U.S base in Guam a major threat to China

[average american]

What the article does not seem to take into account is americas defenses against cruise and ballistic missiles....

American Cruisers Not Allowed To Retire
by James Dunnigan
October 13, 2012
The success of the U.S. Navy's Aegis system in destroying ballistic missiles, and low orbit satellites, is likely to keep some of the older Aegis equipped ships in commission longer. The first Aegis ships were the Ticonderoga class of cruisers, which entered service in 1983. The 27th, and last one, joined the fleet in 1994. Five have since been retired and four additional ones scheduled for retirement next year have had that postponed. This was mostly due to Congress insisting that not so many of the Ticonderogas be taken out of service. This was because of political pressure to maintain the size of the fleet. None of the four Ticonderogas scheduled for retirement were equipped for anti-missile work. But five of the Ticonderogas in service are and more are scheduled to be converted. Another 21 Burke class destroyers are also equipped for anti-missile work.
As of this year 26 of the 82 American Aegis equipped ships will have anti-missile/satellite capability. If all Aegis ships were converted, the U.S. would have a formidable, and very flexible, capability to defeat ballistic missiles and low flying spy satellites. So the navy is applying pressure to get money to keep the older Aegis ships (the Ticonderoga's and the first few Arleigh Burke class destroyers) in commission for this. This depends on Congress providing enough money for running these ships and to convert them (about $20 million each) and supply each ship with four or more SM-3 anti-missile missiles (about $10 million each).

The Aegis anti-missile system has had a success rate of over 80 percent, in knocking down incoming ballistic missile warheads during test firings. To achieve this two similar models of the U.S. Navy Standard anti-aircraft missile are used, in addition to a modified version of the Aegis radar system, which can now track incoming ballistic missiles.

The RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a range of over 500 kilometers and max altitude of over 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the anti-missile version of the Standard 2 (SM-2 Block IV). This SM-2 missile has a shorter range than the SM-3, which can destroy a warhead that is more than 200 kilometers up. But the SM-3 is only good for anti-missile work, while the SM-2 Block IV can be used against both ballistic missiles and aircraft. The SM-2 Block IV also costs less than half what an SM-3 costs.

The Standard 3 has four stages. The first two stages boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the nine kilogram (20 pound) LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The Aegis system was designed to operate aboard warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles). However, there is also a land based version.

In addition the F22 and the F35 are designed to be able to defeat cruise missiles as well as ballistic missiles. They are at the present time harding the protection of the base on Guam.

The US Navy alone has 11,000 missiles that are available for almost instant use and pinpoint targeting.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

What is the Chinese reaction?

What are the weaponry that the Chinese can unleash against US interest in the Pacific region?

I am sure they will have taken some action to ensure that they are not vulnerable.

Any reports on that?

Chinese would have to use ballistic missiles fired from the mainland or submarines.
But it would increase the collateral damage to China when USA also uses ballistic missiles.

 

[average american]

Chinese would have to use ballistic missiles fired from the mainland or submarines.
But it would increase the collateral damage to China when USA also uses ballistic missiles.

The US does not have ballistic missiles with conventional war heads, mainly they are cruise and shorter range missiles. The US would use thousands of cruise missiles to take out China Air Defenses and then go in with hundreds of stealth planes carrying tens of thousands of smart bombs day after day, China transportation system is especially vunerable because of its dependance on railroads and shipping.

China is militarily weaker than many people think, especially compared to the United States. This, despite lots of showy jet prototypes and plenty of other factory-fresh equipment.

But Beijing has a brutally simple — if risky — plan to compensate for this relative weakness: buy missiles. And then, buy more of them. All kinds of missiles: short-range and long-range; land-based, air-launched and sea-launched; ballistic and cruise; guided and "dumb."

Those are the two striking themes that emerge from Chinese Aerospace Power, a new collection of essays edited by Andrew Erickson, an influential China analyst with the U.S. Naval War College.

Today, the PLA possesses as many as 2,000 non-nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles, according to Chinese Aerospace Power. This "growing arsenal of increasingly accurate and lethal conventional ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles has rapidly emerged as a cornerstone of PLA warfighting capability," Mark Stokes and Ian Easton wrote. For every category of weaponry where the People's Liberation Army (PLA) lags behind the Pentagon, there's a Chinese missile to help make up the difference.



The need is clear. Despite introducing a wide range of new hardware in recent years, including jet fighters, helicopters, destroyers, submarines and a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, China still lacks many of the basic systems, organizations and procedures necessary to defeat a determined, well-equipped foe.

Take, for example, aerial refueling. To deploy large numbers of effective aerial tankers requires the ability to build and support large jet engines — something China cannot yet do. In-air refueling also demands planning and coordination beyond anything the PLA has ever pulled off. As a result, "tanker aircraft are in short supply" in the PLA, Wayne Ulman explained.

That's putting it lightly. According to Chinese Aerospace Power, the entire PLA operates just 14 H-6U tankers, each carrying 17,000 kilograms of off-loadable fuel. (The U.S. Air Force alone possesses more than 500 tankers, each off-loading around 100,000 kilograms of fuel.) So while the PLA in theory boasts more than 1,500 jet fighters, in reality it can refuel only 50 or 60 at a time, assuming all the H-6 tankers are working perfectly.

In an air war over Taiwan, hundreds of miles from most Chinese bases, only those 50 fighters would be able to spend more than a few minutes' flight time over the battlefield. Factoring in tankers, China's 4–1 advantage in jet fighters compared to Taiwan actually shrinks to a roughly 7&ndash1 disadvantage. The gap only grows when you add U.S. fighters to the mix.

The PLA's solution? Missiles, of course. Up to a thousand ballistic and cruise missiles, most of them fired by land-based launchers, "would likely comprise the initial strike" against Taiwan or U.S. Pacific bases, Ulman wrote. The goal would be to take out as many of an opponent's aircraft as possible before the dogfighting even begins.

The PLA could take a similar approach to leveling its current disadvantage at sea. Submarines have always been the most potent ship-killers in any nation's inventory, but China's subs are too few, too noisy and their crews too inexperienced to take on the U.S. Navy. Once the shooting started, the "Chinese submarine force would be highly vulnerable," Jeff Hagen predicted.

And forget using jet fighters armed with short-range weapons to attack the American navy. One Chinese analyst referenced in Chinese Aerospace Power estimated it would take between 150 and 200 Su-27-class fighters to destroy one U.S. Ticonderoga-class cruiser. The entire PLA operates only around 300 Su-27s and derivatives. The U.S. Navy has 22 Ticonderoga cruisers.

Again, missiles would compensate. A "supersaturation" attack by scores or hundreds of ballistic missiles has the potential of "instantly rendering the Ticonderoga's air defenses useless," Toshi Yoshihara wrote. Close to shore, China could use the older, less-precise, shorter-range missiles it already possesses in abundance. For longer-range strikes, the PLA is developing the DF-21D "carrier-killer" missile that uses satellites and aerial drones for precision targeting.

The downside to China's missile-centric strategy is that it could represent a "single point of failure." Over-relying on one weapon could render the PLA highly vulnerable to one kind of countermeasure. In this case, that's the Pentagon's anti-ballistic-missile systems, including warships carrying SM-3 missiles and land-based U.S. Army Patriot and Terminal High-Altitude Air-Defense batteries.

Plus, missiles are one-shot weapons. You don't get to reuse them the way you would a jet fighter or a destroyer. That means, in wartime, China has to win fast — or lose. "China's entire inventory of conventional ballistic missiles, for example, could deliver about a thousand tons of high explosives on their targets," Roger Cliff explained. "The U.S. Air Force's aircraft, by comparison, could deliver several times that amount of high explosives every day for an indefinite period."
China's Plan to Beat U.S.: Missiles, Missiles and More Missiles | Danger Room | Wired.com

 

[s002wjh]

nah taiwan is too close to china. too far from US. beside with current taiwan/china warming relationship, i see SCS or diaoyu island more of source of potential small conflict. even then the conflict will be limited, so it won't turn into WWIII.

anti-bm is good for few BM, but when thousands lunch at taiwan in a day, it will overwhelm the defense. and taiwan don't have thousands anti-bm system either. you need at 2-4 per 1 BM to make anti-bm effictive. also people forgot about long range Rocket artillery, which have about 300km+, these on land in china near taiwan can hit northern taiwan, when mount on continer ships, it can cover most taiwan. combine with precision stuff, you got devasted weapon for airfield.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

B-2 bombers are based in Guam for conventional strikes. PGS prompt global strike
may also have been placed in guam?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/167962.pdf

Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles

 

[average american]

nah taiwan is too close to china. too far from US. beside with current taiwan/china warming relationship, i see SCS or diaoyu island more of source of potential small conflict. even then the conflict will be limited, so it won't turn into WWIII.

anti-bm is good for few BM, but when thousands lunch at taiwan in a day, it will overwhelm the defense. and taiwan don't have thousands anti-bm system either. you need at 2-4 per 1 BM to make anti-bm effictive. also people forgot about long range Rocket artillery, which have about 300km+, these on land in china near taiwan can hit northern taiwan, when mount on continer ships, it can cover most taiwan. combine with precision stuff, you got devasted weapon for airfield.

In case of war any Chinese ship would be targeted, air fields would be quickly repaired and I am sure aircraft in Guam and Taiwan are protected in revetments and harden shelters. Between USA and Taiwan there antiaircraft missiles would take out Chinas airforce and then it would be open season on Chinese shipping and airforce.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Chinese navy would not be able to get out of South China seas there are bases
surrounding the Chinese coastline in neighboring countries.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

 

[average american]

There also eleven aircraft carriers with nearly a 1000 planes.

 

[s002wjh]

In case of war any Chinese ship would be targeted, air fields would be quickly repaired and I am sure aircraft in Guam and Taiwan are protected in revetments and harden shelters. Between USA and Taiwan there antiaircraft missiles would take out Chinas airforce and then it would be open season on Chinese shipping and airforce.

not talking about navy ship. rocket artillery is pretty easy to mount it on small/mid/large container ships. Guam/okinawa only has limited aircraft so have to choose the target carefully. its about how many planes us/taiwan can put in the air during attack. need at least several hundred or more to stop the invasion, plaf, plan. if the airfield and its control are damaged then the plane are doing no good during initial invasion, and it will depend how fast the CVBG get there before taiwan surrander.

 

[s002wjh]

Chinese navy would not be able to get out of South China seas there are bases
surrounding the Chinese coastline in neighboring countries.

i doubt during sino-taiwan conflict other party will get involve except US, and thats a maybe. beside i would think they will get their ships out before the conflict, they are not gonna put their ships in base, give a big bullseyes on their back. there are many study on how many planes needed to stop china from invading taiwan. if taiwan airfield is mostly gone after BM etc, then it leave only plane from US base near, which is not enough to stop it.

currently only guam/sk/japan has plane capable reaching taiwan, but the planes are in limited number, and i don't expect it can stop a full invasion, too many target too few planes. only US cvbg has that power to stop the invasion.

 

[average american]

Remember US Aircraft carriers. China is only about 3100 miles from Hawaii and there is also US bases in Japan, and Korea, about a 1000 miles from Taiwan an attack on bases in those countries would likley result in there being at war with China. Those bases are far enough away from China to make it difficult for China to attack but close enought for US Air Power. I am sure they have dispersed and protected the asssets at the bases, as some one said we will never forget Pearl Harbor or 911. Most of the american military have been involved by now in the wars in iraq and Afganstan and once you are involved in wars your thinking is a higher level then those that have never been involved in a war. Japan and US are spending over 20 billion on upgrades for Guam......Japanese defense delegation off to Guam

 

[s002wjh]

the problem is how to get CVBG fast enough to taiwan strait. it take day to prepare cvbg, and almost a week to sail to taiwan from japan, because china anti-access strategy, subcommander has to do some swip infront of CVBG, make sure its clear. as time goes on, china will modernize more of their military, the balance between china/taiwan already in favor of china.
i doubt china will want to attack guam/base in japan unless it felt it has no choice. and i doubt china/taiwan war will happen in the next decade as their relation are warm up. so who know whats china military gonna be in another 10-20yrs if they continue their pace.

so IF there is a war between taiwan/china in the next 10yrs.
1st china will do is lunch special operation to sabotage priority target on the island, recent study shows, taiwan government are infiltrate by PRC from bottom to top. one of reason we are hestitate to sell advance weapon to taiwan for fear it will stolen by chinese spy in taiwan.
then china will likely take out the C&C/airfield via BM, follow by its own air force, paratrroper, invasion, long range rocket artillery bombardment. if most taiwan air force is down during this time, then its upto f22 etc in guam/japan to handle Plaf, and other targets, but there is not enough f22 for all the targets, not enough sorties, too far from taiwan, so they need refill for each sortie. it will take a while for CVBG to arrive, until then taiwan has to hold off the invasion and not surrander, and china will do anything they can, cyberattack, anti-access etc to delay the cvbg etc. Now, its upto china/us on how big this war will be, not escalte something to much bigger war.

 

[average american]

the problem is how to get CVBG fast enough to taiwan strait. it take day to prepare cvbg, and almost a week to sail to taiwan from japan, because china anti-access strategy, subcommander has to do some swip infront of CVBG, make sure its clear. as time goes on, china will modernize more of their military, the balance between china/taiwan already in favor of china.
i doubt china will want to attack guam/base in japan unless it felt it has no choice. and i doubt china/taiwan war will happen in the next decade as their relation are warm up. so who know whats china military gonna be in another 10-20yrs if they continue their pace.

so IF there is a war between taiwan/china in the next 10yrs.
1st china will do is lunch special operation to sabotage priority target on the island, recent study shows, taiwan government are infiltrate by PRC from bottom to top. one of reason we are hestitate to sell advance weapon to taiwan for fear it will stolen by chinese spy in taiwan.
then china will likely take out the C&C/airfield via BM, follow by its own air force, paratrroper, invasion, long range rocket artillery bombardment. if most taiwan air force is down during this time, then its upto f22 etc in guam/japan to handle Plaf, and other targets, but there is not enough f22 for all the targets, not enough sorties, too far from taiwan, so they need refill for each sortie. it will take a while for CVBG to arrive, until then taiwan has to hold off the invasion and not surrander, and china will do anything they can, cyberattack, anti-access etc to delay the cvbg etc. Now, its upto china/us on how big this war will be, not escalte something to much bigger war.

I doubt that China could launch a susprise attack against Taiwan, that would not give a weeks notice. They are going to have to gather forces and either satallites or spies would give away the information.

 

[s002wjh]

I doubt that China could launch a susprise attack against Taiwan, that would not give a weeks notice. They are going to have to gather forces and either satallites or spies would give away the information.

it depends though, since all the troops, planes, missile required for confrontation against taiwan is in fuji or nearby province within range of taiwan. still i doubt taiwan/china war will happen. especially right now both try to claim diaoyu/senku island vs japan.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

US military plan against China outlined in think-tank report — RT

US military plan against China outlined in think-tank report


As analysts around the world question whether the US is losing its superpower status, China's influence in the Asia-Pacific region is strengthening. But a new report has set out a strategy for America to increase its military presence in the area.
The paper, entitled "US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment," suggests America is preparing for a possible conflict with China, one warship at a time.
The report was written by the Centre for Strategic and Independent Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. CSIS is a non-government body, but its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department.
The assessment provides extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon's Pacific Command.
The report was released on June 27, but only gained media coverage after its main authors – David Berteau and Michael Green – testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.
The report says the "geostrategic uncertainty the United States and its allies and partners face in the Asia Pacific region is how China's growing power and influence will impact order and stability in the years ahead."
The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, which are strategically located in the Western Pacific. It also supports the stationing of combat ships in Singapore, which will be capable of intelligence gathering, special operations, and landing troops with armored vehicles.
The paper confirms that the US has held talks with Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam over possible access to military bases.
But it doesn't stop there. Recommendations to prevent China's reemergence as a great power go on and on.
The authors suggest placing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Australia, doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based in Guam, deploying combat ships to South Korea, and upgrading anti-missile defenses in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.
The report also suggests permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam as well as boosting both manned and unmanned surveillance in the region. Moreover, it promotes boosting US army ground presence, including stationing 2,500 more marines in Australia.
The recommendations coincide with the Obama administration's "Asia Pivot." It's a plan to boost US military presence throughout the Asia-Pacific Region, and to back almost all of China's rivals whilst doing so.
And the government has most certainly accomplished its goal. Just last week, the Pentagon announced it would conduct surveillance drone missiles over a Pacific island chain which have become a point of tension between China and Japan – who the US has deep military ties to.
Washington has also been a firm supporter of the Philippines during its ongoing dispute with China in the South China Sea since April, when a standoff began over ownership of the Scarborough Reef.
Since the disagreement kicked off, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the region. The move angered Beijing, which claims the presence of US naval ships hinders vital shipping lanes which China relies on for energy and raw materials.
If America makes the report's suggestions a reality, the decision could have far-reaching implications for Washington's allies, making them vulnerable to attacks in the future.
And if the US aims to strengthen its ties with Asia-Pacific countries in order to squash China, the question remains whether those island nations will actually comply.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

SOTG brings US Marines, Japanese service members back to Marianas Islands


ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam - Marines of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted a mechanized amphibious assault on the island of Tinian, trained in the Republic of Palau, including Koror and on Peleliu, and have also been operating in and around Guam, all thanks to the efforts of the III Marine Expeditionary Force's Special Operations Training Group.

The 31st MEU, known as a force in readiness in the Asia-Pacific region, is conducting their Certification Exercise, a series of evaluated full mission profiles in the Marianas and Caroline Islands designed by SOTG to bring the Marine Air Ground Task Force to a high state of readiness prior to patrolling the region.

"SOTG has the responsibility to establish the exercise environment for the MEU's pre-deployment training," said Col. Brandon McGowan, Officer in Charge, SOTG. "This allows for the continuing state of high readiness of the MEU."

A platoon-sized element of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force is also doing bilateral training for the first time alongside the Okinawa-based 31st MEU's Marines and sailors during their CERTEX here to develop greater interoperability of forces and to further enhance the security of the region, according to officials.

"The JGSDF soldiers integrated with the Marines as they trained both on ship and as they came ashore on Guam for the missions is a big first," said McGowan. "This is the first time the Japanese have done a bilateral exercise with the Marines in the Marianas. As you know, we do bilateral exercises all the time in Japan, but this is a new facet to a long-standing partnership."

"The Certification Exercise brings it all together," said Maj. Fletcher Tidwell, Air Officer, SOTG. "We design it to incorporate all the essential tasks of the MAGTF, and we flex the 31st MEU through all of its missions in a short period of time. And this time is very unique because we have the JGSDF incorporated with us for the first time."

SOTG, based out of Okinawa, is responsible for planning and orchestrating training for the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit as it begins deployments to the Asia-Pacific region.

"The major training events SOTG conducts for the 31st MEU as it goes through its workup are Interoperability Training for the reconnaissance elements, the Realistic Urban Training Exercise which adds levels of complexity mirroring real world situations, and finally the capstone Certification Exercise here in the Marianas Islands," said Tidwell.

First came the mechanized assault using Marine amphibious assault vehicles on a beach in Tinian, which began the two weeks of training across the islands. The assault secured the old military runway areas, which were used in World War Two by allied forces, including the launching of the Enola Gay.

"The island of Tinian provides many resources for training," said Staff Sgt. Danny R. Keller of San Antonio, Texas, a site controller with SOTG. It is really an untouched island which hasn't seen much military activity for many years, so it provides very realistic training for our Marines."

The second event was a long-range raid was based in Palau, with military actions taking place in on nearby Peleliu.

"We coordinated closely with the government of Palau to ensure a successful sequence of training events," said McGowan. "Everyone was very supportive of the training there, and U.S. Ambassador Helen Reed-Rowe and her staff were essential to the success. SOTG takes great pride in working closely with local authorities in order to facilitate safe, environmentally-friendly training and building close relationships along the way."

Finally on Guam, SOTG managed bilateral boat raids, a helicopter-borne raid and also a bilateral combat service support area to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions.

Due to its location, Guam offers the ability to host multilateral training on U.S. territory, providing a strategic advantage with developing or enhancing partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region and building multilateral capabilities.

The whole exercise was conducted over 6,000 square miles, a good challenge for logistics and communications, and a situation great for realistic training, according to McGowan.

"Okinawa training areas are very familiar, both to the organizations and the individual Marines who are used to the terrain," said McGowan. "So coming out here really made it better and more challenging training for the MEU, and also more challenging for us to develop training over so many remote sites that we had to run simultaneously."

SOTG must start planning six months in advance in order to set the training areas, logistics, and permissions necessary to do the training across the Asia-Pacific, according to Tidwell. And there are many considerations to be taken into account as the planning goes along.

"Going to a new place, we have to learn the capabilities as well as the limitations of each training area," said Tidwell. "There might be environmental or cultural factors which must be considered, or even historical or archeological sites which we want to protect. We go out of our way to ensure every detail is covered, every permission is granted, and everyone is in the know about what we are planning."

SOTG has other important missions aside from doing CERTEX for the MEU. According to Tidwell, they also train all of the individual augments from III MEF, do theater security missions in the area, train reconnaissance elements, conduct swim and navigation courses and hold rope suspension training.

"We could not have done this without a significant support from the MEF staff," said McGowan. "We have a platoon from 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines as role-players. We have 7th Communications Battalion Marines. This teamwork shows the capability the MEF has to do this kind of thing wherever and whenever it is needed."


Read more: DVIDS - News - SOTG brings US Marines, Japanese service members back to Marianas Islands

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Guam’s Anderson Air-Force Base: US & Japan’s bigger Drones to keep an eye on China | Tin hôm nay

Guam's Anderson Air-Force Base: US & Japan's bigger Drones to keep an eye on China

Military to bring in bigger drones

A newer, larger surveillance drone — specifically designed to watch the world's oceans — will be based in Guam over the next few years, adding another layer to the cutting-edge technology at Andersen Air Force Base.

The MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Triton, which was unveiled only a few months ago, is built by Northrop Grumman, the same company behind the Global Hawk drones that are already at Andersen.
The military will start preparing to deploy the drones during fiscal 2014, and operations in the Pacific should start about three years later, said Joe Gradisher, spokesman for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, according to an article in Stars and Stripes, a military newspaper.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

US TRAINS ITS GUNS ON CHINA « Eric Margolis


US TRAINS ITS GUNS ON CHINA


NEW YORK – US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the major portion of US naval power will shift to the Pacific by 2020 as part of the Pentagon's new "pivot to Asia" strategy. Though not totally unexpected, this news has caused quite a stir across Asia and raised tempers in China.

However, there's rather less to this redeployment of naval forces than meets the eye. The US Navy has long kept half of its warships, aircraft, and logistics vessels in the Pacific. The new plan will see a modest increase in US naval forces in Asian waters; the ratio of Pacific to Atlantic naval units will increase to 60/40 or slightly more.

More of America's 11 attack carriers will sail the Pacific. The Marine Corps, with its own air wings ("the Navy's army" as wags call it), will increase its presence in the Pacific theater.

A 2,500-man US Marine expeditionary force is being stationed in remote northern Australia. It is far enough from China to be of little military use, but close enough to raise tensions with Beijing and Jakarta. Its mission, besides bracing Aussie spirits, is uncertain.

But US grand strategy is clear. Just as the US sought to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War by surrounding it with American allies and bases, so Washington plans to do with China.

America is creating a sweeping arc of allies and bases that begins in Singapore, and moves northeast to the Philippines, then Taiwan, Okinawa, Japan, and South Korea, neatly bottling up China's expanding naval forces. India is being encouraged to build powerful naval forces that can threaten China's oil routes to the Mideast and keep its navy out of the Indian Ocean.

Other US navel forces – the Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet, and units patrolling the Indian Ocean – will support the US 7th Fleet that has ruled the western Pacific since 1944.

Shifting naval units from the Atlantic to Pacific is not a major undertaking for the US. After the severe decline of Russia's once mighty Red Banner Northern and Baltic fleets, there is no longer any major naval threat in the Atlantic. The days when packs of Soviet submarines were poised near Iceland to break into the North Atlantic to cut North America's links with Europe are long gone.

The Mediterranean is an American lake.

But even with the new Pacific redeployment, the US Navy will be hard-pressed to maintain its former domination of the region.

America's navy has shrunken to around 310 warships and 3,700 aircraft from the 600 ships planned during the 1980's. Even so, the mighty US Navy remains larger than the next eleven navies combined. As a French admiral told me, the US Navy's budget exceeds France's total defense budget.

China's rapid development of anti-ship missiles, submarines, space-based sensors, and a new anti-carrier ballistic missile, the DF21-D, increasingly alarms the US Navy and may force its attack carriers to operate far from Asia's coasts. In fact, huge aircraft carriers are ever more vulnerable to attack and will eventually be made obsolete by drones and missiles.

However, naval forces are no longer the primary expression of America's power. The US Air Force has dominated much of the non-communist globe since the 1950's and serves America's strategic interests in the same way the Royal Navy imposed the British Empire's military and commercial power. Air power has played the decisive role in all of America's military victories since World War I.

The Pentagon plans to strengthen its Pacific air power. This likely includes re-establishing US air bases in the Philippines and Australia, and expanding air bases in Guam, Okinawa, and South Korea.

America has been at war for decades. Its aircraft and warships are aging rapidly. Equally threatening, Congress may force deep military spending cuts as deficits worsen – at a time when the US military is being ordered to keep China bottled up on the Asian mainland.

China need only build its military power close to home. The United States must project and maintain its naval and air power 10,000 km across the Pacific Ocean, a hugely expensive, complex undertaking that gives cash-rich China an important, even decisive advantage.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/05/south-china-sea-dangerous-contest-military-united-states-navy/

The south China sea could become a dangerous military might contest