What's new

China puts missiles back on contested South China Sea island as United States pushes allies for bigg

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,195
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China
China puts missiles back on contested South China Sea island as United States pushes allies for bigger military presence in waters

Israeli intelligence firm releases satellite images backing up assessments that the removal of the weapons systems would be temporary


PUBLISHED : Monday, 11 June, 2018, 4:18pm

China has redeployed missiles it removed last week from a disputed island in the South China Sea amid rising tensions with the United States, satellite images show.

ISI released a series of satellite photos on June 3 that suggested the missiles, some of them identified as HQ-9s, had been removed or relocated.

China’s defence ministry did not immediately reply to a faxed request for comment.

The removal last week came as tensions between China and the US flared over the troubled waters after Washington sent two nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to fly over the disputed Spratly Islands.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Wednesday accused the US military against “hyping up militarisation and stirring up trouble”, adding that China would do whatever was necessary to protect its sovereignty.

The “routine” fly-by mission came just days after US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis warned at a regional security summit of “consequences in the future” for China over its militarisation of artificial features in the South China Sea.


The Pentagon was reported to be considering sending warships to the Taiwan Strait and stepping up naval patrols in the dispute waterway.

The US is also trying to rally its allies, including Britain and France, to increase their military presence in the area, including navy patrols to counter those of China.

The reappearance of the missile systems confirmed ISI’s and defence analysts’ assessments that the removal was likely to be temporary.

“On the other hand, it may be a regular practice,” ISI said. “If so, within the next few days we may observe a redeployment in the same area.”

Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie said on Monday that the quick redeployment of the HQ-9 missiles could indicate that they had been removed for maintenance and repair during the typhoon season.

He said earlier it would not be the first time that Beijing had moved its missiles. The last time was in July 2016, just days before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague rejected Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea.

Colin Koh, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said the satellite images could indicate that the redeployed systems belong to two distinct firing batteries of HQ-9, with one facing north and the other facing east.

He said the HQ-9 was a long-range, high-performance air defence system designed to combat enemy aircraft but with only limited use against low-flying cruise missiles.

The missiles’ temporary withdrawal might have been due to their routine maintenance and repair, he said, adding that their deployment close to the sea made their sensitive circuitry vulnerable to the elements, especially salt. Regular “downtime” was to be expected, he said.

“They might have been withdrawn to mainland bases or just to nearby, out-of-sight shelters from which they could be swiftly redeployed.

“The deployment, withdrawal and re-deployment can be easily accomplished because of the [short] distance between Woody Island and Hainan [province], and the availability of airlift to transport the systems at short notice.”

Koh said that the deployment pattern also had a “tactical” element and was a sign of China’s increasing control over the South China Sea.

“The systems can be deployed, withdrawn and re-deployed whenever politically expedient,” he said. “And they do not lend themselves easily to verification, compliance and enforcement processes that often characterise arms control.”

Whether or not Beijing wanted the deployment of the HQ-9 system to be seen, Koh said it underscored the fact that “the PLA is capable of deploying state-of-the-art weapon systems to areas of strategic interest, including the South China Sea, at any time”.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...-puts-missiles-back-contested-south-china-sea
 
. . . .
For Westerners and shameless Indians, China's withdrawal of missiles is due to the pressure exerted by the United States. It is an act of provocation that China rearranges its updated missiles on SCS.
Therefore, we Chinese should be accustomed to it, and the Chinese people are very happy about being called an aggressive country.
 
. .
If a conflict at SCS starts China will win the first battle but then the US navy will have the excuse to crush the Chinese navy.
 
. .
This is just a normal aspect of reasonable and slow=paced development. At times, old platforms may need to be renewed. Sometimes, they need to test deployment speed. The appearance and disappearance of SCS safety and security platforms on China's islands should be seen in their larger context.

Otherwise, it is impossible to make a sound analysis.

What is needed to be considered is that there are fixed and non-fixed platforms. The islands are fixed, but, the safety and defense platforms cannot be fixed.

China will continue to test and upgrade as it calculates the optimum conditions without regard to outside opinion when it comes to its sovereign decisions.

Others can only watch and make wild comments.
 
. .
If a conflict at SCS starts China will win the first battle but then the US navy will have the excuse to crush the Chinese navy.
You worry too much. US will never risk having a war being so close to China to expose their everything to China's full might of overwhelming missile range. They are not that stupid yet.
 
.
If a conflict at SCS starts China will win the first battle but then the US navy will have the excuse to crush the Chinese navy.
A h bomb would solve the south china sea problmes by destroying every single island.
Do not underestimate the power of the PLA and do not learn MacArthur's statement in the Korean War: What ability does a group of Chinese peasant troops have? !
Facts have proved that a group of Chinese peasant troops repulsed the world’s most powerful U.S. troops and 16 other national forces from the Yalu River to the 38-degree north latitude line.
 
.
If a conflict at SCS starts China will win the first battle but then the US navy will have the excuse to crush the Chinese navy.
Correct, in 1958 TW conflict, US slaughtered completely PLA troops with zero US troop lost. Curren PLA army is just a shame now wt full of corrupted generals and soldier who have Zero combat experience and just join PLA for good salary, not for defending the nation.

-------------
Strength
92,000

704 215,000
Casualties and losses
440 ROC troops killed[1] 460 PRC troops killed, 218 civilians killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis

You worry too much. US will never risk having a war being so close to China to expose their everything to China's full might of overwhelming missile range. They are not that stupid yet.
US can let Japan navy to fight wt PLAN, just like she use TW army to slaughter useless PLA, instead of using US troops
 
.
Correct, in 1958 TW conflict, US slaughtered completely PLA troops with zero US troop lost. Curren PLA army is just a shame now wt full of corrupted generals and soldier who have Zero combat experience and just join PLA for good salary, not for defending the nation.

-------------
Strength
92,000

704 215,000
Casualties and losses
440 ROC troops killed[1] 460 PRC troops killed, 218 civilians killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis


US can let Japan navy to fight wt PLAN, just like she use TW army to slaughter useless PLA, instead of using US troops

As usual...
The US pussies were standing way behind and supporting the ROC.

Do they ever fight alone? I wish they try it with China alone like a man. 1 vs 1.
Your daddy got no balls like you. :D
 
.
Correct, in 1958 TW conflict, US slaughtered completely PLA troops with zero US troop lost. Curren PLA army is just a shame now wt full of corrupted generals and soldier who have Zero combat experience and just join PLA for good salary, not for defending the nation.

China's army and the navy are not same. The Chinese army is way more capable than the navy. Matter of fact the Chinese army is China's pride. The Chinese army is to China what the US navy is to the US. On the the other hand, if you consider the capabilities and merit the Chinese navy is more like the US army. Since the battle will be fought at sea the US will enjoy a huge advantage with her technologically advanced naval assets as well as highly skilled and experienced sailors.


You worry too much. US will never risk having a war being so close to China to expose their everything to China's full might of overwhelming missile range. They are not that stupid yet.

I always say 'hope for the best but prepare for the worst'. Confidence is good but overconfidence brings about doom.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom