South China Sea Forum

[Dungeness]

Very much so, they can't be resupplied quickly, have limited supplies themselves, small outposts are pickets that warn a larger force and attempt to hold-out or harass and opposing side. Still, having a lot of smaller islands engaged in an A2/AD type strategy can bring a rain of AShM to bear quickly and with devastating consequences. They wont survive a conflict, but they wont be brushed aside without troubles either. Right now China doesn't have enough to implement a large scale A2/AD strategy, so that's still an advantage the US can press.

As for small islands themselves.

Hardly as if taking on islands, defended or otherwise, is alien to the USAF and USN.

That is true if the islands do not have any air defense in place.

 

[Solomon2]

Brutality? Statement of brutality? Oh boy. Of course it matters as the relevant party can negotiate with ROC to get a more favorable term just as Japan has with its fishing right agreement.

That's China's fault for previously arguing that its own fishing arrangements with Japan compromised Japan's claims to sovereignty in disputed regions, yes? link You guys dug this hole yourselves, but I think if you pretend it never happened and stop thinking about what ROC might do that will be the most profitable and face-saving approach.

 

[Aepsilons]

Very much so, they can't be resupplied quickly, have limited supplies themselves, small outposts are pickets that warn a larger force and attempt to hold-out against or harass an opposing side. Still, having a lot of smaller islands engaged in an A2/AD type strategy can bring a rain of AShM to bear quickly and with devastating consequences. They wont survive a conflict, but they wont be brushed aside without troubles either. Right now China doesn't have enough to implement a large scale A2/AD strategy, so that's still an advantage the US can press.

As for small islands themselves.

Hardly as if taking on islands, defended or otherwise, is alien to the USAF and USN. If expanded, as in more islands are established for military purposes beyond a handful of airfields and artillery guns, they can represent a significant asymmetric threat. Right now they are not, but the situation is ongoing and dynamic. Expect more activity from both sides.

 

[TaiShang]

Chinese religious sites found on South China Sea islands
October 28, 2015

A Chinese expert has found Chinese religious sites on islands in the South China Sea, providing more evidence of China's sovereignty over the area.

With historical documents, archaeological findings and 50 photos from four years of field study, Chen Jinguo of the Institute of World Religions of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) believes that Chinese people built a lot of religious sites on the islands, their most important cultural features and the centers of fishermen's everyday life, according to his thesis published in "Religious Cultures of the World."

Chen said claims of sovereignty over the islands are based on historical occupation and so some countries have destroyed religious sites and added "historical" features of their own.

Japanese Yoji Nishizawa occupied the Dongsha Islands in 1906 on the pretext of "discovering" them, changing their name to the Nishizawa Islands and destroying Chinese temples there.

Historical documents, archaeological findings, field studies and oral information have all recorded Chinese religious sites, an important basis for China's claim of sovereignty.

Chen said Chinese religious sites in the South China Sea signify Chinese people's efforts to develop the waters.

He suggested that China pay more attention to rebuilding and protecting religious sites on some islands and developing traditional folk activities to safeguard territorial and cultural sovereignty.

 

[Raphael]

Siphan slams US for S China Sea actions , National, Phnom Penh Post

A Cambodian government spokesperson has publicly condemned the United States for sailing a warship close to disputed man-made islands in the South China Sea.

In a story published late Tuesday, Chinese state media outlet Xinhua reported that Phay Siphan, spokesman for the Council of Ministers, accused the US of “flexing its muscles” and creating tension around the contested Spratly islands.

“The US is not [an] involved party in this issue, so it should distance itself from this matter,” he was quoted as saying.

The USS Lassen, an armed destroyer, entered what China claims as a 21-kilometre territorial limit around the disputed territories on Tuesday.

Siphan repeated his criticism of the US in an interview yesterday.

“The truth hurts the United States, but it has to respect the parties involved resolving things themselves,” he said. “A warship in that area could escalate tensions. We are civilised people, and we don’t want anyone to resort to military means or violence.”

Cambodia would rather support an ASEAN code of conduct that was being hammered out by the organisation with the various claimants to the disputed territory, he said.

“We are a member of ASEAN,” Siphan said. “The parties need to sit down and talk in a patient way.”

However, just five months ago, the Cambodian government was vehemently opposed to ASEAN taking a role in resolving the dispute.

“ASEAN cannot resolve this problem because we are not a court that can judge who is right or wrong, or which piece of land or water belongs to which country,” Secretary of State Seung Rathchavy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told reporters at the time.

South China Sea expert Carl Thayer, emeritus professor of International Relations at University of New South Wales, yesterday said Cambodia’s current criticism of the US is part of a recent tendency to side with China.

“In 2012, when Cambodia was chairing ASEAN, Foreign Minister Hor Namhong took a very pro-China position and prevented the regional bloc putting out any statement mentioning the South China Sea dispute,” he said. “Cambodia was later rewarded by China with a big aid package and investment.”

Thayer added that aid and investment from China were more attractive to Cambodia than financial help from the US.

“China does not put conditions on aid around issues such as human rights, unlike the US and Europe,” he said.

But according to chairman of the Cambodian Institute for Strategic Studies, Chheang Vannarith, who is currently lecturing in the UK, Cambodia is not backing one super-power against another, but rather continuing a long-held policy of staying out of conflicts involving other states.

“It is not good for Cambodia’s long-term interests for it to take sides,” he said. “Cambodia has long pursued a policy of non-alignment and neutrality, which is laid down in the country’s constitution.”

He added that Cambodia’s own experience of resolving recent hostilities with neighbouring Thailand had shown it “that bilateral negotiations work best when it comes to sorting out differences”.

 

[DaiViet]

When did Cambodia have any dispute in SCS? was it cambodia attempted to block CoC when it was Asean chair? Can these Cambodian learn to stay quiet. Sam rainsy used to kiss U.S azz, raising democracy, human right issue, however receive no U.S attention now try to kiss China azz?

 

[TaiShang]

LOL really?
Pentagon says Chinese vessels harassed U.S. ship - CNN.com
Pentagon: China jet made 'unsafe' move near U.S. plane - CNNPolitics.com
U.S., Chinese warships come dangerously close - CNNPolitics.com
Chinese Warships Made ‘Innocent Passage’ Through U.S. Territorial Waters off Alaska

Eh he he... Nice catch!

Lots of tears shed.

Just as Hillary Clinton were going berserk upon China-Russia veto on US war campaign against Syria.

***

US has no hope to win S.China Sea showdown
2015-10-29 1:33:02

Calling the USS Lassen's intrusion a "regular occurrence," the US military put a gloss on its recent brazen provocation against China in the South China Sea, implying that more warships might be sent within the 12 nautical mile-limit around China-controlled islands. China will have to escalate its countermeasures if Washington does so, and the situation will worsen for the US.

If such provocations continue, China's warships will have to engage in more face-offs with their US counterparts in the South China Sea. Beijing will be forced to accelerate military deployment in the region, including a quicker militarization of the islands to the extent that China can confront the US militarily in this region.

If the US is determined that these provocations are going to be regular events, it is possible that China will deploy fighter jets on these new islands.

China has reiterated that the expanded islands in the South China Sea will serve peaceful and civilian purposes, supporting economic development around the South China Sea. China has no intention to militarize the region, but the US, despite China's assertion is pushing, even forcing, China in that direction.

US military policymakers are so narrow-minded that they cannot look at the big picture, cherishing the illusion that it could show off its might, embrace allies' cheers and frustrate China's confidence by sending a warship to the South China Sea.

It is hard to believe that these shortsighted wonks have not considered China's response, like Beijing has no cards to play. If it wasn't for our restraint, China could have driven away every Filipino and Vietnamese from the islands they took from China, but it didn't. Almost every move China has made in the South China Sea is a response to the provocations of these aggressors.

Washington should keep in mind that it really doesn't want China to transform these reclaimed islands into outposts to deal with the intrusions by US warships.

Even in the worst scenario, if China decided to militarize all these small islands, what could the US do? Perhaps US President Barack Obama will have everything but the guts to wage a real battle with China for these small islands.

The Americans must keep in mind that when it comes to China's core interests, their determination to preserve certain strategic interests will have no chance to win in a showdown against China's determination to protect the integrity of its sovereignty. After flexing its muscles and bragging about its military prowess at China's doorstep, Washington should know when to stop. Enough is enough.

***

I feel these are last warnings.

 

[Zarvan]

Subi reef, located in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, is shown in this handout Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative satellite image taken September 3, 2015 and released to Reuters October 27, 2015.
REUTERS/CSIS ASIA MARITIME TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE/DIGITALGLOBE/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS

Two Australian warships will hold exercises with the Chinese navy in the South China Sea next week, Australia's defense minister said on Thursday, just days after a U.S. navy patrol near a man-made Chinese island in the disputed waters angered Beijing.

The HMAS Stuart and HMAS Arunta will visit China's main South China Sea base of Zhanjiang in the southern province of Guangdong ahead of drills scheduled for early next week, Marise Payne said.

"The Royal Australian Navy has a long history of engagement with regional navies and regularly conducts port visits and exercises — including in China," Payne said in a statement.

"There have been no changes or delays to the schedule of the HMAS Arunta and HMAS Stuart since the United States activity in the South China Sea on 27 October 2015."

The statement gave no details on the precise location for the exercise. Australian media said it would include live-fire drills.

China rebuked Washington for sending a U.S. guided-missile destroyer close to Subi Reef in the Spratly archipelago on Tuesday, saying it had tracked and warned the USS Lassen and called in the American ambassador to protest.

Australia, a key U.S. ally in the region, expressed its strong support for freedom of navigation, while stopping short of welcoming the patrol.

Speculation has risen that Australia might undertake similar exercises, either alongside the U.S. navy or on its own, but any move would risk antagonizing top trading partner China.

Euan Graham, director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, said Australia would want to try and avoid being seen as "deputy sheriff" to the United States in the region.

"It would be more effective to demonstrate broader international concerns if Australia were to assert freedom of navigation under its own political and operational banner and not to ride U.S. coat-tails," he said.

Earlier this week, senior government senator Arthur Sinodinos told Sky News that Australia did not have "any plans to do what the United States has done" in relation to freedom of navigation exercises.

"Australia has a legitimate interest in the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law, unimpeded trade and freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea," Payne said, without addressing whether Australia was planning similar exercises.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5 trillion of world trade passes every year. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan have rival claims.

On Wednesday, a French frigate docked at Zhanjiang for a four-day visit ahead of French President Francois Hollande's trip to China next week.



(Reporting by Lincoln Feast; Editing by Dean Yates)


Australia to join Chinese navy exercises in South China Sea| Reuters

 

[ahtan_china]

Very much so, they can't be resupplied quickly, have limited supplies themselves, small outposts are pickets that warn a larger force and attempt to hold-out against or harass an opposing side. Still, having a lot of smaller islands engaged in an A2/AD type strategy can bring a rain of AShM to bear quickly and with devastating consequences. They wont survive a conflict, but they wont be brushed aside without troubles either. Right now China doesn't have enough to implement a large scale A2/AD strategy, so that's still an advantage the US can press.

As for small islands themselves.

Hardly as if taking on islands, defended or otherwise, is alien to the USAF and USN. If expanded, as in more islands are established for military purposes beyond a handful of airfields and artillery guns, they can represent a significant asymmetric threat. Right now they are not, but the situation is ongoing and dynamic. Expect more activity from both sides.

1Welcome The HQ-9 air deffence missle will be waiting for your coming.
2 It seems the begining of WWIII.

 

[BoQ77]

Jianghu II (Type 053H1)
Frigate

SPECIFICATIONS

Displacement: (standard load) 1,425 tons; (full load) 1,702 tons
Dimensions: Length 103.2 m; Beam 10.8 m, Draft 3.05 m
Propulsion: Early variants were fitted with steam boilers, but they have all been replaced by diesel engines. 4 SEMT-Pielstick diesels, 2 shafts, 14,000 hp (Jianghu-II 16,000 hp)
Speed: 26 knots
Crew: 190
Radar (Air search): Type 354 (Eye Shield) 2D air/surface search, E-band; (Jianghu-II only) Type 517A (Knife Rest) 2D long-range air search, A-Band
Radar (Surface search/fire control): Type 352 (Square Tie) surface search/SSM homing, I-Band; (Jianghu-II only) Type 343 (Wasp Head), G/H-band (SSM and 100 mm main gun targeting)
Sonar: EH-5 hull mounted MF
Weapon Controls: Optronic directors (main gun targeting)
ECM/EW: Jug Pair intercept; Mk137 decoy RL (in some ships), IFF
Missiles: 6 SY-1 SSMs, two triple launchers; active radar homing to 35 km at 0.8 Mach, warhead 513 kg, liquid fuel
SAM: (On some units only) 4~8 PL-9C SAMs, IR homing
Guns: 2 single 100mm/56 cal main guns, 22 km; four manual dual 37 mm AAA, 8.5 km; (544 only has one French-made compact 100 mm main gun and 2 dual 37 mm AAA)
A/S Mortars: 2 Type 62 5-tubed fix launchers
Depth Charges: 2 or 4 Type 81 ASW RL, 2 DC racks

 

[TaiShang]

Soldiers ride in boats from a destroyer to conduct a visit, board, search and seizure training exercise aboard a simulated enemy vessel. Recently, a guided-missile destroyer flotilla under the South China Sea Fleet of the PLA Navy organized its warships to conduct a realistic confrontation training exercise, including such subjects as formation offense and defense, visit, board, search and seizure, anti-shore firing at night and anti-aircraft firing in complex electromagnetic environment.


Guided-missile destroyers sail in a sea area of the South China Sea during a confrontation drill. Recently, a guided-missile destroyer flotilla under the South China Sea Fleet of the PLA Navy organized its warships to conduct a realistic confrontation training exercise, including such subjects as formation offense and defense, visit, board, search and seizure, anti-shore firing at night and anti-aircraft firing in complex electromagnetic environment.


Guided-missile destroyers sail in a sea area of the South China Sea during a confrontation drill. Recently, a guided-missile destroyer flotilla under the South China Sea Fleet of the PLA Navy organized its warships to conduct a realistic confrontation training exercise, including such subjects as formation offense and defense, visit, board, search and seizure, anti-shore firing at night and anti-aircraft firing in complex electromagnetic environment


Guided-missile destroyers sail in a sea area of the South China Sea during a confrontation drill. Recently, a guided-missile destroyer flotilla under the South China Sea Fleet of the PLA Navy organized its warships to conduct a realistic confrontation training exercise, including such subjects as formation offense and defense, visit, board, search and seizure, anti-shore firing at night and anti-aircraft firing in complex electromagnetic environment.

 

[mike jones]

1Welcome The HQ-9 air deffence missle will be waiting for your coming.
2 It seems the begining of WWIII.

You're welcome.

 

[jhungary]

Man you are grasping on straw. South China Sea encompass a 1,400,000 sq mi area and you are comparing it to a 33meter wide canal? No one in a sane mind would classify the South China Sea as a "strait, canal, or river".

Did you actually look at my post before replying? Or you simply saw that I used the Panama Canal as an example and you assume I think SCS and Panama Canal is the same thing?

WHERE DID I COMPARE THE ACTUAL SOUTH CHINA SEA TO PANAMA CANAL?

I have compared the STATUS of SCS and Panama Canal. Both Status is the same while SCS is on the high seas and Panama Canal is an international waterway. Which as I explained before, High Seas and International Waterway share the same right and are of equal status. You cannot build military structure in international waterway, as with you cannot build military structure high seas.

As I said in my previous post, if you don't like my Panama Canal example, I can use the Principality of Sealand as an example.

This is the second time this happen, you are seeing something I did not say. Suggest that you go find an eye doctor or a brain doctor for a quick check up, cause you are seeing things that weren't there.

 

[Viva_Viet]

So, smart Viet, ask your gov. retreat the soldier from SCS. return the reefs to CHN. The USA gived the benefit(TPP) to u, but u do nothing for your master. Don't believe Viet.

SCS( east sea) is just like your throat, of course your throat is useless for me...but its quite fun when strangling your throat

 

[TaiShang]

As the capability grows, China will enforce the rules. Period。