Article

2004-07-01 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-07-01 1:54:35 PM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Commie rant & spittle-filled speech denouncing the imperialist running-dog warmongering bourgeois capitalists and their lackeys in 5, 4, 3...

Posted by Raj 2004-07-01 2:22:57 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2004-07-01 2:22:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 basic message to everyone, everywhere: Just cause the US ARMY is overstretched, dont count yourself safe - Mwuhaha!!

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 2:25:02 PM|| 2004-07-01 2:25:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I prefer yesterday's story when they were on the way to Iran.
Guess the Chicoms were begining to think they might get away with grabbing Taiwan. 7 flatops would make anyone see the light.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-07-01 2:28:33 PM|| 2004-07-01 2:28:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 'But in five to 10 years, it can certainly take on seven,' said Mr Chang Hong-yi, head of Kanwa, in an interview with The Straits Times.

Ah, yeah, but didn't you read...we're doing it in mid-July???? I do like the different stories circulating about these carrier support groups...keeps our enemies (all of them) on their toes!

Posted by BA 2004-07-01 2:34:19 PM|| 2004-07-01 2:34:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Of course, Taiwan is a lot closer to North Korea than to Iran. It's possible there's a plan to take out Kim Jong-Il or the NorK atom bombs or both, with indimidation of China as the cover story. (Seven carriers seems like an awful lot just to make a point about Taiwan.) If so, it's a twofer, since China would be even more intimidated by a successful decapitation and/or disarming of the NorK regime.

Say, when are those 3000 South Korean troops leaving for Iraq? If they should happen to be Marines and embarked on landing ships just as the 7 carriers arrive in the area, or if they should happen to be paratroopers and loaded on transport plans just as the 7 carriers arrive, . . . .

Of course, if I thought this were particularly likely, I'd keep it to myself.

Posted by Dr. Weevil 2004-07-01 2:51:55 PM|| [http://www.doctorweevil.org] 2004-07-01 2:51:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Seven carriers...jeebus. That's gonna fill a whole mess of commie diapers. Oh the stench...the humanity!

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-07-01 3:03:12 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:03:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I think the whole carrier fetish is overdone. Way overdone. The US doesn't need carriers to defend Taiwan. None were used to defend Britain against Germany during WWII. The Chinese cannot take Taiwan because American subs will litter the Taiwan Straits with the remains of their invasion fleet. Even if the Chinese manage to use their ballistic missiles to destroy Taiwanese airfields, the USAF can defend Taiwan using makeshift airfields constructed rapidly by combat engineers, just as American forces projected airpower throughout the Western Pacific during WWII. Carriers or no carriers, the Chinese haven't a prayer of pulling off a successful invasion.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-07-01 3:16:29 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-07-01 3:16:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I doubt the unnamed Chinese officer's claim that China can take on 2 Battle Groups now. As for seven of them. . . d*mn. That's about 14 to 18 guided missile cruisers, 6 to 8 LA class SSNs, plus about 50 strike each = 350 topline fighters. I don't see China being able to do squat about that.

Posted by CRS 2004-07-01 3:17:57 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:17:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 ZF - i very much doubt Chicoms would try a "million man swim" IIUC the assumption is they would use missiles, air power, subs, etc to attack Taiwanese commerce, till Taiwan cries uncle.

Airfields on land on Taiwan would all be within range of Chinese air and missile, whereas Carriers could stand off east of taiwan, challenging range of mainland based assets. Also im not sure modern aircraft can be best used with a makeshift airfield, a la Henderson Field, etc. Carriers give you not just a flight deck but extensive support facilities, and dont involve permanently committing resources to one particular place.

In any case Taiwan is hardly the only place where the US could conceivably use Carriers.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 3:26:40 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:26:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 At first glance, this is reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt sending the battleships of the Great White Fleet to show the big stick, also not unlike the countless REFORGER exercises in Europe. Just to show we can do it. With regard to decapitating NK, carrier battlegroups are not the weapon of first choice. Those F-117s being deployed to the ROK would be much more appropriate, particularly if accompanied by some B-2s.

Posted by RWV 2004-07-01 3:33:31 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:33:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I hate to poo poo the strategists, but the PRC can take out the whole group with nuke warheads on silkworm missiles. Also some No Dong (lol) missiles with nukes are also useful against a large spread-out force. If you think the PRC doesn't think this way then ask yourself why they have invested so heavily in rocket and missile development?

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-07-01 3:35:30 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:35:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 would not an escalation to nukes (even tactical ones)invite a devastating response against the coastal areas from which the silkworms were fired?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 3:44:45 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:44:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 RWV.... yes it does!
(look like a Pacific Reforger!)

ZF you may want to check out the use of carrier air to defend the Atlantic Sealanes during WWII (aka the Big One)

Posted by Fashion Mann 2004-07-01 3:50:45 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:50:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Silkworms would have little chance to pierce the Aegis bubble... it they do it's still not terminal... I don't believe they are nuclear capable. As far as the Chinee hitting a moving target with an ICBM... way unlikely.

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-01 3:54:00 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:54:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 ship - could a nuke exploded OUTSIDE the Aegis bubble still damage the battle group?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-01 3:55:46 PM|| 2004-07-01 3:55:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The Bikini Atoll tests showed that most large ships can survive surface nuke tests. The Saratoga and some of the larger battleships even survived the underwater test (the saratoga took 8 hours to sink after the underwater test and it is guessed with a repair crew onboard it could have been saved).

http://www.scuba-safaris.com/pages/destination/bikini/bikini_wrecks.html

Posted by Patrick 2004-07-01 4:25:30 PM|| 2004-07-01 4:25:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "Nuthin' up m'sleeve..."
-- Bullwinkle J. Moose

Posted by mojo 2004-07-01 4:35:37 PM|| 2004-07-01 4:35:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 EMP from a nearby hit could put the group out of action.

Posted by buwaya 2004-07-01 4:39:49 PM|| 2004-07-01 4:39:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 No links as I'm in a hurry, but supposedly China is buying Sunburn anti ship and SA300 anti aircraft missiles from the Russians. They also want to buy fuel cell based subs (Air Independent Propulsion) from the Germans and develop stealth corvettes (armed with Sunburns presumably) for littoral operations. They have also launched radar satellites.

They are not standing still and will eventually be able to deny the US Navy access to the straits unless we counter.

Strategypage keeps track of these issues pretty well and fas.org has some good links to the weapons systems.

Posted by JAB 2004-07-01 4:52:59 PM|| 2004-07-01 4:52:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Isn't a simple strike on the three gorges dam enough to give the chicoms a puase about using nukes in warfare against the US?

Posted by Chemist 2004-07-01 4:54:00 PM|| 2004-07-01 4:54:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Seven full-deck carriers . . . Task Force 38 rides again!

Posted by Mike 2004-07-01 5:05:32 PM|| 2004-07-01 5:05:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Regarding the missiles, Cyber Sarge - I remember an old article saying that missiles are a far preferable quantity to the PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force) due to their lack of humanity and thus inability to betray the Politburo ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-01 5:27:26 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-01 5:27:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 China is buying Sunburn anti ship

Aren't these the ones that threatened the flying hospitals?

/ole times here are not forgotten

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-01 6:02:37 PM|| 2004-07-01 6:02:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 The comment made "sailing to blockade Iran" may be 100% correct knowing that the ultimate military objective in order to inflict maximum disruption to the general Islamic terrorist movement, naturally radical Iran must be brought under control and the best way is blockade all of Iran's oil for terror attempting to exit from the Persian Gulf.

It will be really something to witness mad mullahs sitting in their cars, at the local Tehran or Qom petrol station ....on long gas lines :)

These are the same people who 'held America hostage' under the Carter years.

Reciprocity is sailing to Iranian waters.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-01 6:14:51 PM|| 2004-07-01 6:14:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Night Ops...

Posted by .com 2004-07-01 6:50:36 PM|| 2004-07-01 6:50:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Check this pix out:

Here's the story:
Hong Kong Stages Massive Democracy March

Posted by Jen 2004-07-01 6:57:32 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-01 6:57:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 kick-ass photos.

oh and "zag"

Posted by eLarson 2004-07-01 6:58:30 PM|| 2004-07-01 6:58:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Liberalhawk: "a "million man swim"

lol

Mhwhahahaaaa!

Posted by Baltic Blog 2004-07-01 7:14:43 PM|| [http://balticblog.blogspot.com] 2004-07-01 7:14:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 No links as I'm in a hurry, but supposedly China is buying Sunburn anti ship and SA300 anti aircraft missiles from the Russians. They also want to buy fuel cell based subs (Air Independent Propulsion) from the Germans and develop stealth corvettes (armed with Sunburns presumably) for littoral operations. They have also launched radar satellites.
Not buying, bought, the Sovremennys came with 3M80s AFAIK. Re: subs, the bulk of the PLAN's boats are Mings/Romeos, i.e. Soviet versions of the type-XXI U-boat so not exactly SOTA, they've tried to design their own conventional boats (Wuhan-C/Song class) but their willingness to buy Kilos suggests the Songs aren't as sexy as they'd like us to believe...
The PLAN are engaged in a bit of a FFG frenzy at the moment AFAIK, not sure how much of a real threat their newer ships (Type-52) pose.

Posted by Dave (UK) 2004-07-01 7:15:06 PM|| 2004-07-01 7:15:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 I told one of the guys at work that if he saw me walking funny that was because I was fully erect.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-07-02 2:24:43 AM|| 2004-07-02 2:24:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Before we get too carried away talking about what China may or may not do with what they may or may not have, lets stop and ask ourselves one question. How does China pay for all of this high tech firepower? Now take a minute and look over almost any item that you may have purchased in the last few years. What do 80% of them have in common? How about that damn MADE IN CHINA stamp. Now sit and think that through for a minute, and then think about our men and women in the military. Would you buy something stamped MADE IN IRAN or MADE IN NORTH KOREA?

Posted by LookAroundYou 2004-07-06 12:27:17 AM|| 2004-07-06 12:27:17 AM|| Front Page Top

17:13 Anonymous5496
10:59 ConservativeView
21:08 Anonymous5893
12:36 Canadian Ranter
10:22 Bulldog
10:10 servicemember78
11:42 ed
11:37 Kev
11:26 Kev
20:14 Anonymous5654
20:04 Anonymous5654
03:17 Truth Seeker
00:27 LookAroundYou
12:28 Bomb-a-rama
11:23 Shipman
08:38 Aris Katsaris
06:03 rhodesiafever
06:00 rhodesiafever
03:15 Mark Espinola
03:10 Mark Espinola
03:00 Super Hose
02:29 someone
02:28 Super Hose
02:24 Super Hose