northern watch
TB Fanatic
From my email inbox
ALERT The Winds of War Blow in Korea and The Far East
- Thread starter northern watch
- Start date
jward
passin' thru
UPDATED: Attack Submarine USS Connecticut Suffers Underwater Collision in South China Sea
By: Sam LaGrone
October 7, 2021 2:38 PM • Updated: October 7, 2021 3:51 PM
USS Connecticut (SSN-22) arrives at Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan for a scheduled port visit on July 31, 2021. US Navy Photo
This post has been updated with additional details on the injuries to the crew of USS Connecticut and the location of the collision.
Almost a dozen sailors have been injured after a U.S. nuclear attack submarine hit an unknown underwater object in the South China Sea, USNI News has learned.
The Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) suffered an underwater collision while operating in international waters on Oct. 2 and is returning to port in U.S. 7th Fleet, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.
“The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries,” Capt. Bill Clinton told USNI News.
“The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated.”
A defense official told USNI News about 11 sailors were hurt in the incident with moderate to minor injuries. The attack boat is now headed to Guam and is expected to pull in within the next day, the official said. The underwater strike occurred in the South China Sea and the attack boat has been making its way to Guam on the surface since Saturday, a defense official confirmed to USNI News.
The Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash., based submarine deployed on May 27 for the Pacific, the Navy announced at the time. The service has released photographs of the submarine operating in the Western Pacific with port calls in Japan in late July and August. U.S. 7th Fleet commander Adm. Karl Thomas visited the submarine in August, according to the service.
Connecticut is one of three Sea Wolf-class boats, a late Cold War attack submarine designed to hunt the most complex Soviet submarines in deep blue water. Along with USS Sea Wolf (SSN-21) and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), Connecticut is among the Navy’s most capable and sensitive attack boats.
The last known instance where a submerged U.S. submarine struck another underwater object was in 2005. Then, USS San Franciso (SSN -711) struck an underwater mountain at full speed near Guam. One sailor died in the incident.
The following is the complete Oct. 7 statement from Pacific Fleet.
The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries.
The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated.”
UPDATED: Attack Submarine USS Connecticut Suffers Underwater Collision in South China Sea - USNI News
By: Sam LaGrone
October 7, 2021 2:38 PM • Updated: October 7, 2021 3:51 PM
USS Connecticut (SSN-22) arrives at Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan for a scheduled port visit on July 31, 2021. US Navy Photo
This post has been updated with additional details on the injuries to the crew of USS Connecticut and the location of the collision.
Almost a dozen sailors have been injured after a U.S. nuclear attack submarine hit an unknown underwater object in the South China Sea, USNI News has learned.
The Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) suffered an underwater collision while operating in international waters on Oct. 2 and is returning to port in U.S. 7th Fleet, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.
“The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries,” Capt. Bill Clinton told USNI News.
“The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated.”
A defense official told USNI News about 11 sailors were hurt in the incident with moderate to minor injuries. The attack boat is now headed to Guam and is expected to pull in within the next day, the official said. The underwater strike occurred in the South China Sea and the attack boat has been making its way to Guam on the surface since Saturday, a defense official confirmed to USNI News.
The Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash., based submarine deployed on May 27 for the Pacific, the Navy announced at the time. The service has released photographs of the submarine operating in the Western Pacific with port calls in Japan in late July and August. U.S. 7th Fleet commander Adm. Karl Thomas visited the submarine in August, according to the service.
Connecticut is one of three Sea Wolf-class boats, a late Cold War attack submarine designed to hunt the most complex Soviet submarines in deep blue water. Along with USS Sea Wolf (SSN-21) and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), Connecticut is among the Navy’s most capable and sensitive attack boats.
The last known instance where a submerged U.S. submarine struck another underwater object was in 2005. Then, USS San Franciso (SSN -711) struck an underwater mountain at full speed near Guam. One sailor died in the incident.
The following is the complete Oct. 7 statement from Pacific Fleet.
The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries.
The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated.”
UPDATED: Attack Submarine USS Connecticut Suffers Underwater Collision in South China Sea - USNI News
northern watch
TB Fanatic
northern watch
TB Fanatic
U.S. cutting nuclear warhead stockpile despite major China, Russia buildups
New Energy, State Department fact sheets show declines in U.S. arsenal
By Bill Gertz - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 6, 2021
The number of U.S. nuclear warheads declined over the past seven years and currently includes 3,750 nuclear warheads, both weapons deployed on missiles and bombers and many others kept in storage, according to Energy and State Department fact sheets made public this week.
The number of warheads in the strategic weapons arsenal is down from 4,717 as of September 2014.
The latest fact sheets hailed the declassification of the stockpile as a necessary transparency measure aimed at promoting the weapons nonproliferation. The Trump administration declined to make public the number of warheads in order to protect efforts to deter nuclear-armed adversaries.
According to the latest disclosures, as of September 2020, the number of U.S. warheads was 3,750, down from around 31,255 in 1968 and 22,217 following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. A total of 711 nuclear warheads were dismantled since September 2017, the last time warhead numbers were made public.
The number of non-strategic nuclear arms was not disclosed. These include a stockpile of aircraft-dropped nuclear bombs.
The warhead stockpile includes active and inactive warheads. Active warheads are both strategic and non-strategic weapons kept in an operational, ready-for-use status.
Inactive warheads are kept on standby and do not have bottles of tritium gas used to enhance their explosive power as do active warheads.
The current strategic warhead stockpile under the New START arms treaty is 1,389 warheads deployed on long-range missiles, submarine-launched missiles and warheads counted for delivery on strategic bombers.
Disclosure of the decline in U.S. warheads comes as China is building an estimated 350 new silos for long-range missiles at three locations in western China, as The Washington Times reported earlier this year. U.S. officials estimate the new silos will house the 10-warhead DF-41 missile, and suggest a production capability of up to 3,500 new warheads.
China’s current strategic warhead stockpile has been estimated to be around 250 warheads.
Russia also is building up its nuclear forces with exotic strategic weapons, including nuclear-powered cruise missiles and a high-speed underwater drone armed with a multi-megaton warhead.
Adm. Charles Richard, commander of the Omaha-based Strategic Command, warned in a speech in August that both China and Russia are aggressively modernizing their nuclear arsenals and was particularly alarmed by nuclear advances being made by Beijing.
“We are witnessing a strategic breakout by China,” Adm. Richard told a missile defense conference in Alabama. “The explosive growth in their nuclear and conventional forces can only be what I described as breathtaking.”
U.S. cutting nuclear warhead stockpile despite major China, Russia buildups - Washington Times
New Energy, State Department fact sheets show declines in U.S. arsenal
By Bill Gertz - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 6, 2021
The number of U.S. nuclear warheads declined over the past seven years and currently includes 3,750 nuclear warheads, both weapons deployed on missiles and bombers and many others kept in storage, according to Energy and State Department fact sheets made public this week.
The number of warheads in the strategic weapons arsenal is down from 4,717 as of September 2014.
The latest fact sheets hailed the declassification of the stockpile as a necessary transparency measure aimed at promoting the weapons nonproliferation. The Trump administration declined to make public the number of warheads in order to protect efforts to deter nuclear-armed adversaries.
According to the latest disclosures, as of September 2020, the number of U.S. warheads was 3,750, down from around 31,255 in 1968 and 22,217 following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. A total of 711 nuclear warheads were dismantled since September 2017, the last time warhead numbers were made public.
The number of non-strategic nuclear arms was not disclosed. These include a stockpile of aircraft-dropped nuclear bombs.
The warhead stockpile includes active and inactive warheads. Active warheads are both strategic and non-strategic weapons kept in an operational, ready-for-use status.
Inactive warheads are kept on standby and do not have bottles of tritium gas used to enhance their explosive power as do active warheads.
The current strategic warhead stockpile under the New START arms treaty is 1,389 warheads deployed on long-range missiles, submarine-launched missiles and warheads counted for delivery on strategic bombers.
Disclosure of the decline in U.S. warheads comes as China is building an estimated 350 new silos for long-range missiles at three locations in western China, as The Washington Times reported earlier this year. U.S. officials estimate the new silos will house the 10-warhead DF-41 missile, and suggest a production capability of up to 3,500 new warheads.
China’s current strategic warhead stockpile has been estimated to be around 250 warheads.
Russia also is building up its nuclear forces with exotic strategic weapons, including nuclear-powered cruise missiles and a high-speed underwater drone armed with a multi-megaton warhead.
Adm. Charles Richard, commander of the Omaha-based Strategic Command, warned in a speech in August that both China and Russia are aggressively modernizing their nuclear arsenals and was particularly alarmed by nuclear advances being made by Beijing.
“We are witnessing a strategic breakout by China,” Adm. Richard told a missile defense conference in Alabama. “The explosive growth in their nuclear and conventional forces can only be what I described as breathtaking.”
U.S. cutting nuclear warhead stockpile despite major China, Russia buildups - Washington Times
northern watch
TB Fanatic
jward
passin' thru
Apex
@Apex_WW
3m
China orders coal mines to increase production amid its 'worst electricity crisis' in decades
jward
passin' thru
What Does USS Connecticut's Mysterious Collision Say About Pentagon's Strategy in South China Sea?
Kiwi
15-19 minutes
Although the US Navy statement says that the collision occurred while the US sub was "operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region," US defence officials later revealed to CBS News that the incident took place in the highly contested South China Sea, most of which is claimed by the People's Republic of China. The collision left two sailors "moderately" injured while several more sustained minor bumps and bruises.Following the announcement, Beijing demanded more information from Washington on the incident including the exact location of the accident, the intention of the US navigation, and whether it caused nuclear leakage or damaged the local marine environment.Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian suggested that the US deliberately delayed and concealed the details of the incident and accused Washington of stirring up trouble and creating tensions in the region in the name of freedom of navigation.
US Sub in the South China SeaGiven that tensions have been growing between Washington and Beijing for quite a while, the decision not to make the news immediately public was apparently made "to maintain operational security and be aware that such an accident could worsen the current geopolitical situation between the two countries," according to the expert."I think it has to do with the secrecy surrounding the usage of submarines," presumes Arnaud Sobrero, an independent writer focused on defence technology and East Asian affairs and ITSS Verona expert on Defence and Procurement.According to Sobrero, one needs to see the incident in a broader context: first, this incident signals that the United States operates submarines in the South China Sea; second, the USS Connecticut is a "state-of-the-art-armament and state-of-the-art surveillance" nuclear-powered submarine."Whatever type of mission that the submarine was doing, I think it's important not to reveal the location of the submarine as well," he says.
"So that's probably one of the reasons why there's been some delay in announcing this incident."Collision With Another Sub Can't be Entirely Ruled OutThe details of the incident remain shrouded in secrecy; however the media claim, citing US Navy officials, that it is not believed that China caused the collision and that although it is not clear what object struck the USS Connecticut, it was not another submarine. US officials specified that the Connecticut had returned to the surface "under its own power," adding that a full damage assessment would be conducted later at the US base in Guam."It's not the first time that a collision has happened between a submarine and a larger object," Sobrero notes, referring to the 2009 smash-up between two nuclear-powered submarines of France and the UK.The HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant collided in the night between 3 and 4 February 2009. The two subs were "badly damaged" although they came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported, the BBC wrote at the time, citing First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band.According to the writer, it appears that the submarine was hit very hard. This apparently means that either an object or the submarine was moving fast. And the other side is the fact that submarines are very silent and operate in stealth mode, he highlights."So it's not entirely impossible that the unknown object was another submarine," the defence expert deems.
Why Stealth Passage is Fraught With RisksOne might ask as to how the collision could occur given all the navigational tools atomic submarines have.At the same time, it is hardly surprising that the incident on 2 October has prompted China's ire given the nature of the propulsion of the nuclear-powered submarine."That's particularly the case in Seawolf-class submarines," says Sobrero. "They have a nuclear reactor, which is in charge of the propulsion of the submarine. They are basically underwater nuclear plants. So obviously there's a risk that this can damage the reactor core. And second, there is a type of armament that the submarine carries on board."China-US Tensions are GrowingIt is unclear whether the US will reveal what actually happened on that day in the South China Sea.
De Paolis suggests that Washington is likely to weigh the pros and cons before making the decision on whether to make the details of the incident public, given Sino-American frictions which started under President Donald Trump and have continued under his successor.Whatever happened to the USS Connecticut will eventually surface because of the damage to the submarine, Sobrero believes: "The US would have to make some repairs and that's going to have some cost for the shipyards."What’s more, the USS Connecticut's mysterious collision in the South China Sea coincided with joint military exercises carried out north of Taiwan by US and UK aircraft carriers together with Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand.On 2 October and 3 October, a total of 17 surface warships from the six countries participated in joint drills in the region off the southwest coast of Okinawa, according to the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF), cited by the Taiwan Times. The newspaper also quoted Japan's nationalist paper Sankei Shimbun that "bluntly" stated that the drills were aimed at "containing" China.Meanwhile, Sino-American tensions continue to escalate: it has recently been reported that the US has been secretly maintaining a limited contingent of US Special Ops and Marines in Taiwan for at least a year. Two lawmakers on US national security committees admitted that they had been unaware of the US military deployment in Taiwan, according to Politico.
The big questions are where were they and what were they doing there? Were they spying in Chinese waters? Were they tapping into underwater sea cables?
The vessels of the usn continue to run into things. What is not mentioned by these 2 "experts" is whether the sub remained on the surface as it traveled to guam. If so, the damage is significant. The info available is still sketchy, but what is fairly certain is the israeloamericans do not want the location of the accident revealed as that would probably disclose what the sub's mission was. That mission, if revealed probably would cause more embarrassment/international outrage than the fact the sub got damaged. Expext the israeloamerican damage control network to go to work here with their usual govno.
The USS Connecticut, a Seawolf-class nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine, collided with an unknown underwater object on October 2 in the South China Sea. While US officials remain mute on the details of the collision, maritime security and defence experts Marta De Paolis and Arnaud Sobrero have discussed what could have actually happened.
Although the US Navy statement says that the collision occurred while the US sub was "operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region," US defence officials later revealed to CBS News that the incident took place in the highly contested South China Sea, most of which is claimed by the People's Republic of China. The collision left two sailors "moderately" injured while several more sustained minor bumps and bruises.
Following the announcement, Beijing demanded more information from Washington on the incident including the exact location of the accident, the intention of the US navigation, and whether it caused nuclear leakage or damaged the local marine environment.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian suggested that the US deliberately delayed and concealed the details of the incident and accused Washington of stirring up trouble and creating tensions in the region in the name of freedom of navigation.
US Sub in the South China Sea
"The South China Sea is one of the most disputed and economically significant waterways. China claims nearly the whole area below its arguable nine-dash line and has constructed artificial islands and installation navy outposts in current years," says Marta De Paolis, expert of Maritime Security at Luiss University. "The US has been conducting 'freedom of navigation' operations in the area where the incident happened."
Given that tensions have been growing between Washington and Beijing for quite a while, the decision not to make the news immediately public was apparently made "to maintain operational security and be aware that such an accident could worsen the current geopolitical situation between the two countries," according to the expert.
According to Sobrero, one needs to see the incident in a broader context: first, this incident signals that the United States operates submarines in the South China Sea; second, the USS Connecticut is a "state-of-the-art-armament and state-of-the-art surveillance" nuclear-powered submarine.
"Whatever type of mission that the submarine was doing, I think it's important not to reveal the location of the submarine as well," he says. "So that's probably one of the reasons why there's been some delay in announcing this incident."
Collision With Another Sub Can't be Entirely Ruled Out
The details of the incident remain shrouded in secrecy; however the media claim, citing US Navy officials, that it is not believed that China caused the collision and that although it is not clear what object struck the USS Connecticut, it was not another submarine. US officials specified that the Connecticut had returned to the surface "under its own power," adding that a full damage assessment would be conducted later at the US base in Guam.
"It's not the first time that a collision has happened between a submarine and a larger object," Sobrero notes, referring to the 2009 smash-up between two nuclear-powered submarines of France and the UK.
The HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant collided in the night between 3 and 4 February 2009. The two subs were "badly damaged" although they came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported, the BBC wrote at the time, citing First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band.
What is interesting in the case involving the USS Connecticut is an indication that there are some injuries, in contrast to the 2009 incident, according to the defence expert. "[T]he injuries suggest that the collision was pretty violent, and there’s likely to be structural damage in the submarine," Sobrero notes.
"So it's not entirely impossible that the unknown object was another submarine," the defence expert deems.
Why Stealth Passage is Fraught With Risks
One might ask as to how the collision could occur given all the navigational tools atomic submarines have.
"These ships are all about stealthiness," explains Marta De Paolis. "To remain stealthy, they would often turn off their active sonar so others cannot detect them, which leaves them essentially blind relying on charts, and those charts do not show anything… It is easy to recall that nuclear-powered submariners have a history of accidents. As we know, the underwater environment is hazardous. Submariners face many risks and insecurities due to this environment."
At the same time, it is hardly surprising that the incident on 2 October has prompted China's ire given the nature of the propulsion of the nuclear-powered submarine.
"That's particularly the case in Seawolf-class submarines," says Sobrero. "They have a nuclear reactor, which is in charge of the propulsion of the submarine. They are basically underwater nuclear plants. So obviously there's a risk that this can damage the reactor core. And second, there is a type of armament that the submarine carries on board."
China-US Tensions are Growing
It is unclear whether the US will reveal what actually happened on that day in the South China Sea. De Paolis suggests that Washington is likely to weigh the pros and cons before making the decision on whether to make the details of the incident public, given Sino-American frictions which started under President Donald Trump and have continued under his successor.
Whatever happened to the USS Connecticut will eventually surface because of the damage to the submarine, Sobrero believes: "The US would have to make some repairs and that's going to have some cost for the shipyards."
It's also interesting that the collision occurred just a couple of weeks after the AUKUS agreement between UK, Australia and US on submarine technologies, according to the defence expert. "This also highlights how important submarines are and that the US is willing to think of a more active presence in the South China Sea," he emphasises.
What’s more, the USS Connecticut's mysterious collision in the South China Sea coincided with joint military exercises carried out north of Taiwan by US and UK aircraft carriers together with Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
On 2 October and 3 October, a total of 17 surface warships from the six countries participated in joint drills in the region off the southwest coast of Okinawa, according to the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF), cited by the Taiwan Times. The newspaper also quoted Japan's nationalist paper Sankei Shimbun that "bluntly" stated that the drills were aimed at "containing" China.
Meanwhile, Sino-American tensions continue to escalate: it has recently been reported that the US has been secretly maintaining a limited contingent of US Special Ops and Marines in Taiwan for at least a year. Two lawmakers on US national security committees admitted that they had been unaware of the US military deployment in Taiwan, according to Politico.
sputniknews.com
Kiwi
15-19 minutes
Although the US Navy statement says that the collision occurred while the US sub was "operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region," US defence officials later revealed to CBS News that the incident took place in the highly contested South China Sea, most of which is claimed by the People's Republic of China. The collision left two sailors "moderately" injured while several more sustained minor bumps and bruises.Following the announcement, Beijing demanded more information from Washington on the incident including the exact location of the accident, the intention of the US navigation, and whether it caused nuclear leakage or damaged the local marine environment.Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian suggested that the US deliberately delayed and concealed the details of the incident and accused Washington of stirring up trouble and creating tensions in the region in the name of freedom of navigation.
US Sub in the South China SeaGiven that tensions have been growing between Washington and Beijing for quite a while, the decision not to make the news immediately public was apparently made "to maintain operational security and be aware that such an accident could worsen the current geopolitical situation between the two countries," according to the expert."I think it has to do with the secrecy surrounding the usage of submarines," presumes Arnaud Sobrero, an independent writer focused on defence technology and East Asian affairs and ITSS Verona expert on Defence and Procurement.According to Sobrero, one needs to see the incident in a broader context: first, this incident signals that the United States operates submarines in the South China Sea; second, the USS Connecticut is a "state-of-the-art-armament and state-of-the-art surveillance" nuclear-powered submarine."Whatever type of mission that the submarine was doing, I think it's important not to reveal the location of the submarine as well," he says.
"So that's probably one of the reasons why there's been some delay in announcing this incident."Collision With Another Sub Can't be Entirely Ruled OutThe details of the incident remain shrouded in secrecy; however the media claim, citing US Navy officials, that it is not believed that China caused the collision and that although it is not clear what object struck the USS Connecticut, it was not another submarine. US officials specified that the Connecticut had returned to the surface "under its own power," adding that a full damage assessment would be conducted later at the US base in Guam."It's not the first time that a collision has happened between a submarine and a larger object," Sobrero notes, referring to the 2009 smash-up between two nuclear-powered submarines of France and the UK.The HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant collided in the night between 3 and 4 February 2009. The two subs were "badly damaged" although they came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported, the BBC wrote at the time, citing First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band.According to the writer, it appears that the submarine was hit very hard. This apparently means that either an object or the submarine was moving fast. And the other side is the fact that submarines are very silent and operate in stealth mode, he highlights."So it's not entirely impossible that the unknown object was another submarine," the defence expert deems.
Why Stealth Passage is Fraught With RisksOne might ask as to how the collision could occur given all the navigational tools atomic submarines have.At the same time, it is hardly surprising that the incident on 2 October has prompted China's ire given the nature of the propulsion of the nuclear-powered submarine."That's particularly the case in Seawolf-class submarines," says Sobrero. "They have a nuclear reactor, which is in charge of the propulsion of the submarine. They are basically underwater nuclear plants. So obviously there's a risk that this can damage the reactor core. And second, there is a type of armament that the submarine carries on board."China-US Tensions are GrowingIt is unclear whether the US will reveal what actually happened on that day in the South China Sea.
De Paolis suggests that Washington is likely to weigh the pros and cons before making the decision on whether to make the details of the incident public, given Sino-American frictions which started under President Donald Trump and have continued under his successor.Whatever happened to the USS Connecticut will eventually surface because of the damage to the submarine, Sobrero believes: "The US would have to make some repairs and that's going to have some cost for the shipyards."What’s more, the USS Connecticut's mysterious collision in the South China Sea coincided with joint military exercises carried out north of Taiwan by US and UK aircraft carriers together with Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand.On 2 October and 3 October, a total of 17 surface warships from the six countries participated in joint drills in the region off the southwest coast of Okinawa, according to the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF), cited by the Taiwan Times. The newspaper also quoted Japan's nationalist paper Sankei Shimbun that "bluntly" stated that the drills were aimed at "containing" China.Meanwhile, Sino-American tensions continue to escalate: it has recently been reported that the US has been secretly maintaining a limited contingent of US Special Ops and Marines in Taiwan for at least a year. Two lawmakers on US national security committees admitted that they had been unaware of the US military deployment in Taiwan, according to Politico.
The big questions are where were they and what were they doing there? Were they spying in Chinese waters? Were they tapping into underwater sea cables?
The vessels of the usn continue to run into things. What is not mentioned by these 2 "experts" is whether the sub remained on the surface as it traveled to guam. If so, the damage is significant. The info available is still sketchy, but what is fairly certain is the israeloamericans do not want the location of the accident revealed as that would probably disclose what the sub's mission was. That mission, if revealed probably would cause more embarrassment/international outrage than the fact the sub got damaged. Expext the israeloamerican damage control network to go to work here with their usual govno.
The USS Connecticut, a Seawolf-class nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine, collided with an unknown underwater object on October 2 in the South China Sea. While US officials remain mute on the details of the collision, maritime security and defence experts Marta De Paolis and Arnaud Sobrero have discussed what could have actually happened.
Although the US Navy statement says that the collision occurred while the US sub was "operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region," US defence officials later revealed to CBS News that the incident took place in the highly contested South China Sea, most of which is claimed by the People's Republic of China. The collision left two sailors "moderately" injured while several more sustained minor bumps and bruises.
Following the announcement, Beijing demanded more information from Washington on the incident including the exact location of the accident, the intention of the US navigation, and whether it caused nuclear leakage or damaged the local marine environment.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian suggested that the US deliberately delayed and concealed the details of the incident and accused Washington of stirring up trouble and creating tensions in the region in the name of freedom of navigation.
US Sub in the South China Sea
"The South China Sea is one of the most disputed and economically significant waterways. China claims nearly the whole area below its arguable nine-dash line and has constructed artificial islands and installation navy outposts in current years," says Marta De Paolis, expert of Maritime Security at Luiss University. "The US has been conducting 'freedom of navigation' operations in the area where the incident happened."
Given that tensions have been growing between Washington and Beijing for quite a while, the decision not to make the news immediately public was apparently made "to maintain operational security and be aware that such an accident could worsen the current geopolitical situation between the two countries," according to the expert.
"I think it has to do with the secrecy surrounding the usage of submarines," presumes Arnaud Sobrero, an independent writer focused on defence technology and East Asian affairs and ITSS Verona expert on Defence and Procurement.
According to Sobrero, one needs to see the incident in a broader context: first, this incident signals that the United States operates submarines in the South China Sea; second, the USS Connecticut is a "state-of-the-art-armament and state-of-the-art surveillance" nuclear-powered submarine.
"Whatever type of mission that the submarine was doing, I think it's important not to reveal the location of the submarine as well," he says. "So that's probably one of the reasons why there's been some delay in announcing this incident."
Collision With Another Sub Can't be Entirely Ruled Out
The details of the incident remain shrouded in secrecy; however the media claim, citing US Navy officials, that it is not believed that China caused the collision and that although it is not clear what object struck the USS Connecticut, it was not another submarine. US officials specified that the Connecticut had returned to the surface "under its own power," adding that a full damage assessment would be conducted later at the US base in Guam.
"It's not the first time that a collision has happened between a submarine and a larger object," Sobrero notes, referring to the 2009 smash-up between two nuclear-powered submarines of France and the UK.
The HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant collided in the night between 3 and 4 February 2009. The two subs were "badly damaged" although they came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported, the BBC wrote at the time, citing First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band.
What is interesting in the case involving the USS Connecticut is an indication that there are some injuries, in contrast to the 2009 incident, according to the defence expert. "[T]he injuries suggest that the collision was pretty violent, and there’s likely to be structural damage in the submarine," Sobrero notes.
According to the writer, it appears that the submarine was hit very hard. This apparently means that either an object or the submarine was moving fast. And the other side is the fact that submarines are very silent and operate in stealth mode, he highlights.
"So it's not entirely impossible that the unknown object was another submarine," the defence expert deems.
Why Stealth Passage is Fraught With Risks
One might ask as to how the collision could occur given all the navigational tools atomic submarines have.
"These ships are all about stealthiness," explains Marta De Paolis. "To remain stealthy, they would often turn off their active sonar so others cannot detect them, which leaves them essentially blind relying on charts, and those charts do not show anything… It is easy to recall that nuclear-powered submariners have a history of accidents. As we know, the underwater environment is hazardous. Submariners face many risks and insecurities due to this environment."
At the same time, it is hardly surprising that the incident on 2 October has prompted China's ire given the nature of the propulsion of the nuclear-powered submarine.
"That's particularly the case in Seawolf-class submarines," says Sobrero. "They have a nuclear reactor, which is in charge of the propulsion of the submarine. They are basically underwater nuclear plants. So obviously there's a risk that this can damage the reactor core. And second, there is a type of armament that the submarine carries on board."
China-US Tensions are Growing
It is unclear whether the US will reveal what actually happened on that day in the South China Sea. De Paolis suggests that Washington is likely to weigh the pros and cons before making the decision on whether to make the details of the incident public, given Sino-American frictions which started under President Donald Trump and have continued under his successor.
Whatever happened to the USS Connecticut will eventually surface because of the damage to the submarine, Sobrero believes: "The US would have to make some repairs and that's going to have some cost for the shipyards."
It's also interesting that the collision occurred just a couple of weeks after the AUKUS agreement between UK, Australia and US on submarine technologies, according to the defence expert. "This also highlights how important submarines are and that the US is willing to think of a more active presence in the South China Sea," he emphasises.
What’s more, the USS Connecticut's mysterious collision in the South China Sea coincided with joint military exercises carried out north of Taiwan by US and UK aircraft carriers together with Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
On 2 October and 3 October, a total of 17 surface warships from the six countries participated in joint drills in the region off the southwest coast of Okinawa, according to the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF), cited by the Taiwan Times. The newspaper also quoted Japan's nationalist paper Sankei Shimbun that "bluntly" stated that the drills were aimed at "containing" China.
Meanwhile, Sino-American tensions continue to escalate: it has recently been reported that the US has been secretly maintaining a limited contingent of US Special Ops and Marines in Taiwan for at least a year. Two lawmakers on US national security committees admitted that they had been unaware of the US military deployment in Taiwan, according to Politico.
What Does USS Connecticut's Mysterious Collision Say About Pentagon's Strategy in South China Sea?
The USS Connecticut, a Seawolf-class nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine, collided with an unknown underwater object on October 2 in the South China Sea. While US officials remain mute on the details of the collision, maritime security...
sputniknews.com
jward
passin' thru
USS Connecticut: Close encounter in the South China Sea
Media reported a U.S. Navy statement Thursday that USS Connecticut (SSN-22), a nuclear-powered attack submarine, had suffered an underwater collision on 2 October 2021 while operating in the South China Sea, and was headed to Guam for inspection. No sailors were killed in the collision; 11 were injured, but the Navy hasn’t indicated the injuries are life-threatening.
The statement, quoted at the U.S. Naval Institute website, is as follows:
Connecticut is one of three Seawolf-class attack submarines and is homeported at Kitsap in the Bremerton, Washington naval complex. USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), another unit of the class, is uniquely configured to support a wide array of special forces operations, but Connecticut’s ability to support special forces, while meaningful, is more limited and conventional. As an attack submarine with antisubmarine, antisurface, land strike (i.e, Tomahawk), and intelligence collection capabilities, Connecticut is as well-equipped as any U.S. SSN.
The sub deployed for an operational patrol on 27 May 2021.
A report from the Kitsap Sun on 9 October said Connecticut pulled into Guam on Friday. Two sailors “who received ‘moderate’ injuries were treated at a local military treatment facility but not admitted,” the Sun quoted Cynthia Fields, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet Submarine Force, as saying.
No details about the collision have been reported. The Navy refers to the object struck as unidentified, but reportedly has said it was not the vessel of a foreign navy. The Kitsap Sun:
We can assume at this point that the “object” collided with was not a commercial surface ship; e.g., a cargo ship or fishing vessel. There would have been open-source reporting on such an event even before the Navy announcement on Thursday, 7 October.
The 7 October announcement was clearly timed to herald Connecticut’s arrival in Guam the next day, which could not be hidden. We’ll see if images emerge from the sub’s pier in Guam. Damage to the sub may or may not be visible from above the waterline.
The sub’s most sensitive systems, including major weapon systems, apparently weren’t damaged. The reporting has said Connecticut was able to surface after the collision (always the first concern with submarine damage; Submerge – Surface = 0 is the only acceptable outcome). It hasn’t been entirely clear that Connecticut transited all the way to Guam on the surface, although I’ve seen commentators suggesting that was the case. It may have been at periscope depth rather than fully surfaced. We know too little about the collision itself to speculate intelligently much beyond that.
As for discerning where in the South China Sea Connecticut might have been, the time-distance factor doesn’t help us a whole lot. If the sub was operating in the central-to-northern part of the SCS, and went to Guam through the Luzon Strait north of the Philippines’ Luzon Island, it would have required approximately a 12-knot speed of advance (SOA) to make the trip between 2 and 8 October.
Potential USS Connecticutoperating areas in the South China Sea centered on the Spratly and Paracel Islands, in relation to speed required to transit to Guam. Google map; author annotation
If SSN-22 was in the central-to-southern part of the SCS, and went through either the Luzon Strait or the Balabac Strait, Sulu Sea, and Celebes Sea to reach the Pacific, the longer trip would have required more like a 16-knot SOA.
In either case, the transit in the time indicated is feasible from as far as the western side of the SCS, as long as Connecticut didn’t have a major propulsion casualty.
The presence of an “unidentified object” underwater is an interesting clue suggesting that Connecticut was not in the heavily trafficked transit lanes of the SCS at the time of collision. The sub could of course have been much deeper than the keel of any surface ship, but colliding with something that significantly rattled the Connecticut’s hull, with the force to injure sailors inside of it, would indicate an “object” capable of exerting counterforce when hit. Something of substantial mass, and either stationary or under power, seems to be the candidate.
If it wasn’t a submarine or submersible vessel of some kind, it’s likely to be an important question what it was. That would be because of the potential that someone placed it there.
It’s conceivable that it was a seamount, but the Navy hasn’t spoken as if it was. The news stories allude to USS San Francisco’s (SSN-711) collision with a seamount in 2005, but that reference hasn’t been suggested as explaining what Connecticut hit. (If Connecticut hit a seamount, the Navy would almost certainly know that already. Even if it’s a suddenly erupting or growing seamount, conferring with the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA should yield answers pretty quickly. Whether the public would be told just yet is another story.)
There’s no way to pin it down, but given the priorities of the U.S. military, one possibility is of course that Connecticut was operating near one of the reefs China has been artificially building out to accommodate military installations. If new undersea hazards had not been catalogued in parts of the South China Sea, those would be especially likely locations.
Map graphic: CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. See: China Tracker | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
But, again, what we can say at this point is that it’s feasible for Connecticut to have been in one of those locations for a collision, and to have transited from the collision site to Guam in six days, as long as no propulsion casualty limited her speed to below 12 knots.
As for whether Connecticut may have been operating near a Chinese submarine: sure. The Navy says our sub didn’t hit another nation’s naval vessel, but, of course, our sub could have hit something else while tracking a Chinese sub. The question again would be where the requisite type of “object” would be, and what it’s there for.
There’s a lot of depth available in the SCS. A submarine doesn’t have to be relatively shallow when it’s operating there.
But encountering an object no one knows about down deep would be the factor requiring an explanation here. It will be interesting to see if we get one. (I’m discounting an alien vessel like the one in James Cameron’s The Abyss, from 1989, but feel free to ponder that as well.)
Beyond these considerations, we can note, as reported by the mainstream media, that China professes to know nothing, and is demanding answers from the United States on the pretext of being concerned about environmental damage and maritime safety.
We can also note that at the time of the collision, the U.S., Japan, and UK were conducting a “four carrier” exercise with a slew of escort ships in the Philippine Sea (Japan’s JS Ise, capable of supporting both helicopters and the F-35B strike-fighter, being the fourth carrier). Obviously China had a great interest in that.
China would not have responded to that, per se, by driving subs around the South China Sea or placing undersea objects there. But China doesn’t need anything other than her own preexisting strategic priorities as the motive for submarine deployments and altering the maritime environment.
A final observation can’t fail to be of interest. The collision reportedly occurred on 2 October. China had been sending waves of military aircraft through Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the days just before that, and on 4 October set a new record for the number of PLAAF warplanes entering the Taiwan ADIZ.
Taiwan Ministry of Defense graphic
I always stress that entry into an ADIZ isn’t entry into a nation’s internationally recognized air space. The mapped incursions by China indicate that the PLAAF is remaining outside the 12 nautical miles that would be Taiwan’s air space boundary, if Beijing recognized it. This can’t be done everywhere in the ADIZ, but it can be done on the southwest corner of it. That’s where the Chinese planes have been operating.
The timing, at any rate, is eye-catching. The probability that the Connecticut collision had something to do with China is non-negligible.
theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com
Media reported a U.S. Navy statement Thursday that USS Connecticut (SSN-22), a nuclear-powered attack submarine, had suffered an underwater collision on 2 October 2021 while operating in the South China Sea, and was headed to Guam for inspection. No sailors were killed in the collision; 11 were injured, but the Navy hasn’t indicated the injuries are life-threatening.
The statement, quoted at the U.S. Naval Institute website, is as follows:
Subsequent reports in the mainstream media have indicated Connecticut was in the South China Sea.
Connecticut is one of three Seawolf-class attack submarines and is homeported at Kitsap in the Bremerton, Washington naval complex. USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), another unit of the class, is uniquely configured to support a wide array of special forces operations, but Connecticut’s ability to support special forces, while meaningful, is more limited and conventional. As an attack submarine with antisubmarine, antisurface, land strike (i.e, Tomahawk), and intelligence collection capabilities, Connecticut is as well-equipped as any U.S. SSN.
The sub deployed for an operational patrol on 27 May 2021.
A report from the Kitsap Sun on 9 October said Connecticut pulled into Guam on Friday. Two sailors “who received ‘moderate’ injuries were treated at a local military treatment facility but not admitted,” the Sun quoted Cynthia Fields, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet Submarine Force, as saying.
No details about the collision have been reported. The Navy refers to the object struck as unidentified, but reportedly has said it was not the vessel of a foreign navy. The Kitsap Sun:
A few comments.
We can assume at this point that the “object” collided with was not a commercial surface ship; e.g., a cargo ship or fishing vessel. There would have been open-source reporting on such an event even before the Navy announcement on Thursday, 7 October.
The 7 October announcement was clearly timed to herald Connecticut’s arrival in Guam the next day, which could not be hidden. We’ll see if images emerge from the sub’s pier in Guam. Damage to the sub may or may not be visible from above the waterline.
The sub’s most sensitive systems, including major weapon systems, apparently weren’t damaged. The reporting has said Connecticut was able to surface after the collision (always the first concern with submarine damage; Submerge – Surface = 0 is the only acceptable outcome). It hasn’t been entirely clear that Connecticut transited all the way to Guam on the surface, although I’ve seen commentators suggesting that was the case. It may have been at periscope depth rather than fully surfaced. We know too little about the collision itself to speculate intelligently much beyond that.
As for discerning where in the South China Sea Connecticut might have been, the time-distance factor doesn’t help us a whole lot. If the sub was operating in the central-to-northern part of the SCS, and went to Guam through the Luzon Strait north of the Philippines’ Luzon Island, it would have required approximately a 12-knot speed of advance (SOA) to make the trip between 2 and 8 October.
Potential USS Connecticutoperating areas in the South China Sea centered on the Spratly and Paracel Islands, in relation to speed required to transit to Guam. Google map; author annotationIf SSN-22 was in the central-to-southern part of the SCS, and went through either the Luzon Strait or the Balabac Strait, Sulu Sea, and Celebes Sea to reach the Pacific, the longer trip would have required more like a 16-knot SOA.
In either case, the transit in the time indicated is feasible from as far as the western side of the SCS, as long as Connecticut didn’t have a major propulsion casualty.
The presence of an “unidentified object” underwater is an interesting clue suggesting that Connecticut was not in the heavily trafficked transit lanes of the SCS at the time of collision. The sub could of course have been much deeper than the keel of any surface ship, but colliding with something that significantly rattled the Connecticut’s hull, with the force to injure sailors inside of it, would indicate an “object” capable of exerting counterforce when hit. Something of substantial mass, and either stationary or under power, seems to be the candidate.
If it wasn’t a submarine or submersible vessel of some kind, it’s likely to be an important question what it was. That would be because of the potential that someone placed it there.
It’s conceivable that it was a seamount, but the Navy hasn’t spoken as if it was. The news stories allude to USS San Francisco’s (SSN-711) collision with a seamount in 2005, but that reference hasn’t been suggested as explaining what Connecticut hit. (If Connecticut hit a seamount, the Navy would almost certainly know that already. Even if it’s a suddenly erupting or growing seamount, conferring with the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA should yield answers pretty quickly. Whether the public would be told just yet is another story.)
There’s no way to pin it down, but given the priorities of the U.S. military, one possibility is of course that Connecticut was operating near one of the reefs China has been artificially building out to accommodate military installations. If new undersea hazards had not been catalogued in parts of the South China Sea, those would be especially likely locations.
Map graphic: CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. See: China Tracker | Asia Maritime Transparency InitiativeBut, again, what we can say at this point is that it’s feasible for Connecticut to have been in one of those locations for a collision, and to have transited from the collision site to Guam in six days, as long as no propulsion casualty limited her speed to below 12 knots.
As for whether Connecticut may have been operating near a Chinese submarine: sure. The Navy says our sub didn’t hit another nation’s naval vessel, but, of course, our sub could have hit something else while tracking a Chinese sub. The question again would be where the requisite type of “object” would be, and what it’s there for.
There’s a lot of depth available in the SCS. A submarine doesn’t have to be relatively shallow when it’s operating there.
But encountering an object no one knows about down deep would be the factor requiring an explanation here. It will be interesting to see if we get one. (I’m discounting an alien vessel like the one in James Cameron’s The Abyss, from 1989, but feel free to ponder that as well.)
Beyond these considerations, we can note, as reported by the mainstream media, that China professes to know nothing, and is demanding answers from the United States on the pretext of being concerned about environmental damage and maritime safety.
We can also note that at the time of the collision, the U.S., Japan, and UK were conducting a “four carrier” exercise with a slew of escort ships in the Philippine Sea (Japan’s JS Ise, capable of supporting both helicopters and the F-35B strike-fighter, being the fourth carrier). Obviously China had a great interest in that.
China would not have responded to that, per se, by driving subs around the South China Sea or placing undersea objects there. But China doesn’t need anything other than her own preexisting strategic priorities as the motive for submarine deployments and altering the maritime environment.
A final observation can’t fail to be of interest. The collision reportedly occurred on 2 October. China had been sending waves of military aircraft through Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the days just before that, and on 4 October set a new record for the number of PLAAF warplanes entering the Taiwan ADIZ.
Taiwan Ministry of Defense graphicI always stress that entry into an ADIZ isn’t entry into a nation’s internationally recognized air space. The mapped incursions by China indicate that the PLAAF is remaining outside the 12 nautical miles that would be Taiwan’s air space boundary, if Beijing recognized it. This can’t be done everywhere in the ADIZ, but it can be done on the southwest corner of it. That’s where the Chinese planes have been operating.
The timing, at any rate, is eye-catching. The probability that the Connecticut collision had something to do with China is non-negligible.
USS Connecticut: Close encounter in the South China Sea
Media reported a U.S. Navy statement Thursday that USS Connecticut (SSN-22), a nuclear-powered attack submarine, had suffered an underwater collision on 2 October 2021 while operating in the South …
theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com
jward
passin' thru
Biden Administration Should Make Guam’s Defense Center of Indo-Pacific Strategy, Expert Says
By: John Grady
October 7, 2021 12:59 PM
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) enters Apra Harbor prior to mooring at Naval Base Guam for a scheduled port visit on June 24, 2020. US Navy Photo
The defense of Guam should be the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s focus on countering threats from China in the Indo-Pacific, an expert on missile defense said Wednesday.
“Make the main thing the main thing,” Thomas Karako, director of the missile defense project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. He stressed the island’s strategic importance to American presence and operations in the region.
The U.S. territory provides major support for Navy submarines operating in the Pacific, an air base capable of sustaining Air Force strategic bombers and a Coast Guard headquarters and several cutters.
“There are going to be some things like an island you cannot hide,” he said during a Heritage Foundation online forum. “Indo-Pacific commanders have been pounding the table” to come up with an acceptable missile defense plan for Guam for several years, he added.
Kathleen Hicks in a recent appearance underlined the increased threat facing Guam and Hawaii from China’s continued military expansion; but so far, there has been no congressionally- accepted plan for the island’s defense.
The former head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Phil Davidson, has advocated for the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system to defend Guam from Chinese missiles. Davidson included the system in a list of priorities he sent to Congress about the Indo-Pacific.
To defend Guam against new hypersonic and updated cruise missiles or an “old-fashioned ballistics’” attack from China or North Korea, Karako said the threats have to be identified. Defending Guam would require working with mature technologies, providing integrated air and missile defense systems for the island, and having these systems be interoperable among the services and with allies.
In the past, Vice Adm. Jon Hill, director of the Missile Defense Agency, has told Congress that a hybrid system – using Aegis systems either ashore or afloat coupled with the Army’s Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, could meet the need.
Brad Roberts, director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said “we need [in missile defense] the ability [to] prevent limited attacks” to stop China, Russia or a rogue state from using blackmailing to get its way in a crisis.
“We don’t need Astrodome” missile defense for the whole United States because an all-out attack is unlikely, he said. But protection for key areas like Guam and nuclear command and control centers are necessary.
The role of missile defense in the past has been to outpace rogue states like North Korea in posing threats to the U.S. homeland and providing allies in Europe and the Pacific security against regional attacks by Russia, China, North Korea or Iran.
But Pyongyang’s continued advances in weapons and missile technology has accelerated the need for the U.S. Missile Defense Review the Biden administration is conducting. Beijing and Moscow will likely carefully study the review once it’s released.
Russia and China are “15 to 20 years down a path” at gauging American intentions and future capabilities in missile defense and nuclear modernization, according to Roberts, who worked on missile defense issues in the Obama administration.
Neither Roberts nor Karako expects the Biden administration to complete its Missile Defense Review by the start of the new year. “There’s some big strategic questions here,” Roberts said, that need to be answered in the administration’s National Defense Strategy to keep the missile review in line with it and the Nuclear Posture Review.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken released figures on the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal in a move to show U.S. commitment to transparency in 2022’s conference on non-proliferation.
Looking ahead, Roberts said it’s important to frame discussion and policy on missile defense as complementary to nuclear deterrence.
news.usni.org
By: John Grady
October 7, 2021 12:59 PM
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) enters Apra Harbor prior to mooring at Naval Base Guam for a scheduled port visit on June 24, 2020. US Navy Photo
The defense of Guam should be the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s focus on countering threats from China in the Indo-Pacific, an expert on missile defense said Wednesday.
“Make the main thing the main thing,” Thomas Karako, director of the missile defense project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. He stressed the island’s strategic importance to American presence and operations in the region.
The U.S. territory provides major support for Navy submarines operating in the Pacific, an air base capable of sustaining Air Force strategic bombers and a Coast Guard headquarters and several cutters.
“There are going to be some things like an island you cannot hide,” he said during a Heritage Foundation online forum. “Indo-Pacific commanders have been pounding the table” to come up with an acceptable missile defense plan for Guam for several years, he added.
Kathleen Hicks in a recent appearance underlined the increased threat facing Guam and Hawaii from China’s continued military expansion; but so far, there has been no congressionally- accepted plan for the island’s defense.
The former head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Phil Davidson, has advocated for the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system to defend Guam from Chinese missiles. Davidson included the system in a list of priorities he sent to Congress about the Indo-Pacific.
To defend Guam against new hypersonic and updated cruise missiles or an “old-fashioned ballistics’” attack from China or North Korea, Karako said the threats have to be identified. Defending Guam would require working with mature technologies, providing integrated air and missile defense systems for the island, and having these systems be interoperable among the services and with allies.
In the past, Vice Adm. Jon Hill, director of the Missile Defense Agency, has told Congress that a hybrid system – using Aegis systems either ashore or afloat coupled with the Army’s Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, could meet the need.
Brad Roberts, director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said “we need [in missile defense] the ability [to] prevent limited attacks” to stop China, Russia or a rogue state from using blackmailing to get its way in a crisis.
“We don’t need Astrodome” missile defense for the whole United States because an all-out attack is unlikely, he said. But protection for key areas like Guam and nuclear command and control centers are necessary.
The role of missile defense in the past has been to outpace rogue states like North Korea in posing threats to the U.S. homeland and providing allies in Europe and the Pacific security against regional attacks by Russia, China, North Korea or Iran.
But Pyongyang’s continued advances in weapons and missile technology has accelerated the need for the U.S. Missile Defense Review the Biden administration is conducting. Beijing and Moscow will likely carefully study the review once it’s released.
Russia and China are “15 to 20 years down a path” at gauging American intentions and future capabilities in missile defense and nuclear modernization, according to Roberts, who worked on missile defense issues in the Obama administration.
Neither Roberts nor Karako expects the Biden administration to complete its Missile Defense Review by the start of the new year. “There’s some big strategic questions here,” Roberts said, that need to be answered in the administration’s National Defense Strategy to keep the missile review in line with it and the Nuclear Posture Review.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken released figures on the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal in a move to show U.S. commitment to transparency in 2022’s conference on non-proliferation.
Looking ahead, Roberts said it’s important to frame discussion and policy on missile defense as complementary to nuclear deterrence.
Biden Administration Should Make Guam's Defense Center of Indo-Pacific Strategy, Expert Says - USNI News
The defense of Guam should be the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s focus on countering threats from China in the Indo-Pacific, an expert on missile defense said Wednesday. “Make the main thing the main thing,” Thomas Karako, director of the missile defense project at the Center for...
news.usni.org
jward
passin' thru
Joseph Dempsey
@JosephHDempsey
22m
New image provides scale of Hwasong-8 w/HGV and confirms boost stage derived from Hwasong-12 IRBM (right)
View: https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1447716305340178437?s=20
@JosephHDempsey
22m
New image provides scale of Hwasong-8 w/HGV and confirms boost stage derived from Hwasong-12 IRBM (right)
View: https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1447716305340178437?s=20
jward
passin' thru
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian's Regular Press Conference on October 8, 2021
2021/10/08
AFP: I have two questions. A Pentagon official has said that US Special Operations forces have been quietly training troops in Taiwan for months. How does Beijing react to this? The CIA has announced a new China-focused unit to counter alleged security threats from Beijing. How do you react to this?
Zhao Lijian: On your first question, the one-China principle is the political foundation of China-US relations. China and the US established diplomatic relations on the premise of the three principles, namely, the US should sever "diplomatic relations" and abrogate the "mutual defense treaty" with the Taiwan authorities and withdraw US military forces from Taiwan. The US explicitly pledges in the China-US Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations that it will "maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan". The US should fully recognize the highly sensitive nature of Taiwan-related issues and the gravely detrimental nature of relevant issues, abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, and stop arms sales to and military ties with Taiwan to avoid seriously damaging China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. China will take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On your second question, this is a typical symptom of the Cold War mentality. Relevant US agency should view China's development and China-US relations in an objective and rational light and stop doing things detrimental to mutual trust and cooperation between China and the US and China's sovereignty, security and development interests.
TASS News Agency: According to the US Navy statement, on October 2, US Navy nuclear-powered submarine USS Connecticut was damaged after it struck an unknown object while submerged in the waters of the Indo-Pacific region. According to media reports, the incident occurred in the waters of the South China Sea. Do you have any comments on this?
Zhao Lijian: We are gravely concerned about the incident. As the party involved, the US should clarify in specific details what happened, including the exact location of the incident, the US side's navigation intention, the details of the incident, the object the submarine struck, whether the collision caused a nuclear leak or damaged local marine environment, etc.
I would also like to stress three points about the incident. First, the US has long been making trouble in the South China Sea in the name of "freedom of navigation", which poses a grave threat and major risks for regional peace and stability. This is the root cause of this incident. Second, the US deliberately stalled and concealed the specifics of the incident without transparency and due responsibility. China and other countries surrounding the South China Sea cannot help but ask what truly happened and what the US intention is. Third, we can also see the following from this incident. The US and the UK recently decided to conduct nuclear submarine cooperation with Australia, a non-nuclear weapon state, and flagrantly proliferate nuclear submarines in the Asia-Pacific. This is bound to create nuclear proliferation risks, spark an arms race and undermine efforts to establish a Southeast Asia nuclear-free-zone. The odds of a nuclear incident will also increase dramatically. The US should abandon the obsolete Cold War zero-sum mentality and narrow geopolitical notions, and stop such erroneous practice that undermine regional peace, stability and development.
Shenzhen TV: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said that by putting forward an Indo-Pacific strategy and creating the Quad mechanism and the AUKUS security partnership, the US intends to undercut the decades-old ASEAN-centered cooperation model. Such a strategy towards handling regional politics is aimed at openly containing China and undermining the existing system. Does the Chinese side have a comment?
Zhao Lijian: That's very well-put indeed! Foreign Minister Lavrov's views reflect the shared concern of the vast majority of ASEAN countries. The US Indo-Pacific strategy, AUKUS and Quad are all closed and exclusive cliques informed by the Cold War zero-sum mentality with strong military security undertones. They will spur regional arms race, aggravate tension, and undermine regional unity and cooperation. The US practice of ganging up against a third party runs counter to regional countries' common aspiration to seek shared development through dialogue and cooperation and advance regional integration. It wins no hearts and has no future. Many ASEAN countries have questioned and opposed these moves to various degrees.
The ASEAN-centered regional cooperation architecture is consistent with East Asian tradition and realistic needs. It is of great significance for enhancing regional countries' solidarity, cooperation and common development, and should be cherished and consolidated. Regional countries should be on high alert for any attempt to weaken and hollow ASEAN centrality and jointly reject all erroneous practices that violate international fairness and justice, create division and stoke confrontation in the region.
AFP: A French senator visiting Taipei has referred to Taiwan as a "country". How does Beijing view the visit by the French delegation to Taiwan?
Zhao Lijian: There is only one China in the world and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory. Referring to Taiwan as a "country" is a flagrant violation of the consensus of the international community, France included. People like Alain Richard either lack basic respect for and knowledge of norms governing international relations, or attempt to hijack state-to-state relations out of selfish agenda. China expresses strong condemnation and firm opposition to this. We hope France can earnestly abide by the one-China principle and avoid sending wrong signals to the "Taiwan independence" forces.
Phoenix TV: US President Joe Biden said that he has spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about Taiwan and they agreed to abide by relevant agreement concerning the Taiwan question. Can you confirm that this was part of the conversation between the two sides?
Zhao Lijian: China's position on the Taiwan question is consistent and clear. The one-China principle is the political foundation of China-US relations. On the Taiwan question, the United States has made clear commitments to China. In his phone call with President Xi Jinping, President Biden made it clear that the United States has no intention to change the one-China policy. We urge the US side to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques, translate relevant commitments into concrete action, prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related issues, and avoid sending wrong signals to the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces, lest it should seriously damage China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
During his meeting with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Zurich, Switzerland on October 6, Director Yang Jiechi once again expounded China's solemn position on issues related to Taiwan, urging the US side to truly respect China's sovereignty, security and development interests, abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, and stop using Taiwan-related issues to interfere in China's internal affairs. The US side expressed its adherence to the one-China policy.
Snips from recent news conference; please see source for it's entirety
2021/10/08
AFP: I have two questions. A Pentagon official has said that US Special Operations forces have been quietly training troops in Taiwan for months. How does Beijing react to this? The CIA has announced a new China-focused unit to counter alleged security threats from Beijing. How do you react to this?
Zhao Lijian: On your first question, the one-China principle is the political foundation of China-US relations. China and the US established diplomatic relations on the premise of the three principles, namely, the US should sever "diplomatic relations" and abrogate the "mutual defense treaty" with the Taiwan authorities and withdraw US military forces from Taiwan. The US explicitly pledges in the China-US Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations that it will "maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan". The US should fully recognize the highly sensitive nature of Taiwan-related issues and the gravely detrimental nature of relevant issues, abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, and stop arms sales to and military ties with Taiwan to avoid seriously damaging China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. China will take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
On your second question, this is a typical symptom of the Cold War mentality. Relevant US agency should view China's development and China-US relations in an objective and rational light and stop doing things detrimental to mutual trust and cooperation between China and the US and China's sovereignty, security and development interests.
TASS News Agency: According to the US Navy statement, on October 2, US Navy nuclear-powered submarine USS Connecticut was damaged after it struck an unknown object while submerged in the waters of the Indo-Pacific region. According to media reports, the incident occurred in the waters of the South China Sea. Do you have any comments on this?
Zhao Lijian: We are gravely concerned about the incident. As the party involved, the US should clarify in specific details what happened, including the exact location of the incident, the US side's navigation intention, the details of the incident, the object the submarine struck, whether the collision caused a nuclear leak or damaged local marine environment, etc.
I would also like to stress three points about the incident. First, the US has long been making trouble in the South China Sea in the name of "freedom of navigation", which poses a grave threat and major risks for regional peace and stability. This is the root cause of this incident. Second, the US deliberately stalled and concealed the specifics of the incident without transparency and due responsibility. China and other countries surrounding the South China Sea cannot help but ask what truly happened and what the US intention is. Third, we can also see the following from this incident. The US and the UK recently decided to conduct nuclear submarine cooperation with Australia, a non-nuclear weapon state, and flagrantly proliferate nuclear submarines in the Asia-Pacific. This is bound to create nuclear proliferation risks, spark an arms race and undermine efforts to establish a Southeast Asia nuclear-free-zone. The odds of a nuclear incident will also increase dramatically. The US should abandon the obsolete Cold War zero-sum mentality and narrow geopolitical notions, and stop such erroneous practice that undermine regional peace, stability and development.
Shenzhen TV: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said that by putting forward an Indo-Pacific strategy and creating the Quad mechanism and the AUKUS security partnership, the US intends to undercut the decades-old ASEAN-centered cooperation model. Such a strategy towards handling regional politics is aimed at openly containing China and undermining the existing system. Does the Chinese side have a comment?
Zhao Lijian: That's very well-put indeed! Foreign Minister Lavrov's views reflect the shared concern of the vast majority of ASEAN countries. The US Indo-Pacific strategy, AUKUS and Quad are all closed and exclusive cliques informed by the Cold War zero-sum mentality with strong military security undertones. They will spur regional arms race, aggravate tension, and undermine regional unity and cooperation. The US practice of ganging up against a third party runs counter to regional countries' common aspiration to seek shared development through dialogue and cooperation and advance regional integration. It wins no hearts and has no future. Many ASEAN countries have questioned and opposed these moves to various degrees.
The ASEAN-centered regional cooperation architecture is consistent with East Asian tradition and realistic needs. It is of great significance for enhancing regional countries' solidarity, cooperation and common development, and should be cherished and consolidated. Regional countries should be on high alert for any attempt to weaken and hollow ASEAN centrality and jointly reject all erroneous practices that violate international fairness and justice, create division and stoke confrontation in the region.
AFP: A French senator visiting Taipei has referred to Taiwan as a "country". How does Beijing view the visit by the French delegation to Taiwan?
Zhao Lijian: There is only one China in the world and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory. Referring to Taiwan as a "country" is a flagrant violation of the consensus of the international community, France included. People like Alain Richard either lack basic respect for and knowledge of norms governing international relations, or attempt to hijack state-to-state relations out of selfish agenda. China expresses strong condemnation and firm opposition to this. We hope France can earnestly abide by the one-China principle and avoid sending wrong signals to the "Taiwan independence" forces.
Phoenix TV: US President Joe Biden said that he has spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about Taiwan and they agreed to abide by relevant agreement concerning the Taiwan question. Can you confirm that this was part of the conversation between the two sides?
Zhao Lijian: China's position on the Taiwan question is consistent and clear. The one-China principle is the political foundation of China-US relations. On the Taiwan question, the United States has made clear commitments to China. In his phone call with President Xi Jinping, President Biden made it clear that the United States has no intention to change the one-China policy. We urge the US side to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques, translate relevant commitments into concrete action, prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related issues, and avoid sending wrong signals to the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces, lest it should seriously damage China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
During his meeting with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Zurich, Switzerland on October 6, Director Yang Jiechi once again expounded China's solemn position on issues related to Taiwan, urging the US side to truly respect China's sovereignty, security and development interests, abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, and stop using Taiwan-related issues to interfere in China's internal affairs. The US side expressed its adherence to the one-China policy.
系统维护_中华人民共和国外交部
www.fmprc.gov.cn
jward
passin' thru
William Gallo
@GalloVOA
25m
South Korea hinting it's ready to work closer with the US on regional issues, according to this Yonhap report.
View: https://twitter.com/GalloVOA/status/1448106211052687361?s=20
jward
passin' thru
EndGameWW3
@EndGameWW3
10m
UK to Increase Military Deployment in South China Sea
View: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1448133338426851330?s=20
jward
passin' thru
Apex
@Apex_WW
3m
US, Japanese helicopter crews team up for ‘first of its kind’ anti-submarine warfare exercise
View: https://twitter.com/Apex_WW/status/1448411476268654593?s=20
@Apex_WW
3m
US, Japanese helicopter crews team up for ‘first of its kind’ anti-submarine warfare exercise
View: https://twitter.com/Apex_WW/status/1448411476268654593?s=20
jward
passin' thru
Indo-Pacific News - Watching the CCP-China Threat
@IndoPac_Info
4h
#China Declared Several No-fly zones by for October 15th. Via @duandang What is China up to?
View: https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status/1448419078603882501?s=20
@IndoPac_Info
4h
#China Declared Several No-fly zones by for October 15th. Via @duandang What is China up to?
View: https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status/1448419078603882501?s=20
jward
passin' thru
China's daunting message to Australia: 'Get ready to fight'
Tom Flanagan
4-5 minutes
Former prime minister Tony Abbott's controversial visit to Taiwan refuses to go away, with Chinese state media using it as an opportunity to warn Australia of mass fatalities if it dares engage in military conflict with China.
Mr Abbott infuriated Beijing with his remarks in Taipei where he told a security forum that China may lash out as its economy slows, accusing Beijing of being a bully and saying Australia – particularly its trade sector – had been unfairly targeted.
Delving into the delicate situation surrounding China's push to reunify Taiwan, he said he was seeking to end Taiwan's international isolation and said other democracies across the world should offer similar support to counter "challenges" posed by its "giant neighbour".
In the wake of his comments, China's embassy in Canberra labelled Abbott a "failed and pitiful politician" while foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said his remarks were "extremely absurd".
The Global Times, led by Hu Xijin, has been highly critical of Australia in recent years. Source: Weibo
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stressed Mr Abbott's visit was in a private capacity and not associated with the federal government.
Having already savaged Mr Abbott in a previous article, nationalistic tabloid and Beijing mouthpiece the Global Times questioned his motives in Taiwan through an opinion piece from its ostentatious editor-in-chief Hu Xijin.
Hu labelled Mr Abbott as "so vicious" and said he was unsure if the people of Taiwan are "stupid enough" to take his remarks seriously.
Tony Abbott pictured at the Yushan Forum during his visit to Taiwan. Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Taiwan
He said they should instead tell Mr Abbott and Australia to ready itself if it continues to hype up the threat of China.
"I think rational Taiwan people would tell him: It is better for you Australians prepare to fight," he said.
"Australia can deploy most of its warships around the Chinese mainland and give young Australian soldiers 'a worthy death defending democracy'."
It comes weeks after the Global Times warned Beijing would not hesitate in making an example out of Australian troops after the landmark AUKUS announcement that will see nuclear-powered submarines made on home soil.
"If it acts with bravado to show its allegiance to the US and takes the most prominent position in the US' anti-China strategy, especially by being militarily assertive, then Canberra will most likely become a target of Beijing's countermeasures so as to send a warning to others," it said.
"Thus, Australian troops are also most likely to be the first batch of Western soldiers to waste their lives in the South China Sea."
James Palmer, the former opinions editor at the Global Times, told Yahoo News Australia earlier in the year the newspaper has become "much closer to the government".
"Four or five years ago I would have said this was [Hu] being opportunistic, but now given the tightness of the media environment and the privileged position the Global Times appears to have it seems much more like direct messaging to me," he said in April.
au.news.yahoo.com
Tom Flanagan
4-5 minutes
Former prime minister Tony Abbott's controversial visit to Taiwan refuses to go away, with Chinese state media using it as an opportunity to warn Australia of mass fatalities if it dares engage in military conflict with China.
Mr Abbott infuriated Beijing with his remarks in Taipei where he told a security forum that China may lash out as its economy slows, accusing Beijing of being a bully and saying Australia – particularly its trade sector – had been unfairly targeted.
Delving into the delicate situation surrounding China's push to reunify Taiwan, he said he was seeking to end Taiwan's international isolation and said other democracies across the world should offer similar support to counter "challenges" posed by its "giant neighbour".
In the wake of his comments, China's embassy in Canberra labelled Abbott a "failed and pitiful politician" while foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said his remarks were "extremely absurd".
The Global Times, led by Hu Xijin, has been highly critical of Australia in recent years. Source: Weibo
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stressed Mr Abbott's visit was in a private capacity and not associated with the federal government.
Having already savaged Mr Abbott in a previous article, nationalistic tabloid and Beijing mouthpiece the Global Times questioned his motives in Taiwan through an opinion piece from its ostentatious editor-in-chief Hu Xijin.
- The one word that triggered a furious response from China: 'NO RESPECT'
- 'Any time': China’s chilling new warning of 'war'
- 'Rock solid': US steps in after China's latest 'provocative' move
- The China crisis Australia 'won't be able to escape'
Hu labelled Mr Abbott as "so vicious" and said he was unsure if the people of Taiwan are "stupid enough" to take his remarks seriously.
Tony Abbott pictured at the Yushan Forum during his visit to Taiwan. Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Taiwan
He said they should instead tell Mr Abbott and Australia to ready itself if it continues to hype up the threat of China.
"I think rational Taiwan people would tell him: It is better for you Australians prepare to fight," he said.
"Australia can deploy most of its warships around the Chinese mainland and give young Australian soldiers 'a worthy death defending democracy'."
It comes weeks after the Global Times warned Beijing would not hesitate in making an example out of Australian troops after the landmark AUKUS announcement that will see nuclear-powered submarines made on home soil.
"If it acts with bravado to show its allegiance to the US and takes the most prominent position in the US' anti-China strategy, especially by being militarily assertive, then Canberra will most likely become a target of Beijing's countermeasures so as to send a warning to others," it said.
"Thus, Australian troops are also most likely to be the first batch of Western soldiers to waste their lives in the South China Sea."
James Palmer, the former opinions editor at the Global Times, told Yahoo News Australia earlier in the year the newspaper has become "much closer to the government".
"Four or five years ago I would have said this was [Hu] being opportunistic, but now given the tightness of the media environment and the privileged position the Global Times appears to have it seems much more like direct messaging to me," he said in April.
China's daunting message to Australia: 'Get ready to fight'
Outspoken Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief at the Beijing mouthpiece Global Times, has issued a scathing message to Tony Abbott and Australia. Find out what he said.
northern watch
TB Fanatic
China, Russia launch joint naval drills in Russian Far East
China and Russia are holding joint naval drills off the Russian Far East in the latest sign of their growing political and military alignment
By The Associated Press
14 October 2021, 03:41
BEIJING -- China and Russia are holding joint naval drills off the Russian Far East in the latest sign of their growing political and military alignment.
The exercises Joint Sea 2021 kicked off with a ceremony on Thursday in Russia’s Peter the Great Gulf and will run through Sunday.
Chinese state media said the drills would encompass communications, anti-mine, anti-air and anti-submarine operations, joint maneuvering and firing on seaborn targets.
While such exercises have been held before, the reports said this is the first time China has sent anti-submarine warfare planes and destroyers of more than 10,000 tons in displacement for exercises abroad.
China and Russia are united in opposing the dominant U.S. influence in global affairs and have been harsh critics of Washington's foreign policy stumbles in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
While Beijing generally follows Moscow's lead on matters such as Iran, it has grown increasingly assertive in defending what it considers its vital interests regarding Taiwan, the South China Sea and throughout the Indo-Pacific.
Beijing has strongly criticized an agreement for Australia to obtain a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines built with U.S. technology announced last month that is largely seen as a response to China's vastly upgraded naval capabilities.
China, Russia launch joint naval drills in Russian Far East - ABC News (go.com)
China and Russia are holding joint naval drills off the Russian Far East in the latest sign of their growing political and military alignment
By The Associated Press
14 October 2021, 03:41
BEIJING -- China and Russia are holding joint naval drills off the Russian Far East in the latest sign of their growing political and military alignment.
The exercises Joint Sea 2021 kicked off with a ceremony on Thursday in Russia’s Peter the Great Gulf and will run through Sunday.
Chinese state media said the drills would encompass communications, anti-mine, anti-air and anti-submarine operations, joint maneuvering and firing on seaborn targets.
While such exercises have been held before, the reports said this is the first time China has sent anti-submarine warfare planes and destroyers of more than 10,000 tons in displacement for exercises abroad.
China and Russia are united in opposing the dominant U.S. influence in global affairs and have been harsh critics of Washington's foreign policy stumbles in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
While Beijing generally follows Moscow's lead on matters such as Iran, it has grown increasingly assertive in defending what it considers its vital interests regarding Taiwan, the South China Sea and throughout the Indo-Pacific.
Beijing has strongly criticized an agreement for Australia to obtain a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines built with U.S. technology announced last month that is largely seen as a response to China's vastly upgraded naval capabilities.
China, Russia launch joint naval drills in Russian Far East - ABC News (go.com)
jward
passin' thru
Indo-Pacific News - Watching the CCP-China Threat
@IndoPac_Info
13m
#Taiwan asks #Australia to support its bid to join #CPTPP trade pact Closer engagement with Taiwan makes sense after #China’s boycotts of Australian products, Taipei’s de facto ambassador tells Canberra parliament committee.
View: https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status/1448863452429119488?s=20
@IndoPac_Info
13m
#Taiwan asks #Australia to support its bid to join #CPTPP trade pact Closer engagement with Taiwan makes sense after #China’s boycotts of Australian products, Taipei’s de facto ambassador tells Canberra parliament committee.
View: https://twitter.com/IndoPac_Info/status/1448863452429119488?s=20
jward
passin' thru
EndGameWW3
@EndGameWW3
Update: US and EU launch consultations on the Indo-Pacific, to step up ‘joint engagement’ in the region.
2:19 PM · Oct 15, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Posted for fair use.....
www.eurasiareview.com
Japan: Fumio Kishida Facing Nuclear Weapons Dilemma – OpEd
October 15, 2021 Alan Callow* 0 Comments
By Alan Callow*
The transfer of American nuclear technologies to Australia within the AUKUS pact sparked a discussion in Japanese society about the need to switch the fleet to nuclear engines and the development of nuclear technologies in general.
Despite the active militarization of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, society still painfully perceives any mention of the word “nuclear”. The reaction is expectable mostly because the Japanese are the only people who have experienced the destructive power of weapons of mass destruction. What position will the new government take on this issue?
Kishida’s pre-election comments
October 4, 2021, Fumio Kishida was elected a new prime minister in Japan. During the race, the candidate avoided answering the question about the nuclear prospects of the Japanese fleet saying only about the need to improve the conditions of service of sailors.
Kishida’s uncertainty on such a sensitive issue is easily explained by his unwillingness to weaken its pre-election positions. However, as the first person, a politician will have to decide whether to develop nuclear military technologies.
Public pressure
The pacifist wing of the Japanese public dealt a preventive blow to the nuclear modernization of the Japanese army. An activist Setsuko Turlow suffered in the events of 1945 sent a letter to the newly elected Prime Minister of Japan calling for joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNV). In this context, she also reminded the new leader of the pre-election promise to create a world without nuclear weapons.
Political support
The mayor of Hiroshima Prefecture Kazuimi Matsui supported the opinion of the activist. The official expressed the hope that the new government would become an observer at the conference of the parties to the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. In addition, Tokyo’s refusal to build nuclear submarines will enhance the image of the country often accused of unjustified militarization.
In addition Secretary General of the Confederation Atomic Bomb Survivors Tanaka Terumi called it reasonable to join TPNV to reduce regional tensions and optimize defense expenditure.
Kishida from Hiroshima
Moreover Fumio Kishida seems to share the opponent nuclear weapons position. Here is one subjective factor – the prime minister grew up in a family of politicians from Hiroshima prefecture. His nuclear disarmament plans let him gain popularity among the general population.
Indo-Pacific tensions
Nevertheless, public skepticism and the anti-nuclear background of Kishida go against the trend towards military opposition of the PRC in the Indo-Pacific region. In order to match the concept of US-Japanese deterrence of the PRC, Tokyo has easily amended the constitution and changed the military doctrine. So the decision to obtain and develop nuclear technologies would hardly be called unexpected.
Fumio Kishida came to power in a very difficult period. His victory is largely explained by his election promises and the people’s hope of stabilizing the internal and foreign policy situation. The nuclear issue can become the central theme of Kishida’s rule as its decision will determine Japan’s development vector for many years to come.
*Alan Callow, Philippine journalist covering Asia politics in general.
Japan: Fumio Kishida Facing Nuclear Weapons Dilemma – OpEd
The transfer of American nuclear technologies to Australia within the AUKUS pact sparked a discussion in Japanese society about the need to switch the fleet to nuclear engines and the development o…
www.eurasiareview.com
Japan: Fumio Kishida Facing Nuclear Weapons Dilemma – OpEd
October 15, 2021 Alan Callow* 0 Comments
By Alan Callow*
The transfer of American nuclear technologies to Australia within the AUKUS pact sparked a discussion in Japanese society about the need to switch the fleet to nuclear engines and the development of nuclear technologies in general.
Despite the active militarization of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, society still painfully perceives any mention of the word “nuclear”. The reaction is expectable mostly because the Japanese are the only people who have experienced the destructive power of weapons of mass destruction. What position will the new government take on this issue?
Kishida’s pre-election comments
October 4, 2021, Fumio Kishida was elected a new prime minister in Japan. During the race, the candidate avoided answering the question about the nuclear prospects of the Japanese fleet saying only about the need to improve the conditions of service of sailors.
Kishida’s uncertainty on such a sensitive issue is easily explained by his unwillingness to weaken its pre-election positions. However, as the first person, a politician will have to decide whether to develop nuclear military technologies.
Public pressure
The pacifist wing of the Japanese public dealt a preventive blow to the nuclear modernization of the Japanese army. An activist Setsuko Turlow suffered in the events of 1945 sent a letter to the newly elected Prime Minister of Japan calling for joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNV). In this context, she also reminded the new leader of the pre-election promise to create a world without nuclear weapons.
Political support
The mayor of Hiroshima Prefecture Kazuimi Matsui supported the opinion of the activist. The official expressed the hope that the new government would become an observer at the conference of the parties to the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. In addition, Tokyo’s refusal to build nuclear submarines will enhance the image of the country often accused of unjustified militarization.
In addition Secretary General of the Confederation Atomic Bomb Survivors Tanaka Terumi called it reasonable to join TPNV to reduce regional tensions and optimize defense expenditure.
Kishida from Hiroshima
Moreover Fumio Kishida seems to share the opponent nuclear weapons position. Here is one subjective factor – the prime minister grew up in a family of politicians from Hiroshima prefecture. His nuclear disarmament plans let him gain popularity among the general population.
Indo-Pacific tensions
Nevertheless, public skepticism and the anti-nuclear background of Kishida go against the trend towards military opposition of the PRC in the Indo-Pacific region. In order to match the concept of US-Japanese deterrence of the PRC, Tokyo has easily amended the constitution and changed the military doctrine. So the decision to obtain and develop nuclear technologies would hardly be called unexpected.
Fumio Kishida came to power in a very difficult period. His victory is largely explained by his election promises and the people’s hope of stabilizing the internal and foreign policy situation. The nuclear issue can become the central theme of Kishida’s rule as its decision will determine Japan’s development vector for many years to come.
*Alan Callow, Philippine journalist covering Asia politics in general.
northern watch
TB Fanatic
jward
passin' thru
NK NEWS
@nknewsor
10m
France and Canada are assisting with North Korea sanctions enforcement: -Both dispatched aircraft to U.S. bases in Japan -Will attempt to counter Pyongyang's illicit maritime activities -Japan will always conduct "information gathering activities"
View: https://twitter.com/nknewsorg/status/1449238677092175872?s=20
jward
passin' thru
Inightful Geopolitics
@InsightGL
19h
-#IndianNavy is close to finalizing P-75I submarine project
-4 contenders:
-#France Barracuda
-#SouthKorea DSME-3000
-#Spain S-80 Plus
-#Russia Amur
-2 expected requirements: AIP, VLS to launch Brahmos
Doomer Doug
TB Fanatic
Well, it didn't take long for tactical chaos to break out. Wait for it! I see some purple haired bidenbot hand carrying a note to Putin and really, really, really, laying into him. Gee Whiz Mr. Wizard, is that why they call them warships? 
www.dailymail.co.uk
A certain lack of respect wouldn't you say?
Moment Russian warship chases $1billion American destroyer the USS Chafee away from its waters in the Sea of Japan for 'violating international rules' in tense standoff during Moscow-Beijing joint drills
PUBLISHED: 11:45 EDT, 15 October 2021 | UPDATED: 19:54 EDT, 15 October 2021
Russia says it chased U.S. warship away from its territorial waters
Video released by the Russian defense ministry shows the moment its anti-submarine vessel Admiral Tributs closed to within 60 yards of the U.S. destroyer USS Chafee in the Sea of Japan.
A certain lack of respect wouldn't you say?
Moment Russian warship chases $1billion American destroyer the USS Chafee away from its waters in the Sea of Japan for 'violating international rules' in tense standoff during Moscow-Beijing joint drills
- Video shows how Russian warship closed in on USS Chafee on Friday in the Sea of Japan
- The Russian defense ministry said the US guided missile destroyer was warned to change course
- The Russian vessel then proceeded to oust 'the intruder from Russian territorial waters,' the ministry said
- It happened with US-Russia relations at a low and with joint Russian and China naval drills in the area
- Local media reported that the US military attache was summoned to the Russian ministry of defence
- It is the latest close encounter between Russian and Western vessels as Moscow flexes its muscles
- But U.S. officials disputed the account saying the interaction was 'safe and professional'
PUBLISHED: 11:45 EDT, 15 October 2021 | UPDATED: 19:54 EDT, 15 October 2021
jward
passin' thru
Demetri Sevastopulo
@Dimi
SCOOP – #China has stunned US intelligence and military officials by testing a #nuclear capable #hypersonic missile that traveled through low orbit in space, making a full circle around the globe before speeding towards its target.
View: https://twitter.com/Dimi/status/1449462944891346947?s=20
Demetri Sevastopulo
@Dimi
10m
Missile missed target by couple of dozen miles, but people familiar with the test say China demonstrated a stunning capability that nobody thought they already had mastered.
@Dimi
SCOOP – #China has stunned US intelligence and military officials by testing a #nuclear capable #hypersonic missile that traveled through low orbit in space, making a full circle around the globe before speeding towards its target.
View: https://twitter.com/Dimi/status/1449462944891346947?s=20
Demetri Sevastopulo
@Dimi
10m
Missile missed target by couple of dozen miles, but people familiar with the test say China demonstrated a stunning capability that nobody thought they already had mastered.
Demetri Sevastopulo
@Dimi
SCOOP – #China has stunned US intelligence and military officials by testing a #nuclear capable #hypersonic missile that traveled through low orbit in space, making a full circle around the globe before speeding towards its target.
View: https://twitter.com/Dimi/status/1449462944891346947?s=20
Demetri Sevastopulo
@Dimi
10m
Missile missed target by couple of dozen miles, but people familiar with the test say China demonstrated a stunning capability that nobody thought they already had mastered.
View attachment 296667
Different take upon the old Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) concept. Since Beijing isn't a signatory to any agreements restricting this stuff they can do whatever they want.
northern watch
TB Fanatic
Last edited:
northern watch
TB Fanatic
RT: 2.13 minutes
jward
passin' thru
China Tested A Fractional Orbital Bombardment System That Uses A Hypersonic Glide Vehicle: Report
Such a capability could potentially allow China to execute a nuclear strike on any target on earth with near-impunity and very little warning.
By Tyler Rogoway October 16, 2021
A report from Financial Times' Demetri Sevastopulo and Kathrin Hille states that China has tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle that goes into space and traverses the globe in an orbital-like fashion before making its run through the atmosphere toward its target. There would be huge implications if such a system were to be operationalized, and according to this story, which says it talked to five officials confirming the test, the U.S. government was caught totally off-guard by it.
The trial flight is said to have occurred around August, with the boost-glide vehicle being lifted into space by a Long March 2C rocket. The launch of the rocket, the 77th of its kind, was undisclosed by Beijing, while the 76th and 78th were—the latter of which occurred in late August. The Financial Times says that the tested hypersonic glide vehicle missed its target by a couple of dozen miles, but that is hardly reassuring considering the capabilities that are apparently in development here.
The foundation of this Cold War-era concept is commonly referred to as a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, or FOBS, but instead of carrying a traditional nuclear-armed reentry vehicle, this Chinese system would carry a hypersonic glide vehicle that would possess immense kinetic energy upon reentry. As such, it could make a very long maneuvering flight through the atmosphere at very high speeds to its target.
The FOBS concept has long been a concern because of its potential to bypass not just missile defenses, but even many early warning capabilities. Compared to a traditional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a FOBS can execute the same strikes but from highly unpredictable vectors. Range limitations also become a non-factor and the timing of an inbound strike is also far less predictable. But at least with a traditional FOBS ballistic missile system, some sort of projections could be made if the mid-course "orbital" vehicle can be tracked, although that could still be a real challenge.
That is not the case at all with a hybrid design like the one being claimed to have been tested here, which would be totally unpredictable.
Chinese Space Agency
A Long March 2C rocket lifts off on a mission.
The maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicle, descending from high-altitude at extreme speed, could travel thousands of miles to its target, which can be totally offset from a normal ballistic track. Complicating things more, these systems can attack from the south pole, not just the north where most of America's ballistic missile early warning, tracking, and defensive apparatus is focused. Intercepting such a system would also be very challenging, especially considering U.S. mid-course intercept capabilities are focused on traditional ballistic missile flight profiles, which fly more of a parabolic trajectory and have generally known ranges of each stage of flight.
With a glide vehicle end-game delivery system paired with a FOBS, its vehicles can enter the atmosphere beyond the range of an interceptor's exo-atmospheric mid-course kill envelope, with the glide vehicle weaving its way through the atmosphere to its final target. Traditional surface-based radar systems' line of sight is also significantly reduced as the hypersonic glide vehicle travels in the atmosphere. Paired with the extreme speeds involved, this can make these systems nearly useless at providing any details regarding the impending attack.
Hypersonic glide vehicles themselves are also very tough to kill with no real defense against them available at this time. Elaborate defensive concepts are in the works, but their effectiveness will depend on just how fast these vehicles are traveling, their maneuverability, density in numbers, what third-party sensors are available to help in generating an engagement solution, and more. A hypersonic glide vehicle with the kinetic energy in its favor from an orbital-like delivery would likely be the very hardest to kill.
As we have repeatedly noted, the Financial Times also recognized the eyebrow-raising comments by U.S. Department of Defense officials recently on potential "non-traditional" delivery systems that could bypass America's strategic defenses:
That layer would be absolutely essential in trying to defend against a FOBS, that is if a defense at all is actually feasible or even strategically sound. We are not talking about a rogue state here with a few advanced ballistic missiles. China would be able to deploy dozens or even hundreds of these at once. At a certain point, kinetic defenses against such a capability become a losing proposition and a very costly one at that.
Still, this was an early test aboard a full-on rocket used for traditional space access missions. It will take China some time to perfect such a system and package it in a quickly deployable militarized configuration. Major thermal and ablative issues also must be overcome, among others, but it's not like China hasn't been working diligently in the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle realm for many years.
Regardless, if this report ends up being fully accurate, one thing is likely: New calls for hugely expensive missile defense capabilities will be ringing loud and often on Capitol Hill, as well as demands to do whatever possible to bring China to the bargaining table in hopes of obtaining some type of strategic arms limitation treaty.
We will continue to update this story as more emerges, but for now, make sure you read the Financial Times' excellent original report here.
Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com
Such a capability could potentially allow China to execute a nuclear strike on any target on earth with near-impunity and very little warning.
By Tyler Rogoway October 16, 2021
A report from Financial Times' Demetri Sevastopulo and Kathrin Hille states that China has tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle that goes into space and traverses the globe in an orbital-like fashion before making its run through the atmosphere toward its target. There would be huge implications if such a system were to be operationalized, and according to this story, which says it talked to five officials confirming the test, the U.S. government was caught totally off-guard by it.
The trial flight is said to have occurred around August, with the boost-glide vehicle being lifted into space by a Long March 2C rocket. The launch of the rocket, the 77th of its kind, was undisclosed by Beijing, while the 76th and 78th were—the latter of which occurred in late August. The Financial Times says that the tested hypersonic glide vehicle missed its target by a couple of dozen miles, but that is hardly reassuring considering the capabilities that are apparently in development here.
The foundation of this Cold War-era concept is commonly referred to as a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, or FOBS, but instead of carrying a traditional nuclear-armed reentry vehicle, this Chinese system would carry a hypersonic glide vehicle that would possess immense kinetic energy upon reentry. As such, it could make a very long maneuvering flight through the atmosphere at very high speeds to its target.
The FOBS concept has long been a concern because of its potential to bypass not just missile defenses, but even many early warning capabilities. Compared to a traditional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a FOBS can execute the same strikes but from highly unpredictable vectors. Range limitations also become a non-factor and the timing of an inbound strike is also far less predictable. But at least with a traditional FOBS ballistic missile system, some sort of projections could be made if the mid-course "orbital" vehicle can be tracked, although that could still be a real challenge.
That is not the case at all with a hybrid design like the one being claimed to have been tested here, which would be totally unpredictable.
Chinese Space Agency
A Long March 2C rocket lifts off on a mission.
The maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicle, descending from high-altitude at extreme speed, could travel thousands of miles to its target, which can be totally offset from a normal ballistic track. Complicating things more, these systems can attack from the south pole, not just the north where most of America's ballistic missile early warning, tracking, and defensive apparatus is focused. Intercepting such a system would also be very challenging, especially considering U.S. mid-course intercept capabilities are focused on traditional ballistic missile flight profiles, which fly more of a parabolic trajectory and have generally known ranges of each stage of flight.
With a glide vehicle end-game delivery system paired with a FOBS, its vehicles can enter the atmosphere beyond the range of an interceptor's exo-atmospheric mid-course kill envelope, with the glide vehicle weaving its way through the atmosphere to its final target. Traditional surface-based radar systems' line of sight is also significantly reduced as the hypersonic glide vehicle travels in the atmosphere. Paired with the extreme speeds involved, this can make these systems nearly useless at providing any details regarding the impending attack.
Hypersonic glide vehicles themselves are also very tough to kill with no real defense against them available at this time. Elaborate defensive concepts are in the works, but their effectiveness will depend on just how fast these vehicles are traveling, their maneuverability, density in numbers, what third-party sensors are available to help in generating an engagement solution, and more. A hypersonic glide vehicle with the kinetic energy in its favor from an orbital-like delivery would likely be the very hardest to kill.
As we have repeatedly noted, the Financial Times also recognized the eyebrow-raising comments by U.S. Department of Defense officials recently on potential "non-traditional" delivery systems that could bypass America's strategic defenses:
There is no shortage of concerns about China's nuclear buildup within the DoD, and like Moscow, it's only logical that Beijing would invest in delivery systems that circumvent U.S. early warning and defensive capabilities. The idea that at least some of the hundreds of supposed silos out in the Chinese desert being built to house new ballistic missiles could one day be armed with a weapon like this is very concerning. It also could be yet another major driver behind the Pentagon's push to deploy a whole new space-based early warning and tracking system for hypersonic and ballistic missiles, including one capable of "cold layer" tracking of missiles in their midcourse stage of flight.
That layer would be absolutely essential in trying to defend against a FOBS, that is if a defense at all is actually feasible or even strategically sound. We are not talking about a rogue state here with a few advanced ballistic missiles. China would be able to deploy dozens or even hundreds of these at once. At a certain point, kinetic defenses against such a capability become a losing proposition and a very costly one at that.
Still, this was an early test aboard a full-on rocket used for traditional space access missions. It will take China some time to perfect such a system and package it in a quickly deployable militarized configuration. Major thermal and ablative issues also must be overcome, among others, but it's not like China hasn't been working diligently in the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle realm for many years.
Regardless, if this report ends up being fully accurate, one thing is likely: New calls for hugely expensive missile defense capabilities will be ringing loud and often on Capitol Hill, as well as demands to do whatever possible to bring China to the bargaining table in hopes of obtaining some type of strategic arms limitation treaty.
We will continue to update this story as more emerges, but for now, make sure you read the Financial Times' excellent original report here.
Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com
Posted for fair use
China Tested A Fractional Orbital Bombardment System That Uses A Hypersonic Glide Vehicle: Report
Such a capability could potentially allow China to execute a nuclear strike on any target on earth with near-impunity and very little warning.
www.thedrive.com
jward
passin' thru
China says new hypersonic missile a blow to US 'strategic superiority'
Mark Moore
4-5 minutes
China is putting the US on blast following a report that it launched a hypersonic missile into orbit — ridiculing America’s sense of “strategic superiority.”
The recent launch of the nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle into low-orbit, first reported in the Financial Times on Saturday, caught the US intelligence community by surprise.
“We have no idea how they did this,” a person familiar with the test told the publication.
In an editorial Sunday in the Global Times, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, China wouldn’t confirm the Financial Times report, but noted that “the US generally has the ability to monitor global missile launches.”
“If the FT report is to be believed, it means that there is a key new member in China’s nuclear deterrence system, which is a new blow to the US’ mentality of strategic superiority over China,” the piece added.
“It is important to note the unstoppable trend that China is narrowing the gap with the US in some key military technologies as China is continuously developing its economic and technological strength. China doesn’t need to engage in an ‘arms race’ with the US – it is capable of weakening the US’ overall advantages over China by developing military power at its own pace,” the editorial said.
The US, Russia and China have all been working on hypersonic weapons.REUTERS
The report pointed out that hypersonic weapons travel at low altitude, allowing them to be maneuvered in flight, lessens the likelihood that they will be detected, and increases the likelihood that they will hit their target more quickly.
Ballistic missiles, on the other hand, fly in a high arc into space before reentering the atmosphere.
The hypersonic missile, which was launched in August, orbited the globe but missed its target by a couple of dozen miles.
“We have made clear our concerns about the military capabilities China continues to pursue, capabilities that only increase tensions in the region and beyond,” Defense Department spokesman John Kirby told the Financial Times. “That is one reason why we hold China as our number one pacing challenge.”
The US, Russia and China have all been working on hypersonic weapons.
Russia tested one such missile in July. The US plans to outfit all of the Navy’s destroyers with these missiles.
The development comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and Beijing over China’s military buildup in the South China Sea and the possibility that it may seek to take Taiwan by force.
At the same time, the US and its allies ramped up naval operations in the region to challenge China’s territorial claims over the waterway.
Earlier this month, China’s People Liberation Army planes violated Taiwan’s airspace.
China, which considers the island a rogue province and part of its territory, said in the editorial that it didn’t want to engage in an “arms race” with the US but would concentrate on bolstering its military presence near Taiwan.
“China’s military buildup will focus on the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea. It is inevitable that China will take an upper hand over the US military strength in these areas thanks to the geographical proximity and the continuous increase of China’s input,” the editorial said.
“Chinese society has not only strong expectations for this, but also strong determination and corresponding ability to realize this reversal. The US’ conventional military superiority around the world will not translate into a guarantee of superiority in these regions,” it continued.
Taylor Fravel, a Chinese nuclear weapons expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the use of a nuclear-armed hypersonic glide vehicle could help China “negate” US missile defense systems.
“Hypersonic glide vehicles . . . fly at lower trajectories and can maneuver in flight, which makes them hard to track and destroy,” Fravel told the Financial Times.
With Post wires
nypost.com
Mark Moore
4-5 minutes
China is putting the US on blast following a report that it launched a hypersonic missile into orbit — ridiculing America’s sense of “strategic superiority.”
The recent launch of the nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle into low-orbit, first reported in the Financial Times on Saturday, caught the US intelligence community by surprise.
“We have no idea how they did this,” a person familiar with the test told the publication.
In an editorial Sunday in the Global Times, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, China wouldn’t confirm the Financial Times report, but noted that “the US generally has the ability to monitor global missile launches.”
“If the FT report is to be believed, it means that there is a key new member in China’s nuclear deterrence system, which is a new blow to the US’ mentality of strategic superiority over China,” the piece added.
“It is important to note the unstoppable trend that China is narrowing the gap with the US in some key military technologies as China is continuously developing its economic and technological strength. China doesn’t need to engage in an ‘arms race’ with the US – it is capable of weakening the US’ overall advantages over China by developing military power at its own pace,” the editorial said.
The US, Russia and China have all been working on hypersonic weapons.REUTERSThe report pointed out that hypersonic weapons travel at low altitude, allowing them to be maneuvered in flight, lessens the likelihood that they will be detected, and increases the likelihood that they will hit their target more quickly.
Ballistic missiles, on the other hand, fly in a high arc into space before reentering the atmosphere.
The hypersonic missile, which was launched in August, orbited the globe but missed its target by a couple of dozen miles.
“We have made clear our concerns about the military capabilities China continues to pursue, capabilities that only increase tensions in the region and beyond,” Defense Department spokesman John Kirby told the Financial Times. “That is one reason why we hold China as our number one pacing challenge.”
The US, Russia and China have all been working on hypersonic weapons.
Russia tested one such missile in July. The US plans to outfit all of the Navy’s destroyers with these missiles.
The development comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and Beijing over China’s military buildup in the South China Sea and the possibility that it may seek to take Taiwan by force.
At the same time, the US and its allies ramped up naval operations in the region to challenge China’s territorial claims over the waterway.
Earlier this month, China’s People Liberation Army planes violated Taiwan’s airspace.
China, which considers the island a rogue province and part of its territory, said in the editorial that it didn’t want to engage in an “arms race” with the US but would concentrate on bolstering its military presence near Taiwan.
“China’s military buildup will focus on the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea. It is inevitable that China will take an upper hand over the US military strength in these areas thanks to the geographical proximity and the continuous increase of China’s input,” the editorial said.
“Chinese society has not only strong expectations for this, but also strong determination and corresponding ability to realize this reversal. The US’ conventional military superiority around the world will not translate into a guarantee of superiority in these regions,” it continued.
Taylor Fravel, a Chinese nuclear weapons expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the use of a nuclear-armed hypersonic glide vehicle could help China “negate” US missile defense systems.
“Hypersonic glide vehicles . . . fly at lower trajectories and can maneuver in flight, which makes them hard to track and destroy,” Fravel told the Financial Times.
With Post wires
China says new hypersonic missile a blow to US ‘strategic superiority’
China is putting the US on blast following the launch of a hypersonic missile into orbit — ridiculing America’s sense of “strategic superiority.”
nypost.com
jward
passin' thru
China
U.S. concerned by possible Chinese, Russian uses of hypersonic weapons
By Stephanie Nebehay
Hypersonic weapons are usually defined as missiles that fly more than five times the speed of sound, and a race is under way for the next generation of long-range weapons that are harder to detect and intercept. read more
The Financial Times, quoting five people familiar with the matter, said at the weekend that China had tested a weapon in August that flew through space and circled the globe before cruising down towards a target which it missed.
The Chinese foreign ministry denied the report. It said it had carried out a routine test in July, but added: "It was not a missile, it was a space vehicle." read more
The United States and Russia have both tested hypersonic weapons but U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood said that Washington had concerns about their possible use.
"Hypersonic technology is something that we have been concerned about, the potential military applications of it and we have held back from pursuing, we had held back from pursing military applications for this technology," he told a small group of reporters in Geneva.
"But we have seen China and Russia pursuing very actively the use, the militarisation of this technology so we are just having to respond in kind...We just don't know how we can defend against that technology, neither does China, neither does Russia."
Wood was referring to the difficulty of missile defence systems to track such high-speed weapons that can manoeuvre and evade shields intended to stop them from entering territory.
1/2
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin responds to questions during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on "Ending the U.S. Military Mission in Afghanistan" in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, U.S., September 29, 2021. Rod Lamkey/Pool via REUTERS
"The Russians have a hypersonic glide vehicle called the Avangard, one of their heavy ICBMs (inter-continental ballistic missiles)," Wood said. "We have known about (that). They have, in essence, it's captured in the New START agreement (on nuclear arms reduction), it's not quite developed yet."
"But this type of technology is worrisome, because we just haven't had to face it before," he added.
Russia and China did not immediately respond to his comments.
CONCERN MIXED WITH HOPE
Wood, who is the U.S. envoy to the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, voiced hope that the new technology could be addressed or "captured" in some kind of internationally agreed principle or legal mechanism in the future.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said separately that Washington was closely watching China's development of advanced weapons systems though he declined to comment directly on the Financial Times' report. read more
"We watch closely China's development of armament and advanced capabilities and systems that will only increase tensions in the region," Austin told reporters during a visit to the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
He said Washington would remain focused on the military challenge from Beijing.
Additional reporting by David Chkhikvishvili in Tbilisi, Writing by Stephanie Nebehay; editing by Timothy Heritage
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/I65HRIHTRZJODMPYOGPCGK42II.jpg)
www.reuters.com
U.S. concerned by possible Chinese, Russian uses of hypersonic weapons
By Stephanie Nebehay
- Summary
- China denies testing nuclear-capable hypersonic weapon
- Race under way for new generation of long-range weapons
- United States has concerns about their possible uses
Hypersonic weapons are usually defined as missiles that fly more than five times the speed of sound, and a race is under way for the next generation of long-range weapons that are harder to detect and intercept. read more
The Financial Times, quoting five people familiar with the matter, said at the weekend that China had tested a weapon in August that flew through space and circled the globe before cruising down towards a target which it missed.
The Chinese foreign ministry denied the report. It said it had carried out a routine test in July, but added: "It was not a missile, it was a space vehicle." read more
The United States and Russia have both tested hypersonic weapons but U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood said that Washington had concerns about their possible use.
"Hypersonic technology is something that we have been concerned about, the potential military applications of it and we have held back from pursuing, we had held back from pursing military applications for this technology," he told a small group of reporters in Geneva.
"But we have seen China and Russia pursuing very actively the use, the militarisation of this technology so we are just having to respond in kind...We just don't know how we can defend against that technology, neither does China, neither does Russia."
Wood was referring to the difficulty of missile defence systems to track such high-speed weapons that can manoeuvre and evade shields intended to stop them from entering territory.
1/2
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin responds to questions during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on "Ending the U.S. Military Mission in Afghanistan" in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, U.S., September 29, 2021. Rod Lamkey/Pool via REUTERS
"The Russians have a hypersonic glide vehicle called the Avangard, one of their heavy ICBMs (inter-continental ballistic missiles)," Wood said. "We have known about (that). They have, in essence, it's captured in the New START agreement (on nuclear arms reduction), it's not quite developed yet."
"But this type of technology is worrisome, because we just haven't had to face it before," he added.
Russia and China did not immediately respond to his comments.
CONCERN MIXED WITH HOPE
Wood, who is the U.S. envoy to the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, voiced hope that the new technology could be addressed or "captured" in some kind of internationally agreed principle or legal mechanism in the future.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said separately that Washington was closely watching China's development of advanced weapons systems though he declined to comment directly on the Financial Times' report. read more
"We watch closely China's development of armament and advanced capabilities and systems that will only increase tensions in the region," Austin told reporters during a visit to the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
He said Washington would remain focused on the military challenge from Beijing.
Additional reporting by David Chkhikvishvili in Tbilisi, Writing by Stephanie Nebehay; editing by Timothy Heritage
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
U.S. concerned by possible Chinese, Russian uses of hypersonic weapons
Washington is concerned about hypersonic missile technology and its potential military applications by China and Russia, a U.S. arms control official said on Monday, after a media report that Beijing had tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide weapon.
www.reuters.com
jward
passin' thru
First Squawk
@FirstSquawk
3h
"WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN DEFEND AGAINST THAT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, NEITHER DOES CHINA OR RUSSIA" - U.S. ENVOY WOOD ON REPORT OF CHINA HYPERSONIC MISSILE TEST
@FirstSquawk
3h
"WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN DEFEND AGAINST THAT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, NEITHER DOES CHINA OR RUSSIA" - U.S. ENVOY WOOD ON REPORT OF CHINA HYPERSONIC MISSILE TEST
Demetri Sevastopulo
@Dimi
SCOOP – #China has stunned US intelligence and military officials by testing a #nuclear capable #hypersonic missile that traveled through low orbit in space, making a full circle around the globe before speeding towards its target.
View: https://twitter.com/Dimi/status/1449462944891346947?s=20
Demetri Sevastopulo
@Dimi
10m
Missile missed target by couple of dozen miles, but people familiar with the test say China demonstrated a stunning capability that nobody thought they already had mastered.
View attachment 296667
jward
passin' thru
Dr. Jeffrey Lewis
@ArmsControlWonk
47m
Not now. JFC.
Yonhap News Agency
@YonhapNews
(URGENT) N. Korea fires unidentified projectile towards East Sea: JCS
View: https://twitter.com/YonhapNews/status/1450270939803893763?s=20
___________________________________
Doge
@IntelDoge
1m
Breaking: North Korea fires projectile off its Eastern coast.
William Gallo
@GalloVOA
2m
North Korea has conducted a projectile launch into the sea off its east coast, South Korea's military says in an alert.
Last edited:
A modern version of a Sprint ABM would probably have a shot as would a stearable rail gun projectle or a high energy laser (we've already been shooting down drones, artillery shells and rockets with them). But that's all at the final layer of defense of the target.
It all comes down to how much you want to spend and on what. The "easier" option from a technical point would be to re-MIRV all of the ICBMs and do so with more "usable"/low yield warheads. That would definitely up the MAD level. All we'd have to do then is convince them that we'd actually use them.....
jward
passin' thru
William Gallo
@GalloVOA
Sung Kim, US envoy for North Korea: "We harbor no hostile intent towards the DPRK, and we are open to meeting with them without preconditions...we also have a responsibility to implement the UN Security Council resolutions." Full comments, via
@rongxiang
@GalloVOA
Sung Kim, US envoy for North Korea: "We harbor no hostile intent towards the DPRK, and we are open to meeting with them without preconditions...we also have a responsibility to implement the UN Security Council resolutions." Full comments, via
@rongxiang
jward
passin' thru
China’s Orbital Bombardment System Is Big, Bad News—but Not a Breakthrough
An attempt to evade missile defenses threatens to worsen a costly arms race.
By Jeffrey Lewis
Performers dressed as soldiers perform in front of a screen showing rockets being launched during a mass gala marking the 100th anniversary of Chinese the Communist Party in Beijing on June 28. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
October 18, 2021, 6:11 PM
Over the weekend, the Financial Times reported that in August, China tested a new hypersonic weapons system that circled the globe. While the word “hypersonic” has gotten all the attention, what is more interesting is that the weapon entered orbit. This is no mere hypersonic system but what Cold Warriors called an “orbital bombardment system.” People are freaking out, with some calling it a “Sputnik moment.”
But just what is this thing, and how bad is it? Well, it’s an FOBS—a fractional orbital bombardment system. It’s not new. The Soviet Union deployed a similar system during the Cold War. But China’s test of such a system is unwelcome news, not because it’s some fantastic futuristic technology but because it is yet another step in a pointless, costly, and dangerous arms race.
Starting in the 1960s, the United States began working on a missile defense system, which eventually came to be called Safeguard. This system ultimately consisted of a number of missiles armed with nuclear weapons intended to vaporize incoming Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. That’s not an acceptable situation from the standpoint of a relationship based on nuclear deterrence. The whole idea of nuclear deterrence is that if one party starts a nuclear war, everybody dies. If one side has a bunch of defenses, however, its leaders might start to think that they could survive and, God forbid, even prevail. And that makes starting the fight a dangerously tempting option.
Jeffrey Lewis is director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Twitter: @ArmsControlWonk
Rest behind paywall.
Posted for fair use
foreignpolicy.com
An attempt to evade missile defenses threatens to worsen a costly arms race.
By Jeffrey Lewis
Performers dressed as soldiers perform in front of a screen showing rockets being launched during a mass gala marking the 100th anniversary of Chinese the Communist Party in Beijing on June 28. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
October 18, 2021, 6:11 PM
Over the weekend, the Financial Times reported that in August, China tested a new hypersonic weapons system that circled the globe. While the word “hypersonic” has gotten all the attention, what is more interesting is that the weapon entered orbit. This is no mere hypersonic system but what Cold Warriors called an “orbital bombardment system.” People are freaking out, with some calling it a “Sputnik moment.”
But just what is this thing, and how bad is it? Well, it’s an FOBS—a fractional orbital bombardment system. It’s not new. The Soviet Union deployed a similar system during the Cold War. But China’s test of such a system is unwelcome news, not because it’s some fantastic futuristic technology but because it is yet another step in a pointless, costly, and dangerous arms race.
Starting in the 1960s, the United States began working on a missile defense system, which eventually came to be called Safeguard. This system ultimately consisted of a number of missiles armed with nuclear weapons intended to vaporize incoming Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. That’s not an acceptable situation from the standpoint of a relationship based on nuclear deterrence. The whole idea of nuclear deterrence is that if one party starts a nuclear war, everybody dies. If one side has a bunch of defenses, however, its leaders might start to think that they could survive and, God forbid, even prevail. And that makes starting the fight a dangerously tempting option.
Jeffrey Lewis is director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Twitter: @ArmsControlWonk
Rest behind paywall.
Posted for fair use
China’s Orbital Bombardment System Is Big, Bad News—but Not a Breakthrough
An attempt to evade missile defenses threatens to worsen a costly arms race.
foreignpolicy.com
jward
passin' thru
AND NOW, ABOUT THAT CHINA MISSILE: What’s in a name? That which we call a Chinese fractional orbital bombardment system by any other name would be as eye-popping.
The Financial Times’ DEMETRI SEVASTOPULO and KATHERIN HILLE set the worldwide national security community atwitter Saturday with the revelation that China tested a nuclear-capable missile in August. A rocket reportedly carried a hypersonic glide vehicle into low-orbit before it circumnavigated the globe — and all of this to America’s surprise.
China suspiciously didn’t reveal this launch, the 77th of its kind, after it detailed the one before and the one after. That might be because what Beijing sent into space was a FOB, which allows a nation to hit a target with a nuclear weapon via a low-trajectory and low-visibility route. Beyond the speed and the trajectory, what also concerns the Pentagon is that it’s presumed the glide vehicle is maneuverable, meaning that it could evade traditional missile defenses as it screams back toward Earth.
The Chinese government denied the FT’s report Monday, with Foreign Ministry Spokesperson ZHAO LIJIAN saying what Beijing tested was “not a missile, but a space vehicle,” and that it flew in July, not August.
“As we understand, this was a routine test of space vehicle to verify technology of spacecraft’s reusability,” he added. “It is of great significance to reducing the cost of using space vehicle and providing a convenient and cheap way for mankind's two-way transportation in the peaceful use of space. Several companies around the world have conducted similar tests.”
This has launched (pun intended) two separate debates, as far as NatSec Daily can track.
The first is whether or not to believe China’s denial. JAMES ACTON, who co-directs the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told NatSec Daily there are three possibilities here — “all of which seem plausible.”
The simplest answer is China is lying: It has now successfully tested this provocative weapon but wants to keep it a mystery. Second, the denial is truthful and Beijing really was testing a space plane. The trajectory is similar enough that U.S. officials — including the ones that spoke to the FT — may have mistaken it for a FOB. Then there’s the Goldilocks option, where the Chinese test featured both military and civilian applications, which means the regime is sorta-kinda not telling the truth.
The second debate gets to the heart of that matter: Is the supposed FOB a BFD?
Sen. JIM INHOFE of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, definitely thinks so. “China’s test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle is one more milestone in China’s military modernization — designed to intimidate and bully the West. This is just the latest in a string of high-profile revelations about China’s rapidly growing nuclear arsenal,” he wrote on Facebook.
But others, most notably those in favor of arms control, say that China’s potentially new missile isn’t a game changer. The country already has a lot of missiles that can hit the American homeland with nukes and is quickly acquiring more, they note.
That view was reinforced today by Adm. CHARLES RICHARD, the head of U.S. Strategic Command. The “breathtaking expansion of strategic and nuclear capabilities” now means “China can now execute any possible nuclear employment strategy,” he told Stars and Stripes’ JOHN VANDIVER.
However, China — like most nuclear-capable states — views its capabilities pessimistically, and is always looking to improve technologies to stay one step ahead of new defenses. That’s understandably concerning, but it’s also a feature and not a bug of American strategy. “One reason why the U.S. pursues counterforce and missile defense capabilities is precisely to force adversaries to invest a lot of time and resources to develop crazy experimental systems,” MIT nuclear expert VIPIN NARANG tweeted yesterday.
The question now is a common one in Washington: What did the U.S. know and when did it know it? Was the Biden administration truly caught by surprise by this test? Is the assessment of Chinese capabilities as presented to the FT by unnamed officials wrong?
It would be good to have those answers.
EXCERPT From
www.politico.com
The Financial Times’ DEMETRI SEVASTOPULO and KATHERIN HILLE set the worldwide national security community atwitter Saturday with the revelation that China tested a nuclear-capable missile in August. A rocket reportedly carried a hypersonic glide vehicle into low-orbit before it circumnavigated the globe — and all of this to America’s surprise.
China suspiciously didn’t reveal this launch, the 77th of its kind, after it detailed the one before and the one after. That might be because what Beijing sent into space was a FOB, which allows a nation to hit a target with a nuclear weapon via a low-trajectory and low-visibility route. Beyond the speed and the trajectory, what also concerns the Pentagon is that it’s presumed the glide vehicle is maneuverable, meaning that it could evade traditional missile defenses as it screams back toward Earth.
The Chinese government denied the FT’s report Monday, with Foreign Ministry Spokesperson ZHAO LIJIAN saying what Beijing tested was “not a missile, but a space vehicle,” and that it flew in July, not August.
“As we understand, this was a routine test of space vehicle to verify technology of spacecraft’s reusability,” he added. “It is of great significance to reducing the cost of using space vehicle and providing a convenient and cheap way for mankind's two-way transportation in the peaceful use of space. Several companies around the world have conducted similar tests.”
This has launched (pun intended) two separate debates, as far as NatSec Daily can track.
The first is whether or not to believe China’s denial. JAMES ACTON, who co-directs the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told NatSec Daily there are three possibilities here — “all of which seem plausible.”
The simplest answer is China is lying: It has now successfully tested this provocative weapon but wants to keep it a mystery. Second, the denial is truthful and Beijing really was testing a space plane. The trajectory is similar enough that U.S. officials — including the ones that spoke to the FT — may have mistaken it for a FOB. Then there’s the Goldilocks option, where the Chinese test featured both military and civilian applications, which means the regime is sorta-kinda not telling the truth.
The second debate gets to the heart of that matter: Is the supposed FOB a BFD?
Sen. JIM INHOFE of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, definitely thinks so. “China’s test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle is one more milestone in China’s military modernization — designed to intimidate and bully the West. This is just the latest in a string of high-profile revelations about China’s rapidly growing nuclear arsenal,” he wrote on Facebook.
But others, most notably those in favor of arms control, say that China’s potentially new missile isn’t a game changer. The country already has a lot of missiles that can hit the American homeland with nukes and is quickly acquiring more, they note.
That view was reinforced today by Adm. CHARLES RICHARD, the head of U.S. Strategic Command. The “breathtaking expansion of strategic and nuclear capabilities” now means “China can now execute any possible nuclear employment strategy,” he told Stars and Stripes’ JOHN VANDIVER.
However, China — like most nuclear-capable states — views its capabilities pessimistically, and is always looking to improve technologies to stay one step ahead of new defenses. That’s understandably concerning, but it’s also a feature and not a bug of American strategy. “One reason why the U.S. pursues counterforce and missile defense capabilities is precisely to force adversaries to invest a lot of time and resources to develop crazy experimental systems,” MIT nuclear expert VIPIN NARANG tweeted yesterday.
The question now is a common one in Washington: What did the U.S. know and when did it know it? Was the Biden administration truly caught by surprise by this test? Is the assessment of Chinese capabilities as presented to the FT by unnamed officials wrong?
It would be good to have those answers.
EXCERPT From
Is China's FOB a BFD?
That which we call a Chinese fractional orbital bombardment system by any other name would be as eye-popping.
www.politico.com