, funding projects, working WITH the military to help stabilize regions and h also met with elders, etc. What did they bring in his place? A female that would leave the base, made the elders come to her, thus linking far too closely to the US military, would get her protective squad in once or twice a week to take her to the big base to go swimming, and she left country everytime she could. As Phib once said, this colonel said as well. State and USAID are huge parts of the problem. I started reading their FOG, Foreign Operating Guide, I think. The part about how to work with the military is pretty funny.
My neighbor works security for USAID. He is not exactly impressed. Apparently they all look like they wandered out of Haight-Ashbury in 1967. And they think like it, too. Demanding that their security element become more and more lightly armed and scolding them for "intrusive" precautions, until one of them gets shot at or close to a bomb. Then, predictably, it is "Why didn't you protect me!?!?!?!?!"
Sort of a euphemism for Democrat defense policy since JFK.
WILY Chinee.
Oh, I can answer this one. It's a MATH problem.
If 500 Chinese sailors die each month on a learning curve at sea, how many years will it take until China runs out of sailors?
...yeah. I thought so.
If I was president, I'd make Bolton my Secretary of State. (And I think Pete Pace has been out long enough that he can come back as SecDef. No?)
The folks in the Harpoon (Naval simulation) have known about since she was sent to the PRC. BTW, I saw a photo of her coming back to port from sea trials: she was not under power, she had black smoke coming from the stack, and most interesting, she has what looked like phased arrays on her forward house and port house (the only part visible to the camera)
No, Miz Bravo, NO! the only candidate for a new SECSTATE would be Gen. Mattis!!!!
He was telling me that they contract out to these kids trying to pay their student loans, no freaking clue what they are doing, etc. Sort of like the vision of a community organizer, I guess. Indoctrination and getting them hooked on the heroine of the govnerment teet early on. Suck them into the system.
<span>If this issue lights a "build fighting ships now" fire under the arses of our diversity worshipping leadership then I am happy to push the panic button with the rest of you.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>In reality though, this is just another example of the same “Fight for Face”, or zheng mianzi, dynamic that brought so much "success" to the Chinese high speed train venture.</span>
<span> </span>
<span>Chill.<span> </span>US deficit spending is a greater threat than the ex-Varyag.</span>
<span> </span>
<p><span>Watchful waiting is in order here.<span> </span>Hyperbole, not so much.</span></p>
Governments act based on perceived intent, militaries plan against adversary capabilities.
Nobody is panicking. Hyperbole, well that can be useful in demonstrating the hazards of ignoring stated intent and technical development of an adversary.
PLAN expansion should be a clarion call to those Diversi-Fascists not to let the Navy wither to 90 ships and become incapable of power projection. We shall see.
But is the US deficit spending really more than a danger than an expanding Chinese Navy? Can those two things even be culled apart? There are those who consider both of those threats to be inextricably intertwined.
I would have thought someone as smart and experienced as Amb. Nuland would have read this copy in draft and said some<span>...</span><span>thing like: "Why are you trying to make me sound like an idiot during my first week on the job?" or something similar. Perhaps the first draft was even worse and _that_ was the improvement?</span>
LOL Byron!
Inscrutable, too, or so I am led to believe.
At least the Clintons are consistent. Der Slickmeister was asking the same question back in '94-95...
Yep, because underestimating the enemy is always a guarantee of success...
Foggy Bottom has a tradition of making us look like a bunch of whiny, complaining weaklings that far predates the Obama administration...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Walker/2011/08/15/Walkers-World-And-if-China-slows/UPI-21731313410734/ - just to remind everyone China isnt ten feet tall...
<span>
It takes a lot more than just a carrier to have a formidable blue water force.... Shi parts, jet parts, food, and let's not forget starch and polish for the admin types.
I bet the food is good back aft at least.....
</span>
Post a Comment